i just downloaded the demo and tried some patches
- i'm very impressed by the sound.

What do you think?

I like its sound very much, but I don't have any experience with the original. However, every patch I tried sounded very familiar.

Sound quality comparisons to ARP Oddity?

Time to fire up Chainer and rip the guts outta this thing

If anyone has a real ARP 2600 (if you're reading this Daniel Miller ) and can do a 1:1 comparison, it would be very interesting to see the results.

Cheat Mode wrote:

If anyone has a real ARP 2600 (if you're reading this Daniel Miller ) and can do a 1:1 comparison, it would be very interesting to see the results.

..and if you dont have one, and you dont know what one sounds like, dont worry

Kriminal wrote:

Cheat Mode wrote: If anyone has a real ARP 2600 (if you're reading this Daniel Miller ) and can do a 1:1 comparison, it would be very interesting to see the results. ..and if you dont have one, and you dont know what one sounds like, dont worry

yeah, compare anyway.. no one ever seem to mind anyway

The feeling I get from this as well as all the arturia synths is "yes, the general character is there but it's not quite right yet". This however improves at 96khz as it smoothes out even the most raw sounds. These virtual analogue modelling things reminds me of Line 6's POD. It's got the general character spot on but the real "vibe" or smoothnes (and in the POD's case, weird response to dynamics) is still not achieved. We're definately getting there though. I'm sure that by the year 2010 even the most diehard analogue synth guys will not be able to tell the real deal from the fake.

EDIT: Btw. I feel the same about nearly all the VSTi's that try to recreate an old favourite or analogue in general. This is true for effects as well. This does not mean that I think they are bad, not at all!

Cheers!
bManic

an interesting comparison would be the one between arturia's ARP2600 and the other emulation from Timewarp (and supported by Alan R. Pearlman himself).

Quote:

Introduced in 1972 with its "Blue Meanie" version (not even 100 were built), the ARP 2600 has evolved over the years to become a synthesizer celebrated by the most respected musicians. Capable of creating amazing sounds thanks to the exclusive ARP technologies, it can be operated with or without patch cords since all of the functions are internally wired and can be controlled via sliders and switches.

Yes, an amazing sound in 1972...
That is 32 years ago !

Remember the Partridge Family ?
They started around the same time.

"THE PARTRIDGE FAMILY"
September 1970 - August 1974 , ABC

I can't wait to try out this demo. I've got about 5 hours to wait (dial up)

To be honest I found the GUI for Mini Moog and Modular annoying and unusable but the CS80 I find OK.

Oceanzen wrote:

I can't wait to try out this demo. I've got about 5 hours to wait (dial up) To be honest I found the GUI for Mini Moog and Modular annoying and unusable but the CS80 I find OK.

I thought this thread was about the sound... HA! Kidding!

I think the interface is a nice balance between the relatively tight Moog Modular V layout and the spaciousness of the minimoog V. I find your comment on the CS80V to be a bit dumbfounding, as it's the most crowded of the bunch - as was the original.

The ARP 2600V was a less complex instrument than the Moogs, so it stands to reason that both the hardware and the virtual interface would be more open as well.

I have the distinct feeling that the "retro" sounds from their sound bank will start showing up on US television commercials in about two weeks. I still can't get over the fact that you can use Arturia's virtual instruments as an FX unit - that's a huge advantage when it comes time to really mash things up like one could do in the olden days. Think of Pete Townshend using an ARP on "Who Are You"...

Wopelka wrote:

an interesting comparison would be the one between arturia's ARP2600 and the other emulation from Timewarp (and supported by Alan R. Pearlman himself).

but that one from timewarp isn't out for vst yet

bluedad wrote:

Wopelka wrote: an interesting comparison would be the one between arturia's ARP2600 and the other emulation from Timewarp (and supported by Alan R. Pearlman himself). but that one from timewarp isn't out for vst yet

Quote:

Future platforms including TDM, Audio Unit, and Windows VST are planned for release in the first half of 2005.

I'd laso like to hear comments on how it compares to Creamware's emulation.

bluedad wrote:

Wopelka wrote: an interesting comparison would be the one between arturia's ARP2600 and the other emulation from Timewarp (and supported by Alan R. Pearlman himself). but that one from timewarp isn't out for vst yet

TimewARP 2600 looks interesting, except:
1) no 1601 sequencer
2) polyphony limit to 8 notes per instance
3) no delay or chorus (trivial, as this is an add-on)
4) no ability to use the voltage processor as inverter, mixer or lag processor (from what I can see)
5) keyboard following looks standard

On the plus side, the TimewARP can also be used as an effect - I'm loving this turn toward truly open potential of these analog emulations. I wonder how many folks are going to use the 2600V as an effect strictly for its spring reverb emulation...

Hmmm... I also noticed in the Help>About window in ARP 2600 V that there's a very special thanks to Alan R. Perlman... curiouser and curiouser...

Someone should do a simple patch comparison to ARP Oddity.

HHaynes wrote:

I still can't get over the fact that you can use Arturia's virtual instruments as an FX unit - that's a huge advantage when it comes time to really mash things up like one could do in the olden days. Think of Pete Townshend using an ARP on "Who Are You"...

how would set up something like this? (i'm using FL5)

Some presets hit 60% cpu on my Dual G5 Mac with Live 4.04... How the hell would I use that? Great sounds... terrible optimization! (Like all their stuff...) That's why I sold my CS-80v...

verstaerker wrote:

how would set up something like this? (i'm using FL5)

I can't comment on the specific ins and outs of FL Studio, as I use Cubase and Nuendo. For me, it's as simple as going to the Insert on a track/channel and selecting the "ARP2600 V Efx" entry in the list (it gets installed alongside the VSTi dll). Then I set up a new MIDI track with an output to "ARP2600 V Efx", which appears in the MIDI output list - so that I can trigger things through MIDI. Of course I also use VST automation quite a bit in these situations, and tend to use MIDI only to create a note that holds open gates and triggers envelopes and provide tracking information to the filters and oscillators - as opposed to MIDI control when using it as a synth.

I love seeing photos of studios back in the analog daze where the prevalence of microphones, tape units (both as track input and output as well as reel-to-reel based delay units) and a myriad other effects were plugged into and fed off of modular gear. Organ-styled keyboards were typically the *last* thing that anyone cared about. The really cool thing about using virtual analog synths as effects in today's world is that as soon as you need another Moog Modular or ARP2600 V to cram a drum, guitar, vocal or other keyboard through - you *don't* have to unplug everything and re-patch. You just call up another instance of the plug-in and run with it. It's like having a room full of modular gear sitting off to the side of your studio. How many folks that paid $1000s for their analog gear would like to have that option for a touch more than $300?

Had a quick flick thru some of the presets, sounds quite good. Some of the bass stuff is impressive.

DHR53 wrote:

Some presets hit 60% cpu on my Dual G5 Mac with Live 4.04... How the hell would I use that? Great sounds... terrible optimization! (Like all their stuff...) That's why I sold my CS-80v...

That's the price you pay for committing to authenticity. Not cutting corners on things like preventing digital aliasing during ring modulation - especially when you place a premium on getting things right - means that certain patches are going to be CPU expensive with the very first note.

I'm not saying that they won't find a way to get a truer result while creating more efficient code. They've proven themselves capable of that. Just look at the MMV2 - as a substantial upgrade and improvement in quality - for FREE no less - which also found its way into the other VAs in their line including the CS-80V. I think it's a matter of where the priorities are, and in my opinion I think that Arturia is doing all of the important stuff right.

They may have spec'd out 32 notes of polyphony for the systems required Mac and PC-side, but that doesn't mean it's going to be easy on your CPU. Nothing good in life is free...

Just fired it up and am very impressed. Not sure how this compares to the original but who cares it sounds great. Only thing that bugs me is the stupid wires. It's not a big deal but still annoying to look at. I think the graphic designers need some tips on animating wires from the folks at propellerheads.

Anyway this is definatley on my list.


Mush

HHaynes wrote:

verstaerker wrote: how would set up something like this? (i'm using FL5) I can't comment on the specific ins and outs of FL Studio, as I use Cubase and Nuendo. For me, it's as simple as going to the Insert on a track/channel and selecting the "ARP2600 V Efx" entry in the list (it gets installed alongside the VSTi dll). Then I set up a new MIDI track with an output to "ARP2600 V Efx", which appears in the MIDI output list - so that I can trigger things through MIDI. Of course I also use VST automation quite a bit in these situations, and tend to use MIDI only to create a note that holds open gates and triggers envelopes and provide tracking information to the filters and oscillators. But for the rest of the controls I tend to use VST automation - just like my other effects - as opposed to MIDI control when using it as a synth. I love seeing photos of studios back in the analog daze where the prevalence of microphones, tape units (both as track input and output as well as reel-to-reel based delay units) and a myriad other effects were plugged into and fed off of modular gear. Organ-styled keyboards were typically the *last* thing that anyone cared about. The really cool thing about using virtual analog synths as effects in today's world is that as soon as you need another Moog Modular or ARP2600 V to cram a drum, guitar, vocal or other keyboard through - you *don't* have to unplug everything and re-patch. You just call up another instance of the plug-in and run with it. It's like having a room full of modular gear sitting off to the side of your studio. How many folks that paid $1000s for their analog gear would like to have that option for a touch more than $300?

ok thanks i got it working now
the problem was the wiring inside the Arp

akisd28 wrote:

I'd laso like to hear comments on how it compares to Creamware's emulation.

Creamware don't have a 2600 emulation. You're getting confused with the Arp Odyssey, and its creamware emu, the Prodyssey.

I really like the sound of this. I haven't played an original so I can't compare but a lot of the sounds do have a familiar feeling to them so I could best describe it as at least "2600-ish." The bass sounds are worth the price of entry alone. I played the CE_Drone* presets for at least half an hour. The only thing I find annoying is the reverb. For some reason I find it grating on a lot of the presets but this is easy disabled and the presets still sound good.

Midiworks wrote:

Yes, an amazing sound in 1972... That is 32 years ago !

Absolutely right! Thirty-two years is too old for any instrument. While we're at it, let's throw out all the guitars too, and drums, and pianos, and organs, and...

*9_9*

BTW, I rather like it. But then I also like Arturia's MMV and other emulations of "obsolete" (hem, hem) instruments.

Meffy

i'm 32 in 32 days... i should retire

Wopelka wrote:

i'm 32 in 32 days... i should retire

Ooo, bad luck! I'm in my late forties, and thus already entirely obsolete.

BTW, I have played a 2600, but it was back when they were new. To me the sound of the V is very close, though not exactly the same. Same goes for Moog Modular V: it's a great emulation, and if it's not quite 100%, I think the improvements far outweigh the places where it can't perfectly duplicate the sounds of the original.

And as others have observed, the virtual analog guys -- Arturia, GMedia, and others -- are certainly nailing it a little closer each time. Stepwise improvement, approaching the goal more nearly every year, every month.

As one who doesn't mind playing 32-year-old instruments, I can't wait to hear what the future brings.

Meffy

LBN wrote:

The only thing I find annoying is the reverb. For some reason I find it grating on a lot of the presets but this is easy disabled and the presets still sound good.

HA! Reminds me of the original in that way, too!

wow are we seeing a kinder gentler HHaynes these days- I dont think I have ever seen you post more than 2 posts in a row before you "correct" someone

really impressed by the low cpu usage too.

I've lusted after the real 2600's ever since I read the instrument list on an early Mike Oldfield album.

But I'm also curious how good a job they did on the sequencer. I own an ARP sequencer (the black and gold version, which is electronically the same as the 1601) but never had a modular synth to use it on, it being relegated to control my twin ARP Axxes. The thing about this sequencer is that it can play at audio frequencies and be used as a wave shaper rather than a traditional sequencer. You just draw the shape of the wave you want using the sliders for each step, and crank the frequency up real high. It then plays through the steps so fast that the CV created by its output is in the audio frequencies. You can then use that to modulate an oscillator with FM, or run it through an amplifier/envelope and FM modulate the frequency to control its pitch.

Or so I've read, anyway. The ARP Axxe only takes one CV input and that's directly controlling its note value.

So, I'm curious to see if this virtual sequencer has been programmed accurately enough to do the same thing.

Must download demo!

DHR53 wrote:

Some presets hit 60% cpu on my Dual G5 Mac with Live 4.04... How the hell would I use that? Great sounds... terrible optimization! (Like all their stuff...) That's why I sold my CS-80v...

Hmmm... I wonder if there is a difference in the Mac optimization. On my 1.7GH (Pentium M) Laptop, the most I hit, on any preset, is 15% while playing full chords.

S_A_P wrote:

wow are we seeing a kinder gentler HHaynes these days- I dont think I have ever seen you post more than 2 posts in a row before you "correct" someone

This is the first time in a long while that I've been able to get into an exchange on KVR without having to deal with the "vigilanties of synth" swooping in and slashing the tires on an Arturia thread... ...lucky for me, I have insomnia after seeing the better half off to the airport for her Christmas stint with the folks on the east coast. While the cat is away, the KVR mouse will play...

I must confess, I have had no great love for ARP gear since I had to deal with repairing so many of them while working at Wizard Electronics (Atlanta) "back in the day". But this ARP2600 V has me considering a virtual change of heart. There's some really nice, unique things about it, and the sliders don't crackle and drop out when you move them... ...another instance where the Arturia model is not exactly like the original.

I wonder if they're using the Moog "lawsuit" filter for this emulation...

Last time I played an 2600 was about 2 years ago and I have a few samples sitting at home from some old patches. I'll try to reacreate them a make a comparison when I get home tonight. The ARP I created them with a grey one that wasn't feeling the healthiest so I don't know how fair this is going to be... It did have the Moog lawsuit filter in it though...

There are some nice little hidden items in the ARP. Hunt around and get some surprises.

Meffy

Just a question but when people are suggesting comparisons with the Oddity and Creamware's Oddysey emulation is there enough similarity between the Oddysey and the 2600 for such comparisons to be useful? I just wondered since although they are made by the same company does that mean they are that close soundwise as one is a modular and one hardwired (is there much similarity between a Minimoog and a Moog Modular for example?)

I think there would be enough differences not compare them. My SCI Pro-One never sounded like a 1 voice Prophet 5. I compared it a lot. The same thing with a Minimoog an a modular Moog. They have different filter models for sure. I'm assuming it's the same thing with the Oddissey and the 2600. They sound similar but not the same circuits inside. Plus with all the different versions that they could be trying to emulate (both 2600 and Oddissey)...

aMUSEd wrote:

Just a question but when people are suggesting comparisons with the Oddity and Creamware's Oddysey emulation is there enough similarity between the Oddysey and the 2600 for such comparisons to be useful?

It can only be partially instructive (to the extent of being pointless), in that if you restrict the patch configuration to match the oscillator count, polyphony, and so on then you might get a relatively matched comparison of certain elements, but filters will probably falter for the same reasons why their analog counterparts don't compare favorably from the lower tier against the upper. At some point (and in my opinion with this case - very quickly) the parallels fall apart and you must extrapolate. Then, you're left to consider all of the available features for a particular virtual synth, given its price, and make a value comparison there - as I said - to the extent of having no true comparative meaning.

But somehow I don't remember a lot of people lining up to measure the Moog Modular V against the minimoog knock-offs from other companies that have been floating around... so it strikes me as a bit odd.

I've never owned a real one but have listened to enough music made with one and it sounds good to me. The preset MB_Notch_Seq_bs should be called 'Blasphemous Rumours'

Arturia's web site wrote:

Check how an instrument from the past, combined with cutting-hedge technology from today, can help you create tomorrow's music.

You can use it for gardening as well? Wow!

Cheat Mode wrote:

Arturia's web site wrote: Check how an instrument from the past, combined with cutting-hedge technology from today, can help you create tomorrow's music. You can use it for gardening as well? Wow!

Ni!

Meffy
a shrubbery

Meffy wrote:

There are some nice little hidden items in the ARP. Hunt around and get some surprises. Meffy

YEP...Theres even an electronic switch, which i thought only my humble EML 200 had. I did 32 presets for this beast, and hope Arturia will post them soon, which should be in the user area( hoping to get on the initial release..oh well, but thats OK)
I was able to do Totem sounds on it too, using the sample hold and clocking it to the envelope generator. Then using the built in delay, come up with several Totem sounds that are self generating.

One thing I really like about this is the ease of patching. Theres a lot of hardwired stuff also in which you don't need patch cords. but once you stick in a patch cord, it over rides it.

The sound is really beefy, and CPU low in mono mode, although goes hi when in poly mode ( on my beta version anyway)But in mono mode, you can stack the sound up so its real full. Lots of mod passabilities including a surprise on the right speaker

TC

tconrardy wrote:

One thing I really like about this is the ease of patching. Theres a lot of hardwired stuff also in which you don't need patch cords. but once you stick in a patch cord, it over rides it. TC

Same thing with the Korg MS-20. I like when they're setup that way and you don't have to hook up all the basics... At least on a hardware synth, software you can always have a basic preset to begin with

Tim, you got that right -- the tracking generator sent me scurrying to Google for info. Power!

One thing that surprised me was the alternate skins... didn't expect that. Call me silly but I don't care for rust and paint damage! And the modern, black-and-orange look says "Axxe" to me. Gray meanie is my favorite look.

Meffy

Man-Machine wrote:

Same thing with the Korg MS-20. I like when they're setup that way and you don't have to hook up all the basics... At least on a hardware synth, software you can always have a basic preset to begin with

The later Moog Modulars (like the System 55) has a ton of normaled connections that routed things through automatically. The Arturia MMV reflects that - it's just that most of the normalling was in the gate and envelope triggering as well as keyboard tracking area. They still left it up to the user to route the audio. It's not a black-and-white cut-and-dry analog-verus-virtual thing - but a question of degree.

Does anyone know how the oscilator drift is emulated on Arturia synths? The NI Pro-53 has that analog knob that sets the amount...

Just curious...

I like the 2600 V and think Arturia have done a wonderful job in general, however, I do feel it is missing a certain "something" soundwise. It's difficult to put into words. I had it going next to my Oddity last night and the Oddity just has a certain magic to it that the 2600 V seems to be lacking. I owned 3 Odysseys in the past (Whiteface, Black and Gold, Black and Orange), and one Black and Orange 2600 and I can say that, while they all sounded somewhat different, the general ARP "character" was always there. IMHO, the Oddity comes closest to nailing that ARP sound.

I wonder if Arturia is going to do the same thing again. They made a Moog Modular first and the Minimoog came after. And now, they make first the ARP 2600 and then the Odyssey comes next...

If they do so, they better raise the bar (Prodissey & Oddity)

Meffy wrote:

Tim, you got that right -- the tracking generator sent me scurrying to Google for info. Power! One thing that surprised me was the alternate skins... didn't expect that. Call me silly but I don't care for rust and paint damage! And the modern, black-and-orange look says "Axxe" to me. Gray meanie is my favorite look. Meffy

Ummm... What alternate skins. How do you select them ?

portobellovcs3 wrote:

I like the 2600 V and think Arturia have done a wonderful job in general, however, I do feel it is missing a certain "something" soundwise. It's difficult to put into words. I had it going next to my Oddity last night and the Oddity just has a certain magic to it that the 2600 V seems to be lacking. I owned 3 Odysseys in the past (Whiteface, Black and Gold, Black and Orange), and one Black and Orange 2600 and I can say that, while they all sounded somewhat different, the general ARP "character" was always there. IMHO, the Oddity comes closest to nailing that ARP sound.

I Think the that one of the main reasons that arturias emulation doesnt sound as close as it could is because they dont model the Arp 2600s Oscillators wave shapes. In fact I compared the arturia 2600
waveforms and the Original Arp with an ocilliscope and they are completey
different (both visualy and soundwise). Something else I found out while testing arturias 2600v,MMv and
CS80v is that they all use the same oscillators ! They look and sound identical. They seem to model the filter,env shape etc. but not the osc. The Odditys waveshapes look and sound like the originals.
Useing the arp name and claiming it sounds like the 2600 when the Oscillators waveshapes have not been modeled at all is misleading. The waveshapes are a BIG part of the sound and arturia should fix this.

rouge wrote:

Ummm... What alternate skins. How do you select them ?

Up on the top of the VSTi display towards the right there is a box with "SKIN" next to it in tiny letters. Right-click on the number and you can select one of three skins: The original blue meanie, the gray meanie, and the orange on black. I prefer this last one as the orange makes the legends easier for me to read.

LBN wrote:

rouge wrote: Ummm... What alternate skins. How do you select them ? Up on the top of the VSTi display towards the right there is a box with "SKIN" next to it in tiny letters. Right-click on the number and you can select one of three skins: The original blue meanie, the gray meanie, and the orange on black. I prefer this last one as the orange makes the legends easier for me to read.

Thanks.

The so-called emulations from Arturia are just emulations in routing and possibilities. There's no effort whatsoever to emulate analog non-linearities or machine specific compontents and as said in previous posts, the oscillators are just plain digital waveforms found in any VA. What they sell is a name, not an actual sound, far from being True Analog Emulation as they claim themselves.

The moog waveforms kinda look like okay :
http://www.kvraudio.com/tae.php

Take the demo and pass one clean osc thru s(M)exoscope VST from smartelectronix and compare with the real thing if possible.

I did it but not with all of Arturias models.

I was hoping someone would bring up the subject for clarification.

AntiPro wrote:

The so-called emulations from Arturia are just emulations in routing and possibilities. There's no effort whatsoever to emulate analog non-linearities or machine specific compontents and as said in previous posts, the oscillators are just plain digital waveforms found in any VA. What they sell is a name, not an actual sound, far from being True Analog Emulation as they claim themselves.

Ahhhh - yet another presumed competitor chimes in...

Let the tire-slashing begin!



The ARP2600 V doesn't sound 100% like the real thing. The MMV does not copy the original Moog Modular 100% - same with the minimoog V. The CS-80V didn't control pitch from the ribbon the same way that the original did (until a later update). So what? I have yet to hear anyone do better. I know what these things sounds like - I've worked on them for years - and I've got to tell you that they're all pretty damned close. Besides, no one at a concert is going to bring an O-scope and spectrometer and ask for their money back if the phase-coherency of the oscillator bank is not like their modular synth at home.

Add to that the fact that all of Arturia's VA synths can do things that the originals couldn't do or only did in very few numbers (Bode frequency shifter - HELLLOOOO!) - and puts them on a level above anything else on the market. While the you boys are waiting years for your imagined perfect emulation from your pet companies while vinting your grapes of wrath for anyone else who comes out with a product first and gets it pretty damned close, I'm sitting back with a nice glass of Louis Jadot Beaujolais and listening to my latest track on the stereo. C'mon guys - you can do better than that.

AntiPro wrote:

The so-called emulations from Arturia are just emulations in routing and possibilities. There's no effort whatsoever to emulate analog non-linearities or machine specific compontents and as said in previous posts, the oscillators are just plain digital waveforms found in any VA. What they sell is a name, not an actual sound, far from being True Analog Emulation as they claim themselves.

yeah, i completely agree, they all sound the same, that explains why they release them so quick.

I played with all the patches last night.

I too feel that its ARP 2600 like but not the real thing. Something in the high end is missing to me.

I own several old analog synths and no VSTi yet is really there however I feel the Oddity is the best so far and the Minimoog V is very usable in a song.

I also think Vanguard is a strong VST for Juno hoover sounds.

Just an opinion.

rouge wrote:

In fact I compared the arturia 2600 waveforms and the Original Arp with an ocilliscope and they are completey different (both visualy and soundwise). Something else I found out while testing arturias 2600v,MMv and CS80v is that they all use the same oscillators ! They look and sound identical.

I'd like to see that on paper, myself. I highly, highly, HIGHLY doubt that they are "completey different". Does everyone remember when Arturia updated their VA line to include free-running oscillators? You know what that means, don't you?..

It means that at one time the Arturia synths DIDN'T have free-running oscillators!!!!

OHHH THE HORROR!!!!!!!



But now they do have this feature - and if it ends up that they don't have some nuance in the oscillator design for the ARP, I'm sure they'll nail it eventually. They have a proven track record of doing some high-quality functional upgrades to all of their synths, which is a LOT more than you can say for some of the one-shot-wonders and much-ballyhooed-vapor getting a crazy amount of press here.

Here have a cookie and some milk good sir.

I downloaded this and was a little dissapointed, to be honest.. I think that I must be missing something here because most of the arturia demos I've tried so far have left me a little cold.. Perhaps my ears aren't tuned in enough or something..

xRAVENx wrote:

Here have a cookie and some milk good sir.

Thanks, I'll stick with the beaujolais for now.

Fine. Have it your way. More for me.

Quote:

yeah, i completely agree, they all sound the same, that explains why they release them so quick.

The time you spend to do things is not a guarantee of perfection, it's how you do it that counts. If you know what you're doing, you don't need more time than necessary .

I'm glad to see something different than those synths with trance sounds and banks, let's get back to basics.
for pure emulation of contemporary synths, nothing beats the Virus|Powercore(same software and motorolla chips), for analogs, what do you expect ? depending on the condition, 2 arps can sound different.

Okay it's not a pure 100% ? 98? 95%? i'm happy to lose 2 or 5% if i can save the presets, get rid of cables, get in sync, midi, and extra features etc etc. and i'm not even sure i'd be happy with the real thing ( if i could find one ).

anyway that's just my opinion

AntiPro wrote:

The so-called emulations from Arturia are just emulations in routing and possibilities. There's no effort whatsoever to emulate analog non-linearities or machine specific compontents and as said in previous posts, the oscillators are just plain digital waveforms found in any VA. What they sell is a name, not an actual sound, far from being True Analog Emulation as they claim themselves.

i agree actually, but you'll find this is true of 90% of software synths. it is difficult to do analog waveforms with dsp

the minimoog does sound nice though, but i agree its mainly down to the routing possibilities. wasnt feeling the mp3 demos of arp 2600

I own an ARP 2600 version 3 with the 3620 keyboard. After coming here to KvR and reading about how valuable they are nowadays I latched it up in it's boxes and put it in the closet.
I can set it up this weekend and record it if you tell me exactly what you want to hear. It should come out pretty clear. I have an E-MU 1820m.

An exact A/B comparison with the 2600V! See if you can do a patch with the filter completely disengaged, and one with the filter on. Can you host .wav files? Can your card do high samplerates?

Col.G wrote:

tell me exactly what you want to hear

Pure analog beauty.

Meffy
unhelpful but enthusiastic

[edit] Maybe I can be more helpful... I might have a few patch diagrams left from my hardware Moog-and-ARP days. Will try to remember where my notebooks from back in the early 70s might be. If I can find 'em, and if there's anything in there that might sound good, I'll photograph or scan and upload to somewhere you can fetch them from. No promises -- I wasn't exactly a rock star in high school

Thought this thread might be a good place to ask, since you are all here.

Now, the Tracking Generator. The demo manual says nothing about it. From the name I would have thought it might be some kind of shaper like the Tracking generators on the Oberheim Xpander: Feed it a control voltage and shape it, grab the output.
Now the Arturia ARP2600 V's Tracking Generators seem to be more like complex custom waveform LFOs, running all by themselves by the set Frequency. Nice thing indeed, but on thing I just can not figure out:
What are the Inputs for?
I thought they might be for retriggering or something, but on trial&error it turned out to be the wrong guess. Anyone?


[EDIT] Just found out myself... had forgotten about the feature to set the amount of inputs, just like on the MMV. [/EDIT]


[EDIT2] Wow! Those Tracking Generators with their drawing modes are the best rhythmic control sources since Absynth's envelopes. Amazing![/EDIT2]

I don't know.....i just donwloaded and installed the demo.....i like it....it's pretty close IMO....Aside from being broke....i'm waiting for the Timewarp one to come out for PC vst before i spend any money.

Peace!

dharmawan wrote:

AntiPro wrote: The so-called emulations from Arturia are just emulations in routing and possibilities. There's no effort whatsoever to emulate analog non-linearities or machine specific compontents and as said in previous posts, the oscillators are just plain digital waveforms found in any VA. What they sell is a name, not an actual sound, far from being True Analog Emulation as they claim themselves. i agree actually, but you'll find this is true of 90% of software synths. it is difficult to do analog waveforms with dsp the minimoog does sound nice though, but i agree its mainly down to the routing possibilities. wasnt feeling the mp3 demos of arp 2600

Which is why it's so nice that there is at least ONE company that takes time to painstakingly MODEL each component as closely as possible. My money has always been on the OhmForce team (and Gmedia too though I have no money invested in them yet!)! Goooooooo FORCE!

Cheers!
bManic

Wopelka wrote:

i'm 32 in 32 days... i should retire

Or maybe we could emulate you?

Banjostar wrote:

Wopelka wrote: i'm 32 in 32 days... i should retire Or maybe we could emulate you?

are you crazy?
your computer wouldn't survive, i have to warn you

yul wrote:

The moog waveforms kinda look like okay : http://www.kvraudio.com/tae.php Take the demo and pass one clean osc thru s(M)exoscope VST from smartelectronix and compare with the real thing if possible. I did it but not with all of Arturias models. I was hoping someone would bring up the subject for clarification.

This article always makes me giggle

While you're at s(M)exoscope... load one of the synths that produce the "wrong" sawtooth. Then switch the DC-blocker in s(M)exoscope on and off. Now you see what's wrong with those claims about "wrong" and "right" sawtooths. The difference is just a high pass filter used to get rid of the DC. That's all.

Cheers,

Urs

Urs wrote:

yul wrote: The moog waveforms kinda look like okay : http://www.kvraudio.com/tae.php This article always makes me giggle

I wonder: How comes this article is hosted at KVR at all?
And how do you access it if not by the direct link? Are there more articles like this one hosted by KVR?

Meffy wrote:

Maybe I can be more helpful... I might have a few patch diagrams left from my hardware Moog-and-ARP days. Will try to remember where my notebooks from back in the early 70s might be. If I can find 'em, and if there's anything in there that might sound good, I'll photograph or scan and upload to somewhere you can fetch them from. No promises -- I wasn't exactly a rock star in high school

Thanks Meffy, that would help if you could find them. I looked around the web a while back to find info on the 2600 and I found the owners manual and the service manual for the synth and the 3620 keyboard, but I never found the patch book. Even a few patch diagrams would be cool. Thanks,
G.

rouge wrote:

portobellovcs3 wrote: I like the 2600 V and think Arturia have done a wonderful job in general, however, I do feel it is missing a certain "something" soundwise. It's difficult to put into words. I had it going next to my Oddity last night and the Oddity just has a certain magic to it that the 2600 V seems to be lacking. I owned 3 Odysseys in the past (Whiteface, Black and Gold, Black and Orange), and one Black and Orange 2600 and I can say that, while they all sounded somewhat different, the general ARP "character" was always there. IMHO, the Oddity comes closest to nailing that ARP sound. I Think the that one of the main reasons that arturias emulation doesnt sound as close as it could is because they dont model the Arp 2600s Oscillators wave shapes. In fact I compared the arturia 2600 waveforms and the Original Arp with an ocilliscope and they are completey different (both visualy and soundwise). Something else I found out while testing arturias 2600v,MMv and CS80v is that they all use the same oscillators ! They look and sound identical. They seem to model the filter,env shape etc. but not the osc. The Odditys waveshapes look and sound like the originals. Useing the arp name and claiming it sounds like the 2600 when the Oscillators waveshapes have not been modeled at all is misleading. The waveshapes are a BIG part of the sound and arturia should fix this.

I think you may have something there. It is strange that the odditty is still monophonic but has the closest resemblance to it's parent.Maybe modeling the oscillators would use too much cpu? I read in the computer music mag that the OSC waveforms of the CS80v do not resemble the originals.
One thing though OSC's in the original hardware might degrade with time. Arturia may be modeling it on an ex-factory (perfect) version. And there will be factory build tolerances which may affect this too.

http://www.kvraudio.com/tae.php just makes me laugh. Calling those very basic techniques True Analog Emulation is just ridiculous.

Here's a sample from a real one.

http://members.fortunecity.se/kmdm/sound/samples_sgr_br_bassline.zip

One of the presets comes pretty damn close, so I'm pretty much convinced. What do you reckon?

96kbs MP3s wouldn't be a fair way to compare. Can you provide the .wav file?

Col.G wrote:

Even a few patch diagrams would be cool.

Looked high and low. All that's left is a thin sheaf of Moog Modular diagrams (for the mostly C-III, partly System 55 setup we used back then). And even most of those are nothing terribly special, just what you'd expect a student to come up with.

I did find a nice stack of blanks though -- if I ever find that old machine for sale or in a warehouse someplace, I'm all set. *9_9*

Ah well. Sorry 'bout that.

Meffy

Just thought you might want to see what the guys at harmony central are saying about it so far:

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid= 809702

PugFace wrote:

rouge wrote: portobellovcs3 wrote: I like the 2600 V and think Arturia have done a wonderful job in general, however, I do feel it is missing a certain "something" soundwise. It's difficult to put into words. I had it going next to my Oddity last night and the Oddity just has a certain magic to it that the 2600 V seems to be lacking. I owned 3 Odysseys in the past (Whiteface, Black and Gold, Black and Orange), and one Black and Orange 2600 and I can say that, while they all sounded somewhat different, the general ARP "character" was always there. IMHO, the Oddity comes closest to nailing that ARP sound. I Think the that one of the main reasons that arturias emulation doesnt sound as close as it could is because they dont model the Arp 2600s Oscillators wave shapes. In fact I compared the arturia 2600 waveforms and the Original Arp with an ocilliscope and they are completey different (both visualy and soundwise). Something else I found out while testing arturias 2600v,MMv and CS80v is that they all use the same oscillators ! They look and sound identical. They seem to model the filter,env shape etc. but not the osc. The Odditys waveshapes look and sound like the originals. Useing the arp name and claiming it sounds like the 2600 when the Oscillators waveshapes have not been modeled at all is misleading. The waveshapes are a BIG part of the sound and arturia should fix this. I think you may have something there. It is strange that the odditty is still monophonic but has the closest resemblance to it's parent.Maybe modeling the oscillators would use too much cpu? I read in the computer music mag that the OSC waveforms of the CS80v do not resemble the originals. One thing though OSC's in the original hardware might degrade with time. Arturia may be modeling it on an ex-factory (perfect) version. And there will be factory build tolerances which may affect this too.

The Arp 2600 I have has just been serviced and is completely clean so thats not it. It seems Arturia is useing the Osc Waveforms from the MMV as a base for all their synths. The Arp 2600s Square, Saw and Sine
are far from perfect while arturias 2600v look and sound very close to perfect waveforms. They are really worlds apart. If anyone whats to see and hear
what real Arp 2600 Osc and filers look and sound like
check this link and d/l the PDF and samples- http://www.bitshifted.com/samecoff.asp

Read below its from the guy who wrote the original
Arp 2600 manual. It was posted in the musicplayer.com
forums. http://www.musicplayer.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t =011967;p=2

Quote:

Something about emulation: whatever the Arturia product is, it's not an emulation of a 2600. Not one single module in it works the way the corresponding module in a real 2600 does. The TimewARP2600, on the other hand, can stand up alongside a real 2600. With a few exceptions, any patch that works on a hardware 2600 will work on the TimewARP2600, and will sound the same. That is - emphatically - not the case with the Arturia 2600V. This is not to diss those here who, having no experience with the original machine, happen to like the Arturia product. In music, "if it sounds good, it IS good." But if it doesn't work the same way, there's no sense in pretending that it does. The 2600V appears to me to be more of an exercise in graphic design than in new synthesizer software; a 2600 skin on top of the same algorithms as are used in other Arturia products. There is nothing "2600'y" about it all. Jim Michmerhuizen

I owned and was a retailer for bazillions of Arps back in the 70's. I even sent my own 2600, Odyssey, Avatar, Omni back to the factory a few times for those specialized mods/switches they used to do which were real cool. I even owned that little Arp dog, the "Little Brother".

I just pulled out all my old Arp stuff...service manuals, owners manuals, the 1974 "Making Music With Synthesizers/Odyssey" book by Friend/Pearlman..my glossy Arp catalogues from every era, Odyssey and 2600 patch books. Turns out I have lots of stuff.

The 2600 patch book I have has 100 patches with a nice index and hints section. Instruments are categorized into basic instruments (marimba, Theremin, etc) and onward into the more esoteric..gongs, toy pianos, noise, arpeggios, "Edgar Winter's Frankenstein" (that's what they call it), sample/hold effects etc.

I also have an Odyssey and Avatar patch book although the Avatar was just an Odyssey with no keyboard.

I'll try to figure out in what manner to post some of this stuff once I verify it's okay with whoever is still around to give permission.

As far as the Arturia version, my vote is that it's r-e-a-l good. If it's "not close", my ears aren't picking up on it. I wouldn't go back to the real Arp instruments (or Moog) for anything. They were all a big pain in one way or another.

And about that Arturia 2600 reverb that someone mentioned...you wanna hear bad reverb? Listen to the ten dollar spring reverb mounted inside the old real 2600. A three thousand dollar mono synth with a ten dollar spring reverb in it...THAT was bad. No...it was horrible.

These virtual synth days are the best!

rouge wrote:

The Arp 2600 I have has just been serviced and is completely clean so thats not it. It seems Arturia is useing the Osc Waveforms from the MMV as a base for all their synths. The Arp 2600s Square, Saw and Sine are far from perfect while arturias 2600v look and sound very close to perfect waveforms. They are really worlds apart. If anyone whats to see and hear what real Arp 2600 Osc and filers look and sound like check this link and d/l the PDF and samples- http://www.bitshifted.com/samecoff.asp

Wow! I compared the demo with these soundfiles and they do sound different. That's not so good...

rouge wrote:

Read below its from the guy who wrote the original Arp 2600 manual. It was posted in the musicplayer.com forums. http://www.musicplayer.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t =011967;p=2 Quote: Something about emulation: whatever the Arturia product is, it's not an emulation of a 2600. Not one single module in it works the way the corresponding module in a real 2600 does. The TimewARP2600, on the other hand, can stand up alongside a real 2600. With a few exceptions, any patch that works on a hardware 2600 will work on the TimewARP2600, and will sound the same. That is - emphatically - not the case with the Arturia 2600V. This is not to diss those here who, having no experience with the original machine, happen to like the Arturia product. In music, "if it sounds good, it IS good." But if it doesn't work the same way, there's no sense in pretending that it does. The 2600V appears to me to be more of an exercise in graphic design than in new synthesizer software; a 2600 skin on top of the same algorithms as are used in other Arturia products. There is nothing "2600'y" about it all. Jim Michmerhuizen

Based on Jim's statement and the above sound test, I think I'll wait a while for Arturia to fix these issues before spending my hard earned money. The synth sounds good, no doubts, but it doesn't sound as close as it is claiming. At least not yet...

Does anyone know how they're doing osc drifting? Anyone?

No offense Man-Machine, but why would you wait for Arturia to make the 2600v sound/work right based on what Jim Michmerhuizen said, if he also said the TimeWarp 2600 already sounds/works right? It seems like if anything (if you're going to base your purchase on what he says as he's obviously experienced with the originals), you'd be better off just waiting for the VST version of the TimeWarp 2600 to come out.

HHaynes wrote:

if it ends up that they don't have some nuance in the oscillator design for the ARP, I'm sure they'll nail it eventually.

While I agree with most of what you said, I'm not sure I'm happy with companies updating basic functionality like oscillators with a "point release". What if I have a bunch of patches that depend on the way the oscillator sounded when they originally shipped it?? Not a good policy, in general, even if they *do* make it "more accurate" with the upgrade.

I think a company would have to think long and hard about making such a change, although I know that such changes have been done to soft-synths in the past. Maybe adding a preference that allows the user to choose "old" or "new" behavior would be the way to solve this.

My point being, I wouldn't wait for the oscillators to "get better", because it might never happen. Things like making the oscillators free-running, or fixing the ribbon controller (as HH mentioned), aren't changing the basic sound of the instrument. Changing Osc waveforms is....

Funkybot wrote:

No offense Man-Machine, but why would you wait for Arturia to make the 2600v sound/work right based on what Jim Michmerhuizen said, if he also said the TimeWarp 2600 already sounds/works right? It seems like if anything (if you're going to base your purchase on what he says as he's obviously experienced with the originals), you'd be better off just waiting for the VST version of the TimeWarp 2600 to come out.

Or, the guy who likes TimeWarp could just be FUD'ing, until Timewarp can release product, eh?? You pays yer money, and you takes yer chances....

Funkybot wrote:

No offense Man-Machine, but why would you wait for Arturia to make the 2600v sound/work right based on what Jim Michmerhuizen said, if he also said the TimeWarp 2600 already sounds/works right? It seems like if anything (if you're going to base your purchase on what he says as he's obviously experienced with the originals), you'd be better off just waiting for the VST version of the TimeWarp 2600 to come out.

But I am waiting... Of course by the time the TimeWarp VST is released the Arturia version will probably have an update and I'll be able to make a better comparison. You know competition is usually good forcing better products

Green Red Brownell wrote:

Or, the guy who likes TimeWarp could just be FUD'ing, until Timewarp can release product, eh?? You pays yer money, and you takes yer chances....

I know that he could be biased (or bought!) but he definitely has the experience and his opinion can put his reputation on the line. Also, I'm going by the opinion of some very knowledge folks from the Analogue Heaven forum that I respect. And finally, I'm going by my own tests and some experiences with a local grey 2600...

I was hoping Gmedia wouldve taken on the 2600 as their next synth after Minimonster. They have the crown for A/B accuracy. That is probably why their synths take 4 times as long than Arturias versions to be released. I was surprised to hear that the CS80V shared the same waveforms with the MMV. I was under the impression that the CS80V had nailed the actual CS80 synth in the same way that the Oddity nailed the ARP Odyssey.

Quote:

Does anyone know how they're doing osc drifting? Anyone?

As far as I can tell they're not drifting at all! There doesn't seem to be any form of drifting or jitter implemented.

jimmyzee wrote:

I owned and was a retailer for bazillions of Arps back in the 70's. [snip] As far as the Arturia version, my vote is that it's r-e-a-l good. If it's "not close", my ears aren't picking up on it. I wouldn't go back to the real Arp instruments (or Moog) for anything. They were all a big pain in one way or another.

That's a nice summation from a qualified and objective source...

I got an email from Arturia on the oscillator issue:

Quote:

_The oscillator algorithm is the same in all our synthesizers. BUT the parameters of this algorithm are not ! rising edge, the instability, the drift are completely different. MMV and ARP are much closer than ARP and minimoog V, but there are differences. _ We didn't added soft clipping because of CPU and the GUI was finished before we could add a "softclip switch". This will be done in a further update. We have compared the real thing and the virtual : the oscillators are very very close before the clipping zone.

The affectionados and cloaked competitors can try to put Arturia's ARP2600 V into the ditch, but objective analysis forthright information from the developer is worth BUNCHES MORE to me as a customer than a cabal of anonymous nobodies arguing over how many waveforms can dance on the head of a pin...

Antipro did you get sacked from Arturia or something ?

i think that we all understood that you didn't like this synth. but now every 4 threads you're coming with easy bashing.

TAE seems to make you laugh, but i think that you forgot that we had to test/suppose to be amazed with your synthedit developments(0xdbass).

We are all after good sounds, and waiting for your staggering developments.

Actually these anonymous nobodies aren't anonymous nobodies. Its just not everyone walks around 'look at me! look at me!!!' is all.
And so far there were no arturia competitors posting comments. Didn't see any bashing either - saying the OSCs have no drift was an observation, confirmed by Arturia in their e-mail reply to you HHaynes.
Just stating facts is really something different than 'this sucks' or 'thats arse' and the likes, which indeed would be bashing. I don't see any of that going on though.

Furthermore if noone pointed out these things, Arturia would have no reason to improve on them, after all 'hey, nobody even noticed'. So I personally find it quite useful that these things are mentioned, as long as it is in a civil way. Which seems to be the case so far.

best

Markus

xRAVENx wrote:

Didn't see any bashing either - saying the OSCs have no drift was an observation, confirmed by Arturia in their e-mail reply to you HHaynes.

The "observations" as you say are mostly thinly veiled barbs and everyone with a lick of sense knows it. The message from Arturia most certainly does not say that there is no drift, but that the drift was one parameter that is set independently of the other oscillator configurations in their other products - to be consistent with the real ARP 2600 that they used as a baseline. This is a total red herring, as the drift can vary from one instrument to another, and in fact from one hour to another in the same instrument - as to be completely useless in this "comparison" scenario.

Backpedal on the behalf of the bashers all you want (alliteration is the key to language) but we've got two vectors in the discussion - the group that want to portray the oscillators in the ARP2600 V as being nothing like the real thing (and their attendant, thinly veiled agendas) and those that are looking at it from an objective view and finding that the differences are finessed at best.

Have a great weekend everyone.

You interpret *way* too much into what people say. People have got a lot more important things to do than having agendas - on a bloody internet forum.

Markus

xRAVENx wrote:

You interpret *way* too much into what people say. People have got a lot more important things to do than having agendas - on a bloody internet forum. Markus

So let me get this straight - as long as people are overblowing the differences between the analog ARP and the 2600V and dragging it down, that's prefectly acceptable. However, if a dedicated customer and expert analog synthesist (both in front of the unit and under the hood) comes in to clarify the facts with objective information and corroboration from the developer as well as disinterested parties - that's not OK?

Forget it - it was a rhetorical question...

I don't think that people come into a forum and tear a product apart just for sport. And if they do, then it's all the more important to call it out for what it is... so whether it's a coordinated slag-job within a group of jealous developer wanna-bes or a random hodge-podge of nobodies with nothing better to do than to subborn commercial disparagement, I feel justified in my riteous indignance over the offense.

Arturia's ARP 2600 V is a unique, realistically modeled instrument that takes the current "virtual analog" paradigm to a new level with additional features that further establishes its unique position in the market place. They deserve a fair shake - one that some people here are seeking to deny them, for whatever reason.

xRAVENx wrote:

You interpret *way* too much into what people say. People have got a lot more important things to do than having agendas - on a bloody internet forum.

Well said. I always wonder why stone age designs make people jump on each other. Maybe because these are stone age designs

Urs

P.S.: I'm drunk. That just lets me express that I hope the times for so called emulations are soon over...

xRAVENx wrote:

Furthermore if noone pointed out these things, Arturia would have no reason to improve on them, after all 'hey, nobody even noticed'. So I personally find it quite useful that these things are mentioned,

I guess you all volunteered to be on the beta test team for the 2600V, and sent in all of your extensive, exhaustive and detailed analyses but were somehow ignored by them - so you decided to air your concerns on "a bloody internet forum"?



Sorry - but the "we're just trying to help" backpedal does not ring true.

Quote:

So let me get this straight

And that- was also well said...

Houston,

what is it with the 'nobodies'. Do you need a 'Hans Zimmer' or a 'Tom Newman' in a forum username to realize its a human being on the other end sharing their view?

As for Arp2600, its a product, I don't care about it, its a dead piece of software, as is any other software. Every year there are thousands of music software products being put on the market. Boils down to personal taste whether or not someone ends up buying this one or that one.
Have you ever done anything for shitz'n giggles in your life? People converse here often just for that reason. Instead of a conversation down at the pub. When I say 'I find this politician sucks', I have no agenda, I simply think 'this politican' is an idiot. Thats all.
Let alone a discussion about a piece of software, where not even a 'this sucks' appears, just a 'it sounds like its got no drift' or 'i find it sounds different to the real arp i got at home'.
So fucking what? Piece of software, in 2 years nobody will talk about it anymore, not even Arturia, because they got their next couple generations of further improved software out by then.

My only personal agenda is writing music, having a good time doing it, and I get the gear I personally like to use (and I don't expect nor care if anyone thinks the same, or shares my taste in sounds). I'm quite confident this is true for most people, who have lives next to their internet accounts (and I assume thats about everyone around here).

Markus

Quote:

Have you ever done anything for shitz'n giggles in your life?

Running software down here is only shitz'n giggles? Oh... I thought those that did this had a real point of contention with the Arp-2600v and were being serious for some real reasons... My mistake...

rouge wrote:

Read below its from the guy who wrote the original Arp 2600 manual. It was posted in the musicplayer.com forums. http://www.musicplayer.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t =011967;p=2

I wonder what all the talk over there about Arp 2600 V "not doing audio rate modulation" is about. It has hardwired connections for the Oscillators to do either FM or Filter FM and you can plug any audio output into any modulation input.
What did I miss here?

Sinc there ares no baseless accusations and immature comments, I'll start:

the arp 2600 by Arturia sucks, and sounds nothing like the real Arp, and it's false advertising.

Arturia should not release it until it's fixed.

FYI- I havent been near an ARP for decades and am really not trying to be a smartass here- i just would like to know how you know...

And you base this on what Montana?
What are your qualifications for stating this, other than you just dont like the way it sounds? I ask, because i downloaded the demo and enjoyed most of what i heard... I assume you have been around and used (or heard) many hours of the real Arp 2600 l