# Softube : Model 82 Sequencing Mono Synth



## muziksculp (Jun 8, 2022)

*Softube* : *Model 82 Sequencing Mono Synth

https://www.softube.com/products/model-82-sequencing-mono-synth 










*


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 8, 2022)

I think it’s equal to TAL 101. I think it sounds better pure (it's more... bouncy, but also a little more driven, even with overdrive off?), but TAL has additional, and very useful features. And a better, easier to use UI.

I wouldn’t pay $99 for Model 82. $59 seems like it should be the regular price, and it’s worth all of that. So far.

I also have 72 and 84. It’s likely I’ll pick this one up, even though I have TAL 101.

EDIT: So, yeah, I bought it. If, when reaching for a 101 bassline, I always use Softube, I'll eventually sell the TAL 101, despite the useful features - I'm sticking with sound over features.


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 8, 2022)




----------



## sean8877 (Jun 9, 2022)

I really don't like that Softube are releasing this (and Model 72) as mono only. I'm going to pass unfortunately as it sounds good but limiting in my use case. I don't need a painfully exact replica of the original functionality to the point that it ignores something as basic as polyphony. I have Lush 101 which is polyphonic and use it for pads, chording, etc. I know you can use multiple instances for poly but what a PIA for functionality they could have easily added. They could at least offer the option to turn on poly and leave it off as the default for the purists. I'm sure most other's will disagree but just my 2c.


----------



## Justin L. Franks (Jun 9, 2022)

sean8877 said:


> I really don't like that Softube are releasing this (and Model 72) as mono only. I'm going to pass unfortunately as it sounds good but limiting in my use case. I don't need a painfully exact replica of the original functionality to the point that it ignores something as basic as polyphony. I have Lush 101 which is polyphonic and use it for pads, chording, etc. I know you can use multiple instances for poly but what a PIA for functionality they could have easily added. They could at least offer the option to turn on poly and leave it off as the default for the purists. I'm sure most other's will disagree but just my 2c.


Agreed. For a modern soft synth to not have a poly mode is ridiculous, even if it is an emulation of an old monosynth.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 9, 2022)

sean8877 said:


> I really don't like that Softube are releasing this (and Model 72) as mono only. I'm going to pass unfortunately as it sounds good but limiting in my use case. I don't need a painfully exact replica of the original functionality to the point that it ignores something as basic as polyphony. I have Lush 101 which is polyphonic and use it for pads, chording, etc. I know you can use multiple instances for poly but what a PIA for functionality they could have easily added. They could at least offer the option to turn on poly and leave it off as the default for the purists. I'm sure most other's will disagree but just my 2c.


I don't think polyphany is basic. There's excellent reasons for monosynths, even in digital form. In physical hardware, it's especially not trivial, because a synth designer doesn't just want lots of voices, but lots of voices that work together. 

I understand your preference, though.

Mine is opposite: I'd generally prefer to get the best sounding instruments and then work with, or around, any perceived limitations. For example, I believe, if you want polyphany, you can make it happen in Bitwig or using Shoebridge's PolyChain DIY. Or do it the original way of recording one track at a time.

All that said, I wouldn't mind polyphany. But I have no requirement of it in a monosynth.


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 9, 2022)

I think we should also remember that the SH-101 was mainly used for Bases. Which is what made it very popular during the 80's and 90's. It wasn't a synth for making Pads, or brass patches. 

So, developers are trying to stay as close as possible to the way it was designed. But I still feel that having a Poly feature in the VST version would have been a nice bonus. 

I think the TAL version has a polyphonic mode, I'm also curious which one is a better sounding or closer emulation of the SH-101, The TAL or Softube version ?


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 9, 2022)

muziksculp said:


> I think we should also remember that the SH-101 was mainly used for Bases. Which is what made it very popular during the 80's and 90's. It wasn't a synth for making Pads, or brass patches.
> 
> So, developers are trying to stay as close as possible to the way it was designed. But I still feel that having a Poly feature in the VST version would have been a nice bonus.
> 
> I think the TAL version has a polyphonic mode, I'm also curious which one is a better sounding or closer emulation of the SH-101, The TAL or Softube version ?


I don't have the hardware and never have. There's no way to 100% match 40+ year old analog hardware, as every single unit will sound different. They may both fully match the unit(s) they acquired in order to create the plugins.

The TAL version does have a poly mode, but it's a bit limited compared to a real polysynth and I rarely use that feature, preferring to use polysynths designed to be polysynths.

Personally, I believe the new Softube version sounds a bit better, a bit more like hardware sounds/behaves. The TAL synth also sounds good to me, but a little bit lifeless/static in comparison - it sounds more like a softsynth generating sounds. My favorite feature in the TAL is the FM modulation slider, and the UI is easier to read.


----------



## sean8877 (Jun 9, 2022)

I see what you're saying regarding mono but I still think it would be nice as an option to have the polyphony. A lot of times when I use things "not as they are intended" (ex. poly for a mono synth) there are some really interesting results.


----------



## method1 (Jun 9, 2022)

You can host multiple instances in Unify to create a poly.






polybox [Unify Manual]







pluginguru.net


----------



## Pier (Jun 9, 2022)

sean8877 said:


> I really don't like that Softube are releasing this (and Model 72) as mono only. I'm going to pass unfortunately as it sounds good but limiting in my use case. I don't need a painfully exact replica of the original functionality to the point that it ignores something as basic as polyphony. I have Lush 101 which is polyphonic and use it for pads, chording, etc. I know you can use multiple instances for poly but what a PIA for functionality they could have easily added. They could at least offer the option to turn on poly and leave it off as the default for the purists. I'm sure most other's will disagree but just my 2c.


Honestly, it's a really weird product decision. I could be wrong, but I don't think it was made for authenticity. I think it's rather something technical like CPU consumption, or maybe even a marketing strategy to release the product asap even if it's not feature complete.

And yeah I agree it's a deal breaker.


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 9, 2022)

My favorite Analog Bass sounds are from Moogs. The HW. 

I have a Moog Minimoog Model D, and the Moog Little Phatty Stage II Keyboards. Love the Bass sounds these two can create.


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 9, 2022)

How is the new Arturia V-Collection 9's newest version of the *Korg MS-20 V* emulation for creating Analog Bass Sounds ?


----------



## method1 (Jun 9, 2022)

It's not like this is the first mono softube has released, eg monoment & model 72, but since these come with modular versions, you can also create polyphonic patches in modular.

The default '82 modular patch is set up as 4 voices:


----------



## doctoremmet (Jun 9, 2022)

muziksculp said:


> How is the new Arturia V-Collection 9's newest version of the *Korg MS-20 V* emulation for creating Analog Bass Sounds ?


It is a really good synthesizer to be honest. I’ve never been a particular Korg afficionado, but I am kind of amazed by the filters in this synth. Great to make gnarly basses with. I feel it does sound better than the Cherry Audio version, but I haven’t truly A/B’d so I may be mistaken there.


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 9, 2022)

doctoremmet said:


> It is a really good synthesizer to be honest. I’ve never been a particular Korg afficionado, but I am kind of amazed by the filters in this synth. Great to make gnarly basses with. I feel it does sound better than the Cherry Audio version, but I haven’t truly A/B’d so I may be mistaken there.


Thanks @doctoremmet .

I have the Korg version of the MS-20 VST Synth, but the older version 1, which is pretty good. 

I noticed they have a new MS20 V2 now. https://www.korg.com/us/products/software/kc_ms_20/


----------



## José Herring (Jun 9, 2022)

sean8877 said:


> I really don't like that Softube are releasing this (and Model 72) as mono only. I'm going to pass unfortunately as it sounds good but limiting in my use case. I don't need a painfully exact replica of the original functionality to the point that it ignores something as basic as polyphony. I have Lush 101 which is polyphonic and use it for pads, chording, etc. I know you can use multiple instances for poly but what a PIA for functionality they could have easily added. They could at least offer the option to turn on poly and leave it off as the default for the purists. I'm sure most other's will disagree but just my 2c.


I have Lush 101 and though a great pad synth sounds nowhere near as beefy as this model 82 nor does it really sound like the SH101. If I had to liken it to any roland synth I use it as a substitute for my favorite Roland synth the JD800.


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 9, 2022)

José Herring said:


> I have Lush 101 and though a great pad synth sounds nowhere near is beefy as this model 82 nor does it really sound like the SH101. If I had to liken it to any roland synth I use it as a substitute for my favorite Roland synth the JD800.


I have the Lush 101, and it is far from being an SH-101.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 9, 2022)

muziksculp said:


> How is the new Arturia V-Collection 9's newest version of the *Korg MS-20 V* emulation for creating Analog Bass Sounds ?


Anything with patch cables - even virtual patch cables, similar to math or HTML code, sends me running for the hills. You'll never catch me with a modular, semi or otherwise! "Semi-modular" is like saying "semi-torture".



(all the hardware cables coming out of the back or top of the stereo synths and fx along with midi and usb are bad enough - having them in front would drive me crazy)


----------



## José Herring (Jun 9, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Anything with patch cables - even virtual patch cables, similar to math or HTML code, sends me running for the hills. You'll never catch me with a modular, semi or otherwise! "Semi-modular" is like saying "semi-torture".


Oh dude man up already.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 9, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Oh dude man up already.


----------



## shropshirelad (Jun 9, 2022)

Great comparison between the Model 82 and the real thing. Starsky Carr is a top man imho, he really gets into the detail.


----------



## method1 (Jun 9, 2022)

Since it came up, just spent a bit of time comparing '82, Lush 101 & Tal & I can get them all sounding pretty much indistinguishable, really need to do this more often 

EDIT: I think one of the reasons '82 makes such a good first impression is that it's way louder than the other 2 in it's default state.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 9, 2022)

method1 said:


> Since it came up, just spent a bit of time comparing '82, Lush 101 & Tal & I can get them all sounding pretty much indistinguishable, really need to do this more often
> 
> EDIT: I think one of the reasons '82 makes such a good first impression is that it's way louder than the other 2 in it's default state.


I am unable to get TAL and Model 82 to sound the same. They're close, to the point it sounds like the sound being made is phasing, but every time I end up liking the Model 82. Even when volume matched. Again, TAL 101 is my favorite TAL synth (I sold the others after replacing them), so it automatically starts off "in the lead".

I won't keep belaboring it, but the TAL reacts more static, feeling more like an on/off switch, whereas the Model 82, to me, feels more like a hardware synth behaves. It could all be in my head, and I realize that gate switches are literally on/off, but I'm just trying to explain the feeling I have when hearing/using it. The difference is small, but I can't unhear it.


----------



## sean8877 (Jun 9, 2022)

muziksculp said:


> I have the Lush 101, and it is far from being an SH-101.


I don't really care if it sounds like a 101, it sounds good to my ears. I never owned the original and don't care if it sounds exact, I just want some good sounds to use and poly capability.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 9, 2022)

sean8877 said:


> I don't really care if it sounds like a 101, it sounds good to my ears. I never owned the original and don't care if it sounds exact, I just want some good sounds to use and poly capability.


If you don't already have the TAL 101, I definitely recommend it, based on what you said there.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 9, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> I am unable to get TAL and Model 82 to sound the same. They're close, to the point it sounds like the sound being made is phasing, but every time I end up liking the Model 82. Even when volume matched. Again, TAL 101 is my favorite TAL synth (I sold the others after replacing them), so it automatically starts off "in the lead".
> 
> I won't keep belaboring it, but the TAL reacts more static, feeling more like an on/off switch, whereas the Model 82, to me, feels more like a hardware synth behaves. It could all be in my head, and I realize that gate switches are literally on/off, but I'm just trying to explain the feeling I have when hearing/using it. The difference is small, but I can't unhear it.


The only thing that matters is the feeling. I did so many scores on synths that would be considered substandard just because I felt it was the best synth. So I'd take the time to make it right. It came as a shock to me when I finally did get a "better" synth and it was far easier to get what I wanted. But I still got what I wanted even on the subpar synth. 

But, the "better" synth just got me my first "best score" award at the San Francisco film festival which was a shocker. I'm not noted for my synth work.


----------



## zvenx (Jun 9, 2022)

Like others have said in a different way.
I always forgot that lush 101 is suppose to be an sh 101 emulation.
Rsp


----------



## sean8877 (Jun 9, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> If you don't already have the TAL 101, I definitely recommend it, based on what you said there.


Thanks, I'll definitely check it out.


----------



## method1 (Jun 9, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> I am unable to get TAL and Model 82 to sound the same. They're close, to the point it sounds like the sound being made is phasing, but every time I end up liking the Model 82. Even when volume matched. Again, TAL 101 is my favorite TAL synth (I sold the others after replacing them), so it automatically starts off "in the lead".
> 
> I won't keep belaboring it, but the TAL reacts more static, feeling more like an on/off switch, whereas the Model 82, to me, feels more like a hardware synth behaves. It could all be in my head, and I realize that gate switches are literally on/off, but I'm just trying to explain the feeling I have when hearing/using it. The difference is small, but I can't unhear it.


Yea I was too quick to judge, for basic sounds they can all get very close but once there's a bit of complexity it's a different story. Attached is the infamous Kaini test, lush vs 82 vs tal, the phrase is repeated twice per synth in random order.


----------



## outland (Jun 10, 2022)

sean8877 said:


> I have Lush 101 which is polyphonic and use it for pads, chording, etc.


You know, that's what's odd about this: I find it weird that Softube released a version that is restricted to mono lines. Not sure if I'll pass or not. I really have too much stuff right now. I was also tempted by Model 84 (in part because of Starsky Carr's excellent review), but then I realized that I've never been huge Roland fan generally and passed on the 106 years ago when it came out. I already have Arturia V9 with both the Jun-6 V and Jup-8 V4, so maybe enough is enough.

The other weird thing about the LuSH101 is that when I bought it I can't tell you how many years ago, I thought it sounded great. I still do; it is actually one of a few synths that has thoroughly held up over the years without my feeling the need to clamor for an upgrade (another that I bought about the same time and has remained impressive is GForce's impOSCar (now version 2.) The thing for me on both these synths is this: I have no idea at all what the original hardware sounded like. In fact, I was thoroughly unaware that the original SH101 was monophonic. I have generally used the LuSH101 like Sean does for pads, chords, and such. It really excels there and lives up to its name. It is one very warm sounding emulation.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 10, 2022)

outland said:


> You know, that's what's odd about this: I find it weird that Softube released a version that is restricted to mono lines. Not sure if I'll pass or not. I really have too much stuff right now. I was also tempted by Model 84 (in part because of Starsky Carr's excellent review), but then I realized that I've never been huge Roland fan generally and passed on the 106 years ago when it came out. I already have Arturia V9 with both the Jun-6 V and Jup-8 V4, so maybe enough is enough.
> 
> The other weird thing about the LuSH101 is that when I bought it I can't tell you how many years ago, I thought it sounded great. I still do; it is actually one of a few synths that has thoroughly held up over the years without my feeling the need to clamor for an upgrade (another that I bought about the same time and has remained impressive is GForce's impOSCar (now version 2.) The thing for me on both these synths is this: I have no idea at all what the original hardware sounded like. In fact, I was thoroughly unaware that the original SH101 was monophonic. I have generally used the LuSH101 like Sean does for pads, chords, and such. It really excels there and lives up to its name. It is one very warm sounding emulation.


I have the Arturia J8 and… stopped using it because Model 84 sounds so much better (far fewer features).I do know they’re emulating different synths, of course. I’m thinking of selling it, but it only cost me $15 or something so maybe not. I seem to always sell off Arturia synths as even the new ones pale in comparison to the best of the best (to my ears). I also haven’t used the hardware but a couple times in the early 90s when I was young and totally clueless on what I was doing. It just sounds great.

I don’t understand the issue some people have with monosynths. Repro1 is probably my favorite software synth of all time. Still (I deleted Repro5 from the computer because I never use it). I also have a hardware monosynth, and am dreaming of a $2400 mono, as well (preferable over a Prophet or Moog).

The biggest two issues with Softube are

1) why the giant keyboard that can’t be hidden - it’s a computer screen!!

2) a little too true to the originals in terms of features (see the FM that the TAL 101 added that is extremely useful).


----------



## José Herring (Jun 10, 2022)

outland said:


> You know, that's what's odd about this: I find it weird that Softube released a version that is restricted to mono lines. Not sure if I'll pass or not. I really have too much stuff right now. I was also tempted by Model 84 (in part because of Starsky Carr's excellent review), but then I realized that I've never been huge Roland fan generally and passed on the 106 years ago when it came out. I already have Arturia V9 with both the Jun-6 V and Jup-8 V4, so maybe enough is enough.
> 
> The other weird thing about the LuSH101 is that when I bought it I can't tell you how many years ago, I thought it sounded great. I still do; it is actually one of a few synths that has thoroughly held up over the years without my feeling the need to clamor for an upgrade (another that I bought about the same time and has remained impressive is GForce's impOSCar (now version 2.) The thing for me on both these synths is this: I have no idea at all what the original hardware sounded like. In fact, I was thoroughly unaware that the original SH101 was monophonic. I have generally used the LuSH101 like Sean does for pads, chords, and such. It really excels there and lives up to its name. It is one very warm sounding emulation.


Always wondered about Imposcar. I hear it's great. LUSH was truly a synth ahead of its time. When I got it it was an outright CPU killer so you know it was doing some processing under the hood. It's still a great synth and I still use it, mostly out of just familiarity at this point. It's easier for me to get things going on it.


----------



## outland (Jun 10, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> I don’t understand the issue some people have with monosynths. Repro1 is probably my favorite software synth of all time. Still (I deleted Repro5 from the computer because I never use it). I also have a hardware monosynth, and am dreaming of a $2400 mono, as well (preferable over a Prophet or Moog).
> 
> The biggest two issues with Softube are
> 
> ...


I can't speak for others, but I think the issue is only a limitation to a given purpose, i.e., basslines and leads. I'm not always bent out of shape about that in synths, but sometimes, especially given that often the only reason a synth was monophonic was because of the technology at a given point in history (or a price point; again this was often constrained by historical situation), it seems that a company should almost assume stretching the original idea to see what a previously mono synth would sound like as polyphonic. One doesn't lose the monophonic function, of course, so why not? You are correct about Repro1, of course, but then, very quickly, U-he came out with Repro5 and sold them together. Your comment about the FM function in the TAL 101 is kind of coming from a similar concern, I think. More features seem a good way to honor the spirit of the original while moving it on.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 10, 2022)

method1 said:


> Yea I was too quick to judge, for basic sounds they can all get very close but once there's a bit of complexity it's a different story. Attached is the infamous Kaini test, lush vs 82 vs tal, the phrase is repeated twice per synth in random order.


I honestly can't tell the difference. Can anybody else?

Having Tal 101 and Lush 101 not feeling the "need" to spend my money other than it will give me some more modules for my Softube Modular.


----------



## outland (Jun 10, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Always wondered about Imposcar. I hear it's great. LUSH was truly a synth ahead of it's time. When I got it it was an outright CPU killer so you know it was doing some processing under the hood. It's still a great synth and I still use it, mostly out of just familiarity at this point. It's easier for me to get things going on it.


The impOSCar was similarly ahead of its time. I assume that why it's still around. Another older synth I enjoy from GForce is Oddity2. It's difficult for me to choose between Oddity2 and Korg's Arp Odyssey. The Korg is a bit gentler, while GForce can really rip. I never owned an Odyssey (hardware); the closest I got to that is when I rented an ARP Axxe for a month. But then, Zawinul had two Arp 2600s named "Ein" and "Zwei." He felt that there was a slight difference between them, so if that's true in the hardware realm, perhaps we can consider the softsynth world situation somewhat analogous.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 11, 2022)

outland said:


> I can't speak for others, but I think the issue is only limitation to a given purpose, i.e., basslines and leads. I'm not always bent out of shape about that in synths, but sometimes, especially given that often the only reason a synth was monophonic was because of the technology at a given point in history (or a price point; again this was often constrained by historical situation), it seems that a company should almost assume stretching the original idea to see what a previously mono synth would sound like as polyphonic. One doesn't lose the monophonic function, of course, so why not? You are correct about Repro1, of course, but then, very quickly, U-he came out with Repro5 and sold them together. Your comment about the FM function in the TAL 101 is kind of coming from a similar concern, I think. More features seem a good way to honor the spirit of the original while moving it on.


The number of voices is lower on my priority list, it seems, as is even adding "modern" features. For example, I generally don't look for Kontakt libraries of one instrument where the violin has several extra strings and other features bolted on. I don't mind if there's unexpected things, but I'm fine with the original vision for the instrument.

Repro: As I remember reading, Urs very much loves and wanted to ship a Pro1. However, it didn't sell (lots of people demanding more voices) so he was forced, financially, to create Repro5 and bundle them so people would get the synth he wanted people to have: Repro1. There's at least one or two additional monosynths he has said he would love to build, but, because enough people won't buy them, he cannot afford to make them. So the world loses out on some amazing software monosynths because they don't have enough features to satisfy enough buyers. I think that's a little sad.


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 11, 2022)

My Bass Synths :

*MOOG Model D*





*MOOG Little Phatty Stage II Solar CV Edition.*


----------



## sean8877 (Jun 11, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> The number of voices is lower on my priority list, it seems, as is even adding "modern" features. For example, I generally don't look for Kontakt libraries of one instrument where the violin has several extra strings and other features bolted on. I don't mind if there's unexpected things, but I'm fine with the original vision for the instrument.
> 
> Repro: As I remember reading, Urs very much loves and wanted to ship a Pro1. However, it didn't sell (lots of people demanding more voices) so he was forced, financially, to create Repro5 and bundle them so people would get the synth he wanted people to have: Repro1. There's at least one or two additional monosynths he has said he would love to build, but, because enough people won't buy them, he cannot afford to make them. So the world loses out on some amazing software monosynths because they don't have enough features to satisfy enough buyers. I think that's a little sad.


Still Urs could build the mono synths he wants to and give an option to turn on polyphony. If he limits them to mono he is forcing people to use the synths only the way he wants them to and putting his ideology before what his customers are requesting (and their needs in a synth). So really he could create those synths but his own ideology is what is holding him back. He has only himself to blame, you can't blame the customers for him having limited beliefs regarding what a synth should do.


----------



## SupremeFist (Jun 11, 2022)

I don't know anything about 101s so to feed my gas can someone mention some famous 80s tunes that use it for bass? (Asking because I recently got the Model 84 and I heart it so very much.)


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 11, 2022)

sean8877 said:


> Still Urs could build the mono synths he wants to and give an option to turn on polyphony. If he limits them to mono he is forcing people to use the synths only the way he wants them to and putting his ideology before what his customers are requesting (and their needs in a synth). So really he could create those synths but his own ideology is what is holding him back. He has only himself to blame, you can't blame the customers for him having limited beliefs regarding what a synth should do.


I disagree. You and I just have a very different perspective. I’d rather have the art than the commercialism. I realize these are intertwined because people have to make a living.

Do you generally purchase Kontakt libraries of traditional instruments, or only those that the library maker has added features to the instruments (not talking about an arp feature, but genuinely changing the character of the instrument like adding voices to a synth designed for one voice)?

I’m not a purist, insisting on only the original features. I appreciate more if provided more. Both Repros provide more - without messing with the original vision and intent of the instrument (eg adding on fx or a sequencer). But they aren’t why I buy something (with maybe a couple exceptions because I’m human) - that’s about the core sound.

There’s definitely things to criticize about the Softube synths, but the sound and the reproduction of the original design of the instruments isn’t one of them. It’s not a black and white issue - for example, since it’s on a computer I’d love to not have the keys showing in the UI, whereas the originals clearly had keys. But that kind of thing doesn’t change how an instrument works on a computer. And the gratuitous scuff marks are silly - I’m buying a new instrument, so if coders want it to age, program that in.


----------



## SupremeFist (Jun 11, 2022)

sean8877 said:


> Still Urs could build the mono synths he wants to and give an option to turn on polyphony. If he limits them to mono he is forcing people to use the synths only the way he wants them to and putting his ideology before what his customers are requesting (and their needs in a synth). So really he could create those synths but his own ideology is what is holding him back. He has only himself to blame, you can't blame the customers for him having limited beliefs regarding what a synth should do.


I mean literally the whole point of Repro 1 and 5 is to create a reproduction (the clue's in the name) which is as close as possible to the original hardware. You want more options, you buy Diva.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Jun 11, 2022)

sean8877 said:


> Still Urs could build the mono synths he wants to and give an option to turn on polyphony. If he limits them to mono he is forcing people to use the synths only the way he wants them to and putting his ideology before what his customers are requesting (and their needs in a synth). So really he could create those synths but his own ideology is what is holding him back. He has only himself to blame, you can't blame the customers for him having limited beliefs regarding what a synth should do.


I don't know enough about him, but are you sure that Urs has a systematic, fairly comprehensive conceptual and evaluative framework leading to the decision to make only emulations with the same number of voices as the models being emulated? He might, but he needn't have. He might instead have some more minor passion, like bringing what he thinks of as the experience of the original to a more convenient and cheaper form of technology.

It seems fair enough that he has decided not to do that, as not being financially viable, and has instead devoted himself to other projects that aren't direct emulations at all.

There are no customers for products he hasn't even made; and it seems reasonable enough for him not to consider the wishes of potential customers for products he's decided that he, personally, would rather not make in favour of doing something else.

By the way, there may be other products that can do this, but Unify can make any monophonic synth polyphonic through co-ordinating multiple instances.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 11, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> I mean literally the whole point of Repro 1 and 5 is to create a reproduction (the clue's in the name) which is as close as possible to the original hardware. You want more options, you buy Diva.


Diva was one of my first software synths, and certainly the most expensive at the time. However, over time, I’ve come to appreciate purpose-built synths and have been moving away from the “kitchen sink” ones. This is one reason I’ve deleted Diva and Omnisphere from my computer.

Maybe I’m just simple, or lazy. I can’t refute that!


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 11, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> I don't know enough about him, but are you sure that Urs has a systematic, fairly comprehensive conceptual and evaluative framework leading to the decision to make only emulations with the same number of voices as the models being emulated? He might, but he needn't have. He might instead have some more minor passion, like bringing what he thinks of as the experience of the original to a more convenient and cheaper form of technology.
> 
> It seems fair enough that he has decided not to do that, as not being financially viable, and has instead devoted himself to other projects that aren't direct emulations at all.
> 
> ...


And that’s one of the magic things about tech. There’s multiple ways to make monos into polys if you want, without requiring the people reproducing/emulating other synths to build that in. There’s also the Tim Shoebridge program, or, if not looking for fancy round robin action, just running more than one instance in a DAW and sending the same MIDI input to them.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Jun 11, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> And that’s one of the magic things about tech. There’s multiple ways to make monos into polys if you want, without requiring the people reproducing/emulating other synths to build that in. There’s also the Tim Shoebridge program, or, if not looking for fancy round robin action, just running more than one instance in a DAW and sending the same MIDI input to them.


I did wonder about doing it in the DAW, but other than editing the time line for different instances, I wasn't sure how to do it.

I probably should have Googled it!


----------



## SupremeFist (Jun 11, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Diva was one of my first software synths, and certainly the most expensive at the time. However, over time, I’ve come to appreciate purpose-built synths and have been moving away from the “kitchen sink” ones. This is one reason I’ve deleted Diva and Omnisphere from my computer.
> 
> Maybe I’m just simple, or lazy. I can’t refute that!


I too got Diva first and have since acquired many more specialised synths which I find in some cases preferable for specific emulations, but I still use Diva a lot and will never delete it from my hard drive. That is sacrilege! (I would totally delete Omnisphere if I had it, though.)


----------



## method1 (Jun 11, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> I don't know anything about 101s so to feed my gas can someone mention some famous 80s tunes that use it for bass? (Asking because I recently got the Model 84 and I heart it so very much.)


I think it was a bit of a flop in the 80s and became popular in the 90s electronic music scene, at least that's what I associate it with, eg Autechre, Boards of Canada, Squarepusher, Aphex Twin etc.


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 11, 2022)

https://www.musicradar.com/news/10-great-things-roland-sh-101


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 11, 2022)




----------



## muziksculp (Jun 11, 2022)




----------



## SupremeFist (Jun 11, 2022)

muziksculp said:


> https://www.musicradar.com/news/10-great-things-roland-sh-101


You had me at Go West!


----------



## sean8877 (Jun 11, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> I don't know enough about him, but are you sure that Urs has a systematic, fairly comprehensive conceptual and evaluative framework leading to the decision to make only emulations with the same number of voices as the models being emulated? He might, but he needn't have. He might instead have some more minor passion, like bringing what he thinks of as the experience of the original to a more convenient and cheaper form of technology.
> 
> It seems fair enough that he has decided not to do that, as not being financially viable, and has instead devoted himself to other projects that aren't direct emulations at all.
> 
> ...


I was only replying to Vito's comment that it was sad Urs wasn't making certain mono synths because there wasn't a market for them. I don't think you can blame the customers for that, it's his own decision whether or not to make them and whether or not to include an option for polyphony.


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 11, 2022)

Playing the Theremin like high pitched sound here :


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 11, 2022)




----------



## sean8877 (Jun 11, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> I mean literally the whole point of Repro 1 and 5 is to create a reproduction (the clue's in the name) which is as close as possible to the original hardware. You want more options, you buy Diva.


I don't have problem with the Repro's. Repro-5 has polyphony anyway. My comment was related to Vito calling it "sad" that Urs had to make a polyphonic synth due to customer demand. I'm not sure what your comment has to do with anything.


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 11, 2022)




----------



## sean8877 (Jun 11, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> I disagree. You and I just have a very different perspective. I’d rather have the art than the commercialism. I realize these are intertwined because people have to make a living.
> 
> Do you generally purchase Kontakt libraries of traditional instruments, or only those that the library maker has added features to the instruments (not talking about an arp feature, but genuinely changing the character of the instrument like adding voices to a synth designed for one voice)?
> 
> ...


Yeah I hear you, I just didn't agree with you saying it was "sad" that Urs had to make Repro-5. I'm a big fan of Repro-5 and I do have a different perspective as you said. I'm happy with some great sounds and full polyphony, if that makes me a bad person for discouraging Urs then so be it..


----------



## sean8877 (Jun 11, 2022)

I'll keep my mouth shut from this point on, I see there a lot of people who love mono synths and that's great, do your thing. I reacted badly to the statement about Urs being limited by his customers so that's on me. I'm just not going to spend my money on one (either Model 72 or Model 82, love Model 84 though) since they are too limiting for my purposes.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Jun 11, 2022)

sean8877 said:


> I was only replying to Vito's comment that it was sad Urs wasn't making certain mono synths because there wasn't a market for them. I don't think you can blame the customers for that, it's his own decision whether or not to make them and whether or not to include an option for polyphony.


I don't think Vito was blaming the customers; just lamenting the way that artistic/creative endeavours get compromised by commercial imperatives. But it was the bit about ideology, as well as the tip about Unify, that got me to reply. That was a genuine question. I don't know Urs Heckmann, and he might well have some kind of ideological commitment to purity in emulations, or something; synth enthusiasts can be pretty wild! I just didn't think it seemed likely given the projects he does work on. He's definitely got an aesthetic, and a sense of what belongs in a synth and doesn't; but that certainly doesn't need to be tied to any personal ideological commitments.

Anyway, so much for all that! I'm not particularly interested in 'accurate' emulations as such myself, as I have no history with the hardware; but I do like a good monosynth for a spot of creative inspiration from time to time.


----------



## SupremeFist (Jun 11, 2022)

muziksculp said:


>



Aha this is great, thank you! (Not so great for my wallet.)


----------



## method1 (Jun 11, 2022)

This is VI control, just think of it as mono legato


----------



## Bee_Abney (Jun 11, 2022)

sean8877 said:


> I'll keep my mouth shut from this point on, I see there a lot of people who love mono synths and that's great, do your thing. I'm just not going to spend my money on one (either Model 72 or Model 82, love Model 84 though) since they are too limiting for my purposes.


I hope you don't go through with the resolution to keep your mouth shut! It's fine, of course, if you don't want to buy any monosynths. I hope no-one here has a problem with that.


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 11, 2022)

OK, so.. with the help of some GAS, I purchased the *Softube Model 82* from Plugin Boutique for *$72*. After applying some virtual cash I had left over in my account.


----------



## SupremeFist (Jun 11, 2022)

sean8877 said:


> I'm not sure what your comment has to do with anything.


Me neither. 😔


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 11, 2022)

method1 said:


> This is VI control, just think of it as mono legato


Yeah.. with a nice, and smooth Portamento.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Jun 11, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> Me neither. 😔


But keep on plugging away; one day you're going to solve all our problems!


----------



## method1 (Jun 11, 2022)

muziksculp said:


> Yeah.. with a nice, and smooth Portamento.


Yes, I think there needs to be more discussion about the legato transitions in monosynths... maybe a whole subforum?


----------



## sostenuto (Jun 11, 2022)

method1 said:


> Yes, I think there needs to be more discussion about the legato transitions in monosynths... maybe a whole subforum?


....... and was just about to post amazement that so much can be thrashed about a Sequencing Mono Synth (_*Soft*)_ ! 🤯


----------



## sean8877 (Jun 11, 2022)

sostenuto said:


> ....... and was just about to post amazement that so much can be thrashed about a Sequencing Mono Synth (_*Soft*)_ ! 🤯


I think we veered off topic pretty far, I'll take responsibility for that.


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 11, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> Aha this is great, thank you! (Not so great for my wallet.)


*Warning !* More GAS inducing videos will get posted here. Stay at your own risk


----------



## Bee_Abney (Jun 11, 2022)

sean8877 said:


> I think we veered off topic pretty far, mostly my fault.


Well, life's all about the detours.

I suspect that attitude may have led to a lot of people putting me on 'ignore'!


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 11, 2022)




----------



## SupremeFist (Jun 11, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> Well, life's all about the detours.
> 
> I suspect that attitude may have led to a lot of people putting me on 'ignore'!


I'm always fascinated by the extent to which different online communities police more or less harshly what is "off-topic". When I ran a blog with a quite energetic small community of commenters, it was often once the conversation had veered off the main drag of the initial post that the most interesting arguments were had.

But this, too, is off topic. 💁🏻‍♀️


----------



## Bee_Abney (Jun 11, 2022)

muziksculp said:


>



Oh come on, that's just mean!


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 11, 2022)

sean8877 said:


> I was only replying to Vito's comment that it was sad Urs wasn't making certain mono synths because there wasn't a market for them. I don't think you can blame the customers for that, it's his own decision whether or not to make them and whether or not to include an option for polyphony.


No, I can put at least half the responsibility where it belongs (the market). It's the way of the world, though. But,yes, Urs also is making choices. It's not blame. I wondered if it would come across as a guilt trip -that was unintended. I was making a general comment about the totality that leads to what I consider a loss.

Synthmaker: I want to recreate hardware as software
Market: Cool, cool. But I want the equivalent of the Homer car.
Synthmaker: Well, I want to earn a living, so I have to compromise and just make something else
Market: Whatever. I'm going to go tell the next synthmaker everything they're missing.







Anyway, this is OT, so, if you don't want the synth, keep looking for the next one that has the features that will make you happy. <-- that sounds like a command, and I don't mean it meanly etc. I genuinely hope you find synths that bring you joy.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 11, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> I hope you don't go through with the resolution to keep your mouth shut! It's fine, of course, if you don't want to buy any monosynths. I hope no-one here has a problem with that.


I know I don't. It's a difference of opinion only. I'm no owner of Universal Truth(tm)!


----------



## Bee_Abney (Jun 11, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> I don't. It's a difference of opinion only. I'm no owner of Universal Truth(tm)!


I tried to buy a license for that; but it is only available as a subscription.


----------



## method1 (Jun 11, 2022)

How's the legato on Universal Truth™ ?


----------



## Bee_Abney (Jun 11, 2022)

method1 said:


> How's the legato on Universal Truth™ ?


Awful.


----------



## sostenuto (Jun 11, 2022)

method1 said:


> How's the legato on Universal Truth™ ?


 ........... varies monthly 🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## outland (Jun 11, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Diva was one of my first software synths, and certainly the most expensive at the time. However, over time, I’ve come to appreciate purpose-built synths and have been moving away from the “kitchen sink” ones. This is one reason I’ve deleted Diva and Omnisphere from my computer.
> 
> Maybe I’m just simple, or lazy. I can’t refute that!


I'm doubt that you're either "simple" or "lazy." That seems way too harsh and your comments are both irenic in spirit and well-expressed. Probably, you are doing what most of the rest of us are doing (or trying to do): evolving with an eye to negotiating what we've learned, appreciated, or experienced about the way we work with what is available and helpful.

You mentioned Diva. I purchased Diva when it first came out and still use it. It is a VST classic as far as I'm concerned. I was very surprised, however to find it included in Starsky Carr's Minimoog shoot-out. I knew that the filters were modelled on the Minimoog's, but I had never considered it a Mini clone by any stretch of the language. So, I'm wondering: did I miss something? Aside from the filters, how or what else is deliberately emulated? 

Perhaps we need a thread about the philosophy behind our purchases, how we work, and how we hope to work in the future. 

BTW, I can't tell you how blessed I feel by VI Control; everyone I've read here is so kind and well-spoken. I've encountered on another site that will remain nameless, snotty comments, one word "drive-by" style put-downs, and thoroughly asinine unsupported opinions because, afterall, someone "feels" a certain way. 

So, really, thank you all.


----------



## SupremeFist (Jun 12, 2022)

PSA: intro price for Model 82 direct from Softube comes down to $59 with the coupon RAVEANDSAVE, making it quite hard to resist. (Reader, I did not.)


----------



## Bee_Abney (Jun 12, 2022)

outland said:


> I'm doubt that you're either "simple" or "lazy." That seems way too harsh and your comments are both irenic in spirit and well-expressed. Probably, you are doing what most of the rest of us are doing (or trying to do): evolving with an eye to negotiating what we've learned, appreciated, or experienced about the way we work with what is available and helpful.
> 
> You mentioned Diva. I purchased Diva when it first came out and still use it. It is a VST classic as far as I'm concerned. I was very surprised, however to find it included in Starsky Carr's Minimoog shoot-out. I knew that the filters were modelled on the Minimoog's, but I had never considered it a Mini clone by any stretch of the language. So, I'm wondering: did I miss something? Aside from the filters, how or what else is deliberately emulated?
> 
> ...


I can't answer about the Minimoog shootout; but I've also heard Diva (and Omnisphere) described as suitable for emulating Juno sounds.

I think U-he filled it with a lot of oscillator and filter emulations, so that it can impersonate a range of classic synths - hence the name, of course: Dinosaur Impersonating Virtual Analogue. But I haven't gone into it in any depth myself as yet.

I tend to use big, do-anything synths for presets, and more streamlined synths for making my own patches. But this is very much a matter of only having so much time to learn how the complex synths work. Since I work a lot with samples, though, Falcon and Pigments both see frequent use (MSoundFactory and Halion are really good too). Kontakt too, but that isn't a synth. For anyone that has Omnisphere but hasn't really tried to programme it, I'd say that it is actually pretty straightforward. It's just complicated a bit by having to go to various different screens. But a simple synth sound is actually really easy to programme on it.

Model 82 looks to be, as demos and commentators have indicated, one of those synths where it is hard to make a sound that doesn't work. Those are a lot of fun! And it's a great indication of how matching the synth to your workflow and level of knowledge really helps. Virtual synths vary a lot in how you interact with them and what they help you to make with them. Which is partly why I have and use so many on a regular basis. Also, more than a wee drop of GAS!

You're so right about how great this community is. One of the really notable things is that even if a poster might seem to be dismissive one day, they will give a full and helpful reply on another day. You get to see that people are very genuine here, and very enthusiastic about sharing knowledge, experiences, support and enthusiasm.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 12, 2022)

You guys keep going on about legato this and legato that. Synth heads know that it’s really slew. Yes, slew is where it’s at!


----------



## outland (Jun 12, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> PSA: intro price for Model 82 direct from Softube comes down to $59 with the coupon RAVEANDSAVE, making it quite hard to resist. (Reader, I did not.)


I'm just wondering: is the RAVEANDSAVE coupon good for Model 84 as well? I'm not sure where I am at with the purchase of either Models 82 or 84, but it does sweeten the pot.


----------



## outland (Jun 12, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> I can't answer about the Minimoog shootout; but I've also heard Diva (and Omnisphere) described as suitable for emulating Juno sounds.
> 
> I think U-he filled it with a lot of oscillator and filter emulations, so that it can impersonate a range of classic synths - hence the name, of course: Dinosaur Impersonating Virtual Analogue. But I haven't gone into it in any depth myself as yet.
> 
> ...


My thoughts about Diva exactly. It really can do a bunch of things really well. 

I've never tried to program Omnisphere; I'll keep your comments in mind when I do. 

The first virtual synth I owned was, in fact (as far as I know), the first virtual synth: Reality. What happened with that synth was actually fairly sad. Apparently, the programmers were largely depending on a protocol the Microsoft was using that was abandoned. In essence, Reality zigged when Microsoft zagged, leaving the designers high and dry and wasting resources that inevitably killing the program. At least a few years ago, there was still a group dedicated to attempting to keep some vestige of the program alive. I don't know if this is still true.

With your kind permission, Bee, I'd like to use your third paragraph above as a kind of keynote to start a new thread on VST utilization philosophy in an attempt to try to tie several interconnected ideas together. Again, if this thread was on another less genial site, we'd probably see up to a third of the posts or more degenerate into vitriolic mudslinging. Here, however, I have no fears that that will happen on any level and it is fully expected that something helpful, if perhaps a bit abstract, will result. 

Thanks again!


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 12, 2022)

outland said:


> I'm just wondering: is the RAVEANDSAVE coupon good for Model 84 as well? I'm not sure where I am at with the purchase of either Models 82 or 84, but it does sweeten the pot.


I think Model 84 is a bit of a software synth masterpiece, like Repro-1. Definitely the one I'd most recommend. I, personally, then prefer Model 82 (I generally like Roland > Moog), then Model 72. The giant on-screen keyboards really irk me on these, though - a pet peeve for certain.

Diva: It can get close, even really close on some sounds to the point that after fx and it's mixed in a track that a person couldn't tell a difference, to several vintage analog synths. Basically, if you like the interface, and don't particularly care about specific emulations, but just want a good sounding analog-like synth, Diva is hard to beat. It was far ahead of its time, but it's "time" has recently been surpassed, sonically (to my ears) - which doesn't make Diva worse, just not the best. Between that, and if a person DOES want a specific emulation of a specific synth rather than an impersonation of one, there's better options, now, as well. But there's no better Diva than Diva.

Omnisphere: I'm no programming sound design expert, but, from what I've been able to tell, if trying to emulate an analog synth, then Omnisphere sounds like Omnisphere sounding a lot like analog, if that makes sense. It sure can behave a lot like an analog, which is really impressive. If you're relying simply on the synthesis engine, you can get it similar to analog, like Serum or Vital can. If you use samples of the analog synths, you can get even closer (of course). So, similar to Diva, if you want something that can sound like "analog" but not a specific analog synth, Omnisphere is an impressive beast, as always.

For me, I've tried, especially with Diva, to get inspired. But, perhaps due to the complexity and my preference for simple interfaces (where I will spend time tweaking to create sounds from scratch), they leave me cold. It's certainly not that I can get good sounds out of them. There's just no creative, energizing spark for me when using them. But that's very much just me, and it seems counter to a lot of people who get a lot of joy from Diva and/or Omnisphere, so definitely don't read too much into it.


----------



## SupremeFist (Jun 12, 2022)

outland said:


> I'm just wondering: is the RAVEANDSAVE coupon good for Model 84 as well? I'm not sure where I am at with the purchase of either Models 82 or 84, but it does sweeten the pot.


I think it's just for the 82. (But the 84 is utterly sublime so you should definitely buy it if you like a Juno at all.)


----------



## Bee_Abney (Jun 12, 2022)

outland said:


> My thoughts about Diva exactly. It really can do a bunch of things really well.
> 
> I've never tried to program Omnisphere; I'll keep your comments in mind when I do.
> 
> ...


You're very welcome to use any of my post. It sounds like it could make for a good discussion.


----------



## SupremeFist (Jun 12, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Basically, if you like the interface, and don't particularly care about specific emulations, but just want a good sounding analog-like synth, Diva is hard to beat. It was far ahead of its time, but it's "time" has recently been surpassed, sonically (to my ears) - which doesn't make Diva worse, just not the best.


Model 84 is the first thing I've heard that made me go "wow ok this is better than Diva". Tal-J-8 (which I also like very much) is meanwhile no doubt a more accurate emulation of a Jupiter, but Diva still has a certain dusty grandeur that will lead me to choose it instead for some of those sounds. Really it's amazing that it's taken 10 years for other companies to begin to surpass it.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 12, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> Model 84 is the first thing I've heard that made me go "wow ok this is better than Diva". Tal-J-8 (which I also like very much) is meanwhile no doubt a more accurate emulation of a Jupiter, but Diva still has a certain dusty grandeur that will lead me to choose it instead for some of those sounds. Really it's amazing that it's taken 10 years for other companies to begin to surpass it.


My "better than Diva" moment was with bx_oberhausen (I bought it the first time it was available under $50, so awhile back, and before these Softube synths) when I cranked up the resonance as one can and does with SEM filters. High resonance is one of the places I think Diva falls apart in comparison, and compared to physical analog. But I think I kept Diva installed until I used Model 84, and that was one of the last straws. TAL's latest synths/updates also, while sounding about on par with Diva, also sound flat in comparison to the Softube. I even preferred the Arturia J8 to the TAL (I bought the TAL one first - I think the day it came out - and sold it after getting the Arturia), but, as I said earlier in this thread I think it was, once I used Model 84 I don't think I've used the Arturia one again (yes, they emulate diff synths ).

The Model 82 is an even simpler (but a bit more nuanced than it looks) synth than Model 72. I don't think that $99+ is a good price for Model 82, but $59 definitely is. I wish there were modular and non-modular versions so that people with no interest in the modular could save a few $.


----------



## zvenx (Jun 12, 2022)

Tastes really do vary.

1) I think the Model 72 is their most impressive offering thus far.
2) I think Tal J-8 surpassed Diva, it is in Repro category to me (which too surpassed Diva).
3) bx oberhausen (which ironically I just yesterday removed from my essentials plugins list in Cubendo) was ok, even goodish until ob-e came along.
4) I still don't get the Arturia emulation fan club..

my very different two cents.
rsp


----------



## SupremeFist (Jun 12, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> My "better than Diva" moment was with bx_oberhausen (I bought it the first time it was available under $50, so awhile back, and before these Softube synths) when I cranked up the resonance as one can and does with SEM filters. High resonance is one of the places I think Diva falls apart in comparison, and compared to physical analog. But I think I kept Diva installed until I used Model 84, and that was one of the last straws. TAL's latest synths/updates also, while sounding about on par with Diva, also sound flat in comparison to the Softube. I even preferred the Arturia J8 to the TAL (I bought the TAL one first - I think the day it came out - and sold it after getting the Arturia), but, as I said earlier in this thread I think it was, once I used Model 84 I don't think I've used the Arturia one again (yes, they emulate diff synths ).
> 
> The Model 82 is an even simpler (but a bit more nuanced than it looks) synth than Model 72. I don't think that $99+ is a good price for Model 82, but $59 definitely is. I wish there were modular and non-modular versions so that people with no interest in the modular could save a few $.


Ah yes, Oberhausen is gorgeous, though the Diva presets from Swan Audio (a real wizard with that synth) still get very very close. Btw Tal-J-8 has been much improved since launch: you might like it better now...


----------



## SupremeFist (Jun 12, 2022)

zvenx said:


> 2) I think Tal J-8 surpassed Diva, it is in Repro category to me (which too surpassed Diva


Oh yes I forgot about Repro! Of course it did also surpass Diva in a narrower spectrum. (I'm somehow not a huge fan of the Prophet poly sound but I've been using Repro-1 quite a lot lately, with great pleasure.)


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 12, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> Oh yes I forgot about Repro! Of course it did also surpass Diva in a narrower spectrum. (I'm somehow not a huge fan of the Prophet poly sound but I've been using Repro-1 quite a lot lately, with great pleasure.)


Our synth tastes may run somewhat similar? I tried Repro5 a lot and rarely use it, to the point I saw no need to keep it installed. Repro1, however, is delicious - especially for rapid arpeggios with a snap.



Model 82 doesn't have quite the snap, which is OK most of the time, but it has more squelch. Love trying to come up with words for this stuff.


----------



## SupremeFist (Jun 12, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Repro1, however, is delicious - especially for rapid arpeggios with a snap.


Absolutely! I mean, I grew up with Vince Clarke's early hits. 🤘🏻


----------



## Bee_Abney (Jun 12, 2022)

zvenx said:


> Tastes really do vary.
> 
> 1) I think the Model 72 is their most impressive offering thus far.
> 2) I think Tal J-8 surpassed Diva, it is in Repro category to me (which too surpassed Diva).
> ...


I'm in synch with this as far as my experiences go, except for the comparison of bx_oberhausen and OB-E. While the latter is an excellent synth and a good emulation, bx_oberhausen is merely strongly inspired by the OB-X and doesn't sound much like it. OB-E and bx_oberhausen sound very different and respond very differently.

I agree that OB-E is the more impressive virtual synth and definitely a well-realised emulation.

But as a matter of taste (not evaluation of quality), I prefer bx_oberhausen. It's inclined to be nastier sounding.


----------



## Alchemedia (Jun 12, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> I don't know enough about him, but are you sure that Urs has a systematic, fairly comprehensive conceptual and evaluative framework leading to the decision to make only emulations with the same number of voices as the models being emulated? He might, but he needn't have. He might instead have some more minor passion, like bringing what he thinks of as the experience of the original to a more convenient and cheaper form of technology.
> 
> It seems fair enough that he has decided not to do that, as not being financially viable, and has instead devoted himself to other projects that aren't direct emulations at all.
> 
> ...



"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." --Cousin Albert


----------



## Bee_Abney (Jun 12, 2022)

Alchemedia said:


> "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." --Cousin Albert


And just as with Occam's razor, how we apply that can lead to very different answers.

Simplest theory? Simple how? Avoids complex formulae, or reduces to as few formulae as possible? Etc.
Fewest ontological commitments? Species, individuals, kinds?
Can be understood by a politician? No. Not that. That's too simple.

Uggh! It's Sunday night; and I am filled with resentment at the universe.


----------



## Alchemedia (Jun 12, 2022)

outland said:


> I'm just wondering: is the RAVEANDSAVE coupon good for Model 84 as well? I'm not sure where I am at with the purchase of either Models 82 or 84, but it does sweeten the pot.



I don't think so.


----------



## SupremeFist (Jun 12, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> And just as with Occam's razor, how we apply that can lead to very different answers.
> 
> Simplest theory? Simple how? Avoids complex formulae, or reduces to as few formulae as possible? Etc.
> Fewest ontological commitments? Species, individuals, kinds?
> ...



Ockham's Razor is indeed merely an assumption, made in a certain era suffused with faith in a rational creator whose creation was therefore rationally comprehensible and constrained by some notion of elegant parsimony. Unfortunately we really have no good reason to assume that reality is not just a chaotic shitstorm of epiphenomenal rubbish.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Jun 12, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> Ockham's Razor is indeed merely an assumption, made in a certain era suffused with faith in a rational creator whose creation was therefore rationally comprehensible and constrained by some notion of elegant parsimony. Unfortunately we really have no good reason to assume that reality is not just a chaotic shitstorm of epiphenomenal rubbish.


I think of it as less of an assumption than a selection criteria. It doesn't make a claim about what is true (it doesn't say that reality is simple), but rather offers advice on the process of theorising or theory selection.

As such, in some contexts - understood in some more specific way or other - it has some value. Not at arriving at a factual description of reality, but at arriving at a way of interacting with that reality. In particular, given two theories that make the same predictions, why not prefer the simpler one, as being more pragmatic, up until it proves to be no use (and at the same time, is proven false).

In ethics, however, the drive to simplifying is, I think, dangerous. On the one hand, we need ways of living together that we can apply and which are adequate to purpose (whatever that is); but on the other hand, we don't want to squeeze the variety and adaptability out of the way we live together.

I'm sorry... I'm trying to say too much too quickly and all for no good reason. Goodnight!


----------



## EvilDragon (Jun 12, 2022)

outland said:


> I knew that the filters were modelled on the Minimoog's, but I had never considered it a Mini clone by any stretch of the language. So, I'm wondering: did I miss something? Aside from the filters, how or what else is deliberately emulated?


Everything else was modelled as well. The oscillators (Triple Osc), the mixer section, and the envelopes (Classic ADS). Diva is basically an emulation of Hans Zimmer's Minimoog.


----------



## Wes Antczak (Jun 12, 2022)

Another vote for OB-E, which I think is wonderful! That said, I do also like all of the recreations from Softtube. The ones from Arturia continue to evolve and IMO the "rebuilds" are all fantastic. All of the above work for me and may not work for others and that's okay with me. Everybody's music and needs are different (or at least they should be, shouldn't they?)


----------



## zvenx (Jun 12, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> I'm in synch with this as far as my experiences go, except for the comparison of bx_oberhausen and OB-E. While the latter is an excellent synth and a good emulation, bx_oberhausen is merely strongly inspired by the OB-X and doesn't sound much like it. OB-E and bx_oberhausen sound very different and respond very differently.
> 
> I agree that OB-E is the more impressive virtual synth and definitely a well-realised emulation.
> 
> But as a matter of taste (not evaluation of quality), I prefer bx_oberhausen. It's inclined to be nastier sounding.


My understand is the OB-E is the eight voice/module of the SEM Oberheim Synth... oberhausen is the emulation of one of those SEM modules (plus extra stuff of course, like the original was monophonic).. the first SEM synth.

Both hardware synths proceeded the OB-X.






Oberheim SEM | Vintage Synth Explorer







www.vintagesynth.com










Oberheim Eight Voice | Vintage Synth Explorer


The immensely fat and analog Eight Voice from Oberheim is truly a Vintage Synth. It is essentially eight classic Oberheim SEM modules stacked together alongside the Polyphonic Synthesizer Programmer for memory, a simple analog mixer, and a 49-note keyboard. This gives you an eight voice...




www.vintagesynth.com













About - Oberheim


Oberheim is the 21st century return of the legendary synth company. Oberheim is guided by the vision of engineer and inventor, Tom Oberheim.




oberheim.com





rsp


----------



## Bee_Abney (Jun 12, 2022)

zvenx said:


> My understand is the OB-E is the eight voice/module of the SEM Oberheim Synth... oberhausen is the emulation of one of those SEM modules (plus extra stuff of course, like the original was monophonic).. the first SEM synth.
> 
> Both hardware synths proceeded the OB-X.
> 
> ...


That's my understanding too; but I don't think it ends up sounding quite like that. Which works out well for me!


----------



## outland (Jun 12, 2022)

EvilDragon said:


> Everything else was modelled as well. The oscillators (Triple Osc), the mixer section, and the envelopes (Classic ADS). Diva is basically an emulation of Hans Zimmer's Minimoog.


That pretty much explains why Mr. Carr included it in his Minimoog shoot-out. 

Thanks, Evil!


----------



## outland (Jun 12, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> I think it's just for the 82. (But the 84 is utterly sublime so you should definitely buy it if you like a Juno at all.)





Alchemedia said:


> I don't think so.


I'll find out probably after Wednesday, if I decide to buy both (or either.) I'll let you guys know what's up. 

I do tend to have preferences for Prophets, Obies, and Moogs. LuSH101, however, is pretty astounding, especially given its age, so it might be cool to pick Model 82 for the comparison and finding out in what situations it is very suitable. The price is nice at $59. Model 84 had such a nice review with Starsky Carr that it's also tempting. 

Really, the plug-ins are getting scary good. And I mean as a whole, not just those emulating hardware.


----------



## Wes Antczak (Jun 12, 2022)

Before the OB series was introduced there were the Four Voice and the Eight Voice systems built upon the SEM modules.

Eight Voice

Four Voice

As a point of interest, there is a photo of Vangelis with an Oberheim Four Voice inside the booklet of the album Odes by Irene Papas from 1978.


----------



## elucid (Jun 12, 2022)

Hmmm. I had this one in the cart and with the discount code applied. And then stopped myself.
Much as I would like more modular modules, I have a real SH-101 and I think I would be better of waiting for a sale on the LuSH.

D16 do have occasional sales, I think, don’t they?


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 12, 2022)

zvenx said:


> Tastes really do vary.
> 
> 1) I think the Model 72 is their most impressive offering thus far.
> 2) I think Tal J-8 surpassed Diva, it is in Repro category to me (which too surpassed Diva).
> ...


The biggest issue with features related to sound on all 3 is the Noise, but it’s worst on 72 and 82, where it’s massively overpowering and seems to sit atop the sound rather than integrated with it. However, Model 72 also has overpowering Feedback, as well - useful for 808 style kicks, but that’s about it (for me). Since 72 has 2 features I can only use a tiny fraction of at most, I rank it lower than 82. Plus Moogs aren’t super exciting to me, so I’m also biased.

OB-E: it’s on my list. The only issue I have with it is the UI being complex, similar to zoom in and out on Omnisphere (also something I’m not a fan of). I don’t necessarily want to have to configure/copy/paste settings for each voice - ugh. Maybe there’s now a one-button press and paste all without having to nav to each, but using that synth was kind of annoying to me when I did the demo, to the point that I didn’t care that it sounded good. I’m a UX pro, so I have opinions. Hehe. Sometimes I just want it easy like bx oberhausen. I suspect that oberhausen/OB-E is like comparing Model82 with TAL101 - both are good, one extends more than the other that sounds better at the core. I don’t use oberhausen much anymore, and it’s on my list to potentially remove (side note: I have an OB-6 for my SEM fix). Still, it’s a different monosynth sound than Repro1, Model72, or Model82, so….


----------



## Wes Antczak (Jun 12, 2022)

elucid said:


> Hmmm. I had this one in the cart and with the discount code applied. And then stopped myself.
> Much as I would like more modular modules, I have a real SH-101 and I think I would be better of waiting for a sale on the LuSH.
> 
> D16 do have occasional sales, I think, don’t they?


They do indeed. Best is to sign up for their newsletter.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Jun 13, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> The biggest issue with features related to sound on all 3 is the Noise, but it’s worst on 72 and 82, where it’s massively overpowering and seems to sit atop the sound rather than integrated with it. However, Model 72 also has overpowering Feedback, as well - useful for 808 style kicks, but that’s about it (for me). Since 72 has 2 features I can only use a tiny fraction of at most, I rank it lower than 82. Plus Moogs aren’t super exciting to me, so I’m also biased.
> 
> OB-E: it’s on my list. The only issue I have with it is the UI being complex, similar to zoom in and out on Omnisphere (also something I’m not a fan of). I don’t necessarily want to have to configure/copy/paste settings for each voice - ugh. Maybe there’s now a one-button press and paste all without having to nav to each, but using that synth was kind of annoying to me when I did the demo, to the point that I didn’t care that it sounded good. I’m a UX pro, so I have opinions. Hehe. Sometimes I just want it easy like bx oberhausen. I suspect that oberhausen/OB-E is like comparing Model82 with TAL101 - both are good, one extends more than the other that sounds better at the core. I don’t use oberhausen much anymore, and it’s on my list to potentially remove (side note: I have an OB-6 for my SEM fix). Still, it’s a different monosynth sound than Repro1, Model72, or Model82, so….


OB-E does indeed have an option to automatically program all voices at once. Maybe this is new for the new version.

I trialled it quite extensively, comparing it to my other synths to see what it could add for me. I decided that, for the projects I have in play this year, that I could only really use it for background work and so I didn't buy it.

I also thought it was one of the best soft synths I've heard for physicality and presence.


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 13, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> OB-E does indeed have an option to automatically program all voices at once. Maybe this is new for the new version.
> 
> I trialled it quite extensively, comparing it to my other synths to see what it could add for me. I decided that, for the projects I have in play this year, that I could only really use it for background work and so I didn't buy it.
> 
> I also thought it was one of the best soft synths I've heard for physicality and presence.


Interesting. I have to check this out. 

I have to check if I there is an update that makes this possible. Do you know if there are any videos showing this ? or any info. related to this detail. 

Thanks.


----------



## zvenx (Jun 13, 2022)

It's group and offset at the bottom. I thought they were there from day 1 actually.

rsp


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 13, 2022)

zvenx said:


> IT's group and offset at the bottom. I thought they were day from day 1 actually.
> 
> rsp


OH... OK, got it. Thanks @zvenx  

I also checked for any updates, and version 2.0.1 is the latest version for PC, I'm still on version 2.0, so I will be updating it. This is one of the Synths that I had not used after I purchased it. So, time to spend some quality time with it this week.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jun 13, 2022)

zvenx said:


> IT's group and offset at the bottom. I thought they were day from day 1 actually.
> 
> rsp


Could be. After playing the presets I got frustrated with the inability to init a patch in the demo and deleted it.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Jun 13, 2022)

muziksculp said:


> Interesting. I have to check this out.
> 
> I have to check if I there is an update that makes this possible. Do you know if there are any videos showing this ? or any info. related to this detail.
> 
> Thanks.




Pluginguru demonstrates it here, indirectly, by demonstrating how you can lock one SEM whilst using Group to adjust all of the others at once. It was actually available in version 1, as this video is from a year ago.


----------



## outland (Jun 23, 2022)

outland said:


> I'll find out probably after Wednesday, if I decide to buy both (or either.) I'll let you guys know what's up.


Okay, I'm answering my own post, which is admittedly weird, but I found out when I bought Models 82 and 84 the other day that the RAVEANDSAVE coupon is good only for the Model 82 as was suggested. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## Alchemedia (Aug 11, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> My "better than Diva" moment was with bx_oberhausen



Have you tried the GeForce SEM? I deleted the bx_Ob 2 minutes after installing the SEM.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Aug 11, 2022)

Alchemedia said:


> Have you tried the GeForce SEM? I deleted the bx_Ob 2 minutes after installing the SEM.


Yes! I’m very close to deleting oberhausen because of it, and probably will, since I have other synths I prefer for polyphonic stuff. Like my OB-6 or DiscoveryPro. There’s a uniqueness to oberhausen, but I don’t think I require it.


----------



## djm (Dec 5, 2022)

the price for the roland sh-101 plugin is 99.- and the softube price is equal. A little bit strange, because the roland sounds more musical.


----------



## sean8877 (Dec 5, 2022)

djm said:


> the price for the roland sh-101 plugin is 99.- and the softube price is equal. A little bit strange, because the roland sounds more musical.


That synth (Model 82) is on sale for $59 right now with code: MODELTOREMODEL


----------



## djm (Dec 5, 2022)

sean8877 said:


> That synth (Model 82) is on sale for $59 right now with code: MODELTOREMODEL


indeed, but have you already searched for presets? I found only one sound designer that sells 100 presets for 15.- . Not really a big deal, when you compare these sounds with the roland preset expansion/s.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Dec 5, 2022)

djm said:


> indeed, but have you already searched for presets? I found only one sound designer that sells 100 presets for 15.- . Not really a big deal, when you compare these sounds with the roland preset expansion/s.


100 presets for a simple monosynth should be way more than enough to learn from and make them from scratch.


----------



## djm (Dec 5, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> 100 presets for a simple monosynth should be way more than enough to learn from and make them from scratch.


This is correct, but the roland sh-101 is a monster. My focus is now on the roland cloud version. 
What I like on the softube model is sometimes the deep sound but I am not sure, if I can ever use it on a track. Maybe a problem of all these softube synths, but the effects are really great.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Dec 5, 2022)

djm said:


> This is correct, but the roland sh-101 is a monster. My focus is now on the roland cloud version.
> What I like on the softube model is sometimes the deep sound but I am not sure, if I can ever use it on a track. Maybe a problem of all these softube synths, but the effects are really great.



Have you matched the settings of what's shown and then tuned by ear?

The Softube synths sound like hardware. The Roland ones sound fine, too. Except then you need to do the whole Cloud thing, which I will never do.


----------



## djm (Dec 5, 2022)

This is how it should sounds: 



> The Softube synths sound like hardware.



Sure, I have all of them, but use them rarely.



> Except then you need to do the whole Cloud thing, which I will never do.


No, you can buy what you really need from the cloud, eg. presets. There are some dealers with offers to the synth plugins where you can buy the key that you can redeem in the roland cloud. I have bought once the tb-303 plugin in a shop. The benefit in the roland cloud is, that you can download a lot of free stuff. It`s more a fine selection and you don`t need a subscription.


----------



## SupremeFist (Dec 5, 2022)

djm said:


> The benefit in the roland cloud is, that you can download a lot of free stuff.


The downside is that it will disable the instruments you've paid for if it can't phone home when it wants to.


----------



## Pier (Dec 5, 2022)

What about the TAL Bassline? Is it good?


----------



## djm (Dec 5, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> The downside is that it will disable the instruments you've paid for if it can't phone home when it wants to.


Yes, a permanent internet-connection is mandatory while you are starting the plugin and the presets are expensive. They have currently a sale, two lifetime keys plus the subscription for 199.- /year. I think that`s fair. I`ve seen that a guy wants to sell his original sh-101 unit for 4k. These things have their price. I will at first play a little while with the model 82 before I decide for the roland version. Not all of these roland cloud synths sounds like the original. eg. JD 800, yes and sometimes is it really better to choose a emulation like the Synth Anthology 3 or who would buy a JV1080 plugin? The roland cloud is more for rare things. Otherwise, korg has gone a another way.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Dec 5, 2022)

Pier said:


> What about the TAL Bassline? Is it good?


It is! But more as an inspired-by rather than emulation, now that Softube and Roland have arrived. It does have polyphony and a sequencer and a few other tricks up it’s sleeve. Purists can avoid it, but I still like it for what it is.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Dec 11, 2022)

Not that it really matters or is on-topic, but I finally sold my copy of Diva for what I paid for it ($100). I'd reinstalled it recently before selling and was still "meh" - I can get the results I want easier elsewhere. So I continue to do so.

Like with Model 82.

However, I don't use 82 or 72 as often as 84.


----------



## sostenuto (Dec 11, 2022)

sidetracked presently /pleasantly with Korg _ Wavestate ($99.) _ sample input with randomize _ and Modwave.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Dec 11, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Not that it really matters or is on-topic, but I finally sold my copy of Diva for what I paid for it ($100). I'd reinstalled it recently before selling and was still "meh" - I can get the results I want easier elsewhere. So I continue to do so.
> 
> Like with Model 82.
> 
> However, I don't use 82 or 72 as often as 84.


Hmm. Well, if the sounds you want are like those of the Model 82, I'd say you're right that DIVA isn't the best choice for you. Multiple simpler synths will probably get you where you want to be quicker.

Congratulations on the sale!


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Dec 11, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> Hmm. Well, if the sounds you want are like those of the Model 82, I'd say you're right that DIVA isn't the best choice for you. Multiple simpler synths will probably get you where you want to be quicker.
> 
> Congratulations on the sale!


Thanks!

The proceeds more than paid for completing my Liquidsonics Quest (tm): Seventh Heaven Pro upgrade and then Illusion.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Dec 11, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> The proceeds more than paid for completing my Liquidsonics Quest (tm): Seventh Heaven Pro upgrade and then Illusion.


It's good that you are spending wisely! You could probably sell those at a profit, then buy them again next Black Friday and still be ahead financially. Or, I guess, you could use them...


----------

