Login / Register  0 items | $0.00 New @ KVR
The NAMM Show

The KVR Audio Instruments forum is sponsored by the Winter NAMM Show. More than a trade show, NAMM brings together the music, sound and event technology communities for exhibits, workshops, performances, events and much more. This year's show takes place January 25-28. See you there!

Read more at www.namm.org
User avatar
egbert101
KVRAF
 
1835 posts since 13 Jun, 2014

Postby egbert101; Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:56 pm Wavestation Shootout: Hardware vs. VST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bscdIg4SNMI

Should come as no surprise, but finally perhaps this will stop the idiots from saying that the VST sounds nothing like the original.

Great plugin, shitty support from Korg. :tu:
Current financial status: Peasant.
User avatar
wagtunes
KVRAF
 
10122 posts since 8 Oct, 2014

Postby wagtunes; Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:59 pm Re: Wavestation Shootout: Hardware vs. VST

I owned a Wavestation for over 25 years so I think I'm more than qualified to comment on the sound of the VST.

When I first heard it I said "Holy shit...That is dead on the money."

And why shouldn't it be? The Wavestation wasn't an analog synth. It was digital to begin with. So what's so hard about just taking the same digital code and making it into a VST?

Ignore anybody who says they don't sound alike because they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

And I still have my old Wavestation recordings that I can upload if I have to.

So yeah, no difference. None, nada, zilch.
chk071
KVRAF
 
14342 posts since 10 Apr, 2010, from Germany

Postby chk071; Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:04 pm Re: Wavestation Shootout: Hardware vs. VST

wagtunes wrote:Ignore anybody who says they don't sound alike because they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Well, they could sound different, after all, there are always DAC's involved. And, considering CPU power is also a lot higher nowadays, there are possibilities in the plugin the hardware didn't have back then. Actually, i'm 100 % certain they will sound (slightly) different, everything else would be wizardry. Question is if that is not neglectable.

Here's a discussion about the same thing, BTW: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/electro ... tware.html
User avatar
beely
KVRian
 
1423 posts since 6 Jul, 2013

Postby beely; Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:07 pm Re: Wavestation Shootout: Hardware vs. VST

Simple: Don't listen to, or engage with the idiots. :)

Woody's tests are not really "scientific" (and listening to that video, YouTube audio quality comments aside, I don't necessarily think it' a good example of the differences - it sounds a bit weird to me), but anyone who has had experience of both should be able to tell you that the software *is* the original code and waveforms, just slightly higher quality as the samples have more top end and the lack of the cheap convertors give a slightly cleaner, more hifi, flatter sound - the WS's convertors are quite coloured, giving a slightly duller, softer, more "defocused" sound, which some people prefer - it's certainly a character I'm very familiar with.

When people use terms like "nothing like" in this context what they usually mean is "there is a difference I can hear", but "nothing like" is just an over-exagerated sensationalism they use to try to add weight to their opinion.

I have had a real WS since the early nineties, and I'm perfectly happy to use the Legacy version, and I like the extra clarity (and other thing like the polyphony benefits etc).
chk071
KVRAF
 
14342 posts since 10 Apr, 2010, from Germany

Postby chk071; Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:12 pm Re: Wavestation Shootout: Hardware vs. VST

BTW, as we're on the topic: Some people consider the older Waldorf synths to be sounding better compared to the Blofeld, or their newer soft synths. The synths sound brighter now, more present, more bottom end, the filters are improved, and the envelopes are probably faster too, yet people prefer the old synths. And i can't blame them even, some of the typical Waldorf "airy" sound is due a high cut, there's simply not so much going on in the high frequencies than on their newer synths, which adds to the sound (and also some aliasing, most probably, because anti-aliasing filters weren't quite there yet). I heard that one some other older hardware VA's too, they're simply not as bright as nowadays soft synths, and VA's. As i mentioned before in other threads, this striving for ultra clean, ultra bright oscillators with zero aliasing can be quite counterproductive, when it takes away from the sound. Others may disagree, and that's fine too, because it's rather a matter of personal preference, than really something which is written in stone.
User avatar
Astralp
KVRAF
 
1545 posts since 25 Feb, 2005, from Ganymede

Postby Astralp; Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:28 pm Re: Wavestation Shootout: Hardware vs. VST

chk071 wrote:BTW, as we're on the topic: Some people consider the older Waldorf synths to be sounding better compared to the Blofeld, or their newer soft synths. The synths sound brighter now, more present, more bottom end, the filters are improved, and the envelopes are probably faster too, yet people prefer the old synths. And i can't blame them even, some of the typical Waldorf "airy" sound is due a high cut, there's simply not so much going on in the high frequencies than on their newer synths, which adds to the sound (and also some aliasing, most probably, because anti-aliasing filters weren't quite there yet). I heard that one some other older hardware VA's too, they're simply not as bright as nowadays soft synths, and VA's. As i mentioned before in other threads, this striving for ultra clean, ultra bright oscillators with zero aliasing can be quite counterproductive, when it takes away from the sound. Others may disagree, and that's fine too, because it's rather a matter of personal preference, than really something which is written in stone.


In terms of the Blofeld it's certainly less Bassy than older synths and even a bit less defined, it seems that they spent less on the DACs which is probably the cause. I've owned lots of Waldorf Gear in the past but did do my own comparison with the micro-q when deciding which to keep and soundwise the Micro-q had a lot more punch and bottom end to it, but in the end the Blofeld is much easier and more fun to program and is still a great synth. I would say the same for the Wavestation, I used to have an SR and found it painful to program, the plugin (especially the ipad version) is a lot more fun and has had more use.
Examigan
KVRAF
 
4194 posts since 15 Sep, 2005, from East Coast of the USA

Postby Examigan; Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:46 pm Re: Wavestation Shootout: Hardware vs. VST

beely wrote:Simple: Don't listen to, or engage with the idiots. :)
The WS's convertors are quite coloured, giving a slightly duller, softer, more "defocused" sound, which some people prefer - it's certainly a character I'm very familiar with.


I wonder what effect plugin that might be able to get some of that colored and defocused quality you mention. I'd like to try it out to see how it sounds. :)
User avatar
beely
KVRian
 
1423 posts since 6 Jul, 2013

Postby beely; Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:03 pm Re: Wavestation Shootout: Hardware vs. VST

Examigan wrote:I wonder what effect plugin that might be able to get some of that colored and defocused quality you mention. I'd like to try it out to see how it sounds. :)


Yeah... certainly rolling off a little top will help. I don't think things like bit crushers or compressors will do the right things. Maybe some kinds of saturation or tape sims driven *very* subtley might be more ballpark.

I'm sure one of these days someone will do a DAC modelling plugin featuring a range of popular DACs from throughout the history of digital audio...

Edit: maybe someone with a WS A/D could run an impulse sweep through the unit so they could impulse the convertors for a convolution plugin... :tu:
chroma
KVRian
 
775 posts since 10 Jan, 2010

Postby chroma; Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:19 pm Re: Wavestation Shootout: Hardware vs. VST

beely wrote:I'm sure one of these days someone will do a DAC modelling plugin featuring a range of popular DACs from throughout the history of digital audio...


plogue chipcrusher might fit the bill....

https://www.plogue.com/products/chipcrusher/
Examigan
KVRAF
 
4194 posts since 15 Sep, 2005, from East Coast of the USA

Postby Examigan; Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:22 pm Re: Wavestation Shootout: Hardware vs. VST

beely wrote:
Examigan wrote:I wonder what effect plugin that might be able to get some of that colored and defocused quality you mention. I'd like to try it out to see how it sounds. :)


Yeah... certainly rolling off a little top will help. I don't think things like bit crushers or compressors will do the right things. Maybe some kinds of saturation or tape sims driven *very* subtley might be more ballpark.

I'm sure one of these days someone will do a DAC modelling plugin featuring a range of popular DACs from throughout the history of digital audio...

Edit: maybe someone with a WS A/D could run an impulse sweep through the unit so they could impulse the convertors for a convolution plugin... :tu:


That would be cool! Good idea. 8)
Examigan
KVRAF
 
4194 posts since 15 Sep, 2005, from East Coast of the USA

Postby Examigan; Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:24 pm Re: Wavestation Shootout: Hardware vs. VST

chroma wrote:
beely wrote:I'm sure one of these days someone will do a DAC modelling plugin featuring a range of popular DACs from throughout the history of digital audio...


plogue chipcrusher might fit the bill....

https://www.plogue.com/products/chipcrusher/


I have Decimort 2, so I should try it out with that.
I'll check out Chipcrusher also.
Ah_Dziz
KVRAF
 
2060 posts since 2 Jul, 2005

Postby Ah_Dziz; Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:44 pm Re: Wavestation Shootout: Hardware vs. VST

beely wrote:
Examigan wrote:I wonder what effect plugin that might be able to get some of that colored and defocused quality you mention. I'd like to try it out to see how it sounds. :)


Yeah... certainly rolling off a little top will help. I don't think things like bit crushers or compressors will do the right things. Maybe some kinds of saturation or tape sims driven *very* subtley might be more ballpark.

I'm sure one of these days someone will do a DAC modelling plugin featuring a range of popular DACs from throughout the history of digital audio...

Edit: maybe someone with a WS A/D could run an impulse sweep through the unit so they could impulse the convertors for a convolution plugin... :tu:

Regardless of whether or not this is ridiculous overkill or not, trying to capture the full effect of and conversion to or from digital would require dynamic convolution as it's going to be a non linear process. Anything you could achieve with a standard convolution process could be done with proper equalization. Since we're already talking about OCD levels ofsound difference I would think going all out to capture the proper nonlinearities would have at least as much effect if not more than just wanging an impulse response on there. I personally would rather have the newer cleaner version of classic sounds and then f**k them back up to taste if I feel the need. The aliasing and quantization are pretty much impossible to remove but pretty easy to add in a variety of ways giving a much broader pallete of sounds. I would recommend using something like "insert the name of the insanely latency introducing dynamic "something kernel" processor" here.

Damn. I can't remember the name of that software. Anyway they have a setup for creating dynamic IRs that comes with the package.
Don't F**K with Mr. Zero.
Ah_Dziz
KVRAF
 
2060 posts since 2 Jul, 2005

Postby Ah_Dziz; Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:46 pm Re: Wavestation Shootout: Hardware vs. VST

Nebula. That would properly capture the characteristics of a converter. Seems like a bit much, but probably the way to go for cats that gotta have it.
Don't F**K with Mr. Zero.
User avatar
beely
KVRian
 
1423 posts since 6 Jul, 2013

Postby beely; Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:03 pm Re: Wavestation Shootout: Hardware vs. VST

Ah_Dziz wrote:Regardless of whether or not this is ridiculous overkill or not, trying to capture the full effect of and conversion to or from digital would require dynamic convolution as it's going to be a non linear process.


Is it? I would have thought a static regular convolution would be plenty good enough, I can't imagine there would be a huge difference between low and high levels to the actual audio. Maybe if we're getting into "OCD" territory, but I can't be bothered with all that - something simple that gets you 95% there for those that want the option sounds like a good enough, and quick to do, solution.

Ah_Dziz wrote:Anything you could achieve with a standard convolution process could be done with proper equalization.


No - you can, for instance, do a reverb with convolution, but you can't do a reverb with an EQ... :dog: The slightly "defocused" quality of the conversion is not just an EQ thing (if it was, that I would have suggested that as an option.) As a visual metaphor, it's more like when you have glasses on and have crystal sharp vision, but when you take them off, the vision blurs very slightly.

Ah_Dziz wrote:I personally would rather have the newer cleaner version of classic sounds and then f**k them back up to taste if I feel the need.


Me too. And it's mostly what I do already. But the suggestion for a quick impulse response to "defocus" things a bit might be useful, for those cases, no? The hardware is in some ways easier to fit in a mix because of this quality (although I suspect this mostly comes from the reduced highs) and while the software sounds "better" (in pure quality terms), the hardware sounds "nice" and it's a character I'm very used to. It's not a massive thing, and it's not one that's enough of an issue for me personally to dig out my hardware to print a track in place of the software, but I *am* curious as to what the convertors are doing to see how an impulse would work. Maybe it wouldn't work very well and sound crap, but hey, it's still an interesting thing to try.

Ah_Dziz wrote:Anyway they have a setup for creating dynamic IRs that comes with the package.


The software isn't the problem, there are many tools to create impulses one way or another. As I said, the problem is I don't have a WS A/D to capture a sweep through, which is I why I suggested it for someone who does...
User avatar
Teksonik
KVRAF
 
11881 posts since 15 Sep, 2001, from Las Vegas,USA

Postby Teksonik; Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:25 pm Re: Wavestation Shootout: Hardware vs. VST

Why "dumb down" the plugin to make it sound like the hardware ? :?
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Next

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

Return to Instruments