Arturia synth development.

[beely]

BTW. I forgot to confirm, although some already guessed it right. In my audio examples posted last week, synth A is Mini V, synth B is Minimonsta and synth C is Monark.

[wagtunes]

IMO, the whole "emulation" thing is ridiculous. If you're going to faithfully emulate the original Minimoog, well, for starters, polyphony over and above what the MM can achieve goes out the window. Then, the darn thing better go out of tune every 10 minutes.

I know I don't have the best ears in the world at my age but when I hear Monark, Diva and Mini V3, as well as a bunch of other "moog" or analog simulations, they all pretty much sound the same to me. I'm not hearing one and going "OMG, that's dreadful" and hearing another and going "OMG, please let me have your first born child." These are all, IMO, great sounding synths and I'd be happy owning any of them, which I do.

To me, this is all just chest pumping and locker room "mine is bigger than yours" when ultimately it comes down to making music and if the synth you're using is capable of doing that.

You boys that wanna go comparing specs and all that stuff, knock yourselves out.

I just wanna make some music.

[beely]

It's all part of the decision making process. If you aim for a 100% faithful emulation *only*, then people complain that it goes out of tune, or you didn't add polyphony which is "easy" to do, or it doesn't have this feature etc etc.

I think what generally makes sense for most developers is to aim for an emulation to whatever degree of accuracy they choose, and add in features where it doesn't destroy the integrity, character or soul of the instrument, and where makes sense and is feasible to implement. In the case of Monark, they didn't add polyphony because for that instrument, they wanted a really good, faithful Minimoog emulation, *and* the CPU requirements would make polyphony a difficult sell anyway.

Basically, it's up to devs to design, implement and market their products, and the consumers to figure out whether it's good enough to buy etc.

And without emulations, in 50 or 100 years, *none* of those original machines may well be working or around anymore, and at least good emulations will help preserve the sounds and history of those machines. Not to mention that the quest to emulate real machines has pushed and developed the technology further - companies like u-he et al now have extensive knowledge of these components and how they work, and will use that knowledge to create new things. Plus, let's face it, the dream of having those wonderful machines at our fingertips, to make music with them, without the cost, space and maintenance issues, is an attractive proposition for many people, and so emulations sell well.

No, it's not the same as having the real thing, and never will be. However, it's certainly the next best thing, and has it's own advantages - so I don't think the whole emulation thing is ridiculous, at all. But then, I've been around through the originals' lifespan - maybe the next generation or two won't care so much about the old vintage stuff, and will be pushing things forward in their own way...

[fluffy_little_something]

Already noticed an oddity, the pitch of the Mini V does not change over the lowest two octaves or so. Nor does the last note priority work. There seems to be something wrong with the envelope on the lowest octaves. How embarrassing is that?!?

The GUI is big, but not very intelligent. There is no need for keeping the ratios of the original, would make more sense to increase the panel instead of including such a huge keyboard and wooden bar

And dark gray fonts on even darker gray background for the menus?!?

The sound as such is OK, but just not nearly as beefy as with the Synapse emulation, it sounds like any other mid-range softsynth to me. Even Sylenth1 has more bottom

[fmr]

Already noticed an oddity, the pitch of the Mini V does not change over the lowest two octaves or so. Nor does the last note priority work. There seems to be something wrong with the envelope on the lowest octaves. How embarrassing is that?!?

I just launched the Mini V, and here (with a 61 note keyboard) it plays all the octaves. What patch are you noticing this behaviour?

[fluffy_little_something]

Already noticed an oddity, the pitch of the Mini V does not change over the lowest two octaves or so. Nor does the last note priority work. There seems to be something wrong with the envelope on the lowest octaves. How embarrassing is that?!?

I just launched the Mini V, and here (with a 61 note keyboard) it plays all the octaves. What patch are you noticing this behaviour?

Several, for instance the 1-osc init template patch.
You have to transpose your keyboard lower, it's not the lowest octave on your physical keyboard, but two or so below.

[fmr]

The GUI is big, but not very intelligent. There is no need for keeping the ratios of the original, would make more sense to increase the panel instead of including such a huge keyboard and wooden bar

Since many years that I am asking for a dedicated "edit" panel, which would show just the editing control panel, and nothing else - this would be good for the Mini and also for other synths, like the Prophet, the CS-80, etc.

[waltercruz]

The GUI is big, but not very intelligent. There is no need for keeping the ratios of the original, would make more sense to increase the panel instead of including such a huge keyboard and wooden bar

IMHO, Arturia could ditch this virtual keyboard in all of their emulation, or at least give us a setting like in LuSH 101

[fmr]

Already noticed an oddity, the pitch of the Mini V does not change over the lowest two octaves or so. Nor does the last note priority work. There seems to be something wrong with the envelope on the lowest octaves. How embarrassing is that?!?

I just launched the Mini V, and here (with a 61 note keyboard) it plays all the octaves. What patch are you noticing this behaviour?

Several, for instance the 1-osc init template patch.
You have to transpose your keyboard lower, it's not the lowest octave on your physical keyboard, but two or so below.

It's the two lowest MIDI octaves, and you're right. But with the patch I was using to play the Axel F Bass in my tests (which I programmed myself) it responds. It seems that has something to do with the configuration. Will have to check this with more attention.

[Urs]

I usually hear a difference when listening to A/B comparisons, when companies release their emulations, unless the sound examples are too basic.

You have to separate two things from another: Actual audible difference in the audio file and audible difference in the component behaviour.

There will always be an actual audible difference in the audio file. That might even be true if you compare two recordings of the very same Minimoog. Reason could be phase relation between oscillators, analogue drift, what not. So no matter how accurate an emulation is, we need to expect people going "I can clearly hear a difference". Because there is, and it is expected.

However, setting the expected difference aside we can measure, hear and discuss actual differences in analogue behaviour, i.e. whether or not resonance is to loud at a certain frequency, overtone series of harmonic distortion is wrong, waveform is wrong, modulation depth is wrong, all of these things. Unfortunately testing those things often require specific settings or even specific equipment or a certain testing procedure. There's hardly any A/B testing being done on the internet that's suited for this kind of evaluation.

For that reason, most A/B tests on the internet are festivals of "I can clearly hear a difference", but hardly ever "Example A has a lower DC blocker frequency than example B". In other words, most A/B tests on the internet confirm nothing. The best thing they do is either "I can clearly pick which one is which" or "I have no clue which one is which".

[Cinebient]

I usually hear a difference when listening to A/B comparisons, when companies release their emulations, unless the sound examples are too basic.

You have to separate two things from another: Actual audible difference in the audio file and audible difference in the component behaviour.

There will always be an actual audible difference in the audio file. That might even be true if you compare two recordings of the very same Minimoog. Reason could be phase relation between oscillators, analogue drift, what not. So no matter how accurate an emulation is, we need to expect people going "I can clearly hear a difference". Because there is, and it is expected.

However, setting the expected difference aside we can measure, hear and discuss actual differences in analogue behaviour, i.e. whether or not resonance is to loud at a certain frequency, overtone series of harmonic distortion is wrong, waveform is wrong, modulation depth is wrong, all of these things. Unfortunately testing those things often require specific settings or even specific equipment or a certain testing procedure. There's hardly any A/B testing being done on the internet that's suited for this kind of evaluation.

For that reason, most A/B tests on the internet are festivals of "I can clearly hear a difference", but hardly ever "Example A has a lower DC blocker frequency than example B". In other words, most A/B tests on the internet confirm nothing. The best thing they do is either "I can clearly pick which one is which" or "I have no clue which one is which".

Maybe because of that mainly people who know the original hardware appreciate this kind of "accurate" work. I mean who says that a less accurate model could not sound even better for some people or in some areas
But i would like the idea of an "original" to a "modern" switch....whatever that means!

[Urs]

Maybe because of that mainly people who know the original hardware appreciate this kind of "accurate" work. I mean who says that a less accurate model could not sound even better for some people or in some areas

Sure, if you take the example where self-oscillation dies off below 200Hz, you'll have a hard time doing a decent kick drum.

Judging from user feedback I do think though that people who like analogue emulations want them as close to the original as possible. That may not just be despite not having the original hardware, but maybe *because* they don't have the original.

But i would like the idea of an "original" to a "modern" switch....whatever that means!

Yep, that's certainly a viable concept.

[waltercruz]

BTW. I forgot to confirm, although some already guessed it right. In my audio examples posted last week, synth A is Mini V, synth B is Minimonsta and synth C is Monark. I still didn't install the demo version of Legend, but I will probably, and try to recreate the trest sounds also with that one (even if I am convinced already that it is very good, since it is being so unanimously praised)

Interesting. In this same discussion (analog x vsti) I remember that some people used to say that you could not get the same low that was possible in analog synths in vsti. Listening to the samples provided, it's easy to see why the Minimonsta was so revered, it has a 'oomph' on low end that some people find it's cool, that lacks somehow in Monark and Mini-V.

PS1: Dave Spiers from Geforce is so quiet in last ... years... maybe he's working on something?
PS2: This is a somewhat uncommon market don't? Where we know the software developers by name and make a kind of 'connection' with them. It's interesting how people like Urs, Vadim Zavalishin, Sean Costello and others somehow inspire us more confidence than a brand name like Waves, Native Instruments or other companies. Or am I too geek for this kind of thing?

[fluffy_little_something]

Maybe because of that mainly people who know the original hardware appreciate this kind of "accurate" work. I mean who says that a less accurate model could not sound even better for some people or in some areas

Sure, if you take the example where self-oscillation dies off below 200Hz, you'll have a hard time doing a decent kick drum.

Judging from user feedback I do think though that people who like analogue emulations want them as close to the original as possible. That may not just be despite not having the original hardware, but maybe *because* they don't have the original.

But i would like the idea of an "original" to a "modern" switch....whatever that means!

Yep, that's certainly a viable concept.

Why do so many people use self-oscillation for the kick drum? Now that many synths have osc's with retrigger and phase control, the self-resonance way is more like a workaround in my view. Pulse wave with zero or just little resonance delivers punchier results.

[fmr]

PS1: Dave Spiers from Geforce is so quiet in last ... years... maybe he's working on something?

If I'm not mistaken, Minimonsta was developed by the guy from Ohm Force (don't know his name). But it's certainly a great synth, although not as faithful as an emulation, IMO.

PS2: This is a somewhat uncommon market don't? Where we know the software developers by name and make a kind of 'connection' with them. It's interesting how people like Urs, Vadim Zavalishin, Sean Costello and others somehow inspire us more confidence than a brand name like Waves, Native Instruments or other companies. Or am I too geek for this kind of thing?

I'm with you on this, 100%. The more feedback I receive from the developers themselves, the more I trust that company (even if I happen to disagree with them sometimes)