Arturia V collection 9 out now
- Thread starter flampton
- Start date
José Herring
Lost in Cyberspace
I went directly to Charlie's post from a link. Before I read the reveal I thinkt in the first example B was hardware and in the second example A was hardware. Probaby screwed it up though because I liked both.
Both hardware and software to me have nearly identical sounds but the hardware has way more depth to the sound.
But, mostly I want to be a fly on the way when @charlieclouser is programming a synth but those sounds are wicked and badass and are the kind of sounds I want to make when I get to be a big boy synth programmer.
Both hardware and software to me have nearly identical sounds but the hardware has way more depth to the sound.
But, mostly I want to be a fly on the way when @charlieclouser is programming a synth but those sounds are wicked and badass and are the kind of sounds I want to make when I get to be a big boy synth programmer.
Last edited:
Pier
Senior Member
Same
charlieclouser
Senior Member
The similar thread where I posted the A-B-A-B audio tests over on GearSpace is hilarious - only two people dared to pick A or B, and only one of them got it right. But the arguing and claiming that "hardware just has more weight and depth" and "All A-B tests are bullshit" by posters who didn't even dare to commit to a pick is running to three pages of posts. And I posted uncompressed WAV files so nobody could say, "mp3 files are garbage, you should have posted WAVs".
There were similar results over there to my posting A-B comparisons of my hardware Neve 1084 vs UAD vs Logic Vintage Console EQ, and my hardware Distressors vs UAD vs Arouser. Plenty of claiming and arguing, precious few actual picks.
There were similar results over there to my posting A-B comparisons of my hardware Neve 1084 vs UAD vs Logic Vintage Console EQ, and my hardware Distressors vs UAD vs Arouser. Plenty of claiming and arguing, precious few actual picks.
Fleer
Feeding the Trolls
Much appreciated.The similar thread where I posted the A-B-A-B audio tests over on GearSpace is hilarious - only two people dared to pick A or B, and only one of them got it right. But the arguing and claiming that "hardware just has more weight and depth" and "All A-B tests are bullshit" by posters who didn't even dare to commit to a pick is running to three pages of posts. And I posted uncompressed WAV files so nobody could say, "mp3 files are garbage, you should have posted WAVs".
There were similar results over there to my posting A-B comparisons of my hardware Neve 1084 vs UAD vs Logic Vintage Console EQ, and my hardware Distressors vs UAD vs Arouser. Plenty of claiming and arguing, precious few actual picks.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the SQ-80 V, ‘cause it’s the only new one I didn’t get (apart from the MS-20 V, as I have and love the Korg Collection).
My question is not about the accuracy of Arturia’s SQ80 emulation, but whether it’s a must-have now the new Prophet VS V is available. The latter seems to cover much of what the Ensoniq did, or am I wrong?
charlieclouser
Senior Member
I never had a real SQ-80 or ESQ-1. The only Ensoniq piece I ever had was the Mirage. So I can't speak to the authenticity of Arturia's emulation, and I certainly can't speak to the usefulness or interesting-ness of Ensoniq synths, since I gave them a hard pass back in the day. I played with a Fizmo for a day or two, but it didn't make any sounds that I wanted to use. I've had a fiddle with SQ-80v but so far no joy.
José Herring
Lost in Cyberspace
I was happy to pick. I did finally find the results you posted and true to form my batting average for picking hardware vs. software in these kinds of blind test are a statistical dead heat.The similar thread where I posted the A-B-A-B audio tests over on GearSpace is hilarious - only two people dared to pick A or B, and only one of them got it right. But the arguing and claiming that "hardware just has more weight and depth" and "All A-B tests are bullshit" by posters who didn't even dare to commit to a pick is running to three pages of posts. And I posted uncompressed WAV files so nobody could say, "mp3 files are garbage, you should have posted WAVs".
There were similar results over there to my posting A-B comparisons of my hardware Neve 1084 vs UAD vs Logic Vintage Console EQ, and my hardware Distressors vs UAD vs Arouser. Plenty of claiming and arguing, precious few actual picks.
But, I was hoping to be able to nail it because now I have to have Arturia V9.
Curious though now that you've had some time with the new stuff, do you still lean towards the UHE emulations or are you happy with the Arturias?
charlieclouser
Senior Member
I don’t really look at the U-He stuff as emulations. Zebra and Hive are their own thing, and even Diva is flexible and modern enough that you’re never working within the limitations of a vintage design. It’s really only RePro that is anywhere close to a vintage layout, and I never liked the Prophet-5. I did have a Pro-One so I do use RePro for that, and it’s fine. I think in general U-He stuff sounds really really good, but in a modern way, and not vintage at all.
I don't like the moog sound. That's the first time I've said it in public and it feels liberating.
charlieclouser
Senior Member
A buddy parked a Prophet-5 at my place in the eighties, and decades later I had a T-8 on loan (mostly for the poly-AT), but I just never got on with the sound, and they never made it onto any records that I did. I always associate the Prophet-5 with Bernie Worrell's work with Talking Heads. Cool, but not my thing. Sooooo many sync patches! When I had them in the room there was a narrow / thin / plastic / non-juicy aspect to the sound that rubbed me the wrong way, while the MKS-80 and Oberheims had more of what I liked. I had the same reaction when the Prophet-6 and OB-6 came out. The Prophet-6 gave me no chub. The OB-6, on the other hand, had that "spitty" quality to the oscillators and the nasty filters that I liked from days gone by. Glad I didn't bother to get one though, since the OB-x8 is coming. Might give that a try.
charlieclouser
Senior Member
We're here for you man! This is a support group, like Synthesizers Anonymous™. Tell your truth, be free!
Seriously though, I only use Moog stuff for low-range sounds, only the MiniMoog, and fairly rarely at that. Kind of a one-trick pony, but it is a good trick when and if you need it. I guess if I needed a slippery G-Funk "worm" solo, I'd use the Mini, but that's not likely to happen!
tressie5
The Quest for Balance
I wonder if Arturia, after releasing Korg's MS-20, will work on a DW8000? Like @charlieclouser and his experience with Prophet 5, I wasn't too enamored with my DW8000. I'd bought it, I believe, in 1987. I was actually more interested in getting a DX7, but since the Korg was cheaper...
Anyway, I thought the DW8000 was thin-sounding, the lack of reverb annoying, all the patches were too similar-sounding, and since I was new to programming, couldn't find a way to truncate the release. I mention this because now the DW8000 is considered a classic with emulations all over the place. I'd get it again if Arturia, or Korg, VST3'd it, but whoever does, I hope they make it thicker-sounding and full of additional niceties.
Anyway, I thought the DW8000 was thin-sounding, the lack of reverb annoying, all the patches were too similar-sounding, and since I was new to programming, couldn't find a way to truncate the release. I mention this because now the DW8000 is considered a classic with emulations all over the place. I'd get it again if Arturia, or Korg, VST3'd it, but whoever does, I hope they make it thicker-sounding and full of additional niceties.
This post has 3D weight and depth, must be the original post & not an emulation.The similar thread where I posted the A-B-A-B audio tests over on GearSpace is hilarious - only two people dared to pick A or B, and only one of them got it right. But the arguing and claiming that "hardware just has more weight and depth" and "All A-B tests are bullshit" by posters who didn't even dare to commit to a pick is running to three pages of posts. And I posted uncompressed WAV files so nobody could say, "mp3 files are garbage, you should have posted WAVs".
There were similar results over there to my posting A-B comparisons of my hardware Neve 1084 vs UAD vs Logic Vintage Console EQ, and my hardware Distressors vs UAD vs Arouser. Plenty of claiming and arguing, precious few actual picks.
tressie5
The Quest for Balance
I'm quite sure if I played some wave VSTi Moog or ARP patches to a "hardware-only, software is garbage" guy but told him they're from an actual Moog or ARP, he'd say they sound nice. Then, when I reveal the source, he'd say something like, "I had a head cold that day and my hearing was off" or "I knew they were fake but I just wanted you to feel good about them."
"I like playing/patching it live more" or "the physical object feels inspiring" or "I've been using this hardware so long that it's just easier for me to use" are real reasons for using hardware, and I don't know why people don't just say that instead of focusing on the sound element which becomes less relevant by the day. It's not even farfetched for someone to use both the hardware and software of the same synth/compressor/whatever, depending on what their project allows/demands or how they're feeling on a given day.
charlieclouser
Senior Member
Yup. The "sunk cost fallacy" is in full effect over on the GearSpace thread. So much time and money invested to support the belief that "hardware is king on the basis of sound alone". Presented with evidence that this might not be the case, some will defend their position beyond all reason, even skipping past the actual audio A-B tests and claiming "those tests are always flawed" or some such. I always elaborate on how the workflow and ergonomics are very different, to give them an opportunity to hang their hat on that excuse, but it never seems to help. It's always, "software can never sound as good as hardware" no matter the evidence. Oh well.
EvilDragon
KSP Wizard
Then it wouldn't sound like a DW8000.
Anyways DW8000 sounds great and not thin at all... One of the best filters out there.
They don't need to make it thicker-sounding. They need to make it correct-sounding.
BTW there's also an inspired-by plugin by Full Bucket. It's in the ballpark, the filter is not the same, but it does evoke similar emotions.
Last edited:
KerrySmith
Active Member
I've felt the same way. As a (heavy) guitar player originally, I'm always drawn first to other sounds that can channel that same sort of immediacy, impact, heft, bite and rudeness, and frequency profile as a thick distorted guitar. The Prophet-5 always seemed to "polite" - like it always works "around" the other things in an arrangement, but couldn't manage the weight of being in front. and Moogs - I eventually learned to appreciate the usefulness of the sub stuff - as a felt-not-heard layer, and the throwback appeal of Dre lead sounds, but they also lack that midrange grunt and rudeness. Oberheims usually did the trick, a lot of Waldorfs, too, and I've always loved the MS-20 (and really the Arturia one now) for that snarl. The first Nords and Viruses had that kind of thing in the mids, although they usually did lack in incorporating the real lows into those kind of sounds.
