Analog for the sake of analog.. (?)

[jonasx26]

Most of the stuff I fiddle with is (or becomes..) rather complex. For example, my guitar-"synth"-project is currently ~40 ICs and ~30 transistors.
I'm also working on a filter-effect, with which I'm having trouble fitting all of the SMD (!) components onto a pcb for a 1590DD (!) enclosure..
The guitar "synth" is monophonic and performs very poorly compared to a DSP-based effect, both in terms of user interface (can't save settings for one) and tracking.
And the filter's control logic alone (bypass, mode select, etc..) adds up to ~5 DIP-14 + some BJTs, very convoluted.. A lot of this stuff could fit into a single MCU/FPGA.

My projects would surely benefit from modern tech. But I'm just not interested in programming, AT ALL.
And even though a digital solution would be cheaper and easier to implement, I'd rather do things the 'hard' way..
Also, I best mention that my reasons for avoiding digital are not at all related to audio fidelity. I do not believe analog "sounds better" than digital. Not at all.
It just seems most electronic devices nowadays are all built around the same topology; A/D -> CPU -> D/A.. Or some kind of system-in-chip solution. Which to me, is extremely boring.
Circuits and nifty solutions I read about in early 80s electronics magazines are the reason I'm into this hobby..

I'm currently studying EE, and the curriculum is focused on programming. Which to me, isn't very interesting. I keep telling myself I'll get by in the industry with minimal programming skills, by specializing in analog stuff.

SO, in short; I'm using 70s/80s technology in 2013. With the sole reason being that I find it interesting, unlike programming and solutions using contemporary tech.
I like analog just for "the sake of analog".

This is something I've been thinking of a lot lately. What are your thoughts on this?
Is there a good reason for sticking with analog? (keep in mind, fidelity isn't a very good reason IMHO.. )
Am I the only one actively resisting/avoiding programming and digital solutions? Am I insane?   
Hope this made sense, and isn't too broad of a topic..

[kingswayguitar]

An ironic coincidence and I agree with analog for analog sake (I think).  I work in forestry which often relies on archaic technology.  I'm always preaching hard for the use of more modern (digital) tools, and I've been successful.  Then I go home and frig with germanium transistors and carbon comp resistors.  "The insanity" as Col. Kurtz would say.

[Mark Hammer]

There are a great many things that digital can do very well.  It might not be better than analog every time (and it often is), but is no worse.

There are some things that are very well-done by digital, but an absolute bugger to mod.  In those instances, changing a cap-value can be a whole lot easier than redoing the programming.  In those instances, digital is great if you know exactly what you want and have no desire for anything other.  If you have any inclination towards experimenting, analog can be easier than digital, even if the sound quality is no different.

There are some things that could be done by digital in the not-too-distant future, but for the moment we have a hard time describing how they happen in analog, so suitable programming algorithms are hard to come by.  It's just easier and cheaper to use analog than it is to attempt to duplicate in digital.

So, if you were going to restrict yourself to the world of fuzzes, I'd say analog for analog's sake isn't a dumb choice, though realistically it is more analog for tone's sake.  For a great many other sorts of things, though, you would be doing analog for analog's sake most of the time, rather than getting any sort of bonus from analog.

At least that's what I think.

[R.G.]

When an industry or art becomes no longer the primary economic pursuit or niche, it can become an art. I think that in many ways, analog circuit design is headed well into that pidgeonhole. It's not going to be completely shelved, because you need some analog smarts to do good digital (at least until we get to quantum mechanics as the fundamental basis of things), but as far as mainstream electronics, it's a fast-shrinking specialty.

I recently re-watched a documentary that included a traditional Japanese steelmaking forge producing steel for katanas. It required hugely skilled and dedicated people to do, and produced steel that was period-authentic and period-quality. I believe the Japanese have programs for supporting such traditional industries, as I've seen similar things about traditional papermaking.

However, even the Japanese don't make steel that way for industrial use today.

Analog for analog's sake is becoming a traditional art, not a mainstream industrial practice. A determination do to do things analog because you like analog is much like producing images with paint. The artist who produces images and - say, portraits - by hand from pigments on paper or canvas will still have a market, although the world makes most of its images by photography, and more often digital photography than chemical photography. Ask Kodak and Polaroid how that feels to watch.

So if it makes you happy to design analog, go for it. Become an artist. And make the world respect you for your artistry, even if they don't rely on you for fast, accurate, products in the mainstream. Be proud, but realistic.

[jonasx26]

I suspect a proverb/grammar fail on my part. Analog for analog's sake it is! 

Very interesting and insightful replies. Really means a lot to me as I've been contemplating my studies/career and related choices for some time now. Thank you all.

[petemoore]

  Digital for the sake of Digital ? ?
  I have very featured digital devices that are about 80x as compact, full featured etc. would be ridiculous to revert back to analog...one is my Harmonizer pedal...don't know if there's an analog for it ! I remember hauling around racks of efx for PA...this little floor unit has most of all of that and much more...
  Analog for the sake of Analog !
  I likum both.
  Analog is too fun to play around with and allows easily tailored...analog sounds !
  Wouldn't mind to have an analog synth someday now that I'm thinking about it again...
  Digital is too quick [available], inexpensive, comes with warranty etc....for some things where analog or digital doesn't really matter, digital...is sometimes [for me at least] too clearly 'the' choice usually because of features, price.
  Maybe I didn't try enough digital distorters yet, but pretty sure I have...lol.
  Tried plenty of analog distorters and like them.

[alparent]

Analog will never die in the DIY community.......because, lets face it! Most of us have no clue on how to go digital!

[skjaldborg]

From the amateur point of view  I think there is a growing interest in just  building things yourself (Maker fairs etc). As the tech stuff we can buy gets ever more capable(not just effects) it is also further out of reach technically. People want to reconnect with what they can do themselves rather than what they can buy. For me it's because analog is doable

I know it sounds like a horrible cliche but for me it's as much about the journey, the process of learning creation and building as the final result. Hell, If it was about the results I would have given up years ago 

A while back I played around with Tim E's PWM  - like Jonas the next thing I know I have built a modular analog guitar synth. It's 2 foot wide and 9 inches high - inside is a rats nest........ 
But it's my rats nest - no one has a guitar synth quite like mine!

One thing I would like to see and have a go at is more hybrid stuff (digital controlling an analog signal path etc).

[brett]

Analogue vs digital?
Vintage analogue has the 'magical waterfall'. Especially Germanium. Until the digital guys **faithfully** reproduce that waterfall, I ain't switchin.

[duck_arse]

analog for me.

before the innerweb, we couldn't get our hands on anything much more digital than 4000 series cmos. now we have the interweb experience, and digital doesn't really interest me.

and what would I do with all this junk I've got laying around since the eighties?

[Gurner]

Putting aside the analogue vs. digital sonic debate, I think digital will always beat analogue for 'controlling' (routing & switching)...& I'm always astonished at the lengths folks go to to keep a circuit all analogue (though I suspect it's cos they don't know how to do digital!)

So being of the lazy ilk ...if it's easier (& makes no difference to the fidelity)...slap in some digital!

[slacker]

For my own use, I use whatever gets the job done.

If it's something I'm going to share I stick with analogue even if going digital would probably make more sence. This enables more people to build it.
Digital in this case meaning any device that needs programming.

[merlinb]

My projects would surely benefit from modern tech. But I'm just not interested in programming, AT ALL.
Also, I best mention that my reasons for avoiding digital are not at all related to audio fidelity. I do not believe analog "sounds better" than digital. Not at all.

Circuits and nifty solutions I read about in early 80s electronics magazines are the reason I'm into this hobby..

Seems you have exactly the same attitude I did, before I did my EE degree. I've since relaxed my attitude a bit, and quite enjoy embedded programming. But writing software for PCs just seems like a waste of human life somehow. It's becomes obsolete too quickly, and lacks a tangible connection to the real world. And plugins, pah! Seem to me to be toys for a generation who can't handle something unless it's presented to them on a screen.

But I have become fond of embedded programming. I find this provides the perfect mix of digital flexibility, with the satisfaction of making something permanent. A microcontroller you program yourself becomes like a bespoke IC of your very own, just as familiar as your favourite opamp. But I dislike development boards for some reason. Kinda seems like electronics for amateurs since all the work has already been done for you, and you're back to writing PC software, but on a small PCB instead. I'm probably beng very irrational about that though...

I'm currently studying EE, and the curriculum is focused on programming. Which to me, isn't very interesting. I keep telling myself I'll get by in the industry with minimal programming skills, by specializing in analog stuff.

There will always be plenty of jobs in analog- especially for instrumentation. People who are good programmers seldom understand hardware to the same level, so companies always need people who know how to interface with the real world and condition signals ready for shoving into a computer. Then the code monkeys can take it from there. Also there is switch-mode power technology, which is in huge demand and requires excellent analogue skills.

[jubal81]

Don't be so quick to discount the 'fidelity factor.'
I can pretty clearly identify the difference when my signal gets translated into 1s & 0s and back again. Some people can't. A recent article from Scientific American on digital compression and what people hear was really interesting. Musicians were found to be especially good at identifying the conversion changes.

Here's the link: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/why-audio-compression-sounds-so-bad

I honestly wish I couldn't tell the difference. I could just buy a Tonelab or POD and be done with it.

[WaveshapeIllusions]

I like analog for analog's sake. Something about putting a circuit together with my own two hands is nice. It's the physical act. Plus, I can't even do HTML well!

I also like that analog is continuous. Even if quantization is barely noticeable (if at all) with modern AD/DA converters, I still prefer analog. It's one of the reasons I play fretless. There is no division, just continuity. It's a pleasant thing to think about.

[petemoore]

  Analog for the sake of digital is a waste of time ! !
  And sales !
  Digital...answers are all in the FAQ [except the answer you probably need].
  Browse buttons that don't work. [Good luck with this one ! !
  Mp3 format that I figured out [took a while], was a B but you got it easier than I did.
  1 months worth of recording music that took years to write...about the same after 10 years of studying the digital manual, before that...patching in analog would have been exponentially more straightforward, simpler, quick and possible.
  1 month trying everything under the sun to get the file online...maybe I'll get to try a different sun !
  Digital = Return to 'start' do not pass go, do not collect 200$ !

[petey twofinger]

digitally controlled analog , this exites me .

i repaired an older sequential circuits synth , it had midi and presets  but it was an analog synth , man that was a fun lil unit . i just feel its frustrating how fast other tech evolves as opposed to "our " stuff , because its a tiny market compared to stuff like pc's or mobile phones . we have seen quantum leaps , but it could be a lot more imo .

[brett]

Hi
Are we calling analogue anything that doesn't explicitly have a programme (code) entered by the builder?

digitally controlled analog , this exites me

What about a stompswitch? Or the 4049/4066/4069s or switching JFETs and MOSFETs that are in our pedals. Or the digital parts of voltage regulators, charge pumps, etc?

It's all a bit nebulous, isn't it?
Today I'm a vegetarian, tomorrow I'm an omnivore. Meh.

[greaser_au]

Even the bistable multivibrator used by Boss in all of their effects to control on/bypass, as analogue as it appears, is effectively a digital building block...
david

[slacker]

Are we calling analogue anything that doesn't explicitly have a programme (code) entered by the builder?

Yeah, for the purposes of this discussion digital = something that requires programming, so micro controllers DSP chips etc, anything else is analogue even if it's doing something digital or the opposite applies so a PT2399 is an analogue part, even though it's actually digital inside.