# Modular Vs. Emulation



## José Herring (May 17, 2022)

Hello,
So I wanted to do an informal little survey. I wanted to know if you could tell which one of these is analog modular (real) vs. 4 other emulations.
Simple little bass phrase using one osc saw wave and some pretty aggressive filtering. I just made each one kind of sound as good as it could as its own.
Only a little bit of chorus, some EQ and compression applied universally. Level matched to about -.1 db difference. That's as close as I could get it.
One continuous file with about 1 bar between each example.


----------



## José Herring (May 17, 2022)

Hold on Audio File got ef' up some how. REdoing it.

edit: File fixed.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (May 17, 2022)

Doesn't it only matter which one you'd choose for the music you're working on? Regardless of the source, wouldn't you just pick the best one for what you want it to sound like?

I have no idea which is software and which is hardware (which is why I use both - selecting one or the other based on sound as well as my experience using the instrument).

For answers, ideally you'd also include: None, All, and Don't Know. Ideally there'd be a clear way to label the audio samples, or have difference files, each numbered to correspond with the choice. You'd also want to assign a number to each file behind the scenes and use random.org to generate an integer set, assigning a random number to each one, then ordering and presenting the options using those numbers instead of the ones you assigned.

Could also change the survey question to be something like: "Select the audio sample below that sounds most like a hardware analog synthesizer to you." Or, if you want to get even more interesting, have a 5-point or 7-point scale for each in a matrix and ask people to assign a rating to each one on a scale based on how much it sounds like hardware analog. Etc.

This will still give you qualitative data (unless you get at least 450 or so responses, roughly speaking) and not something that can be generalized outside of this very specific example/survey.


----------



## José Herring (May 17, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Doesn't it only matter which one you'd choose for the music you're working on? Regardless of the source, wouldn't you just pick the best one for what you want it to sound like?
> 
> I have no idea which is software and which is hardware (which is why I use both - selecting one or the other based on sound as well as my experience using the instrument).


Of course. It's just mainly for me. So I can sleep at night. 
Would you consider taking a guess at it? I'm not judging. I just want to view other's perceptions. I do the same for sample libraries and it has always been very helpful.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (May 17, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Of course. It's just mainly for me. So I can sleep at night.
> Would you consider taking a guess at it? I'm not judging. I just want to view other's perceptions. I do the same for sample libraries and it has always been very helpful.


Not knowing what it's supposed to sound like, it seemed like 4 or 5, followed by 1. I tossed a coin and it came down for #4 even though it had the least bass. Whatever synth it is is good.

Sleep soundly, regardless of the answers!


----------



## Pier (May 17, 2022)

You should add another option in the poll "I have no idea" 😂

I also voted for 4. Seems a bit more "creamy" compared to the rest? Also the envelopes seemed less abrupt which maybe gives it away as analog? I don't know.

They sound different of course, but nothing that screams analog hardware to me (or rather software).


----------



## José Herring (May 17, 2022)

In an ironic twist of fate in order for me to view the results so far, I have to cast my vote. Seems counter to my purposes.


----------



## method1 (May 17, 2022)

José Herring said:


> In an ironic twist of fate in order for me to view the results so far, I have to cast my vote. Seems counter to my purposes.


there goes my anon. vote.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (May 17, 2022)

José Herring said:


> In an ironic twist of fate in order for me to view the results so far, I have to cast my vote. Seems counter to my purposes.


----------



## timprebble (May 17, 2022)

José Herring said:


> That's as close as I could get it.


No it isn't.
You need to set the same filter cutoff freq & resonance for each.
You don't need to see a spectrum to hear the difference in filter between phrases, but I dumped the file into RX and look at the variation in cutoff...


----------



## LA68 (May 17, 2022)

I'm thinking 4, has a bit of a hiss in the background that the others don't, at least to my ears. That being said, I'm pretty much always wrong when it comes to this. 😂


----------



## José Herring (May 17, 2022)

timprebble said:


> No it isn't.
> You need to set the same filter cutoff freq & resonance for each.
> You don't need to see a spectrum to hear the difference in filter between phrases, but I dumped the file into RX and look at the variation in cutoff...


Impossible to do considering that each filter cuttoff and envelope reacted differently. Even the modular envelop that I have a exact duplicate of in software form, behaved differently. So I just made each one as good as it could get.


----------



## timprebble (May 17, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Impossible to do considering that each filter cuttoff and envelope reacted differently. Even the modular envelop that I have a exact duplicate of in software form, behaved differently. So I just made each one as good as it could get.


Impossible is a big word. Every envelope and every filter behaves differently, this is not news. But achieving some consistency is not impossible at all. You could easily apply a LPF separately to each, so that when they are A/B'd they at least sound similar.

In this context what exactly does 'good' mean?


----------



## Pier (May 17, 2022)

I have to agree with Tim that the filters and envelopes could have been closer.

OTOH I'm not sure it would have been super relevant for this test. I think the idea basically is "can you spot the analog synth?" so that José can feel ok about selling his analog modular


----------



## José Herring (May 17, 2022)

Pier said:


> I have to agree with Tim that the filters and envelopes could have been closer.
> 
> OTOH I'm not sure it would have been super relevant for this test. I think the idea basically is "can you spot the analog synth?" so that José can feel ok about selling his analog modular


I really had no concern for making them sound closer. I just wanted to make each one sound as good as it can so made each on sound unique. Wasn't my purpose to get them closer. But to just level match them using the meters.
It was so that José could decide if he was going to continue building a modular system or just stick with software. In working with the modular though, I realized that I missed it and that I needed to continue my dream which was to build a real world Reason Thor. I'm about 1/2 way there. I should continue.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (May 17, 2022)

José Herring said:


> I really had no concern for making them sound closer. I just wanted to make each one sound as good as it can so made each on sound unique. Wasn't my purpose to get them closer. But to just level match them using the meters.
> It was so that José could decide if he was going to continue building a modular system or just stick with software. In working with the modular though, I realized that I missed it and that I needed to continue my dream which was to build a reworld Reason Thor. I'm about 1/2 way there. I should continue.


So, then, what was the answer? 😃


----------



## tressie5 (May 17, 2022)

I just came off the Reason site. Thor is exactly the kind of synth I like - different types of oscillators, full matrix, and killer/full-featured arpeggiator. I want a VSTi version! Waaaaahhhhhh!!!


----------



## José Herring (May 17, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> So, then, what was the answer? 😃


The answer was 4. 

But the real answer was Software vs. Hardware it doesn't matter. Pier also liked #5 which actually got one vote besides my false vote done so I can see the results. Number 5 is Subtractor, which is a killer ripping aging soft synth that I've hardly ever used but have had since Reason 2.5. So somewhere in the last 20 years I figured out how to use it quite well really. It has a ripping harsh high end snap that cuts like a hot knife, loads of bass, snappy ass filters. Tons of wave forms options, and FM option, DAMN synth is Killer. It's like a dream synth really. So it's now part of my arsenal. 
One person picked number 3 which is cool. That was memorymode by Cherry audio which actually has a great sound.

The synths used were:

1) DCO-106 from Cherry Audio
2) Softtube Modular 
3) Memorymode by Cherry Audio
4) Real Modular using Tip Top Osc, Ripples filter by inteligel and Doepfer ADSR
5) Subtractor by the company formerly know as Propellerheads (Reason)


----------



## José Herring (May 17, 2022)

tressie5 said:


> I just came off the Reason site. Thor is exactly the kind of synth I like - different types of oscillators, full matrix, and killer/full-featured arpeggiator. I want a VSTi version! Waaaaahhhhhh!!!


There use to be an Ipad Version of it. Can be had for cheap if it's still around. Also, it comes standard with Reason Lite which goes on sale for peanuts from time to time. Reason lite comes with Reason Rack Ext which can be used to host Reason instruments in a DAW that has VST3.


----------



## mscp (May 17, 2022)

José Herring said:


> The answer was 4.
> 
> But the real answer was Software vs. Hardware it doesn't matter. Pier also liked #5 which actually got one vote besides my false vote done so I can see the results. Number 5 is Subtractor, which is a killer ripping aging soft synth that I've hardly ever used but have had since Reason 2.5. So somewhere in the last 20 years I figured out how to use it quite well really. It has a ripping harsh high end snap that cuts like a hot knife, loads of bass, snappy ass filters. Tons of wave forms options, and FM option, DAMN synth is Killer. It's like a dream synth really. So it's now part of my arsenal.
> One person picked number 3 which is cool. That was memorymode by Cherry audio which actually has a great sound.
> ...


I was just about to answer it, but it doesn't matter now.
What is strange about all 5 samples is that all of them have different parameters set for sure. I'd have loved to hear just the pure tone of the oscillator (not a mix of oscs either) without passing through anything, and EG completely off.
The reason why 4 sounds like real modular is simply because the noise smears the audio a bit...that's why it creates that "creamy" illusion. One of the reasons why many people call it "warm". haha.
#5 sounds disgusting. It sounds like Subtractor never had a decent update since I last used it in early 2000s. Geez..


----------



## José Herring (May 17, 2022)

mscp said:


> I was just about to answer it, but it doesn't matter now.
> What is strange about all 5 samples is that all of them have different parameters set for sure. I'd have loved to hear just the pure tone of the oscillator (not a mix of oscs either) without passing through anything, and EG completely off.
> #5 sounds disgusting. It sounds like Subtractor never had a decent update since I last used it in early 2000s. Geez..


Ha. I actually love it the way it is. 
They have updated it though. Reason updates by creating new synths with greater capabilities. They just leave their older stuff in the package.

Curious. What was your vote going to be?


----------



## mscp (May 17, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Ha. I actually love it the way it is.
> They have updated it though. Reason updates by creating new synths with greater capabilities. They just leave their older stuff in the package.
> 
> Curious. What was your vote going to be?


4 for hardware, 1-3 software, 5 --- a broken toy. lol.
Now..is this lead software or hardware? 
And to add to the challenge...is it cheap or expensive?


----------



## José Herring (May 17, 2022)

mscp said:


> 4 for hardware, 1-3 software, 5 --- a broken toy. lol.
> Now..is this lead software or hardware?
> And to add to the challenge...is it cheap or expensive?



I'm probably totally off but it starts off really, really good then as the filter opens up and hit gets louder, totally sounds like an 80's digital synth. But, I like that. Not sure I'd have the guts to use it though.

So, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's software.

What is it?

edit: I just thought also the high end could be due to Youtube artifacts.


----------



## mscp (May 17, 2022)

José Herring said:


> I'm probably totally off but it starts off really, really good then as the filter opens up and hit gets louder, totally sounds like an 80's digital synth. But, I like that. Not sure I'd have the guts to use it though.
> 
> So, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's software.
> 
> ...


Korg PE 1000, Fender Chroma, and some eurorack modules.


----------



## José Herring (May 17, 2022)

mscp said:


> Korg PE 1000, Fender Chroma, and some eurorack modules.


Yeah that's funny. I remember hearding a bunch of old analog synths once and heard the same thing, that high phasing and chorusing when the filter opens. Digital software synths fought that trend and now have a really clean high end. Only the cheaper ones still have that funny chorusing effect. So in a sense, some of the digital synths sound better than their analog counterparts.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (May 17, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Yeah that's funny. I remember hearing a bunch of old analog synths once and heard the same thing, that high phasing and chorusing when the filter opens. Digital software synths fought that trend and now have a really clean high end. Only the cheaper ones still have that funny chorusing effect. So in a sense, some of the digital synths sound better than their analog counterparts.


I don't hear anything that sounds particularly digital to me. 🤷‍♂️ Interesting....


----------



## liquidlino (May 17, 2022)

José Herring said:


> The answer was 4.
> 
> But the real answer was Software vs. Hardware it doesn't matter. Pier also liked #5 which actually got one vote besides my false vote done so I can see the results. Number 5 is Subtractor, which is a killer ripping aging soft synth that I've hardly ever used but have had since Reason 2.5. So somewhere in the last 20 years I figured out how to use it quite well really. It has a ripping harsh high end snap that cuts like a hot knife, loads of bass, snappy ass filters. Tons of wave forms options, and FM option, DAMN synth is Killer. It's like a dream synth really. So it's now part of my arsenal.
> One person picked number 3 which is cool. That was memorymode by Cherry audio which actually has a great sound.
> ...


I was the one that chose number 3... it just had that muffled sort of sound that I associate with real hardware, reminded me of my neutron that I recently sold, where you can't (easily) take the distortion module out of the signal path (requires a few patch cables). DCO-106 is fantastic, really like using it, so easy to program - and does really good bass sounds.


----------



## José Herring (May 18, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> I don't hear anything that sounds particularly digital to me. 🤷‍♂️ Interesting....


Listen to the high end around 11-16khz. But, like I said, that could just be the Youtube audio codec doing it's terrible thing to music.


----------



## timbit2006 (May 18, 2022)

José Herring said:


> The answer was 4.
> 
> But the real answer was Software vs. Hardware it doesn't matter. Pier also liked #5 which actually got one vote besides my false vote done so I can see the results. Number 5 is Subtractor, which is a killer ripping aging soft synth that I've hardly ever used but have had since Reason 2.5. So somewhere in the last 20 years I figured out how to use it quite well really. It has a ripping harsh high end snap that cuts like a hot knife, loads of bass, snappy ass filters. Tons of wave forms options, and FM option, DAMN synth is Killer. It's like a dream synth really. So it's now part of my arsenal.
> One person picked number 3 which is cool. That was memorymode by Cherry audio which actually has a great sound.
> ...


I did 5 because it was different and I was thinking in a contrarian type of way. 4 would have been my next guess so I guess I'm slightly happy with myself right now.


----------



## CATDAD (May 18, 2022)

José Herring said:


> It was so that José could decide if he was going to continue building a modular system or just stick with software. In working with the modular though, I realized that I missed it and that I needed to continue my dream which was to build a reworld Reason Thor. I'm about 1/2 way there. I should continue.


I really love the idea that you may have answered your own question because of the fact you made the poll but not actually because of the results, but rather the process reminding you why the hardware has value in your life.

Because it’s fucking cool, that’s why!


----------



## tressie5 (May 18, 2022)

@José Herring - Yay! Success! Mankind is redeemed - till I get shot to death shopping for Cheerios. But I digress. As it turns out, the free Odin II is a Thor derivative. Of course, to up the ante, their three oscillator slots have more than six types of synthesis to choose from. Their oscillator has steps that can be turned off, a feature I like in Diversion, Proclethya, Thorn, etc. There's a full-featured matrix and they even have route lines drawn into Odin II like Thor. And, to top it off, they even had the cajones to name their synth after Thor's old man. The nerve! Their reverb, however, leaves a lot to be desired, though. Too springy for my taste. Still, now that I think about it, I'm surprised Reason hasn't dragged them over the coals for copyright infringement. Maybe that's coming?


----------



## José Herring (May 18, 2022)

tressie5 said:


> @José Herring - Yay! Success! Mankind is redeemed - till I get shot to death shopping for Cheerios. But I digress. As it turns out, the free Odin II is a Thor derivative. Of course, to up the ante, their three oscillator slots have more than six types of synthesis to choose from. Their oscillator has steps that can be turned off, a feature I like in Diversion, Proclethya, Thorn, etc. There's a full-featured matrix and they even have route lines drawn into Odin II like Thor. And, to top it off, they even had the cajones to name their synth after Thor's old man. The nerve! Their reverb, however, leaves a lot to be desired, though. Too springy for my taste. Still, now that I think about it, I'm surprised Reason hasn't dragged them over the coals for copyright infringement. Maybe that's coming?


I had completely forgotten about OdinII. It does seem like Thor grew up and added drawable wave forms.


----------



## flampton (May 18, 2022)

José Herring said:


> I really had no concern for making them sound closer. I just wanted to make each one sound as good as it can so made each on sound unique. Wasn't my purpose to get them closer. But to just level match them using the meters.
> It was so that José could decide if he was going to continue building a modular system or just stick with software. In working with the modular though, I realized that I missed it and that I needed to continue my dream which was to build a real world Reason Thor. I'm about 1/2 way there. I should continue.


Interesting that you want to build a real world Thor but didn’t include Thor in the experiment. Was there a Reason for this?


----------



## mscp (May 18, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Yeah that's funny. I remember hearding a bunch of old analog synths once and heard the same thing, that high phasing and chorusing when the filter opens. Digital software synths fought that trend and now have a really clean high end. Only the cheaper ones still have that funny chorusing effect. So in a sense, some of the digital synths sound better than their analog counterparts.



Chorusing and phasing are not abnormalities. They sound amazing in certain applications, including frequency movement. I think what you meant to say is that, back then, the oscillators (in analog gear) were not as stable as modern hardware synths because tuning in some of them were not 100% stable. They only became stable with the introduction of DCOs.

Software don't do that. It's a bunch of 1s and 0s. What they had before was aliasing due to "subpar" sampling, otherwise CPUs would have not been able to compute those things in realtime without issues. As the hardware became more powerful, developers had more leeway to write "cleaner" instruments.

Now what differentiates hardware and software is the gear involved, and how they behave when reproducing and processing sounds through their signal chain. Software is just a bunch of 0s and 1s. Just code. No component involved...hence the 100% cleanliness that you'd expect from it. Hardware can also sound extremely clean if premium components are used in it, but it's not always ideal (nor musical) depending on the application.

[EDIT] Music can be written and recorded in a variety of ways, but what I see these days is people stressing over and/or trying to justify not buying hardware, whether it is an Eventide H9000, a Chandler Germanium compressor, in favour of UAD, Fabfilter,... because they can "get away" with software. Yes. Software has a lot of goodies, and I mix in the box for the most part as well, especially when traveling, but hardware has, a lot of times, sonic qualities that unfortunately any good producer would have to painstakingly engineer to get to passable results. It's a gamble.


----------



## Paul_xyz (May 18, 2022)

Sampled analog is just 1's and 0's and yet it reproduces the exact sound of the analog - so 1's and 0's aren't the limiting factor. 

Software synths can be programmed to bring in the same non-linearities to the signal chain in the digital realm. There's no ultimate barrier for why the the 1's and 0's coming out of the digital synth can't be the same as the 1's and 0's coming from sampling an analog synth - it just comes down to the programming.


----------



## mscp (May 18, 2022)

Paul_xyz said:


> Sampled analog is just 1's and 0's and yet it reproduces the exact sound of the analog - so 1's and 0's aren't the limiting factor.
> 
> Software synths can be programmed to bring in the same non-linearities to the signal chain in the digital realm. There's no ultimate barrier for why the the 1's and 0's coming out of the digital synth can't be the same as the 1's and 0's coming from sampling an analog synth - it just comes down to the programming.


If you wish, read my previous posts...I briefly explained the simple differences over there. Unfortunately, I have to stop writing for this thread because it's been a little more time consuming than I expected. 

One of my favourite required books I had to read in my undergrad studies was: Digital Audio Explained (or something like that) by Aldrich. There's a postgrad book that I also highly recommend about DSP but I can't remember the name off top my head. I'll have to go back home, find it, and post it here later on (if anyone is interested, and if I remember to come back here. )

All in all: just keep making music, whether with software, hardware, mom's baking spatula, .... if it's good, people will boogie.


----------



## Pier (May 18, 2022)

mscp said:


> Software don't do that. It's a bunch of 1s and 0s. What they had before was aliasing due to "subpar" sampling, otherwise CPUs would have not been able to compute those things in realtime without issues. As the hardware became more powerful, developers had more leeway to write "cleaner" instruments.
> 
> Now what differentiates hardware and software is the gear involved, and how they behave when reproducing and processing sounds through their signal chain. Software is just a bunch of 0s and 1s. Just code. No component involved...hence the 100% cleanliness that you'd expect from it. Hardware can also sound extremely clean if premium components are used in it, but it's not always ideal depending on the application.


It's true in software you have to be deliberate to introduce any behavior. You can generate an ideal sine tone with a simple sin() math function (ignoring DA converters for a minute here). If you want anything extra (pitch drifting, non linearities, etc) it has to be added.

It's also true emulation is a computationally expensive process. But these days people can easily run multiple instances of Diva at divine quality on a laptop which was almost unthinkable 10 years ago. Heck, with an M1 MBP you can run dozens of Diva instances.

But you're fundamentally wrong in assuming electronic components have any sort of magic unicorn poop that cannot be replicated in digital.

The simple truth is that in the past 20 years emulation techniques have been improving to the point that software has already made analog obsolete in many use cases.

Maybe you missed the recent video with Tom Oberheim about the recent GForce emulation.




And I'm not talking just about synths here. Top mixers such as Andrew Scheps abandoned their Neve consoles, Studer tape recorders, analog gear, etc, years ago to work 100% ITB.

I do agree there are still some cases where software is still not there. But just look at the trend of the past 20 years. It will get there, eventually. It's inevitable.

Finally, respectfully, all this you repeat that "software is just a bunch of ones and zeroes" is a pretty ignorant take on how software works. It's as if someone said "electronic components are just a bunch of atoms". It really doesn't mean anything.


----------



## mscp (May 18, 2022)

Pier said:


> Finally, respectfully, all this you repeat that "software is just a bunch of ones and zeroes" is a pretty ignorant take on how software works. It's as if someone said "electronic components are just a bunch of atoms". It really doesn't mean anything.


I've never said that without deeper connotation. You're misinterpreting my points. I do believe that you either do not understand my earlier points, or maybe I'm not being as clear as you wish ... I'm typing these posts rather too fast. I 'dunno'.

If you want to validade an opinion based on famous engineers who got rid of pieces of gear for their own reasons...fine. In contrast, ask, I don't know...Abbey Road to get rid of all their stuff, and record with PT HDX. I wouldn't have the patience to maintain a NEVE in my studio, because I used to maintain one in a studio before, and it was mega annoying. I still love the sound of it and no...software isn't there (and won't be for that particular 88rs one).

I've been an engineer for 25 years (and counting). I also had the pleasure to meet Tom in person. Very nice, calm, and composed person. We've chatted about circuitry a few years ago for almost an hour.

Either way, just be happy with what you've got, and make good music. 

I'm going to unwatch this thread. I apologise in advance if I don't reply anymore.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (May 18, 2022)

Pier said:


> It's true in software you have to be deliberate to introduce any behavior. You can generate an ideal sine tone with a simple sin() math function (ignoring DA converters for a minute here). If you want anything extra (pitch drifting, non linearities, etc) it has to be added.
> 
> It's also true emulation is a computationally expensive process. But these days people can easily run multiple instances of Diva at divine quality on a laptop which was almost unthinkable 10 years ago. Heck, with an M1 MBP you can run dozens of Diva instances.
> 
> ...



I think software emulating hardware synths are just getting "there" - with the simplest and oldest, like the Model D and Juno 106 (looking at Softube). Still a long way to go, I think, for newer and more complex synths. But I also agree 100%: it will get there, and it's more a matter of coding something commercially and technically feasible than whether it can be done or not. All the analog behaviors COULD be modeled and coded, but that's still pretty expensive in every sense - even if it's mostly time that's the cost at this point. It is.... inevitable.

Electricity, circuits, and chips are not magic, though the proper combinations in the hands of talented people can lead to almost magical results.

That said, for most people, even older softsynths like Diva are good enough, and certainly good enough to be in a busy mix (I have no issue using current software synths alongside hardware, or just all software) - though analog hardware may still lead to better results in sparse or solo instances, depending on what the musician is going for.


----------



## Voider (May 18, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> I think software emulating hardware synths are just getting "there" - with the simplest and oldest, like the Model D and Juno 106 (looking at Softube). Still a long way to go


I'll just drop this here, without the intent of making any _absolute_ statement. This is just a great example for a great analog modulation where even I have a hard time hearing any differences that could *clearly* be classified to either fall into the hardware or digital domain (In fact I don't hear any).





vitocorleone123 said:


> All the analog behaviors COULD be modeled and coded, but that's still pretty expensive in every sense - even if it's mostly time that's the cost at this point.


Actually - to bring in another perspective -, most of these things don't even necessarily need to be programmed in by the manufacturer itself. If you for instance want to have some of the quirks of snappy, inconsistent envelopes and subtle filter deviations that usually come with hardware, you could absolutely simulate that by utilizing randomizers in the right way.

It's the same principle when creating plucked patches: With the clever use of randomizers one is able to create a more natural feeling, basically the same thing that VST manufacturers try to achieve with round robins to avoid the machine gun effect. So while we connect these little variations in _intensity, attack transient, frequencies filtered, time of resonance,_ and so on with realism (because that's how strings physically behave if we pluck them in the real world), we do connect these little variations that come with hardware as well with _the real thing, _because that's how we know hardware.

But if we don't think of it as _better_, just as _different_, then it's questionable whether softsynths even need to be programmed to sound exactly like hardware synths. Having very stable oscillators, filters and clean envelopes is also a great thing and can enhance the music depending on the genre and goal. And an oscillator that doesn't try to dominate the whole mix (_by being lighter_) is also not necessarily a bad thing. Variations and _realism_ are easily added by experienced patch designers, but you can't take it away if it's baked in.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (May 18, 2022)

Voider said:


> I'll just drop this here, without the intent of making any _absolute_ statement. This is just a great example for a great analog modulation where even I have a hard time hearing any differences that could *clearly* be classified to either fall into the hardware or digital domain (In fact I don't hear any).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All true and works for me. But there are still many... purists... that unless it is 100%, then software will "never be as good as hardware".

Personally, I don't necessarily think of either software or hardware as being better or worse than the other - just different, as you said.

I bet the NI Pro53 vs. Repro5 would be interesting to hear as an example of technology moving forward (presumably) and capturing more of that randomness. I haven't heard Pro53 for many years. But I've no doubt there's a lot more interplay and randomness that could be factored in.


----------



## José Herring (May 18, 2022)

flampton said:


> Interesting that you want to build a real world Thor but didn’t include Thor in the experiment. Was there a Reason for this?


Not really. I just randomly chose synths that were Analog emulations and didn't really think of Thor.


----------



## Pier (May 18, 2022)

Voider said:


> I'll just drop this here, without the intent of making any _absolute_ statement. This is just a great example for a great analog modulation where even I have a hard time hearing any differences that could *clearly* be classified to either fall into the hardware or digital domain (In fact I don't hear any).


There's been a lot of effort put into modeling the oscillators and filters of the Minimoog but the feedback circuit has not yet been modeled properly which I think is the last remaining piece.

See the feedback / overdrive section of this video (around 25:30) comparing The Legend and The Softube emulation with the real thing:




@u-he mentioned somewhere he was working on modeling a Minimoog although I don't know if this will ever become a commercial product.


----------



## José Herring (May 18, 2022)

Pier said:


> There's been a lot of effort put into modeling the oscillators and filters of the Minimoog but the feedback circuit has not yet been modeled properly which I think is the last remaining piece.
> 
> See the feedback / overdrive section of this video (around 25:30) comparing The Legend and The Softube emulation with the real thing:
> 
> ...



Wow. That software overdrive is painful.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (May 18, 2022)

Wow. That software overdrive is painful.

Analog resonance and distortion are challenging! The Softube Model 72 is, to me, the best software version so far. But all software synths emulating analog fall down on resonance and distortion to varying degrees.

The Model 72 overdrive is good for distorted bass kicks. Otherwise I sometimes add maybe <5% to any sound because it’s so overpowering.


----------



## Pier (May 18, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Wow. That software overdrive is painful.


Yep.

Have you tried the drive of the LP Vintage2 filter on Zebra? I love it.


----------



## Voider (May 18, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> But all software synths emulating analog fall down on resonance and distortion to varying degrees.


I love the distortion and resonance Dune 2 provides, I've started this track with building the bass (coming in at 0:18), with a clear vision in mind: Heavily distorted, gritty, dark and very low. I've used Dune's acid filter with higher resonance and a powerful distortion from the SFX module as the foundation. I couldn't have been happier with the result:


----------



## SupremeFist (May 18, 2022)

José Herring said:


> The answer was 4.
> 
> But the real answer was Software vs. Hardware it doesn't matter. Pier also liked #5 which actually got one vote besides my false vote done so I can see the results. Number 5 is Subtractor, which is a killer ripping aging soft synth that I've hardly ever used but have had since Reason 2.5. So somewhere in the last 20 years I figured out how to use it quite well really. It has a ripping harsh high end snap that cuts like a hot knife, loads of bass, snappy ass filters. Tons of wave forms options, and FM option, DAMN synth is Killer. It's like a dream synth really. So it's now part of my arsenal.
> One person picked number 3 which is cool. That was memorymode by Cherry audio which actually has a great sound.
> ...


Before reading this I decided that #3 was my favourite sound, which is cool as I have Memorymoog but haven't used it properly yet!

I cast my actual vote for the "real analogue synth" for number 5 in case that horrible farty mess was supposed to be a clever misdirection.


----------



## Pier (May 18, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> I cast my actual vote for the "real analogue synth" for number 5 in case that horrible farty mess was supposed to be a clever misdirection.


I was going to do that too 😂

But then I thought José wouldn't be bamboozling us like this. Right?


----------



## José Herring (May 18, 2022)

No Bamboozling in this thread. just an honest assessment. 
Personally I found the modular a lot more fun to work with and the results were more musical. I could tell that it wasn't just 1's and 0's. My modular midi interface also has a slur function which was kind of cool. I ended up messing with the patch for hours afterwards, turning knobs, manual filter sweeping, ect...


----------



## José Herring (May 18, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> I cast my actual vote for the "real analogue synth" for number 5 in case that horrible farty mess was supposed to be a clever misdirection.


Oh man, I loved that farty mess. They say love is blind though and I've always loved Reason synths.


----------



## José Herring (May 18, 2022)

Pier said:


> Yep.
> 
> Have you tried the drive of the LP Vintage2 filter on Zebra? I love it.


I'll give it a try. The one on the original minimoog is really special.


----------



## KEM (May 18, 2022)

tressie5 said:


> @José Herring - Yay! Success! Mankind is redeemed - till I get shot to death shopping for Cheerios. But I digress. As it turns out, the free Odin II is a Thor derivative. Of course, to up the ante, their three oscillator slots have more than six types of synthesis to choose from. Their oscillator has steps that can be turned off, a feature I like in Diversion, Proclethya, Thorn, etc. There's a full-featured matrix and they even have route lines drawn into Odin II like Thor. And, to top it off, they even had the cajones to name their synth after Thor's old man. The nerve! Their reverb, however, leaves a lot to be desired, though. Too springy for my taste. Still, now that I think about it, I'm surprised Reason hasn't dragged them over the coals for copyright infringement. Maybe that's coming?



There’s a synth called Odin 2? Instant download, I want every Norse named synth!


----------



## outland (May 18, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Electricity, circuits, and chips are not magic, though the proper combinations in the hands of talented people can lead to almost magical results.
> 
> That said, for most people, even older softsynths like Diva are good enough, and certainly good enough to be in a busy mix (I have no issue using current software synths alongside hardware, or just all software) - though analog hardware may still lead to better results in sparse or solo instances, depending on what the musician is going for.


Exactly; we seem to be getting to a place where there are "classic" plug-in synths. Case in point: how long has *Future Music* had Omnisphere on their Gear Guide plug-in list? And it deserves to be there as it still sounds amazing. It is truly ancient, however, first showing up as Atmosphere (2002) and upgrading into Omnisphere in 2008 and finally turning into its present form in, I think, 2015. Zebra would have to be another contender, as would Diva in all likelihood.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (May 18, 2022)

Voider said:


> I love the distortion and resonance Dune 2 provides, I've started this track with building the bass (coming in at 0:18), with a clear vision in mind: Heavily distorted, gritty, dark and very low. I've used Dune's acid filter with higher resonance and a powerful distortion from the SFX module as the foundation. I couldn't have been happier with the result:



Synapse Audio is above average, for sure, but they still fall apart (less convincing, less powerful, more artificial, and more aliasing etc.) sooner than some hardware analog synths. It's all relative. All I'm saying is that, in general, those 2 items are still key differentiators between software emulating hardware analogs and high quality hardware analogs. How much they differ, and whether that amount they differ matters, etc. are more subjective.

Nice track, by the way


----------



## tressie5 (May 18, 2022)

@Voider - Nice track. Real crunchy and thick.


----------

