Digi-logue

Analogue Modular Synth - image ©Elsewhere

    Synthesisers and the music they produce fit the same structural dichotomy as photography and the images it produces. Many other spheres do too, but I'll stick with these for the time being; the question being 'analogue or digital?'
    Initially, all synthesisers and cameras produced their output in purely analogue form - a direct wave-for-wave correspondence between the in-and-the-out. Or wave/particle if you're feeling quantumly minded. It wasn't until 1979 that sounds could be practically synthesised purely using digital equipment, with the release of the first machines from Japan. Until then, synths were largely analogue modular beasts of basically one or the other of two types, typified by Moog (the one most people know - East Coast Subtractive Synthesis) or Buchla (West Coast Complex Waveshaping Synthesis). Both Robert Moog and Don Buchla can claim to have co-invented seperately (as with Swann & Edison and the light bulb,) the principles of voltage-controlled synthesis - things make noises and alter the quality of the sounds they make by using variable low voltages to control each other. A Google will get you a gazillion tutorials in the basic - and not-so-basic - principals of both.
    Analogue synthesis has made a big resurgence in popularity over the past few years in parallel with the renewal of interest in vinyl records, valve technology and tape - all add their own unique sonic stamp to music.
    This has been matched in the world of photography - film and chemical processes have re-emerged from oblivion, just as the 12" album and the 7" single (even cassettes) have. The reasons for all this are complex, but suffice it to say, it's all on the up. Both music and images produced by analogue means have a quality which is warm and slightly distorted - something we actually like as humans: precision isn't everything - a fact that amplifier and speaker manufacturers have known for decades.
    Up until very recently, digital images have suffered in the accuracy stakes, too - they don't 'collapse well' under extreme enlargement: they just pixellate into blocks, whereas a silver/chemical image will slowly degrade into a pleasing, random grain structure under the same conditions. The very latest and *very* expensive digital cameras (see Leica post of a while ago) will go a very long way before they show their digital shortcomings, but eventually it's the law of diminishing returns. At the end of it all it's how you use the final output of your chosen medium that will determine your choice of domain.
    The interesting thing today, though is the emergence of a hybrid approach to both areas: an increasing number of photographers are originating their images on film in traditional cameras, processing the film as normal; but then turning to the digital domain to produce the output. The combination of the two technologies gives the best of both worlds - the warm, human-friendly 'noise' of the analogue and the ease of use and reproduction of digital printing and retouching. Some might argue that you can't replicate the analogue printing side either (certainly not the magic of darkroom work) but as a methodology I think it works.
    On the synthesiser front, the biggest stumbling block for most people wanting to get into (modular, in particular) analogue synthesis has been the sheer cost - it ain't cheap! But recently we've seen a number of digital recreations of analogue synths for most computer and mobile platforms. Most notably there have been some cracking emulations of modular systems which do an amazing job either for cheap or free - VCV Rack is basically free (third party modules are either free or cheap) and available here: VCV Rack & you should also check out: Voltage Modular which is very tolerant of less-capable hardware. Both are available cross-platform. And fun. And you can add in all that lovely tape-saturation and third-harmonic-distortion using digital techniques, too. Happy days for the impecunious muso.