TimewARP 2600 audio samples

[bmanic]

Oh dear I listened to the comparisons and the real thing is so much better IMO. I'm not a great analogue buff with loads of old synths - in fact I have no real analogue synths but even I can tell the difference. The high end sound too brittle in the softsynth - it becomes painful to listen to. If this softsynth is supposed to be better than Arturia's offering then I'd not hold out much hope for that.

Umm.. if you think this synth has a brittle 'digital' top end then you might as well write off 99,95% of all other VSTi's that try to make an "analogue" sound. This synth comes definately into the top 5 of high quality. Remeber that ALL the demos there except the arpeggios are AUDIO RATE modulations. Ever heard another piece of DSP doing that so convincingly? I think not.. now go do it with the arturia moog modular demo and then tell me these demos are "brittle".

Cheers!
bManic

I'm not saying that Arturia is any better. I think either the synth sounds like the real thing or it doesn't. I think it doesn't judging by the comparisons. I'm not really interested whether it's DSP or made out of green cheese. It sounds brittle and that's that.

I don't see how you can compare this specialised synth with 99% of other softsynths. They are all so different. If you're saying that this synth is the best thing since sliced bread then I've heard it all before. I remember when this was announced ages ago. I'm sure some will love it and buy it. But that's preference and does not necessarily make this synth better than others.

Look, I think you seem to not understand what I'm getting at so before I will agree to disagree, could you answer this?:

1.)
Does the SeqLead.mp3 demo sound brittle to you? If the answer is yes then ignore paragraf 2. If the answer is no then proceed to read paragraf 2. ok?

2.)
Modulating one oscillators frequency with another oscillators frequency (at audio rates) is quite common on many synths and VSTi's but no soft synth so far has done any good job at that when it comes to emulating how it sounds on an analgoue system. TimewARP 2600 is the first synth to get pretty damn close IMHO. The sound is still not perfect but doing these complex modulations as well as it does, probably means that the BASIC sound of the oscillators will be very good (as heard on the SeqLead.mp3 demo). This is where the Arturia synths fail IMHO, the basic sound of the oscillators do not sound very good whereas this synths does.

Also, you CAN compare this synth to any other VSTi that tries to be analogue sounding and again the TimewARP synth sits comfortably in the top 5. Simply make some basic filtered saw wave patches, stabs, leads etc (like in the SeqLead.mp3 demo). These are the bread and butter analogue sounds that all synths can mimic, some with good results, some with terrible results (like old softsynths without any anti-aliasing and basic textbook filters).

It's very brave of Way Out Ware guys to post so extreme samples but then again, these kind of noises is what the arp 2600 was mostly used for!

Cheers!
bManic

[Squids]

Great to do the examples. It was incredibly interesting to hear side by side. I think it would benefit from really trying to dial in the exact same sound as much as possible though (maybe other things besides sweeps such as an Arp 2600 setting for a patch and then do the same lead or bass lines). But, the sweeps were very revealing. There's a warmth in the bass and a grittier texture to the original Arp that for lack of a better word has BALLS that the TimewARP lacked a little. The TimewARP still sounds good though but it is a little precise sounding and seems to have less guts to it (at least with these examples).

Of course, having the same synthesis architecture is worth it alone IMO. A lot of the emulation VIs don't really get you the full character of the synth. (ie. I am not selling my Minimoog yet ).

But, it would be interesting if it could get closer to the real sound by going back and forth some more and making some tweaks. I've been wanting to get an Arp 2600 again and having a software version would be a lot cheaper!

[rouge]

Oh dear I listened to the comparisons and the real thing is so much better IMO. I'm not a great analogue buff with loads of old synths - in fact I have no real analogue synths but even I can tell the difference. The high end sound too brittle in the softsynth - it becomes painful to listen to. If this softsynth is supposed to be better than Arturia's offering then I'd not hold out much hope for that.

Umm.. if you think this synth has a brittle 'digital' top end then you might as well write off 99,95% of all other VSTi's that try to make an "analogue" sound. This synth comes definately into the top 5 of high quality. Remeber that ALL the demos there except the arpeggios are AUDIO RATE modulations. Ever heard another piece of DSP doing that so convincingly? I think not.. now go do it with the arturia moog modular demo and then tell me these demos are "brittle".

Cheers!
bManic

I'm not saying that Arturia is any better. I think either the synth sounds like the real thing or it doesn't. I think it doesn't judging by the comparisons. I'm not really interested whether it's DSP or made out of green cheese. It sounds brittle and that's that.

I don't see how you can compare this specialised synth with 99% of other softsynths. They are all so different. If you're saying that this synth is the best thing since sliced bread then I've heard it all before. I remember when this was announced ages ago. I'm sure some will love it and buy it. But that's preference and does not necessarily make this synth better than others.

Look, I think you seem to not understand what I'm getting at so before I will agree to disagree, could you answer this?:

1.)
Does the SeqLead.mp3 demo sound brittle to you? If the answer is yes then ignore paragraf 2. If the answer is no then proceed to read paragraf 2. ok?

2.)
Modulating one oscillators frequency with another oscillators frequency (at audio rates) is quite common on many synths and VSTi's but no soft synth so far has done any good job at that when it comes to emulating how it sounds on an analgoue system. TimewARP 2600 is the first synth to get pretty damn close IMHO. The sound is still not perfect but doing these complex modulations as well as it does, probably means that the BASIC sound of the oscillators will be very good (as heard on the SeqLead.mp3 demo). This is where the Arturia synths fail IMHO, the basic sound of the oscillators do not sound very good whereas this synths does.

Also, you CAN compare this synth to any other VSTi that tries to be analogue sounding and again the TimewARP synth sits comfortably in the top 5. Simply make some basic filtered saw wave patches, stabs, leads etc (like in the SeqLead.mp3 demo). These are the bread and butter analogue sounds that all synths can mimic, some with good results, some with terrible results (like old softsynths without any anti-aliasing and basic textbook filters).

It's very brave of Way Out Ware guys to post so extreme samples but then again, these kind of noises is what the arp 2600 was mostly used for!

Cheers!
bManic

Perfectly Said

[rouge]

And one more vote for oversampleing

[munchkin]

Oh dear I listened to the comparisons and the real thing is so much better IMO. I'm not a great analogue buff with loads of old synths - in fact I have no real analogue synths but even I can tell the difference. The high end sound too brittle in the softsynth - it becomes painful to listen to. If this softsynth is supposed to be better than Arturia's offering then I'd not hold out much hope for that.

Umm.. if you think this synth has a brittle 'digital' top end then you might as well write off 99,95% of all other VSTi's that try to make an "analogue" sound. This synth comes definately into the top 5 of high quality. Remeber that ALL the demos there except the arpeggios are AUDIO RATE modulations. Ever heard another piece of DSP doing that so convincingly? I think not.. now go do it with the arturia moog modular demo and then tell me these demos are "brittle".

Cheers!
bManic

I'm not saying that Arturia is any better. I think either the synth sounds like the real thing or it doesn't. I think it doesn't judging by the comparisons. I'm not really interested whether it's DSP or made out of green cheese. It sounds brittle and that's that.

I don't see how you can compare this specialised synth with 99% of other softsynths. They are all so different. If you're saying that this synth is the best thing since sliced bread then I've heard it all before. I remember when this was announced ages ago. I'm sure some will love it and buy it. But that's preference and does not necessarily make this synth better than others.

Look, I think you seem to not understand what I'm getting at so before I will agree to disagree, could you answer this?:

1.)
Does the SeqLead.mp3 demo sound brittle to you? If the answer is yes then ignore paragraf 2. If the answer is no then proceed to read paragraf 2. ok?

2.)
Modulating one oscillators frequency with another oscillators frequency (at audio rates) is quite common on many synths and VSTi's but no soft synth so far has done any good job at that when it comes to emulating how it sounds on an analgoue system. TimewARP 2600 is the first synth to get pretty damn close IMHO. The sound is still not perfect but doing these complex modulations as well as it does, probably means that the BASIC sound of the oscillators will be very good (as heard on the SeqLead.mp3 demo). This is where the Arturia synths fail IMHO, the basic sound of the oscillators do not sound very good whereas this synths does.

Also, you CAN compare this synth to any other VSTi that tries to be analogue sounding and again the TimewARP synth sits comfortably in the top 5. Simply make some basic filtered saw wave patches, stabs, leads etc (like in the SeqLead.mp3 demo). These are the bread and butter analogue sounds that all synths can mimic, some with good results, some with terrible results (like old softsynths without any anti-aliasing and basic textbook filters).

It's very brave of Way Out Ware guys to post so extreme samples but then again, these kind of noises is what the arp 2600 was mostly used for!

Cheers!
bManic

I understand you prefectly well but it still doesn't sound like the real thing. And that's the point of comparison. You have the opinion that this synth is in the top five softsynths. I'm not sure how you measure this other than to have a preference. You're welcome to your opinion but it's just that, opinion, just like mine is opinion.

I don't see the point in you trying to convince me when my ears tell me otherwise.

I remember when z3ta+ was compared to minimoog. I don't think anyone managed to tell the difference in that thread. The sound examples were so close. In fact I seem to remember some prefered z3ta+ over the minimoog. There are some nice sounding softsynths out there.

[spikey]

You're welcome to your opinion but it's just that, opinion, just like mine is opinion.

Yep- and i have one too. Im going to enjoy my Arturia 2600v, exzact or not. Why? Im a guitar player... Whadda we know anyway...?!

[munchkin]

Great to do the examples. It was incredibly interesting to hear side by side. I think it would benefit from really trying to dial in the exact same sound as much as possible though (maybe other things besides sweeps such as an Arp 2600 setting for a patch and then do the same lead or bass lines). But, the sweeps were very revealing. There's a warmth in the bass and a grittier texture to the original Arp that for lack of a better word has BALLS that the TimewARP lacked a little. The TimewARP still sounds good though but it is a little precise sounding and seems to have less guts to it (at least with these examples).

Of course, having the same synthesis architecture is worth it alone IMO. A lot of the emulation VIs don't really get you the full character of the synth. (ie. I am not selling my Minimoog yet ).

But, it would be interesting if it could get closer to the real sound by going back and forth some more and making some tweaks. I've been wanting to get an Arp 2600 again and having a software version would be a lot cheaper!

Perhaps my term, 'brittle', isn't very accurate but I think Squids has summed up the difference between the two synths. Maybe that is down to the programming of the presets, I'm not sure, but there definitely is a difference in sound.

I'm trying to be constructive and offer criticism so that the sound can be improved. I'm not trying to rubbish this synth in favour of any other. I realise it is a innovative development. But I assume the dev wants us to compare and receive feedback otherwise the comparisons wouldn't be on the site.

It becomes difficult to offer fair criticism when other synths are dismissed out of hand in this thread and not discussed in a constructive manner. I would prefer not to have a polarised discussion but rather to focus on how this synth could be improved. All I've said is that I don't think this synth sounds the same as the real thing. And that is a valid opinion for the dev to either take on board or dismiss.

[_starcraft_]

You're welcome to your opinion but it's just that, opinion, just like mine is opinion.

Yep- and i have one too. Im going to enjoy my Arturia 2600v, exzact or not. Why? Im a guitar player... Whadda we know anyway...?!

post of the year !

[bmanic]

Munchkin, ok ok.. so it then comes down to opinion which is perfectly fine with me..

..but, still, there are NO audio examples from a real arp 2600 playing ordinary bread and butter patches. What you are hearing and comparing are the AUDIO RATE modulation patches and that is definately high quality audiorate modulation. Like Urs already has said, it's amazing how few artefacts it has at doing this.

I remember when z3ta+ was compared to minimoog. I don't think anyone managed to tell the difference in that thread. The sound examples were so close. In fact I seem to remember some prefered z3ta+ over the minimoog. There are some nice sounding softsynths out there.

Now this I'd love to hear.. any links to this old thread?

My current opinion is that a person who can't tell the difference to a minimoog and z3ta+ should get a pair of new ears but what do I know.. I haven't done the comparison yet.

Cheers!
bManic

[bmanic]

I'm trying to be constructive and offer criticism so that the sound can be improved. I'm not trying to rubbish this synth in favour of any other. I realise it is a innovative development. But I assume the dev wants us to compare and receive feedback otherwise the comparisons wouldn't be on the site.

This I did as well. If you read my post carefully I've never said that it is spot on. I've also said earlier that the original sounds better BUT I've also acknowledged the fact that Way Out Ware is the company that is leading the race when it comes to audio rate modulation (of course this is only an opinion also but I dare you to point me to better sounding audio rate modulation from a VSTi! ). I think encouraging a company, for doing already very fine work, is good.

It becomes difficult to offer fair criticism when other synths are dismissed out of hand in this thread and not discussed in a constructive manner. I would prefer not to have a polarised discussion but rather to focus on how this synth could be improved. All I've said is that I don't think this synth sounds the same as the real thing. And that is a valid opinion for the dev to either take on board or dismiss.

What are these other synths? I've been critizising the arturia arp 2600 because I really do feel it being only mediocre sounding. Do I not have the right to do that? Also, IMHO there are still only a handfull of VSTi's that "cut it" (read: usable) when it comes to analogue emulations and most of these need to be run at 96khz.

My current list is (starting with most impressive):

1.) Fab Filter One
2.) Oddity
3.) Minimonster (only based on the sound demos though)
4.) impOSCar (that filter is very convincing)
5.) Ultra Analogue (at 96khz) EDIT2: I replaced the Korg Polysix here with Ultra Analogue

6.) EDIT: the V-station by novation has to be here. It's not an emulation of anything but it does provide some pretty decent analogueish sounds when you run it at 96khz.

7.) CS-80v ( Arturia synth!) Yes, I like the sound of this one. The filter really does remind me of samples from the real deal and it's little brother. Only when ran at 96khz though.

There are tons of other good VSTi's but not when doing emulation of analogue sound.

Cheers!
bManic

[TimewARP]

Whatever the difference to the original samples is I don't really care now as I think the mp3 demos sound pretty nice indeed. Definately sounds more "living" and 'complex' than the arturia synth.

However, the real arp samples are more "hi fidelity", more smooth. Especially in the ringmod sweeps you can hear the difference of analogue ringmodulation and a digital emulation. It's less grainy. The emulation IS very impressive though. About the smoothest ringmod that I've heard. Note that the mp3 compressions usually HELPS a VSTi synth sound more smooth as it blurs some of the 'edges'. Wav examples would be preferable for these kind of tests.

just my 2 cents
- bManic

I of course have the wav files for all of these samples. I did not post them on the site because they are much larger.

Perhaps I will edit them down to one sweep each instead of two as they are, and post them in the near future.

Also, another thing to note is that these samples were taken at 44.1kHz. The clarity and quality of the TimewARP improves auite a bit at higher sampling rates. I choose to use 44.1kHz to demonstrate what most people would see rather than a best case.

-Jim

TimewARP, thanks for taking the time to develop this awesome synth.
Do you have any idea when the Windows version will be available?.
I need a timeframe to start buttering up my wife for a "must have" synth.

We have the Windows XP RTAS version in beta now, and we plan to have the VST, and standalone versions available around February. The next platform we plan to release after Windows RTAS is AU.

-Jim

[TimewARP]

urs u r right there i believe ....but really its weird to see a/b comparison with different keys pressed.it kind of fails the purpose of a/b comparison in the first place.(especially when u have pitch modulated).
all of the a/b comparison on the timwewarp page are pitched differently.no doubt about that.
still i believe it dont explain all of the differences....the ring mod saw sweeps for example....theres a tone almost entirely missing there.

anyway it would all appear more clear if they actually played the same notes. why they didn't still escapes me.

Hi all,

I recorded these samples, and I think you are right. I did ot have both machines in the same room when I did this, and the samples are out of tune as a result.

One thing to note is that there was no key press to tigger these samples. They were all created using a sawtooth LFO to sweep an oscillator through the audio frequency range (10Hz -> 10kHz) and then that oscillator was used to drive what ever parameter the sample demonstrates.

The tuning problem is that the base frequency of the driven source was not always the same.

I will redo the ones that are out of tune. That would be the Filter CV sweep sample and the PWM sweep sample.

I should have new versions up in a few hours.

-Jim

I have just uploaded new versions of the samples that more closely match the frequencies.

You have to remember here that the ARP 2600 does not save patches, and to get accurate A/B samples requires a bit of tweaking.

Let me know what you think.

-Jim

[Funkybot]

Hey Jim from Timewarp not to beat a dead horse or anything, but you should seriously consider implementing Oversampling as sugested in this thread. No reason it should only sound good at 96k when it could sound good 48 or 44.1, even if it is at the expense of CPU. Just do what RGC does and allow for a user definable "Oversampling On/Off" button, you could even do an "Oversampling Off/2x Oversampling/4x Oversampling" set of options. I work at 44.1khz for CPU purposes as most do, but I'd still like the high quality sound.

BTW if you're looking for VST PC beta testers feel free to PM me, I'd be happy to volunteer.

[Urs]

I have just uploaded new versions of the samples that more closely match the frequencies.

I think I've just shit myself

Urs

[TimewARP]

Hey Jim from Timewarp not to beat a dead horse or anything, but you should seriously consider implementing Oversampling as sugested in this thread. No reason it should only sound good at 96k when it could sound good 48 or 44.1, even if it is at the expense of CPU. Just do what RGC does and allow for a user definable "Oversampling On/Off" button, you could even do an "Oversampling Off/2x Oversampling/4x Oversampling" set of options. I work at 44.1khz for CPU purposes as most do, but I'd still like the high quality sound.

BTW if you're looking for VST PC beta testers feel free to PM me, I'd be happy to volunteer.

We currently oversample the filter ring modulator and other components, and we are planning on oexpanding the oversampling. It is quite likely that by the time we are on VST and AU this will be the case. We will of course offer a free upgrade to anyone who currently owns the product so they can take advantage of the improvements.

Also, as has been mentioned several times above, These test cases are extreme, and are designed to show the similarity of the TimewARP to the original.

-Jim