Arturia synth development.

[chk071]

I understand that people here are now going through an obsessive phase where the accuracy of a filter resonance hump emulation @ 200Hz seems like really important, but such details have no connection with music whatsoever.

Yet, for an accurate emulation of the modelled synth's behavior, it is very important.

[HunterKiller]

It is almost like there are several separate arguments going on in this thread!

Because of people's various internal distortions and biases, via which reality is not perceived as it truly is, as well as their ability to perceive and connect seemingly disparate pieces of reality. The same kind of dualistic battle goes on in any other area of life, the ones who can see and the one's who can't. Those who can't argue that there is nothing to see and that those who can see, are full of themselves.

[Robmobius]

This thread is so laughable it's almost pathetic.

News flash. Marla is dead on the money. Nobody who listens to music gives a shit what synth you use.

But that was already established at the start of the thread (and then mentioned a few times more)... I think everyone knows that the 'average punter' doesn't care as long as they enjoy the experience of the music.

[Urs]

I understand that people here are now going through an obsessive phase where the accuracy of a filter resonance hump emulation @ 200Hz seems like really important, but such details have no connection with music whatsoever.

It contributes to the warm fuzzy feeling of the Moog sound. It is key to the Moog sound, more so than Zero Delay Feedback (which Arturia's marketing department in yet another facepalm moment calls "Zero Delay Filters" on the same page ). Obviously, Arturia's marketing guys deem it important enough to substantiate their efforts with such bogus pages, the intent of which is to lure the unsuspecting user to think of "compromise" as "revolution". I would be very grateful, as an individual and as a competitor, if they stopped doing that.

As for your other comment, please meet me in my company forum, I'm happy to discuss things there, such as how doing virtual replica helps us to develop novel stuff.

[.jon]

Here's what the guys who made the originals thought about the topic.

RM: "It was certainly not imitating other instruments! 'Making unique sounds' is close to our original musical intentions. I would say that we wanted to give musicians new ways of working with sounds."

RM: "To me the synthesizer was always a source of new sounds that musicians could use to expand the range of possibilities for making music."

DS: "It seems to be marketing-department driven, i.e. let’s build something that looks somewhat old and somewhat analog, just to sell units. Not very interesting in my opinion."

This is what U-he did with Zebra and Bazille, dunno what happened to their ambitions after that. You either build something worth copying 20 years from now, or just build yet another copy of the same old.

[Robmobius]

RM: "It was certainly not imitating other instruments! 'Making unique sounds' is close to our original musical intentions. I would say that we wanted to give musicians new ways of working with sounds."

RM: "To me the synthesizer was always a source of new sounds that musicians could use to expand the range of possibilities for making music."

DS: "It seems to be marketing-department driven, i.e. let’s build something that looks somewhat old and somewhat analog, just to sell units. Not very interesting in my opinion."

Oh... In that case we'd all better start making snyths that they approve of then.

I'd personally tremble in fear if they didn't feel it was 'interesting'.

Meh.

[SLiC]

I understand that people here are now going through an obsessive phase where the accuracy of a filter resonance hump emulation @ 200Hz seems like really important, but such details have no connection with music whatsoever.

Yet, for an accurate emulation of the modelled synth's behavior, it is very important.

I still think you are talking about maybe 1 in a million listeners who would know that or hear that as few people heard an original(s) live and fewer still heard a resonance hump! Often the originals hardware sounded different, especially after they were recorded and mixed with effects which is how the vast majority of people experience them. You are emulating something accurately when hardly anyone can really tell if it is accurate other than other analysis or a tiny few enthusiasts that may actually have the hardware, its just a competition rather than a musical endeavour.

Make an instrument that 'sounds good' is expressive, alive, fun to play and you have a winner, that's all musicians and listeners care about, the rest is for historians and mathematicians!

(I wonder if in any other industry people are trying so hard to use state of the art technology to model technology from the 60's and 70's!)

[chk071]

I understand that people here are now going through an obsessive phase where the accuracy of a filter resonance hump emulation @ 200Hz seems like really important, but such details have no connection with music whatsoever.

Yet, for an accurate emulation of the modelled synth's behavior, it is very important.

I still think you are talking about maybe 1 in a million listeners who would know that or hear that as few people heard an original(s) live and fewer still heard a resonance hump! Often the originals hardware sounded different, especially after they were recorded and mixed with effects which is how the vast majority of people experience them. You are emulating something accurately when hardly anyone can really tell if it is accurate other than other analysis or a tiny few enthusiasts that may actually have the hardware, its just a competition rather than a musical endeavour.

Make an instrument that 'sounds good' is expressive, alive, fun to play and you have a winner, that's all musicians and listeners care about, the rest is for historians and mathematicians!

(I wonder if in any other industry people are trying so hard to use state of the art technology to model technology from the 60's and 70's!)

You know what? I even agree with that. It IS really hard to grasp, why people put such an amount of work and detail into modelling "obsolete" technology. In this case though, the imperfections, and flaws of the design is what (some) people perceive as pleasant sound, and is basically what they strive, even with using more "clean" technology. Also, it surely has something to do with nostalgia, and people who like the sound of the 70ies, 80ies, or 90ies. I recently bought Monark, and, while i surely like it for its bass, and its growl, or for the effects you can do with playing the filter, it's sometimes simply too dirty for some things i do, so i rather use the more digital, or clean sounding synths. TBH, i think the Minimoog in general is vastly overrated, sort of like Sylenth1 in the soft synth business. It's a nice synth, yes, but not so nice that you need to model every oscillator in any synth after it. What i would do like though, is a filter the like of Monarks in my VA synth. That thing is, seriously, sick. But with less drive then please. When we will be on that level of quality, with less CPU consumption than is the case in Monark, then i can't see why people will feel the need for analog emulations anymore. Some will still do though. And also analog nomophonics will still be a hit in 20 years, i'm sure.

[Urs]

It IS really hard to grasp, why people put such an amount of work and detail into modelling "obsolete" technology.

Have you recently checked the second hand prices for that "obsolete" technology?

I can't put my finger on it, but I have a hunch that vintage synthesizers are a somewhat valuable commodity. If that's the case, is it still so hard to grasp that there's a demand for affordable replicas?

[chk071]

No, absolutely not. Yet, the reason why they're so expensive also has to do with availability. If there's only 100 models around, it is no wonder that prices shoot sky high. But, frankly, i have no idea how someone could shell out a couple of thousand Euros for such a limited synth as a Minimoog, especially when the innards are already that old that they either have seen several replacements, or already introduce "imprefections" themselves, due to their age. But then, i wouldn't buy an oldtimer car either, simply because i would have to fiddle with it much, but, for some people, that's the whole fun about those. Each to his like. Yet i don't see much reasonable ground for an argument to that. The advantages of software are as clear as the advantages of modern cars, compared to oldtimers. They might not sound quite as good as the oldtimers though. They drive much better though.

[Kumi_27]

Jeez, on some auction/ad sites here in Poland, every second piece of used gear is "cult".
Old (or even not that old) synths, romplers, samplers, arranger keyboards... everything is "cult" and the price is four times the actual value because of this "cult" status.
Some of these synths are listed for years, because no sane man will buy it for the listed price.
I hate it

Affordable and good sounding replicas, even in software version - I'm all in

[wagtunes]

It IS really hard to grasp, why people put such an amount of work and detail into modelling "obsolete" technology.

Have you recently checked the second hand prices for that "obsolete" technology?

I can't put my finger on it, but I have a hunch that vintage synthesizers are a somewhat valuable commodity. If that's the case, is it still so hard to grasp that there's a demand for affordable replicas?

Urs, I don't know how old you are, but I grew up during this era. Actually, by the time I got my first Moog in 1977, I was already 20 years old and had spent most of my childhood on piano, drums, guitar and organ because that's all we had.

And with all the synths I owned back in the 70s and 80s (and some damn expensive gear too) I never thought any of it sounded any good. I couldn't understand what people were hearing in a Moog that was so great. And quite honestly, I still don't. The whole era totally baffled me. It wasn't until Oberheim came out with the Matrix 6 that I heard something that really sounded "good" to me. It was this big, fat, rich sound that I've yet to hear any synth, hardware or software, capture since. To this day, it is still my favorite synth and I'm almost sorry I sold it.

And even with that synth, I'll still take the grand piano I had in my living room over it.

I have since come to appreciate a synth for what it is, something to add color to a track of music. But when you start getting into all this "authentic emulation stuff" and why synth A is better than synth B for that, my eyes glaze over. Because, for me, you're trying to recapture an era where crap was constantly going out of tune, couldn't be saved in preset banks, and ridiculously expensive.

And yet somehow, we have managed to romanticize an era that gave us "Popcorn" and "Lucky Man" solos.

I'm not sure that's something to be proud of.

[Urs]

Because, for me, you're trying to recapture an era where crap was constantly going out of tune, couldn't be saved in preset banks, and ridiculously expensive.

But Arturia's don't go out of tune, save presets and are not expensive. That is one point of an emulation.

The other point is, what sounded crap to you when you were 20, might be highly regarded by other people today. Some people experience fatigue from sterile digital sounds and feature overkill. They prefer simple and raw sounding synths.

[AnX]

Price dictates old classic analog synths sound better. Fact.

[Robmobius]

I couldn't understand what people were hearing in a Moog that was so great. And quite honestly, I still don't. The whole era totally baffled me.

I'd say there's more people like it then don't...