Arturia synth development.

[chk071]

Btw, try to do a filter swep with full resonance with the Arturia Mini V, and compare that to the real thing. Or even Monark. And see what a heck of a difference that makes, regarding "dialing in the exact same values".

I can't perform the test on the real thing, because I have no access to one, but I will perform them in Monark and Minimonsta, and I will post the results. Anyway, what will this prove? Have you performed this same test, BTW?

Not yet. But i remember the filter of version 2.5 of Mini V was heck of a lot different than that of Monark. Also, on Amazona.de site, they wrote, the filter would be rather Juno-ish, than reminding of a real Minimoog filter.

But, please, go ahead and do a test, i'd be curious too. I don't have the newer version of the Mini V, so i dunno how the filter is now, i know that they improved it. If you can, do a filter sweep with high resonance, and maybe some fast decay times settings, and high filter envelope amount.

[Robmobius]

[the Arturia is more than good enough.

Sheesh.

But isn't that what I've been saying throughout this whole thread though? If you like it, and it's good enough (for you) then that's all that really matters. I don't see why people get offended by me or others not liking a product they like.

However, it's not good enough for me, because stuff like Legend, Diva and SynthX have a lot more bass and I primarily write heavy bass music. Plus, I prefer the way they sound overall.

[wagtunes]

For that matter, comparing hardware to software, this is true for all soft synths. So what's the point? We all can't or don't want to own hardware. So software is our only option. So comparing apples to apples (one software to another) I don't hear the big difference between Arturia synths and all these other "emulations" that are supposed to sound so much better.

That's because your ears are not good enough, and you don't have a sub-woofer capable of shaking the walls.

Actually, I have speakers that cost me a small fortune, thank you. As for my ears, the only thing I've lost is a little off the high end.

A lot of this "my synth is better than your synth" crap is in a person's own imagination and nothing else.

[fmr]

[the Arturia is more than good enough.

Sheesh.

But isn't that what I've been saying throughout this whole thread though? If you like it, and it's good enough (for you) then that's all that really matters. I don't see why people get offended by me or others not liking a product they like.

However, it's not good enough for me, because stuff like Legend, Diva and SynthX have a lot more bass and I primarily write heavy bass music. Plus, I prefer the way they sound overall.

OK, THIS I can totally accept. Shake hands?

[fmr]

For that matter, comparing hardware to software, this is true for all soft synths. So what's the point? We all can't or don't want to own hardware. So software is our only option. So comparing apples to apples (one software to another) I don't hear the big difference between Arturia synths and all these other "emulations" that are supposed to sound so much better.

That's because your ears are not good enough, and you don't have a sub-woofer capable of shaking the walls.

Actually, I have speakers that cost me a small fortune, thank you. As for my ears, the only thing I've lost is a little off the high end.

A lot of this "my synth is better than your synth" crap is in a person's own imagination and nothing else.

You realized I was being sarcastic, right?

[wagtunes]

For that matter, comparing hardware to software, this is true for all soft synths. So what's the point? We all can't or don't want to own hardware. So software is our only option. So comparing apples to apples (one software to another) I don't hear the big difference between Arturia synths and all these other "emulations" that are supposed to sound so much better.

That's because your ears are not good enough, and you don't have a sub-woofer capable of shaking the walls.

Actually, I have speakers that cost me a small fortune, thank you. As for my ears, the only thing I've lost is a little off the high end.

A lot of this "my synth is better than your synth" crap is in a person's own imagination and nothing else.

You realized I was being sarcastic, right?

My sarcasm meter is permanently disabled.

[fmr]

Not yet. But i remember the filter of version 2.5 of Mini V was heck of a lot different than that of Monark. Also, on Amazona.de site, they wrote, the filter would be rather Juno-ish, than reminding of a real Minimoog filter.

But, please, go ahead and do a test, i'd be curious too. I don't have the newer version of the Mini V, so i dunno how the filter is now, i know that they improved it. If you can, do a filter sweep with high resonance, and maybe some fast decay times settings, and high filter envelope amount.

I Will, that's a promise, and I will post the results, even with WAV files for people to download. Do you have a an example of what exactly do you have in mind? I promise I will perform the tests with an absolute neutral state of mind.

[Robmobius]

[the Arturia is more than good enough.

Sheesh.

But isn't that what I've been saying throughout this whole thread though? If you like it, and it's good enough (for you) then that's all that really matters. I don't see why people get offended by me or others not liking a product they like.

However, it's not good enough for me, because stuff like Legend, Diva and SynthX have a lot more bass and I primarily write heavy bass music. Plus, I prefer the way they sound overall.

OK, THIS I can totally accept. Shake hands?

Absolutely!

Finally... We've reached some common ground.

[ghettosynth]

But where does someone turn to if they want a CS 80 emulation? What's better?

ME-80. I find it sounds warmer and just better overall.

In any case, not the Arturia model because it doesn't really sound like a CS-80. This is really the crux of the argument for those of us that aren't really Arturia fans, per se. Emulating the look, feel, and architecture is only so useful. I would argue that it's quite useful for the 1613 sequencer and is one of the few things that I find redeeming about the Arturia 2600.

But, I didn't use those CS-80 patches because they sounded like a CS-80, I used them because they had a nice bubbly rhythmic noise component that was just what I needed at the time.

Diva IS a better emulator despite the fact that it's not trying to be simply because the individual components are better emulations of analogue circuitry. Even back in the day, patch sheets were only so useful. They are fine for getting a rough idea of how something will sound, but they are really only so accurate. I can remember the last time I used that method for trying to obtain a patch and it was for trying to suss out the details of FM tines to create a Bazille patch. Now, FWIW, Bazille is not a better DX7 emulator, even though I love Bazille, the multi-segment envelopes are really important for certain aspects of that sound and it's challenging to make Bazille conform.

Like I said, I'm not a fetishist about this stuff. I never find myself with a patch sheet in hand trying to accurately recreate a sound exactly so that it sounds like Duran Duran, or whatever. Studying patch sheets is useful for understanding a sound, but I don't need an accurate emulation for that.

I think that the right answer, assuming that one doesn't know how to get there with powerful tools like Reaktor, is a sample based product.

[chk071]

Not yet. But i remember the filter of version 2.5 of Mini V was heck of a lot different than that of Monark. Also, on Amazona.de site, they wrote, the filter would be rather Juno-ish, than reminding of a real Minimoog filter.

But, please, go ahead and do a test, i'd be curious too. I don't have the newer version of the Mini V, so i dunno how the filter is now, i know that they improved it. If you can, do a filter sweep with high resonance, and maybe some fast decay times settings, and high filter envelope amount.

I Will, that's a promise, and I will post the results, even with WAV files for people to download. Do you have a an example of what exactly do you have in mind? I promise I will perform the tests with an absolute neutral state of mind.

How about a filter sweep with no, 50%, and 100% resonance? Then, a sequence with an oscillator, saw or square wave, with 50%, and then 100% resonance, high filter envelope amount, and a short decay phase on the filter envelope, to see how snappy both synths are. And then, you could, if you want, do some audio rate filter modulation with high resonance settings, that also reveals a lot. In general, i think the sound demo of Monark vs. Minimoog from NI, which i posted on the last page, is a good example of some extreme sounds. That's where emulations (and, in general, VA synths) really show their face, IMO.

Thanks for doing this BTW.

[rod_zero]

I think that is a little bit unfair to compare Arturia emulations in 2016 vs Diva, they are quite older, made when processors were way les powerfull. They sound good for their age and CPU use.

But as a company Arturia doesn't show will or compromise to improve them sonically, it took them almost a decade to update the GUI.

So the company as a whole gives me some bad impression across all their operations: not much r&d for improving existing products, abandoned hardware (the origin), quality control issues (in their keyboards), products with long delays (audiofuse and matrixbrute), very buggy releases (beatstep pro, spark 2) and so on.

Also the latest pmodeled piano sounds quite horrible, worlds apart from Pianoteq, why bother releasing something so far behind?

It is kind of sad because I think some of their products are great ideas (spark, BSP, matrixbrute, minibrute, drumbrute). I am looking in to getting a matrixbrute when bugs are ironed out and if there aren't concerns in its build quality.

[ghettosynth]

I think that is a little bit unfair to compare Arturia emulations in 2016 vs Diva, they are quite older, made when processors were way les powerfull. They sound good for their age and CPU use.

Except, of course, that they've had that ten years to improve the model. To be sure, I agree, you can't really compare ten year old technology with contemporary technology and then complain that the out of date stuff sounds out of date. It seems, however, that many believe that this isn't the case.

I don't "hate" many companies, comcast comes to mind. However, I do make my own decisions in terms of value and quality. I'm looking to forward thinking products when I spend money and the more money I'm spending, the more forward thinking I'm looking for.

If you are selling something today, at any price, then I think about how I value that product in terms of today's market. If you wrote it ten years ago but it still holds up, well, ok, but you can' really complain if that's not the case.

Also the latest pmodeled piano sounds quite horrible, worlds apart from Pianoteq, why bother releasing something so far behind?

I don't think that it's useless, but it wasn't that interesting either. From my value perspective, I get most of the value of that thing from the analog lab product, which I have.

I hope that they do something interesting for the next round, I would like the newer guis, but I'm not going to pay $250 for them.

[Robmobius]

It is kind of sad because I think some of their products are great ideas (spark, BSP, matrixbrute, minibrute, drumbrute). I am looking in to getting a matrixbrute when bugs are ironed out and if there aren't concerns in its build quality.

I had spark (V1) and sold it. I thought it had massive potential. But it lagged behind Geist (for me). Perhaps that's just me being biased, as I've been a Geist user since the beginning. But I found navigating around it a tad cumbersome and slow. Not the interface layout per se, but it was hard to click in some areas and you had to be spot on for others. Which made it frustrating to use in the end. Had a very nice way of implementing HHs (shuffles) if I remember correctly.

If they ever revisit it, it's one I'll definitely check out.

[Lotuzia]

Genuinely sorry to hear about Xavier. But I can't say I'm optimistic about Arturia on the software front. Considering the few I own, I never use. Thier hardware looks far more appealing.

Sorry why? He is alive and well. He left to found his own company. Tt's called Xils-Lab, I think you know it (you mentioned Xils, but apparently you don't know who is Xils . BTW - he was one of the main programmers of the Mini you bashed out so quickly. Apparently, he learned a few things after he left

That's actually interesting. When someone mentioned Xavier I was immediately thinking if this is the same person who is behind Xils-Lab. Had no idea that he was working for Arturia before. Because Xils synths do sound absolutely gorgeous. They probably make the most analog sounding synths of any developer. Which raises the question why do the Arturia synths sound so plastic-y. They sound nothing close to Xils-Lab synths.

Xils-Lab synths were conceived both on a component level modelling, but also with a better focus on a modelisation of the interactions between components, as well as a better integration of the overall architecture and modes of the synthesizers ( Like synths using several 'cards' -e.g Synthex-, or also Synthex 'double chorus' in dual mode) With the help of certain consultants, and studying more closely the synthesizer 'as a whole'- together with a closer analysis work on the strict component level - a chip, then another chip -etc, some progress could probably be achieved that explain part of their 'analog flavor'. Also the modulation engines and nodes, using external consultants, were completely reworked at a given time, and this gave Xils instruments a kind of high expressivness and organic character that simply wasn't available before.

Another important point is the CPU power available at a given time. In these years the available power was still more/less following Moore's law. Although this evolution is clearly less visible nowadays, more choices cpu-power/quality of emulation had to be made during the earlier years of sotware synthesizers. So the later synths clearly benefited of a higher trade off 'bar'.

As for Arturia synths, they were used on a lot of tracks. Good track, or less good according to one's taste, but many of them found their ways to a large audience. So, they probably served well a certain number of musicians,and it's certainly possible to make music with them. It's true that KVR isn't really fond of Arturia, -as well as many other brands-. But well, it's just part of the culture of this particular forum.

Else, while quality of an emulation is probably regarded as 'getting as close as possible' to the original model, let's not forget that if you perfectly emulate a synth that you originally disliked, ... you will still dislike the emulation. So prefect emulation isn't in any case a guaranty you'll like to use it. While some emulations that are less close to the original than others, or synths that are not precisely emulating this or that synthesizer, can still offer some pleasurable sounds. Or some sounds that you might prefer compared to a more perfect emulation.

A synthesizer is just an instrument that should be regarded as a whole, and bring you joy of playing, or less. The usual forum recipe (72,725% good emulation, 47.23% GUI, 22% protection system, 102% price, 380% they should have added ability to make coffee, 3% good sound or do I find it good, 1% innovation -who cares- and final average gives a x.xx note) is only a quite partial view of what is a musical instrument. Imho.

[EvilDragon]

OTOH, Mini V is polyphonic, and taxes your CPU just a little, while Monark is monophonic and a heavy burden.

Because it is a more detailed and accurate model, ZDF filter design, and all that jazz. There's a price for everything.