ARP 2600 Clone?

[ghettosynth]

There's no touchy feely here, I can't make 2600v sound like that, if you can, put up, or accept that the 2600v isn't a close enough emulation to produce what is probably the most iconic 2600 sound.

They may reproduce your patch to an extent where they cannot hear any differences or though you claim you can.

It's not my patch, it's Frankenstein sweep. It's simple, it's iconic, and it relies on exactly the features that old filters cannot reproduce. Go read some papers on this, you don't have to take my word for it. There is ample evidence that there is a real difference.

Pigs may fly out of my ass as well, but until they do, we don't really have anything to talk about.


Post your patch, let's put it to the test, they'll be plenty of opportunity once you've stated that your convinced.

[IncarnateX]

You know, guys. This is not a question about convincing me about anything. I am only the messenger here. Question is how you are going to convince your opponents whatever views you have by other means than referring to your own perceptions, which apperantly are different from theirs, otherwise we wouldn't have these discussions would we?

[IncarnateX]

It's not my patch, it's Frankenstein sweep. It's simple, it's iconic, and it relies on exactly the features that old filters cannot reproduce.

So you say and for my part I like to believe it. However, it is the scientific proof that matters and I don't think you can just place the burden of evidence on your opponents here. Prove this difference to them instead.

[ghettosynth]

It's not my patch, it's Frankenstein sweep. It's simple, it's iconic, and it relies on exactly the features that old filters cannot reproduce.

So you say and for my part I like to believe it. However, it is the scientific proof that matters and I don't think you just can place the burden of evidence on your opponents here. Prove this differences to them instead.

I have provided "evidence to support the claim", already. I don't know many scientists who trot out the phrase "scientific proof."

First: The filter is old, it consumes too little CPU to be new. That is enough. If you need more than that, there are plenty of papers on the subject that will fill in the details for you.

Second: I have provided two examples, the factory patch, and Frankestein recorded live that are measurably different, but also obviously different to many.

Third: this isn't a paper, people aren't going to do a bunch of work to convince the naive. There is enough evidence to know that the filter is inaccurate and how that will manifest without actually measuring anything. Again, if this isn't clear to you, then you have some more reading to do. For readers of this forum, that example should be pretty clear.

Again, let me know when you have that patch.


BTW: Your position on bias is just too strong. We absolutely can rely on audio perception in aggregate so long as we design our experiment carefully and measure properly. You do your best to control for bias in your experimental design. In this case, it's rather trivial to remove the visual bias.

[ghettosynth]

@ghettosynth: Phew, I can imagine it all too well. On the positive side, until then you had one of the coolest, most nerdly entertainment centers possible.

Well, it was nerdy, I don't know about cool. I was pretty broke at the time and so I was rather disappointed as it was the only working scope that I owned. It was a total POS but I could see audio waveforms and really really slow digital signals.

[IncarnateX]

It's not my patch, it's Frankenstein sweep. It's simple, it's iconic, and it relies on exactly the features that old filters cannot reproduce.

So you say and for my part I like to believe it. However, it is the scientific proof that matters and I don't think you just can place the burden of evidence on your opponents here. Prove this differences to them instead.

I have provided "evidence to support the claim", already. I don't know many scientists who trot out the phrase "scientific proof."

First: The filter is old, it consumes too little CPU to be new. That is enough. If you need more than that, there are plenty of papers on the subject that will fill in the details for you.

Second: I have provided two examples, the factory patch, and Frankestein recorded live that are measurably different, but also obviously different to many.

Third: this isn't a paper, people aren't going to do a bunch of work to convince the naive. There is enough evidence to know that the filter is inaccurate and how that will manifest without actually measuring anything. Again, if this isn't clear to you, then you have some more reading to do. For readers of this forum, that example should be pretty clear.

Again, let me know when you have that patch.


BTW: Your position on bias is just too strong. We absolutely can rely on audio perception in aggregate so long as we design our experiment carefully and measure properly. You do your best to control for bias in your experimental design. In this case, it's rather trivial to remove the visual bias.

Sorry but your evidence goes as far as saying, hear, I have created a patch as closely as possible on both the emu and the real thing and you can hear the differences. Well your evidence depends on 1) people actually agree that they can hear differences and 2) that your claim that you have created it as close as possible actually is true. Don't be surprises if people do not agree on either.

Now don't get emotional about it, I am not your enemy and don't need proof to share your beliefs. However in a strictly scientific sense it will remain a shared belief for now.

[david.beholder]

Though I am kind flattered by your passionated attempts to get my attention (how infantile and uneducated they may be) I must warn you that I am boringly straigth and happily married

It's completely off topic but I'm really sad about your left hand. She has married wrong guy.

Some emoticons for you

[ghettosynth]

...

[IncarnateX]

She has married wrong guy

Yes, I get that you are biased towards that conclusion, you naughty little devil, but we have been there, David, and I am afraid it will stay that way

[ghettosynth]

There's no touchy feely here, I can't make 2600v sound like that, if you can, put up, or accept that the 2600v isn't a close enough emulation to produce what is probably the most iconic 2600 sound.

2600v is way better in emulating look but not sound of 2600 -- really old fact.

Sadly enough people are buying V-Collection on sale and then running around forums trying to justify a purchase. There should be word or two in social studies about this behavior pattern.

I think so. It does a reasonable job of emulating the workflow with the sequencer, as has been discussed.

[IncarnateX]

.....

[david.beholder]

I think so. It does a reasonable job of emulating the workflow with the sequencer, as has been discussed.

No argument here for obvious reasons. Btw, have you ever had real analog sequencer with knobs/sliders?

[ghettosynth]

I think so. It does a reasonable job of emulating the workflow with the sequencer, as has been discussed.

No argument here for obvious reasons. Btw, have you ever had real analog sequencer with knobs/sliders?

Indeed, I own an Arp 1613, it was a key component in my live rig for a while. I've also built several hardware analog sequencers for my modular.

[ghettosynth]

...

[IncarnateX]

@ghettosynth: Phew, I can imagine it all too well. On the positive side, until then you had one of the coolest, most nerdly entertainment centers possible.

Stay on topic Meffy or I will have to call a mod. It's not the first time you are doing the stray dog boogie and you obviously haven't improved while you were gone

BTW: Really nice to see you around again. If you get bored and need some moderator work, I am at your disposal