ARP 2600 Clone?

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Instruments Discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS
ACE (Any Cable Everywhere) ARP 2600 V3 TimewARP 2600

Post

Meffy wrote:Having worked many years as a real-life electronic technician, I can state with absolute certainty that I'd rather avoid smelling electronics.

Few things are more off-putting than the odor of a burning transformer or exploded electrolytic capacitor.

True story.

I woke up one morning to a horrible smell and a thin haze from about waist high all the way to the ceiling, it was scary as hell. Thin wisps of smoke just hanging in the air. Nothing appeared to be burning and nothing had any appearance of having been burnt.

We called the fire department. They arrived and couldn't see anything either so they started to air out the place with fans.

Everyone was concerned about what caused it and as I glanced over at my entertainment center, it hit me. The old tube based eico scope was turned off, but, I had left it on the night before. A quick check, and sure enough, the pilot light wouldn't come on, the power transformer had burned out.

Post

IncarnateX wrote:
Well, that doesn't change the fact that a software emu currently won't give you the same feeling and visions of sitting in front of the real thing.
Whether a close sound is enough to satisfy some people is beyond that point ...
So what's your point?
That you need to smell filthy odour from wood that stinks with smoke and beers and touch these yellow keys while a wh*re s*cking your d*ck to be able to feel the real thing and begin to compose "light my fire"?

Post

@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.

Post

EnGee wrote:
IncarnateX wrote:
Well, that doesn't change the fact that a software emu currently won't give you the same feeling and visions of sitting in front of the real thing.
Whether a close sound is enough to satisfy some people is beyond that point ...
So what's your point?
That you need to smell filthy odour from wood that stinks with smoke and beers and touch these yellow keys while a wh*re s*cking your d*ck to be able to feel the real thing and begin to compose "light my fire"?
:lol: :lol: Wow!! What a response! My Arp2600 has no stinks from beers and smoking for petesakes! I restore mine every few years and we are non-smokers here, lol!! :lol:
Barry
If a billion people believe a stupid thing it is still a stupid thing

Post

EnGee wrote:So what's your point?
That no matter how close the sound your brain may not be convinced that it is a good emulation due to the rest of sensations involved in the percept of an "Arp". Take a well known funny little experiment. You take a red sausage and a green sausage with exactly the same content and ask people to rate the taste. Even though the taste should be the same physically, people report that the red one taste better. Now read my (long) post about backmasking etc. This shows how easily the auditory sensory buffer can be overwritten by frontal cortex so you "hear" things, which are not really there.

So when you claim that you can hear this and that difference or can't hear this and that difference between an emu and the real thing you may really be trained to hear such differences OR you may be deluding yourself like shit on basis of multisensory integration and overwritten auditory buffers.

And worst thing is that you cannot really be sure which one it is unless it is taken to a scientic test.

Now this puts discussions like the one in this thread in a certain perspective but you should be able to extract this yourself at this point.

Post

IncarnateX wrote:
EnGee wrote:So what's your point?
That no matter how close the sound your brain may not be convinced that it is a good emulation due to the rest of sensations involved in the percept of an "Arp". Take a well known funny little experiment. You take a red sausage and a green sausage with exactly the same content and ask people to rate the taste. Even though the taste should be the same physically, people report that the red one taste better. Now read my (long) post about backmasking etc. This shows how easily the auditory sensory buffer can be overwritten by frontal cortex so you "hear" things, which are not really there.
Certainly, and there's a lot too this. The McGurk effect is really interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

The problem with appealing to this cuts both ways, however. It's not something that can be used to dismiss actual differences. The differences between the real thing and, e.g., 2600v are dramatic. Again, I call your attention to the challenge that I posted earlier in this thread to recreate the Frankenstein patch as played in the video. It's even out in the open by itself so a legitimate comparison could be made.

I don't think that you can even get close with the 2600v or the Timewarp.

Post

ghettosynth wrote: The differences between the real thing and, e.g., 2600v are dramatic.
Yes, so your brain tells you and you could easily convince me about the same, so I am pretty biased and not a good target for your challenge. But don't be surprised if others will reject those differences. Again the brain has amazing abilities to process stimulation in many ways, altering it and even adding something to it not given in the stimuli. So problem remains. Are you hearing these differences because your brain is looking for them? Or maybe even creates this difference by belief based overwrite of your sensory buffers?

Problem is finding objective means to test it that is not dependent on auditory perception, otherwise problem remains.

Post

IncarnateX wrote:That no matter how close the sound your brain may not be convinced that it is a good emulation due to the rest of sensations involved in the percept of an "Arp".
Why don't you
* speak for YOUR brain only
* show us link to scientific study that perfect emulation of ARP is not convincing 100% of people -- research should be done in proper way, with placebo etc
* eat you words back
Last edited by david.beholder on Mon Feb 08, 2016 6:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Murderous duck!

Post

IncarnateX wrote:
ghettosynth wrote: The differences between the real thing and, e.g., 2600v are dramatic.
Yes, so your brain tells you and you could easily convince me about the same, so I am pretty biased and not a good target for your challenge. But don't be surprised if others will reject those differences. Again the brain has amazing abilities to process stimulation in many ways, altering it and even adding something to it not given in the stimuli. So problem remains. Are you hearing these differences because your brain is looking for them? Or maybe even creates this difference by belief based overwrite of your sensory buffers?

Problem is finding objective means to test it that is not dependent on auditory perception, otherwise problem remains.
No, I get it, they will, but they're wrong. I know that sounds arrogant, but, we can measure those differences. I've laid out one challenge, just trying to complete that challenge will convince you of the differences, and if it doesn't, and you're still right, you should be able to fool me.

I've been aware of this for a while, I try to setup fairly straightforward blind listening tests for myself when I can. I really first noticed it with analog filters. Things that I thought were dramatically different were less so in many situations when the visual stimulus wasn't there. I've even seen threads where people are talking about how different filter A is from filter B and they're the exact same circuit. I record samples, I mute the audio, loop the samples, minimize the window so I can't see anything, go get a cup of coffee, come back and turn up the audio. My visual references and time references are gone, if I can't tell the difference, I assume that the difference isn't there or is below my threshold of hearing.

Which leads to another equally biased explanation for people not being able to hear the difference, simply, they can't hear the difference, i.e., they haven't trained their ears. This happens to me all of the time, not with digital resonant filters at the extreme, but with other kinds of effects. So, they believe that the two are equal and insist that others don't know what they're talking about.

A third explanation, that also cuts both ways, is that people just want to argue and will present the counter opinion based on memory, but that memory could be biased by their own emotions related to the argument. I try to avoid this bias by loading up examples when I start talking about something, but it doesn't always happen.

In this case, however, there is a fairly easy test that doesn't let people get away with dishonest comparisons, just make 2600v sound like Frankenstein, and post the patch. That we we can all test it for ourselves. Start with the factory patch, and get it as close as possible.

I don't think it can be done.

And the reason that I don't think that it can be done is because the filter is just too old. And the reason that I think that it's too old is because it's so light on CPU that it cannot be modern in any sense.

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.

Post

The material that the ARP is made from will still exist...unless you believe that you are the only reality and everything around you is but mere shadow.

My Arp2600 did not come with a patch memory. I had to use a patch book. That is the part one cannot emulate. Nor knob twiddling come to that.
Barry
If a billion people believe a stupid thing it is still a stupid thing

Post

ghettosynth wrote: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.
Murderous duck!

Post

ghettosynth wrote:No, I get it, they will, but they're wrong. I know that sounds arrogant, but, we can measure those differences. I've laid out one challenge, just trying to complete that challenge will convince you of the differences, and if it doesn't, and you're still right, you should be able to fool me.

I've been aware of this for a while, I try to setup fairly straightforward blind listening tests for myself when I can. I really first noticed it with analog filters. Things that I thought were dramatically different were less so in many situations when the visual stimulus wasn't there. I've even seen threads where people are talking about how different filter A is from filter B and they're the exact same circuit. I record samples, I mute the audio, loop the samples, minimize the window so I can't see anything, go get a cup of coffee, come back and turn up the audio. My visual references and time references are gone, if I can't tell the difference, I assume that the difference isn't there or is below my threshold of hearing.

Which leads to another equally biased explanation for people not being able to hear the difference, simply, they can't hear the difference, i.e., they haven't trained their ears. This happens to me all of the time, not with digital resonant filters at the extreme, but with other kinds of effects. So, they believe that the two are equal and insist that others don't know what they're talking about.

A third explanation, that also cuts both ways, is that people just want to argue and will present the counter opinion based on memory, but that memory could be biased by their own emotions related to the argument. I try to avoid this bias by loading up examples when I start talking about something, but it doesn't always happen.

In this case, however, there is a fairly easy test that doesn't let people get away with dishonest comparisons, just make 2600v sound like Frankenstein, and post the patch. That we we can all test it for ourselves. Start with the factory patch, and get it as close as possible.

I don't think it can be done.

And the reason that I don't think that it can be done is because the filter is just too old. And the reason that I think that it's too old is because it's so light on CPU that it cannot be modern in any sense.

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.
How much I like to believe you, I can't from a scientific perspective. You cannot just refer to your own auditory perception as being the objective authority and your opponents' the subjective. They may reproduce your patch to an extent where they cannot hear any differences or though you claim you can. I already covered the training argument and though it may likely be valid, an outsider can only measure the question by his own perceptions and we are back to the beginning:
IncarnateX wrote:So when you claim that you can hear this and that difference or can't hear this and that difference between an emu and the real thing you may really be trained to hear such differences OR you may be deluding yourself like shit on basis of multisensory integration and overwritten auditory buffers.
Problem is to find out whether you are trained or deluding yourself, so you have to find other means than auditory to "prove" the differences, e.g. Visual means. It is much easier to fool the ear than the eye but to my knowledge no such means exists.

And besides, people could claim that the lack of ability to recreate a certain patch is due to lack of sound design abilities, so there really no evidence to be found here from a hardcore positivistic approach to scientific tests.

Post

david.beholder wrote:
IncarnateX wrote:That no matter how close the sound your brain may not be convinced that it is a good emulation due to the rest of sensations involved in the percept of an "Arp".
Why don't you
* speak for YOUR brain only
* show us link to scientific study that perfect emulation of ARP is not convincing 100% of people -- research should be done in proper way, with placebo etc
* eat you words back
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, so it ain't gonna happen, tiger :wink:

Post

IncarnateX wrote:How much I like to believe you, I can't from a scientific perspective. You cannot just refer to your own auditory perception as being the objective authority and your opponents' the subjective. They may reproduce your patch to an extent where they cannot hear any differences or though you claim you can. I already covered the training argument and though it may likely be valid, an outsider can only measure the question by his own perceptions and we are back to the beginning
Only in intellectual wankery... sit in a room with both live, and you would talk very different because the differences would be obvious to your ears. :lol:

Post

pdxindy wrote:
IncarnateX wrote:How much I like to believe you, I can't from a scientific perspective. You cannot just refer to your own auditory perception as being the objective authority and your opponents' the subjective. They may reproduce your patch to an extent where they cannot hear any differences or though you claim you can. I already covered the training argument and though it may likely be valid, an outsider can only measure the question by his own perceptions and we are back to the beginning
Only in intellectual wankery... sit in a room with both live, and you would talk very different because the differences would be obvious to your ears. :lol:
Yes sweetie, that is exactly my point to begin with. However this feeling of difference may be due to the perception as a whole, that is the looks and tactile feelings included.

Post Reply

Return to “Instruments”