VA Vs A

[Lotuzia]

oops Sorry

[ghettosynth]

The Jupiter 8 had strange presets, it seems. The brass pads and basses are my favorites, but just like with most software synths most factory presets sucked.

Depends on what you're after. Its the sound of an era, and part of the synthesizer culture. Its good that these examples are here to remind some people who have never played one of these synths what analog synthesizers were about when they were released.( just judging by the number of threads were the words *analog* and *synths* appear here in Kvr, or other forums )

Seriously, IMNSHO, the only people who care about matching presets are those that don't really understand the issues in the first place. ..... You should randomize which synth that A/B points to for each tester, .... You could .... Yous could .......
To be clear, I don't think that those differences matter. I think that VAs sound better ....

Well, first, if you can do, and provide, better A/B test between a soft synth and an hw one than the 64 A/B clips I made playing the same parts, in isolation, .... just do it.

First, your English isn't quite clear to me so if I misunderstand you, apologies in advance. I have no interest in comparing presets. That technique is used to sell VAs, but none have convinced me. Let me be clear, there are plenty of A/B tests that I would fail and I will, and have, argued that in many contexts, there is not much difference. As I've already said, zerocrossing highlighted some details, I have done the same in the past. The upshot is that presets are always going to be more static than a synth programmers exploration.

Then, making this soundbank was very interesting for me, and as it seems for my customers (because it sold like pancakes, obviously for musicians that dont understand the *issues* -but like to make music nonetheless

I don't want to be misconstrued. If you are sold by preset matching AS AN ANSWER TO THE ANALOGUE VS VA QUESTION, then you don't understand the issues. If you think that a set of presets sounds close, or even as good or better than the original, then that by itself says nothing.

Keep in mind that there's more to this than just VA=A, it's also about the context of presets in the 80s. Factory presets are made to sell synths, as a result, there's a certain breadth and generic-ness to them. You couldn't sell a synth in the 80s without a few brass, bass, and piano presets, for example. Yet, in most uses of analog synths today we turn to other technology for some of those sounds.

[Lotuzia]

Hey GS, sorry if my english is not clear/ Well the JP8 factory recreation in Oxium is not a technique to sell a VA for me. Its an interest for the presets themselves. As you stated it, they are part of the synthesizer history. And therefore music history. Call it ethno synthology if you wish. Then, it was also an interest to compare the two synths, and see what *proximity* they could share soundwise, or less. I dont mind, nor pretend, that one is better than the other, or that its an exact a/b copy ( its not ) or things like that. Its just a study I made while making a soundset altogether. (Btw I think these kind of presets are still usefull today, for certain people, but well this is another story).

Then these presets were all tuned by ear on the soft synth. And this was very interesting because what I observed is that if I tuned the filter a few microshift in that or this direction, or the decays, the *match* was completely lost. ( Yes thats how precise and delicate these old machnes are, and how the software synths should be, and sometimes are ) All this to say that during the building of this library, I pretty much reviewed a thousand times every *emulated/matching* parameter of the JP8. Because each of the patches of the factory lib of the JP8 use nearly all of the JP8 parameters. And therefore, whatever the style of patches you build in the end, a Jp neg sync, or a brass, or something completely different, it was interessant to see the soft synth react, in real time, and behaving more/less like the original would have. So that I think that the recreation of the factory presets says *something* about the relationship, and possible proximity, of the two units. YMMV. How much it says, and how this can be analysed, I let people completely free to draw their own conclusions. Then like I said I agree that other types of comparisons are *in theory* possible, and I certainly wish that some of them will see the birth in the future. Mine is only what I can offer. And while I think it certainly doesnt give all the information some other comparisons could bring. But at the same time, ... it might give more than the usual marketing bla bla you describe offers, or than billions of rethorical discussions I've seen in numerous threads about this subject.( Some of wich I gladly paticipated in btw ... Oops )

[jopy]

....This is really, really spot on. A synthesizer is not a sound playback device, it's a musical instrument, and should be judged as such. I suspect you'd be able to feel the difference across instruments as a performer, which is what we're really into for the most part as KVRians. As I probably have said before, I don't think the VAs would come out worse in all respects; results would depend on what you prefer in terms of interactions, what sort of sounds you're going for, what you plan to mix with, and how much you'd need to change things up in real time. And I also am certain there'd be huge differences within each category.

Same old story about *presets*.

Things as I see them are more complex than that. A synthesizer, AS YOU SEE IT, and as I also see them in an important part, is not -only, or not at all-, a soundplayback device.

Then my Sh-1000 ( first Roland synthesizer iirc 1973 ) has, .... and only has, 10 .... presets. ( and very few knobs, though you can tweak the filter and lfo etc ). Yamaha did produce some preset only analog machines also, as well as many other manufacturers. The first (analog) rythm units only had presets as well, as the minipops Jarre used on Oxygen. Then some modern workstations are mainly intended to be played for their presets. I also collect, between other things, vintage gear magazines and in each review of the 80s synths, a large part concerned ... the synth presets.

Well, a preset can be played *as it* if it inspires someone, or adapted to context to fit the track, or created from scratch. Also you can be inspired by a preset made by some1 else ( wich is often my case). Then some people hate presets, for more/less good reasons, and thats ok. Presets are a significant part of the history and culture of the synthesizers, but only a part of it. One can perfectly live without any of them. As I see it, My Sh-1000, or a TB-303 is no less musical instrument, or a *synth*, than a modular moog. Its just a *different instrument* A pinao is very costly and has only one one preset, as a saxophone. etc etc. My 0.002

That's weird, I didn't use the word "preset" at all, and certainly didn't think of presets. I have a number of presets on software synths and on my P08, and I like some of them a lot, if they are set up right. I like being able to turn some knobs while I'm using those presets as well, but it's still a preset at base, with the knobs as performance tools, just like the keyboard is a performance tool.

A preset can be an excellent source of inspiration, as you said. But performing using a preset is exactly what I'd say is needed to understand the quality of a synth for yourself, not listening to someone else play that preset or pushing a standardized MIDI file through it. Some instruments might sound fine in a very sterile A-B comparison of someone else playing a pre-selected phrase, but wouldn't ultimately hold up very well to a real performance with that instrument with the full range of notes you'd really use at a variety of speeds and articulations with knobs moving as you go.

To further clarify my meaning, a piano also isn't a sound playback device, and I would never judge a piano's quality until I could put my hands on it myself. It's a performance device. If one does think of the sound of a piano as a preset, the I'd say it's an extremely flexible one that responds to velocity and pedal technique at a phenomenal level of expressiveness.

[ghettosynth]

Some instruments might sound fine in a very sterile A-B comparison of someone else playing a pre-selected phrase, but wouldn't ultimately hold up very well to a real performance with that instrument with the full range of notes you'd really use at a variety of speeds and articulations with knobs moving as you go.

Yes, we've seen this over and over again. It convinces many people, but it's a limited test of similarity at best. The fact is, for certain presets, very stale technology will pass this test reasonably well.

To further clarify my meaning, a piano also isn't a sound playback device, and I would never judge a piano's quality until I could put my hands on it myself. It's a performance device. If one does think of the sound of a piano as a preset, the I'd say it's an extremely flexible one that responds to velocity and pedal technique at a phenomenal level of expressiveness.

Exactly.

[ghettosynth]

Then these presets were all tuned by ear on the soft synth. And this was very interesting because what I observed is that if I tuned the filter a few microshift in that or this direction, or the decays, the *match* was completely lost.

Yes, but that doesn't really say anything, other than, under extensive modulation, the similarity may be lost fairly easily. This technique can make many synths sound like a particular analog synth in the very limited context of the preset.

[Kriminal]

There is a point to matching presets. It sells synths and preset banks. Its also a LOT easier to copy sounds than to come up with something of your own.

[ghettosynth]

There is a point to matching presets. It sells synths and preset banks. Its also a LOT easier to copy sounds than to come up with something of your own.

Of course, no disagreement, I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily show that the VA sounds like A.

[Kriminal]

There is a point to matching presets. It sells synths and preset banks. Its also a LOT easier to copy sounds than to come up with something of your own.

Of course, no disagreement, I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily show that the VA sounds like A.

I dont disagree with that either.

[Lotuzia]

....This is really, really spot on. A synthesizer is not a sound playback device, it's a musical instrument, and should be judged as such. I suspect you'd be able to feel the difference across instruments as a performer, which is what we're really into for the most part as KVRians. As I probably have said before, I don't think the VAs would come out worse in all respects; results would depend on what you prefer in terms of interactions, what sort of sounds you're going for, what you plan to mix with, and how much you'd need to change things up in real time. And I also am certain there'd be huge differences within each category.

Same old story about *presets*.

Things as I see them are more complex than that. A synthesizer, AS YOU SEE IT, and as I also see them in an important part, is not -only, or not at all-, a soundplayback device.

Then my Sh-1000 ( first Roland synthesizer iirc 1973 ) has, .... and only has, 10 .... presets. ( and very few knobs, though you can tweak the filter and lfo etc ). Yamaha did produce some preset only analog machines also, as well as many other manufacturers. The first (analog) rythm units only had presets as well, as the minipops Jarre used on Oxygen. Then some modern workstations are mainly intended to be played for their presets. I also collect, between other things, vintage gear magazines and in each review of the 80s synths, a large part concerned ... the synth presets.

Well, a preset can be played *as it* if it inspires someone, or adapted to context to fit the track, or created from scratch. Also you can be inspired by a preset made by some1 else ( wich is often my case). Then some people hate presets, for more/less good reasons, and thats ok. Presets are a significant part of the history and culture of the synthesizers, but only a part of it. One can perfectly live without any of them. As I see it, My Sh-1000, or a TB-303 is no less musical instrument, or a *synth*, than a modular moog. Its just a *different instrument* A pinao is very costly and has only one one preset, as a saxophone. etc etc. My 0.002

That's weird, I didn't use the word "preset" at all, and certainly didn't think of presets. I have a number of presets on software synths and on my P08, and I like some of them a lot, if they are set up right. I like being able to turn some knobs while I'm using those presets as well, but it's still a preset at base, with the knobs as performance tools, just like the keyboard is a performance tool.

A preset can be an excellent source of inspiration, as you said. But performing using a preset is exactly what I'd say is needed to understand the quality of a synth for yourself, not listening to someone else play that preset or pushing a standardized MIDI file through it. Some instruments might sound fine in a very sterile A-B comparison of someone else playing a pre-selected phrase, but wouldn't ultimately hold up very well to a real performance with that instrument with the full range of notes you'd really use at a variety of speeds and articulations with knobs moving as you go.

To further clarify my meaning, a piano also isn't a sound playback device, and I would never judge a piano's quality until I could put my hands on it myself. It's a performance device. If one does think of the sound of a piano as a preset, the I'd say it's an extremely flexible one that responds to velocity and pedal technique at a phenomenal level of expressiveness.

Sorry, but as your post begins with 'A synthesizer is not a sound playback device', I figured it was at least a bit about presets. Then the Jupiter 8 demos are not preselected phrases, there are musical parts played by a good musician. If you want to give a try at playing these clips in a live performance, you'll soon see that there is very few room (or hands) left for tweaking the knobs while playing, besides occasional pitch bend and mod wheel, wich are standard specific synth techniques. Yet I agree that a synthesizer is an instrument of its own, and that people should invest minimal time into mastering the different possible specific techniques that, as you pointed it out, are numerous. And have evolved over time, especially when people can make overdubs with cc movements.

[Lotuzia]

Then these presets were all tuned by ear on the soft synth. And this was very interesting because what I observed is that if I tuned the filter a few microshift in that or this direction, or the decays, the *match* was completely lost.

Yes, but that doesn't really say anything, other than, under extensive modulation, the similarity may be lost fairly easily. This technique can make many synths sound like a particular analog synth in the very limited context of the preset.

Yes its true. As an example, the LFO waveform is slightly different on JP8 and Oxium. Under low intensity modulation ( ie standard light vibrato/tremoloe effects) its usually hard to notice the difference. However, if the LFO mods becomes very important/proeminent in the patch, like in some of the FX of the JP8 factory, it becomes impossible to match the preset in a decent way, something that is honnestly exposed in my A/B clips I think. Otoh, I've heard many soft synth fail to emulate if only one *preset* of a HW synthesizer, though some claim that they emulate it ( Wich Oxium doesnt claim, btw as its an original design). And I've never seen someone else trying to match 64 very different presets from an old analog synthesizer, with rather long parts played in isolation, exept the Swiss guy who made Opx, or Ingo Weidner, who made some experiments in this domain. So that I dont know if this technique can even*make many synths sound like a particular analog synth in the very limited context of a preset* as you said. But I would definitely be curious to know if this can be verified. For me it was an experiment and a kind of challenge. I'm glad I did it, and learned a lot while making it .

[Lotuzia]

There is a point to matching presets. It sells synths and preset banks. Its also a LOT easier to copy sounds than to come up with something of your own.

So to compare two things, and be able to abruptly *declare* that one is actually easier than the other, you need to have made both. Did you make both ? Do you have any experience in this kind of work ? Show us your work. Otherwise I think your comment might just be totally pointless (... again)

I've made thousands of presets for factory libraries and misc soundbanks. And I've also made this particular soundbank wich recreates more/less the JP8 factory library (In wich % it is faithfull, I'll let people decide ). So I can compare the two things. This is my take on it : Its not easier, ime it takes more time (averaged) to make a preset in these conditions than to make an original one. All in all, its a different work. And yes, it sells, and make musicians happy.( Because part of my job is to serve and make musicians happy by delivering to them the best possible presets I can make )

[fluffy_little_something]

I suppose it helps to have access to the original synth when recreating patches on other synths as some things can just not be figured out just by listening.

[fluffy_little_something]

It's four: ARP Odyssey, Memorymoog, Rhodes Chroma and OB-X

So then according to you, the Minimoog, Prophet 5, EMS VCS3, CS-80, Synthex and others are all mediocre...

Hmmm no/ If I read well I had to mention the the good little monsters to add to Fluffy list ( or some of the good ones ).

Anyway these are some of those that I want in my studio/

I wasn't talking to you. Fluffy said "there are like 3 analog synths I would not mind having, the rest is just mediocre stuff"

So according to him, all those others are mediocre.

Well, I don't even know all analog synths out there. Having said that, if that EMS thingy for instance were particularly great, it would be talked about even today. But I never see people talking about it on KVR, or asking for a software emulation of it. So I assume it simply is not as special or important as some of the others.
The CS80 was huge, but really, I would prefer the OB-X because I don't need what the CS80 was good at.
Minimoog? The Memorymoog was several Minimoogs in one, and polyphonic in addition to that.
The Prophet 5, sure, it was a famous synth, but I don't think it would give me sounds the others I could not give me.

My little list was based on my own needs and preferences, thus utterly subjective, of course.

[Kriminal]

There is a point to matching presets. It sells synths and preset banks. Its also a LOT easier to copy sounds than to come up with something of your own.

So to compare two things, and be able to abruptly *declare* that one is actually easier than the other, you need to have made both. Did you make both ? Do you have any experience in this kind of work ? Show us your work. Otherwise I think your comment might just be totally pointless (... again)

I've made thousands of presets for factory libraries and misc soundbanks. And I've also made this particular soundbank wich recreates more/less the JP8 factory library (In wich % it is faithfull, I'll let people decide ). So I can compare the two things. This is my take on it : Its not easier, ime it takes more time (averaged) to make a preset in these conditions than to make an original one. All in all, its a different work. And yes, it sells, and make musicians happy.( Because part of my job is to serve and make musicians happy by delivering to them the best possible presets I can make )

You just keep copying other ppls work, i prefer not to.

[Mod edit: Argue if you must, but try to do it without insults and without dragging nationality into it.]