Minimoog Softsynth Shootout: Diva MiniV3 Monark Legend Minimonsta vs Model D
-
- KVRian
- 890 posts since 11 Dec, 2003
Nope , seems pretty inconclusive . Only way to be sure is to get both , and test them yourself
Judging from some of the online demos , there does seem to be a bit of a difference between the 2 units .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ze0O29O11o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXUSYMj3Pd4
Judging from some of the online demos , there does seem to be a bit of a difference between the 2 units .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ze0O29O11o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXUSYMj3Pd4
- KVRAF
- 25305 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
Would that be any more than the difference between two of the same units? especially old ones?brick wrote:Judging from some of the online demos , there does seem to be a bit of a difference between the 2 units .
-
- KVRist
- 120 posts since 28 Jul, 2005 from Sweden
Comparing two Youtube videos with completely different recording chains and programming and also one with effect on seem impossible to me. There is one one muffwiggler which is very close. But making one sound close to the other doesnt tell much either, only way to be sure is to have both side by side and even then its hard.
Those comparison that Starsky Carr is doing is really great though, the best Ive found.
Those comparison that Starsky Carr is doing is really great though, the best Ive found.
-
- KVRist
- 114 posts since 8 Oct, 2016
Are you not too hot on the Arturia SEM V?nevernamed wrote:That is a different proposition yes. Oberheims share a family sound, the IC stuff that is, and the SEM is the SEM. I don't think anyone's got this right yet and I'm pretty sure everyone on here et al would love it. There would be a lot of support for this idea.Urs wrote:I'm only interested in a mash up of the old Oberheims, that is, OB-X and older. They change more in concept than in actual parts or architecture. I'd merely add a novel concept, one that is only possible in software, but otherwise stick to the parts.nevernamed wrote:The thing with that is the mash up almost always results in some kind of compromise.
That said, we've enslaved ourselves to accuracy for over a year when we did Repro-1/5, we would certainly prefer to add our own touches to anything new. As I said elsewhere, we're moving from "accuracy" to "interpretation" when we believe we can offer something better.
I have it and like it, though it sounds a little different than the uhbie filter in Diva. Both sound really good and scratched my itch for SEM tone in my life (I literally had my keys in hand, ready to drive down and buy OB-6)
-
- KVRian
- 890 posts since 11 Dec, 2003
Having listened to a whole bunch of the online demos , there's still a discernible difference between the original and the reissue for me . Even taking into account different recording chains / sounds etc , the reissue has a sharpness to its sound that isnt present in the original , which sounds silkier and rounder to my ears .pdxindy wrote:Would that be any more than the difference between two of the same units? especially old ones?brick wrote:Judging from some of the online demos , there does seem to be a bit of a difference between the 2 units .
- u-he
- 28042 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Might be lower corner frequencies in lowpass filters with worn out capacitors. Might be wear and tear, or just a calibration issue.brick wrote:Having listened to a whole bunch of the online demos , there's still a discernible difference between the original and the reissue for me . Even taking into account different recording chains / sounds etc , the reissue has a sharpness to its sound that isnt present in the original , which sounds silkier and rounder to my ears .pdxindy wrote:Would that be any more than the difference between two of the same units? especially old ones?brick wrote:Judging from some of the online demos , there does seem to be a bit of a difference between the 2 units .
I think it's very likely that the reissue sounds like a new SEM, and like what a SEM is supposed to sound like. It definitely sounds brighter than my OB-X or OB-1 even though cutoff is clamped at 16kHz. Maybe back then synth mechanics typically clamped cutoff way below that.
-
Richard_Synapse Richard_Synapse https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=245936
- KVRian
- 1136 posts since 20 Dec, 2010
Should be, if the parts are really the same. Do you know this for sure? That would be way cool! Most reissues seem to differ rather substantially both in terms of the parts used, as well as soundwise.Urs wrote:Hmmm, after two pages no conclusive evidence that there's a difference other than tear and wear, i.e. possibly stability issues in the vintage form... is the verdict gonna change down the thread?
Richard
Synapse Audio Software - www.synapse-audio.com
- u-he
- 28042 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
I don't know for sure... but I prefer the "modern" SEM sound over my OB-X. I don't think modern stuff is necessarily worse than old. For people who think that, there might be a bit of unobtainium and confirmation bias in the mix. If I had the choice between a Moog 55 and AJH or MacBeth, I'm not so sure I'd go 55 (well, I did go AJH because it was available & I could afford it)Richard_Synapse wrote:Should be, if the parts are really the same. Do you know this for sure? That would be way cool! Most reissues seem to differ rather substantially both in terms of the parts used, as well as soundwise.Urs wrote:Hmmm, after two pages no conclusive evidence that there's a difference other than tear and wear, i.e. possibly stability issues in the vintage form... is the verdict gonna change down the thread?
Richard
-
Richard_Synapse Richard_Synapse https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=245936
- KVRian
- 1136 posts since 20 Dec, 2010
Certainly. Then again the modern analog hardware I tried often reminds me of how plugins sound. Very precise, reliable, low-noise, etc. The only real bonus I see is the hands-on control, and the lower price compared to vintage-analog hardware.Urs wrote:I don't know for sure... but I prefer the "modern" SEM sound over my OB-X. I don't think modern stuff is necessarily worse than old. For people who think that, there might be a bit of unobtainium and confirmation bias in the mix.
Now in case of the SEM it appears that the reissue costs about as much as the vintage hardware, which is a good sign that it really is the same (or close enough).
Richard
Synapse Audio Software - www.synapse-audio.com
-
- KVRian
- 969 posts since 5 Sep, 2014 from Heaven
so...are you going to use it as 'inspiration' for a new product? I for one would buy it.
M O N O S Y N T H S F O R E V E R
-
- KVRian
- 969 posts since 5 Sep, 2014 from Heaven
SEMantics
M O N O S Y N T H S F O R E V E R
- u-he
- 28042 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
More signs... a gathering of modern and vintage SEMs and common extensions in u-he headquarters today.egbert101 wrote:Richard and Urs are doing SEM talk guys. This is a hopeful sign.
And I totally get why Tom Oberheim says "the original Two Voice has always been special to me" (from "Two-Voice Pro QuickStart Guide"). I'm going to base my next Eurocrack patch around the Two Voice Pro.
But yeah, while there's a good chance we'll go for a SEM tribute somehow, I have no idea when this could take place, and what the final concept would be.