Arturia synth development.

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Instruments Discussion
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

What all would be involved in Arturia overhauling the code to take more advantage of recent CPU changes?

It seems like CPU/RAM tech has improved vastly over the last 5 or even 10 years. Wouldn't re-coding be a good idea? Too expensive to undertake?

Post

XpanderDude wrote:What all would be involved in Arturia overhauling the code to take more advantage of recent CPU changes?

It seems like CPU/RAM tech has improved vastly over the last 5 or even 10 years. Wouldn't re-coding be a good idea? Too expensive to undertake?
Arturia is working on the code, but we are talking about a collection that nowadays spans 17 instruments. Some are new, some are older, some are really old. Also, some of the new stuff still needs to be perfected (the physical models). There's a lot of work to be done, so, we need to be patient.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

zerocrossing wrote: Of course Diva is an "emulation" of sorts, but you're bickering about the level of replication. Urs has always said that he emulated things closely when they made sonic sense to him, but changed things if he thought they sounded better his way. Nothing wrong with that. I mean, it's one of the things I do really like about the Arturia synths. They just didn't emulate an SEM, they added a modulation matrix, polyphony, etc. So, using your logic the Arturia synths aren't pure emulations either. That's fine with me.
If stating facts is bickering, so be it. You are free to look at anything the way it pleases you more. Again, I quote: "Where Sancho sees windmills, D. Quijote sees giants. One see mills, then they are mills. The other see giants, then they are giants." :phones:
Fernando (FMR)

Post

fmr wrote:
XpanderDude wrote:What all would be involved in Arturia overhauling the code to take more advantage of recent CPU changes?

It seems like CPU/RAM tech has improved vastly over the last 5 or even 10 years. Wouldn't re-coding be a good idea? Too expensive to undertake?
Arturia is working on the code, but we are talking about a collection that nowadays spans 17 instruments. Some are new, some are older, some are really old. Also, some of the new stuff still needs to be perfected (the physical models). There's a lot of work to be done, so, we need to be patient.
I couldn't say better. We will continue to improve our instruments in the future. I can not say how much time it will take (probably years to have it done for all of them) but we really want to do it.

Post

.jon wrote:
Robmobius wrote: Well, the sound for a start...
No, there's nothing "new level" about the sound. Subtractive monosynths have been used since the 1960s.
You misunderstand, what I mean by ‘the sound’ is what I said earlier about RePro, that its sound will be better than another soft synth out there for the ‘immediate future’. Of course mono-synths have been around forever. :?

As for the mini-brute, I have complemented Arturia on their hardware earlier. Nevertheless, Repro will be cheaper too. :tu:
I will take the Lord's name in vain, whenever I want. Hail Satan! And his little goblins too. :lol:

Post

Kevin [Arturia] wrote:
fmr wrote:
XpanderDude wrote:What all would be involved in Arturia overhauling the code to take more advantage of recent CPU changes?

It seems like CPU/RAM tech has improved vastly over the last 5 or even 10 years. Wouldn't re-coding be a good idea? Too expensive to undertake?
Arturia is working on the code, but we are talking about a collection that nowadays spans 17 instruments. Some are new, some are older, some are really old. Also, some of the new stuff still needs to be perfected (the physical models). There's a lot of work to be done, so, we need to be patient.
I couldn't say better. We will continue to improve our instruments in the future. I can not say how much time it will take (probably years to have it done for all of them) but we really want to do it.
It's nice to see that there's pretty regular updates and fixes to the collection.

Post

fmr wrote:
XpanderDude wrote:What all would be involved in Arturia overhauling the code to take more advantage of recent CPU changes?

It seems like CPU/RAM tech has improved vastly over the last 5 or even 10 years. Wouldn't re-coding be a good idea? Too expensive to undertake?
Arturia is working on the code, but we are talking about a collection that nowadays spans 17 instruments. Some are new, some are older, some are really old. Also, some of the new stuff still needs to be perfected (the physical models). There's a lot of work to be done, so, we need to be patient.
Huh? You can't have it both ways, either the code is competitive, or it isn't. Many of us think that the code isn't competitive in today's market and by admitting that the models are old you are agreeing.

Frankly, all the writing is on the wall for everyone to see. Urs came in here and told you what my ears, and those of others, knew all along, that Arturia is not using the same degree of technology that Urs is using, i.e., all "ZDF" are not equal.

I appreciate that not everyone shares the same values when it comes to musical instruments, but, if you think that Arturia sounds as good as Uhe, in general, then please try to accept that you are not hearing the differences that others are hearing. This might come down to context, that is, the contexts in which you use the synths those differences matter less, or it might just come down to your ability to discern the differences. I still own some of the best analogs ever made, that's my metric.

This entire thread starts with a false premise, few, if any "hate Arturia", however, many of us feel that their models are not on the same level as the leaders in the industry. If you want to make excuses for them, knock yourself out, but I'm not there with you. I'm an Arturia customer, and I'll probably continue to be one, but in the hierarchy of analog emulation they are not, IMNSHO, at the top.

Post

ghettosynth wrote: Huh? You can't have it both ways, either the code is competitive, or it isn't. Many of us think that the code isn't competitive in today's market and by admitting that the models are old you are agreeing.

Frankly, all the writing is on the wall for everyone to see. Urs came in here and told you what my, and others, ears knew all along, that Arturia is not using the same degree of technology that Urs is using, i.e., all "ZDF" are not equal.

I appreciate that not everyone shares the same values when it comes to musical instruments, but, if you think that Arturia sounds as good as Uhe, in general, then please try to accept that you are not hearing the differences that others are hearing. This might come down to context, that is, the contexts in which you use the synths those differences matter less, or it might just come down to your ability to discern the differences. I still own some of the best analogs ever made, that's my metric.

This entire thread starts with a false premise, few, if any "hate Arturia", however, many of us feel that their models are not on the same level as the leaders in the industry. If you want to make excuses for them, knock yourself out, but I'm not there with you. I'm an Arturia customer, and I'll probably continue to be one, but in the hierarchy of analog emulation they are not, IMNSHO, at the top.
I noticed before that you seem to talk too much to your own belly. Read myt post closely, and you'll see I am not inventing excuses, or saying that the models from Arturia are the state of the art of analogue modeling or whatnot, and afterwards that they are old. What I said was that AMONG the 17 instruments that now are in the Arturia Collection SOME are old - it's a fact. However, I posted earlier a series of audio tests performed with the Moog emulations I currently have (which, BTW have a really old instrument too, the Minimonsta, and another which filter was reportedly been reworked by Arturia, together with a "state of the art" model, Monark) and I think I showed that the differences are not as drastic as you and others seem to try everyone to believe, even if some of the code is old.

Besides, if I thought that the code is "top", why would I agree that it has to be reworked (which is implicit and explicit in my reply)?

It isn't enough for you? Your bad. For the common of the mortals, it's good enough (and some of them seem to be people that actually earn their living making music).

I am happy to have people like Vadim and Urs, that follow the approach to pursue the best quality possible, at any cost, but I also like to have alternatives that don't tax heavily the CPU so that I can use more of them. What I was stating repeadly here is that Arturia models are not crap, as some pretend them to be. They may not be the best, but they are good. There is room for every approach.

And don't patronize me with your "some of the best analogs ever made". You are not the only one that still have hardware synths, even analogues. I have a few here too (relics from the past), and have worked with several others along the years. I'm old enough to remember when analogues were all that existed, so, analogues are not a myth to me.

Besides, I am not an analogue purist - they're not even my dream synths, except maybe if we were talking of a modular system, or the only analogue synth I always wanted to own and don't - the Matrix-12. Fortunately, I have a software emulation of it (guess who made it) :hihi: I don't belong to the "analogue zealot squad". I have several "proudly digital synths" that I cherish much, and my approach was always diversified - a little bit if everything.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

I think they are best leaving the older stuff alone. Cut out the dead wood and start again. Too much work to bring everything up to urs standards...

I think they prob make shitloads more on hardware these days, and rightly so. Its great innovative stuff. I'll take the MiniBrute over repro1 any day of the week.

Post

I can't bring myself to read all 13 pages of this thread, so I'll just pop this thought in quickly: It seems perhaps that Arturia's approach involves not (artificially?) shaping the eq of their emulations to make them sound 'stardust' on first listen. Many VIs sound very bright by default, whereas the Arturia stuff has a flatter eq that can handle being shaped quite strongly.

Post

fmr wrote: I showed that the differences are not as drastic as you and others seem to try everyone to believe, even if some of the code is old.
No, what you showed, if anything, is that in a test that you constructed, that you don't think that the differences are drastic. The thing that all of these kinds of tests never really address is that slight differences in such a test do not necessarily have a linear relationship with perception. Why we can talk about subtle differences in EQ slopes or compressor algorithms as mattering but subtle differences in analog filters as not is beyond me. Really all that this speaks to is that you fail to quantify the difference in terms that are meaningful.

When I create music, the differences are dramatic to my ears just as the difference between one optical compressor and another might be to someone who is sensitive to those differences.

To be clear, I didn't listen to your files, and I don't really care. I'm not that interested in minimoog emulations for the most part. If it were much better than Monark then you'd have my attention, but it's not even as good, and there are good reasons for that.
You are not the only one that still have hardware synths, even analogues. I have a few here too
I have far more than a few my friend, and I know from past conversations that you lack the familiarity that I have with them. I don't give two shits whether you respect my opinion or not, I have no idea why you care so much that others respect yours.

Again, you can't have it both ways. All those of us who aren't super fans of Arturia have said is that their models are not up to snuff. All the evidence that you need for that is in this thread. Urs explained to you how their approximation is not the same as his method. My perception is that his explanation doesn't really mean much to you because it's not in your wheelhouse.

I don't really care what you like or don't like. Just stop trying to tell other people that they should like the same things or respect your point of view. I don't, get over it. If you want to change my mind, then do it with discussions of technology that comes from an understanding of that technology. When you understand what's going on you will realize that your sound comparisons have very little value. There are too many issues when it comes to simple sound comparisons that I'm just not interested in engaging this issue there.

Like I said, this thread started with a false premise and all the info that you need to know that the solutions are not the same is herein. If you don't care, then you don't care, but I do, and in the context of my own music, I can tell the difference. That's all that matters to me unless you are on the short list of people who have demonstrated over time that I should respect their opinion and listen to their point of view. Sorry man, that's not you.
Last edited by ghettosynth on Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

This is a spontaneous improvisation using a layer of 3 of my own patches for Arturia Matrix-12 V2 (actually converted from the first version using teh new converter software):
IW - Matrix-12 V2 Ambient improvisation 01

This was recorded "live" so no overdub. The only built-in effect used with those patches is the Chorus.
The only external FX is the Waves One Knob Phatter bass enhancement plugin. Not really necessary for those specific patches but is more a less a "standard" plugin for me when using this synth (and also some others) while in this case not at the maximum amount (which is the only knob in that FX plugin).

The patches use some of the advanced features likee.g. "3-Phase" filter and FM. The stereo width is introduced both by the Chorus and pannning the voices (you could detune and pan each voice seperately) on the "Voice" page).

IMO the Matrix-12 plugn works perfectly as a "pad machine" and of course does some classics like synth Brass, Synth Strings etc. very well. You could also get a huge Unison with up to 12 voices while you could also use less and you could detune (both in semitones and cents) and pan each voice.
In this case (like with some other Arturia synths too) i do not even care really much if this synth sounds exactly like the real thing, it just soudns great as it is IMO.
Last edited by Ingonator on Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ingo Weidner
Win 10 Home 64-bit / mobile i7-7700HQ 2.8 GHz / 16GB RAM //
Live 10 Suite / Cubase Pro 9.5 / Pro Tools Ultimate 2021 // NI Komplete Kontrol S61 Mk1

Post

Ingonator wrote:i do not even care if this synth sounds exactly like the real thing...
Many ppl do, and if you are releasing synths that are emulations, its kinda an important part... maybe you missed that.

Post

AnX wrote:
Ingonator wrote:i do not even care if this synth sounds exactly like the real thing...
Many ppl do, and if you are releasing synths that are emulations, its kinda an important part... maybe you missed that.
Nice that you cut out the first part of my sentence where i said "In this case...".

There is no direct competition for Matrix-12 emulation yet and teh Arturia emulation sounds graet for me and like the real thing has tons of features inclduoing 15 filter modes (+ even more features in the plugin).
As mentioend above for somelacking low end i use a dedicated Bass enhancement plugin while the demo above was not really to show the Bass of the plugin but that it works great for smooth pad sounds (for which especially the "3-Phase" filter is great.
Ingo Weidner
Win 10 Home 64-bit / mobile i7-7700HQ 2.8 GHz / 16GB RAM //
Live 10 Suite / Cubase Pro 9.5 / Pro Tools Ultimate 2021 // NI Komplete Kontrol S61 Mk1

Post

ghettosynth wrote: Why we can talk about subtle differences in EQ slopes or compressor algorithms as mattering but subtle differences in analog filters as not is beyond me. Really all that this speaks to is that you fail to quantify the difference in terms that are meaningful.

When I create music, the differences are dramatic to my ears just as the difference between one optical compressor and another might be to someone who is sensitive to those differences.
That's the point. You have that strange obsession with filters, while for me filters are just that - filters: something to take frequency bands off the picture. It's the end result that matters. If the differences really hurt you, as you say, then by all means. To me, and the vast majority of common mortals, they matter, but not that much to the point of "hurting". And there are other things that also matter. It's just a matter of balances, and finding what is more important for each case.

Oh, and I also find those endless discussions about the subtle differences in EQ slopes and compression algorithms as worthless. Amusing, but worthless
ghettosynth wrote: I have far more than a few my friend, and I know from past conversations that you lack the familiarity that I have with them. I don't give two shits whether you respect my opinion or not, I have no idea why you care so much that others respect yours.

Again, you can't have it both ways. All those of us who aren't super fans of Arturia have said is that their models are not up to snuff. All the evidence that you need for that is in this thread. Urs explained to you how their approximation is not the same as his method. My perception is that his explanation doesn't really mean much to you because it's not in your wheelhouse.

I don't really care what you like or don't like. Just stop trying to tell other people that they should like the same things or respect your point of view. I don't, get over it. If you want to change my mind, then do it with discussions of technology that comes from an understanding of that technology. When you understand what's going on you will realize that your sound comparisons have very little value. There are too many issues when it comes to simple sound comparisons that I'm just not interested in engaging this issue there.

Like I said, this thread started with a false premise and all the info that you need to know that the solutions are not the same is herein. If you don't care, then you don't care, but I do, and in the context of my own music, I can tell the difference. That's all that matters to me unless you are on the short list of people who have demonstrated over time that I should respect their opinion and listen to their point of view. Sorry man, that's not you.
So, you have a museum. Good for you. And no, this thread didn't start with a false premise. It started, out of nowhere, with another bash. And I am here trying to prove that Arturia software is not "crap" as some wrote (not you, I know - you just said that they are not at the top level - but there were others that wrote that, and that's what I think in unjustifiable).

You say my comparisons have little value (to you, I suppose). So be it. It matters to me, and to some others, and I did it because I WAS ASKED To. What I wanted to show whas that the difference is not extreme. In fact, it is narrower than some speaches imply. If that narrowness is what's important to you, then so be it. I am defending Arturia here, as I defended Urs in another thread, and I will defend even you, if I so think it's justified.

But if yo think you have a way to prove your point, do it, instead of just talking. Record those alleged differences (since you have that museum) and post them, for us, common mortals to evaluate how much they matter to each of us.

You use to talk from the high spheres of a self indulgent and alleged superiority. You imply you have the abilities to talk about this stuff from a technical POV? OK, I don't have that technical expertise, so I give you that advantage. I am just a trained musician, with trained ears for what matters to it. I am trained in notes and sounds. I am trained in musical instruments. And that's what we are talking about here (or so I thought) - music and musical instruments. I also know that noone knows everything, and when someone think that he/she reached the top, then there's always someone else working on another approach that may (or not) prove otherwise. It's called progress.

I leave the technical discussions about the mystic subtleties of the ladder filter to you. Frankly, I don't care about that. We ended discussing Minimoog emulations, but I am not that interested in those either. The instruments I value most in Arturia collection don't even include the Mini, BTW. It just came out during the conversation, I don't remember why.

And, no, I am not trying to convince you, or anyone, that Arturia is the best there is. Nor do I give a shit about what you or anyone else think of me and my opinions, and if you car about them or not. I didn't already care when I was a teenager, and that was a long time ago. Now, I just grown old, which means I am just tougher.
Fernando (FMR)

Post Reply

Return to “Instruments”