VA Vs A

[fluffy_little_something]

Found a couple of supposedly classic Minimoog patches with panel settings, though without legible labels

http://www.keyboardmag.com/gear/1183/tu ... unds/27954

[pdxindy]

Here is 40 minutes of someone really tweaking the Moog Sub 37 (not just presets). Do that in a softsynth (and I don't mean emulate it). That Moog filter is just gorgeous sounding! I've had my hands on the Sub 37 a couple times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDXESTo ... freload=10

[fmr]

You are the one who equated the difference between two moogs and between a moog and an emulation as of the same scale.

So I said I disagreed. The difference between hardware and software is much more significant still than the difference between two moogs.

Ok, it's your opinion. IMO, I disagree with it. So, let's agree to disagree.

Let's agree that I am right and you are wrong

I agree that you believe it

[fluffy_little_something]

Here is 40 minutes of someone really tweaking the Moog Sub 37 (not just presets). Do that in a softsynth (and I don't mean emulate it). That Moog filter is just gorgeous sounding! I've had my hands on the Sub 37 a couple times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDXESTo ... freload=10

Gee, that things lights up like a Christmas tree
But the variable waveform knob is neat, I wish more plugins had that...
Of course tweaking is a lot more fun on those knobs than with a mouse

[pdxindy]

You are the one who equated the difference between two moogs and between a moog and an emulation as of the same scale.

So I said I disagreed. The difference between hardware and software is much more significant still than the difference between two moogs.

Ok, it's your opinion. IMO, I disagree with it. So, let's agree to disagree.

Let's agree that I am right and you are wrong

I agree that you believe it

It is not a matter of belief... it's a fact...

[aciddose]

Going to your max tolerance of 30%, this would mean that the envelope has to be "significantly" diffferent on the software than it is on the hardware to give the same results.

This is incorrect. Trimmers are used per envelope or per-component to ensure timing is identical regardless of variation.

For example I've designed my own ADSR envelope modules. After building six of these, I would not bet I could tell the difference between any two of them. There will be slight variations in control position vs. actual value only because I do not trim the timings. These variations however are less than 10% (often 3%, 2.5%) and the range of the control is large enough such that if you consider how accurate "lining up by eye" on a mark or how accurate the silk-screen may be printed on the chassis of the unit, or how accurately the potentiometer may be mounted relative to the silk-screen there are a lot more sources of variation beyond the components themselves.

I'd bet my life that the largest variation is human! Even in software you have this same problem unless the software prints exact values for parameters. This is overcome by stored presets.

Likewise, in an instrument like the juno series synthesizers in those cases where you could potentially exchange presets between two serviced/tuned units, both units given the same settings will perform identically with very little variation.

So really what you're doing here is inventing a whole fantasy that simply is not real.

[Vectorman]

It is not a matter of belief... it's a fact...

[zerocrossing]

And Patrick recognized that the envelope was one of the hardest parts to emulate.

Funny, I think about this all the time. One of my biggest complaints about most software emulations is that the envelopes don't seem to have the "bounce" that the hardware has. I think there's something in the attack that gets missed. One if the things I liked most about the KingKORG when I had it was the envelopes sounded perfect to me. Do did resonance. You could really get that Oberheim chirp from it. OP-X gets it too. Diva doesn't get it at all, but it does other things really well. Try to get that Van Halen 1984 bass sound out of Diva. You can't. But I don't look at Diva as something that can't do X sound, I look at it, and all synths, for what they can do.

Of course, I'm aware that every synth I mentioned is VA. But I've got a bunch of decent analogs so I'm not merely from memory or recordings.

[aciddose]

I've explained the difference between sample-accurate modulation updates and reduced rate modulation before.

Short version:

The envelopes are extremely simple. Trivial.

The difference in some software is that the modulation runs at a much lower rate than the audio.

In Xhip for example modulation takes up typically 50% of the time. If it were processed at 1/16th the rate, the total would then be 50 + 50/16, or 53.125, this would be 1.822 times as fast. The modulation computation in Xhip is also an order of magnitude less expensive than many other implementations.

Say you had a 20/80 split, we'd then be talking 25% time or 4.0 times as fast. (In other words, 4 times as many voices at max CPU.)

This is the only possibility for this observation to be true. Otherwise, what people attribute to "the envelopes" must instead be the function of other components misattributed.

[dcfac73]

There's only one way for this argument to be solved once and for all.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiO_JES4yBY

[Kriminal]

Found a couple of supposedly classic Minimoog patches with panel settings, though without legible labels

http://www.keyboardmag.com/gear/1183/tu ... unds/27954

If you want classic sounds, try MiniMonsta.... programmed by the man himself.

[fluffy_little_something]

And Patrick recognized that the envelope was one of the hardest parts to emulate.

Funny, I think about this all the time. One of my biggest complaints about most software emulations is that the envelopes don't seem to have the "bounce" that the hardware has. I think there's something in the attack that gets missed. One if the things I liked most about the KingKORG when I had it was the envelopes sounded perfect to me. Do did resonance. You could really get that Oberheim chirp from it. OP-X gets it too. Diva doesn't get it at all, but it does other things really well. Try to get that Van Halen 1984 bass sound out of Diva. You can't. But I don't look at Diva as something that can't do X sound, I look at it, and all synths, for what they can do.

Of course, I'm aware that every synth I mentioned is VA. But I've got a bunch of decent analogs so I'm not merely from memory or recordings.

Bounce, chirp - I wonder what such descriptions sound like I actually remember the 1984 album, it did have lots of synth sounds on it for that type of band, probably they tried to emulate foreigner's approach with their mix of rock and synths 2 years before. Anyway, could you specify which song you mean regarding the bass?
The intro is all synths, but a bit simplistic, even for 1984

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0mN7rvgb-4

[fmr]

Going to your max tolerance of 30%, this would mean that the envelope has to be "significantly" diffferent on the software than it is on the hardware to give the same results.

This is incorrect. Trimmers are used per envelope or per-component to ensure timing is identical regardless of variation.

For example I've designed my own ADSR envelope modules. After building six of these, I would not bet I could tell the difference between any two of them. There will be slight variations in control position vs. actual value only because I do not trim the timings. These variations however are less than 10% (often 3%, 2.5%) and the range of the control is large enough such that if you consider how accurate "lining up by eye" on a mark or how accurate the silk-screen may be printed on the chassis of the unit, or how accurately the potentiometer may be mounted relative to the silk-screen there are a lot more sources of variation beyond the components themselves.

I'd bet my life that the largest variation is human! Even in software you have this same problem unless the software prints exact values for parameters. This is overcome by stored presets.

Likewise, in an instrument like the juno series synthesizers in those cases where you could potentially exchange presets between two serviced/tuned units, both units given the same settings will perform identically with very little variation.

So really what you're doing here is inventing a whole fantasy that simply is not real.

I don't know what part of what I said are you referring to when talking about fantasy. If it is about the max 30% tolerance, it wasn't me who came out with those figures, but one thing is talking about 3%, 2.5% tolerance, another is talking about 30% or even 20%.

Regarding the envelopes, I never built one, as you did, but since you built all of them using the very same components, and they have been done the same way (supposedly), and are newly built, I think that having very similar results is what we should expect.

Regarding the Juno-60 one, I don't know what is there, but that it seems to me that each segment has it's own behaviour, that is a reality (to me, at least). I already accepted that ghettosynth may be right, and that the envelope is in need of being calibrated, but it happens I like it the way it is - it gives me a sense of nonlinearity and variation that I like. If it behaved more linearly, probably I would not like it so much. And I am not the only one finding the Juno-60s envelope "weird".

And I have been talking with some people about the old envelopes (the ones on the older synths, like the first Moogs and ARPs, and Obies) and they all told me that the envelopes may behave quite differently from each other (between manufacturers, mostly). So, if this is a fantasy, I'm not alone.

[fluffy_little_something]

Do they sound different because those devices are 30+ years old now or was that already the case when they left the factory?

[aciddose]

I don't know what part of what I said are you referring to when talking about fantasy.

You simply do not understand what I'm talking about, this is the issue.

The 30% refers to a component variation, not to a variation in the performance of the circuit. When components are used with such variations they are used in places where the variation is inconsequential!

Smaller variations like 5% are compensated when needed using trimmers or tuning circuits.

Think about this for a moment, please for the love of ...

Are you saying that you think a variation in the tuning capacitors will throw synthesizers out of tune?

Or do you think perhaps they'll simply be tuned.

No wait, the variation in my guitar strings means that any analog guitar is severely out of tune and all the records produced using guitars were forced to use digital guitar software.