VA Vs A

[fluffy_little_something]

But I would need the settings from the Moog because I don't feel like experimenting for an hour.

With the Moog, you need a minute or two to make a good sound... You don't need an hour of experimenting to find a sweet spot. The Moog is like one big sweet spot and you turn a couple dials and then start playing. Couple quick adjustments and you have another beautiful sound.

These sorts of sounds are not complicated. If you have to experiment for an hour on your softsynth, that means you are trying to make up for a fundamental deficiency.

That goes for Sylenth as well, one can make good sounds from scratch, i.e. the init patch, within minutes. But those are my own patches, which is a whole lot easier than trying to guess and recreate someone else's patch settings on another synth.

Although people say Sylenth is simple, I think it is much more flexible than people think, with a whole lot of controls, all of which are there for a reason, not for fun. There are four oscillators, each with all kinds of settings and options including retrigger, which alone can change the sound a lot. The settings for each osc impact the sound of the other osc's, so one has to experiment a lot to find the ideal configuration. And it's all spread on two identical tabs, so it might be necessary to copy settings back and forth repeatedly after changes. All that takes time. I sometimes spend more than half an hour on a single patch of mine before I am happy with it.
When recreating sounds on a very different synth, be it hardware or software, often one has to take very different ways to get to more or less the same destination.

I don't know if a professional sound designer can recreate any sound from a video on Sylenth or a similar plugin within a few minutes or not. I mean, we are talking about very close recreations here, not about some vaguely similar sounds. Either way, I am more of a musician, not a sound designer. I only know how to make the sounds I like to hear because I have not even tried sounds I don't use anyway, which is logical.

[fluffy_little_something]

Regarding whether software could "reproduce" this effect, although I'd ask why on earth would you want to... This is extremely simple. Any software could simply randomly adjust within some tolerance of preset parameters.

This seems backward and pointless to me however as you can get the same effect by slightly adjusting the parameters you input.

Phonec does that to a certain degree, and some other synths have drift controls, which is supposed to create a similar effect.

[Ingonator]

But I would need the settings from the Moog because I don't feel like experimenting for an hour.

With the Moog, you need a minute or two to make a good sound... You don't need an hour of experimenting to find a sweet spot. The Moog is like one big sweet spot and you turn a couple dials and then start playing. Couple quick adjustments and you have another beautiful sound.

These sorts of sounds are not complicated. If you have to experiment for an hour on your softsynth, that means you are trying to make up for a fundamental deficiency.

That goes for Sylenth as well, one can make good sounds from scratch, i.e. the init patch, within minutes. But those are my own patches, which is a whole lot easier than trying to guess and recreate someone else's patch settings on another synth.

Although people say Sylenth is simple, I think it is much more flexible than people think, with a whole lot of controls, all of which are there for a reason, not for fun. There are four oscillators, each with all kinds of settings and options including retrigger, which alone can change the sound a lot. The settings for each osc impact the sound of the other osc's, so one has to experiment a lot to find the ideal configuration. And it's all spread on two identical tabs, so it might be necessary to copy settings back and forth repeatedly after changes. All that takes time. I sometimes spend more than half an hour on a single patch of mine before I am happy with it.
When recreating sounds on a very different synth, be it hardware or software, often one has to take very different ways to get to more or less the same destination.

I don't know if a professional sound designer can recreate any sound from a video on Sylenth or a similar plugin within a few minutes or not. I mean, we are talking about very close recreations here, not about some vaguely similar sounds. Either way, I am more of a musician, not a sound designer. I only know how to make the sounds I like to hear because I have not even tried sounds I don't use anyway, which is logical.

It all depends on how much you like the sound of a certain vintage synth and also how much you are interested in a proper emulation.

I owned a real Minimoog Model D around 2004/2005 and after selling it over several years i failed to fully replace it by a bunch of emulations and also a few real hardware synths (including e.g. Creamware Minimax ASB, MFB synth II and moog Slim Phatty).

Actually the money spent for possible replacements over the years (not taking into account what i got for selling some of those replacements) would maybe sum up to more than i received for the real Mini but that's another story...

When NI Monark arrived the search was finally over for me and i am very happy with it (and additionally also my Waldorf Pulse 2 hardwre synth). Monark only has a few additionla features like e.g. filter modes, the Overload and Feedback features but those additions seem to be actually great and useful. While the basic sound of Monark aleaady has a big low end with the Overload and feedback you could get some really speaker busting sounds. Filter Overdrive and feedback also seemed to be possible with a real Mini, including using some patching of the inputs/outputs.

Over several years i programmed many "Minimoog like" patches on many synths (both software and hatdware) and while those sounded great on their own i would not claim that they were perfect replications of a real Moimoog Model D. I have also tested a Minimoog Voyager and some oher Moog synths and would also not claim that those are perfect replacements for the old Minimoog Model D.

For what it was/is used the old Mini had a perfect combination of sound and features that is hard to replicate by other synths. Like others mentioned it is quite simple to get great sound from a Mini while with many other synths it takes much longer to find the "sweet spot".
This does not mean that would use it as my only synth but it is perfect for for it does (same about NI Monark).

The Mini does not really work perfect for pads IMO, i had tried that with a poly modification for the Monark Reaktor ensemble. FWIW the Memorymoog seemed to be awesome indeed but it was not just a polyphonic Minimoog. AFAIK only the filter was close to that in the Mini but the rest of the synth was based on CEM chips (e.g. Curtis CEM 3340 ICs for the oscillators). I programmed a few Memorymoog inspired patches in Diva but i would not claim that those are perfect replications.

A few years ago at the Musikmesse i also tested a Little Phatty + Slim Phatty poly chain and this was great for e.g. Synth Brass sounds but maybe not really perfect for pad sounds.


So maybe you are not interested in a proper replication of certain synths but obviously some people are interested in that, especially those who had actually played with the real thing.

[fluffy_little_something]

When NI Monark arrived the search was finally over for me and i am very happy with it (and additionally also my Waldorf Pulse 2 hardwre synth). Monark only has a few additionla features like e.g. filter modes, the Overload and Feedback features but those additions seem to be actually great and useful. While the basic sound of Monark aleaady has a big low end with the Overload and feedback you could get some really speaker busting sounds. Filter Overdrive and feedback also seemed to be possible with a real Mini, including using some patching of the inputs/outputs.

Over several years i programmed many "Minimoog like" patches on many synths (both software and hatdware) and while those sounded great on their own i would not claim that they were perfect replications of a real Moimoog Model D. I have also tested a Minimoog Voyager and some oher Moog synths and would also not claim that those are perfect replacements for the old Minimoog Model D.

For what it was/is used the old Mini had a perfect combination of sound and features that is hard to replicate by other synths. Like others mentioned it is quite simple to get great sound from a Mini while with many other synths it takes much longer to find the "sweet spot".
This does not mean that would use it as my only synth but it is perfect for for it does (same about NI Monark).

A few years ago at the Musikmesse i also tested a Little Phatty + Slim Phatty poly chain and this was great for e.g. Synth Brass sounds but maybe not really perfect for pad sounds.

So maybe you are not interested in a proper replication of certain synths but obviously some people are interested in that, especially those who had actually played with the real thing.

So Monark confirms that it is not impossible to authentically emulate even a Moog synth. It's all just a matter of algorithms, CPU power etc. 5 to 10 years from now perfect emulations are probably standard, the challenge will be to come up with new features rather than authentic sound quality.

I wonder what that ominous "sweet spot" is supposed to be.

Why would anyone even try to use a mono synth for pads (which by nature tend to be polyphonic)?

I see it the other way round, often plugin patches on their own do not sound so impressive (for instance a bit sterile, unfortunately also Sylenth without effects), but embedded in a song and after applying effects, the advantage of a hardware synth is mostly undone.

[pdxindy]

Am I the only one seeing a contradiction in here?

It does not seem like a contradiction to me.

The idea is there that analogue is by nature having a significant variation between different synths of the same model. It seems to me he is saying that is not so. That there are some specific instances of poorer construction does not contradict that.

The key here is what "significant" means. Since this is highly subjective, let's agree to disagree. But for people so picky finding diferences between hardware units and their software emulations, seems like you become much more tolerant when talking about diferences between two units of the same model.

Go to the store if you can find one, and play 2 new same model Moogs... There are bound to be some minute differences, but they sound the same and have the same character. One of them does not sound like an MS-20. And both are immediately discernible as analogue.

[fmr]

Go to the store if you can find one, and play 2 new same model Moogs... There are bound to be some minute differences, but they sound the same and have the same character. One of them does not sound like an MS-20. And both are immediately discernible as analogue.

I don't know any new Moog that's been emulated in software. So, are you implying that any software emulation (let's say, Monark, for exemple) of an old Moog (because there aren't emulations of the new Moogs) sounds like an MS-20?

If not, then, your post is pointless, because I don't remember to have read (much less write) that one unit could sound so different from the other to be confused with another model, much less one from another builder.

I think the point here is whether a software VA can sound analogue enough, or not. And regarding emulatrions, if they are convincing enough or not.

[Ingonator]

Why would anyone even try to use a mono synth for pads (which by nature tend to be polyphonic)?

With Monark it is possible to tweak the Reaktor ensemble to get it polyphonic. In thos thread besides a free bank instructions for polyphonic setting are included:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 2#p5954222
Anyway the sound of a Minimoog seems to be too "ballsy" to be used for pads properly. That is what i meant.

For polyphonic patches that need a good low end like e.g. Synth Brass this is not a problem so a Minimoog is still nicely usuable there.
Of course you could also use Diva for polyphonic Moog patches but as a Minimoog emulation it does not seem to be as accurate as Monark (while it still sounds great).

As already mentioned for the Little Phatty / Slim Phatty it is possible to create a poly chain and i have checked taht myself at the Musikmesse. Actually this also seems to be possible wit ha Waldorf Pulse 2 (and the old Pulse 1) to creat ea poyphonic synth. The problem with this is that for each voice you need a complete synth which could be quite expensive with e.g. 5-6 voices.

Here is a video form Moog about how to set up a 4 voice Phatty poly chain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alg7TOwhpCw

another video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfPMvBxwdbg

In the Phatty poly chain you do not have to program each unit seperately. The "master" unit will send patch changes to all units (like could be seen in the second video).

Same is also possible with the Minimoog Voyager keyboard and Voyager rack module.


This is a track created using a Slim Phatty poly chain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exmrb1ce7aM

[ghettosynth]

In those cases we can not count this as "component variation", this is "component failure".

"Component variation" would be small in-spec variations due to selection tolerances, generally 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%.

A variation of 5% in envelope time is easily countered by providing 5% less than the minimum desired time (1ms - 50us) and 5% more than the maximum (20s + 1s).

After this point you simply adjust the control by the amount of variation (maximum +/- 5%).

For example, given a fader length of 3", this would be an adjustment of 5/16", or 1/4" + 1/16th".

So, let's pick your exemple. One of the things I observed was exactly regarding the envelope and its effect on the filter. My Juno-60, admitedly, as never serviced, since it has been hardly used for many years now. Yet it still works OK, and plays, and the faders are behaving as normal as I can remember.

This is what I expected. I asked you earlier what were the effects that you observed, you didn't respond. It's very simple, the differences that you heard were primarily, or completely, simply your unit being out of alignment or in need of service. This happens all the time. I have serviced instruments to fix problem X where there were other problems that the owner had no idea were an issue.

In this case, however, it's really quite simple. The Juno 60 has analog envelopes and a trimmer for attack time. It also has trimmers for adjusting the filter. Most of these have NEVER been serviced because most people don't really notice that they're out of alignment until the differences are extreme. Voice over voice variation can cause any number of other effects as well, especially if the filters are oscillating or close to oscillating.

[ghettosynth]

Go to the store if you can find one, and play 2 new same model Moogs... There are bound to be some minute differences, but they sound the same and have the same character. One of them does not sound like an MS-20. And both are immediately discernible as analogue.

I don't know any new Moog that's been emulated in software. So, are you implying that any software emulation (let's say, Monark, for exemple) of an old Moog (because there aren't emulations of the new Moogs) sounds like an MS-20?

If not, then, your post is pointless, because I don't remember to have read (much less write) that one unit could sound so different from the other to be confused with another model, much less one from another builder.

I think the point here is whether a software VA can sound analogue enough, or not. And regarding emulatrions, if they are convincing enough or not.

New moogs and old moogs sound much more like each other than old moogs and old korgs. Seriously, this should be really obvious. The differences come primarily from the differences in module design. Diva works well even though it's not emulating any particular synth because it does a good job of emulating each of the components of several vintage designs. That's not to say that how they interact and the specific components have no effect, they do, but, whether they have a large effect depends a lot on what specific interactions we're talking about.

The point here is that you seem to be clinging on to the myth that there are dramatic device to device differences. Granted, manufacturing is better these days, one percent resistors are commonplace, but acidose is spot on, there have never been significant device to device differences in working and properly tuned synthesizers of the same design. There are a lot of synths that need service, your Juno 60 for one, and there are a lot of synths that have had significant design changes under the same name, most observed differences come down to these factors, or, the same biases that I've talked about with respect to VAs.

[fluffy_little_something]

With Monark it is possible to tweak the Reaktor ensemble to get it polyphonic. Anyway the sound of a Minimoog seems to be too "ballsy" to be used for pads properly. That is what i meant.

For polyphonic patches that need a good low end like e.g. Synth Brass this is not a problem so a Minimoog is still nicely usuable there.
Of course you could also use Diva for polyphonic Moog patches but as a Minimoog emulation it does not seem to be as accurate as Monark (while it still sounds great).

Indeed, seems an expensive solution, you might as well have kept your J8

The Minimoog sounds too analog for pads

It's interesting to see how all the old synth companies are back now, Moog, Oberheim, SCI I wonder how long that analog revival will last, though...

[pdxindy]

Go to the store if you can find one, and play 2 new same model Moogs... There are bound to be some minute differences, but they sound the same and have the same character. One of them does not sound like an MS-20. And both are immediately discernible as analogue.

I don't know any new Moog that's been emulated in software. So, are you implying that any software emulation (let's say, Monark, for exemple) of an old Moog (because there aren't emulations of the new Moogs) sounds like an MS-20?

If not, then, your post is pointless, because I don't remember to have read (much less write) that one unit could sound so different from the other to be confused with another model, much less one from another builder.

I think the point here is whether a software VA can sound analogue enough, or not. And regarding emulatrions, if they are convincing enough or not.

You said "But for people so picky finding diferences between hardware units and their software emulations, seems like you become much more tolerant when talking about diferences between two units of the same model."

You are the one who equated the difference between two moogs and between a moog and an emulation as of the same scale.

So I said I disagreed. The difference between hardware and software is much more significant still than the difference between two moogs.

[fmr]

I don't remember to have read (much less write) that one unit could sound so different from the other to be confused with another model, much less one from another builder.

I think the point here is whether a software VA can sound analogue enough, or not. And regarding emulatrions, if they are convincing enough or not.

New moogs and old moogs sound much more like each other than old moogs and old korgs. Seriously, this should be really obvious.

It should, and it is. If you care to read what I posted (quoted above) you should come to the same conclusion. Actually, it is so obvious that I find annoying you felt the need to say that (again) (just trying to make some fun).

What I am "clinging" is on the myth that analogues cannot be convincingly emulated. Generally speaking, and having basically all the emulations available, I fel happy to have them. And service or no service, I also like the way my Juno-60 behaves, even if you are probably right (as I said, it was never serviced, and you may very well pointed to an issue). Point is, as I already said, one man "flaw" is another man "feature".

But that could explain the diferences regarding the U-NO-LX, since probably Patrick has a unit that was serviced, and therefore responded differently. OTOH, the difference are not so noticeable that things sound "different", just not exactly the same. And Patrick recognized that the envelope was one of the hardest parts to emulate.

But when you read people complaining that some emulation sounds nothing like the original, how can you be sure that the problem resides exactly in the fact they are comparing it with a unit that has the same kind of "flaws" mine apparently have? And then, who is right?

[fmr]

You are the one who equated the difference between two moogs and between a moog and an emulation as of the same scale.

So I said I disagreed. The difference between hardware and software is much more significant still than the difference between two moogs.

Ok, it's your opinion. IMO, I disagree with it. So, let's agree to disagree.

[pdxindy]

Go to the store if you can find one, and play 2 new same model Moogs... There are bound to be some minute differences, but they sound the same and have the same character. One of them does not sound like an MS-20. And both are immediately discernible as analogue.

I don't know any new Moog that's been emulated in software. So, are you implying that any software emulation (let's say, Monark, for exemple) of an old Moog (because there aren't emulations of the new Moogs) sounds like an MS-20?

If not, then, your post is pointless, because I don't remember to have read (much less write) that one unit could sound so different from the other to be confused with another model, much less one from another builder.

I think the point here is whether a software VA can sound analogue enough, or not. And regarding emulatrions, if they are convincing enough or not.

New moogs and old moogs sound much more like each other than old moogs and old korgs. Seriously, this should be really obvious. The differences come primarily from the differences in module design. Diva works well even though it's not emulating any particular synth because it does a good job of emulating each of the components of several vintage designs. That's not to say that how they interact and the specific components have no effect, they do, but, whether they have a large effect depends a lot on what specific interactions we're talking about.

The point here is that you seem to be clinging on to the myth that there are dramatic device to device differences. Granted, manufacturing is better these days, one percent resistors are commonplace, but acidose is spot on, there have never been significant device to device differences in working and properly tuned synthesizers of the same design. There are a lot of synths that need service, your Juno 60 for one, and there are a lot of synths that have had significant design changes under the same name, most observed differences come down to these factors, or, the same biases that I've talked about with respect to VAs.

Exactly

I have come across plenty of old guitars which no longer have correct pitch because the neck is warped. That is not a natural variation in the model, that is a malfunctioning guitar.

[pdxindy]

You are the one who equated the difference between two moogs and between a moog and an emulation as of the same scale.

So I said I disagreed. The difference between hardware and software is much more significant still than the difference between two moogs.

Ok, it's your opinion. IMO, I disagree with it. So, let's agree to disagree.

Let's agree that I am right and you are wrong