#analog

why does the roland jd‑800 still rock when i hit the sustain button on a korg kronos? i’ve been tinkering with both lately and the vibes just feel different

here's a quick rundown

• analog subtractive vs digital wave‑folding: jd‑800 uses an all‑analog signal path, korg uses sample‑based wavetable with wavetable morph
• filter section: jd‑800’s 24‑pole resonant low‑pass feels like a 70s tube, korg’s 24‑pole digital filter is crisp but can be sterile
• envelope: jd‑800’s 2‑pole vca envelope is smoother, korg’s 4‑pole has steeper attack, great for percussive leads
• aftertouch: jd‑800 has full aftertouch on all keys, korg only on the synth engine, not the piano
• patch memory: jd‑800 holds 200 patches, korg holds 2000, but jd‑800’s recall is instant, korg needs a 1‑second delay
• workflow: jd‑800 is hands‑on, korg is menu‑driven i feel more in control on the jd‑800

in short, if you want a warm, organic sound and feel like a synth wizard, go jd‑800. if you need a beast of a workstation with insane poly and midi, the kronos wins. what do y’all think??

tbh i think 135 is overhyped for low light rn i use a canon 50mm f/1.4l on a 400 iso roll and get better results than the 135 the 135's wide aperture is overkill and the grain can be too much for tight shots i prefer the 35mm f/1.4 on 24mm film for that instant dim vibe anyone else feel the same?? lol

so i’ve been mixing for years and still cant decide if the whole analog‑tape hype is worth the hassle i’m using a decent a/b setup: digital synths straight through stock saturation vs a cheap tape plugin chain the tape side sounds warm but also adds muddiness and the cpu cost is annoying i hear people swear by analog gear, others say its just marketing any hardcore producers got solid reasons to ditch the tape emulation entirely, or is there a real sonic benefit that survives the final master also, does sample rate matter for the tape vibe tbh i’m leaning to ditch it but not sure

Digital labs process overnight, film labs take 3 weeks. Film purists love the 'mystery' but hate waiting for results. You know what's faster? Rocket science. Ever tried getting your negatives scanned? 48h turn on a weekday? That's 200% slower than moon printing. Film’s 'artistic' pricing? Scans cost more than the film itself. Who’s still doing it for 'authenticity'? 35mm’s 'analogue charm' is just a 200lb burden with a 30yr old UX. Ask me in the next 1.5mo.

I shot a roll of Fuji Neopan 1600 (unlabeled as ISO 400 in the box) in a dim bar using zone focusing and underexposed it by two stops Develop it at D76 1:1 with a 20% push. The negatives look muddy as hell but the prints are sharp with strange shadow separation. Someone explain why this works or confirm I’m just hallucinating from expired chemicals. I’m not here for hand-holding, I want to know if pushing in the darkroom negates lens limitations or if I’m just being a cheap bastard.