Arturia synth development.

[SLiC]

OK, I think I have some facts (meaning: audio) for you to listen. I'm going to prepare the files and upload them. Hopefully, I'll update in a few moments. Beware that some of the files don't intend to be "music" at all. They are mere filter twistings, sweepings, etc., but I also used a frag ment of the Axel F bass just for people not being to tortured. There will be no Legend recordings since I don't own Legend (don't know if there is a trial, but if there is, I may update later with sounds from it). Now, wait a little...
EDIT 2: And here are the tests. The three synths are just identified by letters (A, B, C) to avoid biased listenings. They sound quite different, e3specially in extreme resonances, but none of them sounded "crap" to me, especially in a regular use.

Axel F Bass regular A
Axel F Bass regular B
Axel F Bass regular C

Axel F Bass Cutoff 0 A
Axel F Bass Cutoff 0 B
Axel F Bass Cutoff 0 C

Axel F Bass Cut-Res 0.5 A
Axel F Bass Cut-Res 0.5 B
Axel F Bass Cut-Res 0.5 C

Axel F Bass Cut-Res -2.8 A
Axel F Bass Cut-Res -2.8 B
Axel F Bass Cut-Res -2.8 C

And now the filter manipulations:
Filter Twist Res 5 A
Filter Twist Res 5 B
Filter Twist Res 5 C

Filter Twist Res 8 A
Filter Twist Res 8 B
Filter Twist Res 8 C

Long Sweep Res 8 A
Long Sweep Res 8 B
Long Sweep Res 8 C

Filter Twist Res 5 B sounds great to me, on balance I preferred synth C when listening to all the patches.

[fmr]

I take it every example is another synth? So, no cheating, like some demos feature one synth for 2 examples?

There are no cheatings. A is always the same synth, B is always the same synth and C is always the same synth. Again, I am not trying to bash anything.

[wagtunes]

Okay, I am a big U-he fan boy. Have almost every one of their synths.

In this track, I use one of their synths. Can you guess which one and what part(s) of the track (actual minute and second mark) is/are playing it?

There is also an Arturia synth in this track. Can you guess which one and what part(s) (actual minute and seconds)

The rest of the synths, among these close to 40 tracks, I won't even bother asking you to identify. In fact, good luck with any of it, which is kind of my point.

In the context of the music, only the absolute most astute listeners (who know these synths inside and out) will be able to identify which is which.

Ultimately, it's whatever makes you happy to use.

That is ALL that matters.

https://soundcloud.com/steven-wagenheim ... und-vocals

[fmr]

Filter Twist Res 5 B sounds great to me, on balance I preferred synth C when listening to all the patches.

I took note of your opinion. Thanks for listening

[chk071]

Alright, so here are my guesses:

Filter Twist Res 5

A: Mini V
B: Minimonsta
C: Monark

Filter Twist Res 8

A: Mini V
B: Monark
C. Minimonsta

Long Sweep Res 8

A: Minimonsta
B: Monark
C: Mini V

Will check out the Axel F bass examples later too, but those seem to be pretty difficult, as the sounds differ a bit from each other.

BTW, my guesses are based mainly on the amount of resonance, and the distortion. As i know that Monark distorts like a motherf***er (and also has a lot of beef), i would guess the above.

Edit: Um, and i just noticed that i mixed up the guesses for the first example. I meant Monark for B, amd Minimonsta for C. Anyway, as i wrote it down like that now, i'll stick with it. Guess it's wrong though.

[fmr]

Alright, so here are my guesses:

Filter Twist Res 5

A: Mini V
B: Minimonsta
C: Monark

Filter Twist Res 8

A: Mini V
B: Monark
C. Minimonsta

Long Sweep Res 8

A: Minimonsta
B: Monark
C: Mini V

Will check out the Axel F bass examples later too, but those seem to be pretty difficult, as the sounds differ a bit from each other.

I told before that A is always the same synth, as well as B and C. But this seems to show that none of them sounded bad, even at extreme twistings, which was my point (even if they sound very different at some settings).

[SLiC]

Filter Twist Res 5 B sounds great to me, on balance I preferred synth C when listening to all the patches.

I took note of your opinion. Thanks for listening

No worries, I posted before you said what they were, so I was glad to at least give the Mini V an honourable mention (very sing song moog like harmonics) even though the warmth and bass of Monarch sounded better to me over all (I have a Mother 32 as my only source of reference to a real moog, but I do own Mini V, Monarch and Legend- currently I am in to Legend for mono moog lines, but I still rate the Mini V for pads etc.)

[chk071]

Alright, so here are my guesses:

Filter Twist Res 5

A: Mini V
B: Minimonsta
C: Monark

Filter Twist Res 8

A: Mini V
B: Monark
C. Minimonsta

Long Sweep Res 8

A: Minimonsta
B: Monark
C: Mini V

Will check out the Axel F bass examples later too, but those seem to be pretty difficult, as the sounds differ a bit from each other.

I told before that A is always the same synth, as well as B and C. But this seems to show that none of them sounded bad, even at extreme twistings, which was my point (even if they sound very different at some settings).

Actually i messed up the first example, and the synth were the same, as i wrote. Surprised about the third example then, but, fair enough.

This is my final guess :

A: Mini V
B: Monark
C. Minimonsta

[beely]

I had a quick listen to the first few demos, and I'd guess, of the three mentioned:

A: Arturia
B: Minimonsta
C: Monark

I'll have a more in depth listen later and see if I still think the same...

[chk071]

BTW, adding to my guess, none of them are bad really. A always sounds a bit "linear", and predictable. B has a very complex, saturated resonance behavior, and C is sort of a mixture between them.

[fmr]

BTW, adding to my guess, none of them are bad really. A always sounds a bit "linear", and predictable. B has a very complex, saturated resonance behavior, and C is sort of a mixture between them.

[Robmobius]

I like the reso of 5.

Thanks for putting up a blind test.

[.jon]

Well, the sound for a start...

No, there's nothing "new level" about the sound. Subtractive monosynths have been used since the 1960s.

Also why should Urs bring out a synth that is whizz bang new and shiny?

Because they are one of the handful of companies that have demonstrated a capacity for innovation and creation and designed awesome instruments that didn't exist before.

Anyway, since this is an Arturia thread, this is their take on a simple analog monosynth- a real simple analog monosynth:



It's not 2001 anymore when analog synths were unobtanium if you weren't loaded, now you can walk into a shop down the street and buy the real deal for 300e.

[zerocrossing]

Well, it emulates different components of the synths. Of course you can't go by patch sheet, dial in the parameter values, and get the same sound, i'm aware of that (that holds true for even specific emulations too, try to dial in the same values in an Arturia synths, and what comes out will vastly differ from the original sound).

No it doesn't. If you use the same parameters in an Arturia emulation, the sound will be a close match, as its the case too with TAL U-NO LX. Otherwise, it would not be an emulation. Do that. I did.

Yet, you will be able to get at least to 95-99 % the same sound, if you program it right, thus it can be compared to other software emulation. And i highly doubt that Diva would be as successful and popular as it is, if it was just marketed as a synth which doesn't emulate anything particular really. So, considering that it has the Minimoog osc's, filter, the Oberheim osc's and filters, the JP-8k osc's and so on, of course, people will use it to emulate that sound.

First. It doesn't have Oberheim's Oscillators, just the filter.
Second: Doubt as much as you want, but Urs said in several occasions, that DIVA isn't emulating any hardware in particular. Its main argument is the "sound" and the "mix and match" components, and the fact that we can get the analogue "warmth" out of it. What people "use" it for is up to them. Personally, I use it as I use any other synth - to make sounds. But I also did come up with some Jupiter and Juno sounds out fo it, of course, tuning parameters by hear.

Of course Diva is an "emulation" of sorts, but you're bickering about the level of replication. Urs has always said that he emulated things closely when they made sonic sense to him, but changed things if he thought they sounded better his way. Nothing wrong with that. I mean, it's one of the things I do really like about the Arturia synths. They just didn't emulate an SEM, they added a modulation matrix, polyphony, etc. So, using your logic the Arturia synths aren't pure emulations either. That's fine with me.

[zerocrossing]

Diva, the legend and monark are not only louder, they sound living and arturia sounds static like an old sampletank 2 rompler.
I

This... Arturia just don't have that living vibe (perhaps a better term then analog). One note sounds virtually identical to the other.

You really hear this in comparison vids on youtube. Just in case you can't compare the HW to the Software.

My hardware SEM (before I sold it) sounded so rich compared to the Arturia's SEM V. In my opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_n2ctb40B8

Never a great sound on YT but you can still hear a difference.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The SEM V sounds kind of dead and muffled. Like they just bandlimited it to death to keep it from aliasing badly.