Gforce's one, Definitely! (Not exactly 2600 though.)woggle wrote:maybe there is a good Odyssey emulation ?
ARTURIA ARP 2600V vs Way Out Ware TimewARP 2600 in 2017?
-
- KVRAF
- 2357 posts since 24 Nov, 2012
thanks I will keep my eye out for specials / 2nd handnicksohn wrote:Gforce's one, Definitely! (Not exactly 2600 though.)woggle wrote:maybe there is a good Odyssey emulation ?
-
- KVRian
- 512 posts since 6 Dec, 2014
Firstly, Try it out!woggle wrote:thanks I will keep my eye out for specials / 2nd handnicksohn wrote:Gforce's one, Definitely! (Not exactly 2600 though.)woggle wrote:maybe there is a good Odyssey emulation ?
I think you'll like it a lot.
-
- KVRAF
- 2357 posts since 24 Nov, 2012
I will try it - one of the things I liked about ARP hardware was the sliders rather than knobs. I always found it much easier to understand what was going onnicksohn wrote:Firstly, Try it out!woggle wrote:thanks I will keep my eye out for specials / 2nd handnicksohn wrote:Gforce's one, Definitely! (Not exactly 2600 though.)woggle wrote:maybe there is a good Odyssey emulation ?
I think you'll like it a lot.
- KVRAF
- 2162 posts since 10 Mar, 2006
Yup, that's another great way of putting it.woggle wrote:To me the ARP was way more electronic, more of the technology, more extreme, whereas the Moog and Roland were much more polite and mainstream.
Moog and Roland, they sound pleasing to everyone.
ARP is exactly like you said it, it's somehow more "electric", more grimy, more like it's been put together in a garage, more like the old BBC Radiophonic Workshop sound.
Most people are not used to that old ARP sound, esp in today's climate, today's world - they think it sounds "shit" - that is, until they start moving some sliders.
Then it's like your inner child is awakened and you suddenly start getting what all this is about. A slightly different approach and sound, which once understood is like entering a complimentary universe. A neighboring universe of sound, different to the one you've been in.
I wonder if you could try any of the old versions. Or you could try waiting for the 1.7 update. Hopefully it comes out sometime in this eon.I hoped to but the TimewARP during this sale for a bit of nostalgia but unfortunately it will not register properly on my machine. Been through a bit of support with sonivox which has been quite prompt but unfortunately the problem is not solved so I have emailed pluginboutique for a refund
GForce's Oddity2 is great. It has the ability to create that typical "slightly thinner", but more electronic APR sound. However, it does not have that much of that famous dirty rawness to it. Only a bit. That synth though, is a keeper. Beautiful presets, and a really inspiring interface.maybe there is a good Odyssey emulation ?
And that's something else, I've noticed, I prefer that ARP2600/Oddessey interface over the Modular/MiniMoog interface.
The only other softsynth, I've seen approaching the rawness of TimewARP, is a brand new synth by uhe, Repro-1.
Other softsynths in general, no matter what company they come from, they all have a more Moog-ish sound to them. So most people have become so used to that, that coming out of that entire paradigm, is like Neo coming out of the matrix. At first you wanna go back.
"The educated person is one who knows how to find out what he does not know" - George Simmel
“It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.” - John Wooden
“It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.” - John Wooden
- KVRAF
- 2162 posts since 10 Mar, 2006
Yup, Pace is what killed Timwarp, for the first couple of years. At that time Pace was hated by everyone, just when TW first came out.electro wrote:PACE Copy Protection is the main reason I never got it and now under Sonnivox it is C/R (even worse).
Then it was Jim's lack of funding and lack of support/updates/adequate customer interaction.
Now it's the C/R and lack of updates.
Three disaster periods.
Yup. Except, they went backwards again, with the Piano. They really should not release something, until it is actually a leader in its niche. They knew Pianoteq has been out for years and is well regarded. Why did they come out with their own inferior product?10 years later its overdue for a fresh 2.0 GUI, upsampling and remodeled VCF to bring it current with U-he, TAL, XILS, Cytomic and Synapse Legend. The thing about Arturia is there are competent alternatives to most of their weaker emulations that everybody likes complaining about. Arturia's newer synths starting with SEM are pretty good and they made some really smart moves acquiring the Synclavier sourcecode and those Combo Organs.
"The educated person is one who knows how to find out what he does not know" - George Simmel
“It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.” - John Wooden
“It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.” - John Wooden
-
- KVRian
- 1283 posts since 25 Jul, 2009
I'm pretty happy with Arturia's stuff.
Minimoog is the only thing they do that I've tried other variations of.
Monark is pretty good, but I still like Arturia's version better.
So - about TimewARP - i guess I'm not really qualified to chime in,
because I've been satisfied enough with
Arturia's version that I haven't tried others.
Minimoog is the only thing they do that I've tried other variations of.
Monark is pretty good, but I still like Arturia's version better.
So - about TimewARP - i guess I'm not really qualified to chime in,
because I've been satisfied enough with
Arturia's version that I haven't tried others.
- KVRAF
- 11093 posts since 16 Mar, 2003 from Porto - Portugal
That "inferior" product is part of a bigger package, and has some things that Pianoteq hasn't (like the Glass Grand and Metal Grand models). Sure, it lacks in several aspects, but it is a version 1. Do you remember Pianoteq v1? It was something to laugh about. Only at the current version did Pianoteq start to sound really convincing. So, being at version 1, Piano V is not THAT bad AT ALL. And far from being an "inferior product".HunterKiller wrote: Yup. Except, they went backwards again, with the Piano. They really should not release something, until it is actually a leader in its niche. They knew Pianoteq has been out for years and is well regarded. Why did they come out with their own inferior product?
Besides, to be editable, you have to buy at least Pianoteq Pro, which is almost the price of the entire Arturia Collection (Pianoteq Pro costs € 399,00 and the Arturia Collection costs € 499,00). Let's be fair, and compare what is comparable. The way I see it, Piano V aims different things than Pianoteq.
Hopefully, with some improvements in the models, and more parameters, like more bands in the EQ, Piano V will improve substantially. So, it isn't "moving backwards" it is moving forward and being ambitious. You have to start somewhere.
If only those that would be leaders in their niche would release something, the market would be really poor. Look at the enormous amount of wavetable synths that were launched lately. Would you say that all of them are "leaders in their niche"?
And what about the unbelievable quantity of virtual analogs, or emulations of old analogs. Are all of them leaders in their niche? I don't think so.
Anyway, regarding the ARP 2600, I never contacted with the original, but I like the sound of BOTH emulations. They sound different, but both are good, IMO. Choosing between one or the other is a matter of personal taste, more than anything else. The Arturia version has the advantage of integrating the sequencer, which is, in fact, another piece of gear. Not that I value that much, because, after an initial period, I passed to other synths, that I like better. The best thing I extracted from the emulations was being able to try the patches that came in the original ARP manual, which are a good school for learning synthesis, the same way that the old FM7 and now DeXed were great to learn more about FM by trying the tips in the book from Chowning and Bristow.
Last edited by fmr on Sat Feb 18, 2017 6:21 pm, edited 8 times in total.
Fernando (FMR)
- KVRAF
- 11093 posts since 16 Mar, 2003 from Porto - Portugal
Maybe not better, but it is "truly" polyphonic, and you can run WAY MORE instances of it than any of the others.electro wrote:Arturia Mini V is good, but definately not better than Monark and Legend.
Fernando (FMR)
-
- KVRian
- 595 posts since 8 May, 2006
when it comes to being a Moog emulation, neither of these things have any relevance. wtf?fmr wrote:Maybe not better, but it is "truly" polyphonic, and you can run WAY MORE instances of it than any of the others.electro wrote:Arturia Mini V is good, but definately not better than Monark and Legend.
- KVRAF
- 11093 posts since 16 Mar, 2003 from Porto - Portugal
In your opinion If what you look for is a Mini, any emulation will fall short, I'm afraid. So, better have some ice over the cake, otherwise, it will taste too dry. The Mini V does a comptetent job at emulating the Mini, and has some nice extras, while not killing the CPU.jbuonacc wrote:when it comes to being a Moog emulation, neither of these things have any relevance. wtf?fmr wrote:Maybe not better, but it is "truly" polyphonic, and you can run WAY MORE instances of it than any of the others.electro wrote:Arturia Mini V is good, but definately not better than Monark and Legend.
Emulations interest me less and less for what they are, especially emulations of limited stuff as the Mini is. And I would never buy a soft synth limited in what concerns polyphony. I have Monark simply because it came with Komplete. So, I tend to value emulations for what they ARE as softsynths, and what they add to the table, in terms of new sounds and originality. That's why I look for emulations of more complex stuff, and I was begging for years for an emulation of the Matrix-12, for example (and welcomed enthusiastically the Synclavier V). Now, what I really want is an emulation of the Korg PS-3300
Fernando (FMR)
-
- KVRAF
- 5193 posts since 6 May, 2002
In the hardware world with limited physical space you probably want more functionality in each synth but limited synths are better for working ITB.
Less options means more focus on certain types of patches. Polyphony is not necessary for a bass/lead synth.
Less options means more focus on certain types of patches. Polyphony is not necessary for a bass/lead synth.
Intel Core2 Quad CPU + 4 GIG RAM
-
- KVRian
- 1283 posts since 25 Jul, 2009
If you read my post again, you'll discover that I didn't say it was better.electro wrote:Arturia Mini V is good, but definately not better than Monark and Legend.
I said I liked it better.
There is a difference.
-
- KVRian
- 595 posts since 8 May, 2006
these days doing a "competent" job at emulating something just doesn't cut it. why even use an emulation then? just use any synth in that case.fmr wrote:The Mini V does a comptetent job at emulating the Mini, and has some nice extras, while not killing the CPU.
that's nice? obviously the sound and behavior of an emulation doesn't matter much to you. thankfully it does to some devs. (why do you tend to get wrapped up in discussing things that you don't have any real interest or conviction in either way?) polyphony and "nice extras" should never be an issue for someone who wants the sound/behaviour of an SH-101, Pro-One, Minimoog, or whatever... and CPU usage be damned, if that's what it takes to do an acceptable job of it.Emulations interest me less and less for what they are, especially emulations of limited stuff as the Mini is. And I would never buy a soft synth limited in what concerns polyphony.
i don't think you "value" emulations at all. as an emulation, bringing "new sounds and originality" to the table should be the least of anyone's concerns. plenty of other synths for that.I tend to value emulations for what they ARE as softsynths, and what they add to the table, in terms of new sounds and originality.