TimewARP 2600 audio samples

[dharmawan]

yeah i also think while the dsp version sounds good, the analog version is more direct and "in your face". maybe it has to do with the recording chain as urs said but i've noticed the same to be true of almost every analog synths vs. dsp synths i've tried, even when there is no processing in the recording path.

[bmanic]

Whatever the difference to the original samples is I don't really care now as I think the mp3 demos sound pretty nice indeed. Definately sounds more "living" and 'complex' than the arturia synth.

However, the real arp samples are more "hi fidelity", more smooth. Especially in the ringmod sweeps you can hear the difference of analogue ringmodulation and a digital emulation. It's less grainy. The emulation IS very impressive though. About the smoothest ringmod that I've heard. Note that the mp3 compressions usually HELPS a VSTi synth sound more smooth as it blurs some of the 'edges'. Wav examples would be preferable for these kind of tests.

just my 2 cents
- bManic

[TimewARP]

urs u r right there i believe ....but really its weird to see a/b comparison with different keys pressed.it kind of fails the purpose of a/b comparison in the first place.(especially when u have pitch modulated).
all of the a/b comparison on the timwewarp page are pitched differently.no doubt about that.
still i believe it dont explain all of the differences....the ring mod saw sweeps for example....theres a tone almost entirely missing there.

anyway it would all appear more clear if they actually played the same notes. why they didn't still escapes me.

Hi all,

I recorded these samples, and I think you are right. I did ot have both machines in the same room when I did this, and the samples are out of tune as a result.

One thing to note is that there was no key press to tigger these samples. They were all created using a sawtooth LFO to sweep an oscillator through the audio frequency range (10Hz -> 10kHz) and then that oscillator was used to drive what ever parameter the sample demonstrates.

The tuning problem is that the base frequency of the driven source was not always the same.

I will redo the ones that are out of tune. That would be the Filter CV sweep sample and the PWM sweep sample.

I should have new versions up in a few hours.

-Jim

[TimewARP]

Whatever the difference to the original samples is I don't really care now as I think the mp3 demos sound pretty nice indeed. Definately sounds more "living" and 'complex' than the arturia synth.

However, the real arp samples are more "hi fidelity", more smooth. Especially in the ringmod sweeps you can hear the difference of analogue ringmodulation and a digital emulation. It's less grainy. The emulation IS very impressive though. About the smoothest ringmod that I've heard. Note that the mp3 compressions usually HELPS a VSTi synth sound more smooth as it blurs some of the 'edges'. Wav examples would be preferable for these kind of tests.

just my 2 cents
- bManic

I of course have the wav files for all of these samples. I did not post them on the site because they are much larger.

Perhaps I will edit them down to one sweep each instead of two as they are, and post them in the near future.

Also, another thing to note is that these samples were taken at 44.1kHz. The clarity and quality of the TimewARP improves auite a bit at higher sampling rates. I choose to use 44.1kHz to demonstrate what most people would see rather than a best case.

-Jim

[seamonkey]

Whatever the difference to the original samples is I don't really care now as I think the mp3 demos sound pretty nice indeed. Definately sounds more "living" and 'complex' than the arturia synth.

However, the real arp samples are more "hi fidelity", more smooth. Especially in the ringmod sweeps you can hear the difference of analogue ringmodulation and a digital emulation. It's less grainy. The emulation IS very impressive though. About the smoothest ringmod that I've heard. Note that the mp3 compressions usually HELPS a VSTi synth sound more smooth as it blurs some of the 'edges'. Wav examples would be preferable for these kind of tests.

just my 2 cents
- bManic

I of course have the wav files for all of these samples. I did not post them on the site because they are much larger.

Perhaps I will edit them down to one sweep each instead of two as they are, and post them in the near future.

Also, another thing to note is that these samples were taken at 44.1kHz. The clarity and quality of the TimewARP improves auite a bit at higher sampling rates. I choose to use 44.1kHz to demonstrate what most people would see rather than a best case.

-Jim

TimewARP, thanks for taking the time to develop this awesome synth.
Do you have any idea when the Windows version will be available?.
I need a timeframe to start buttering up my wife for a "must have" synth.

[bmanic]

I'd love to hear a short .wav snippet! One at 44.1khz and one at 96khz if possible . You can keep them very short. Around 3 to 6 seconds is enough to get a quite good feeling of the sound quality. I'd prefere the last 3 to 6 seconds of a sweep as moving higher in frequency during a sweep as that area seems to be the most difficult to pull off.

Cheers!
bManic

[mr.me]

I bought way too many toys for myself this Xmas. I have to cut this crazed shopping trip off somewhere.

[pitchdrifter]

If it sounds so much better at higher sampling rates, why don't you implement internal oversampling then?

Markus

[munchkin]

Oh dear I listened to the comparisons and the real thing is so much better IMO. I'm not a great analogue buff with loads of old synths - in fact I have no real analogue synths but even I can tell the difference. The high end sound too brittle in the softsynth - it becomes painful to listen to. If this softsynth is supposed to be better than Arturia's offering then I'd not hold out much hope for that.

Good on the dev for putting up comparisons. I wish more devs who offer emulations would do this. This dev is definitely putting his money where his mouth is even if I don't rate this synth so highly.

I do like Arturia's minimoog. Many don't. Whether it sounds like the real thing I can't say but it does produce some fat sounds. Each to their own I suppose.

[munchkin]

I bought way too many toys for myself this Xmas. I have to cut this crazed shopping trip off somewhere.

Spendaholics anonymous. I'm in the same boat. Funny how easy it is to blow £1000 of credit on gear in less than a week.

[bmanic]

Oh dear I listened to the comparisons and the real thing is so much better IMO. I'm not a great analogue buff with loads of old synths - in fact I have no real analogue synths but even I can tell the difference. The high end sound too brittle in the softsynth - it becomes painful to listen to. If this softsynth is supposed to be better than Arturia's offering then I'd not hold out much hope for that.

Umm.. if you think this synth has a brittle 'digital' top end then you might as well write off 99,95% of all other VSTi's that try to make an "analogue" sound. This synth comes definately into the top 5 of high quality. Remeber that ALL the demos there except the arpeggios are AUDIO RATE modulations. Ever heard another piece of DSP doing that so convincingly? I think not.. now go do it with the arturia moog modular demo and then tell me these demos are "brittle".

Cheers!
bManic

[bmanic]

If it sounds so much better at higher sampling rates, why don't you implement internal oversampling then?

Markus

I agree. Please let the user have an option to turn on x4 oversampling or even more, for rendering purposes. This would take away most artefacts even when doing some crazy modulations at audio rate.

Cheers!
bManic

[Funkybot]

I'm with Raven and Bmanic, oversampling is a good thing, it's a shame that anyone is building synths without it anymore. Even 2x oversampling would be enough for me.

[bmanic]

Well, there are synths out that seem to sound identical at 44,1khz and 96khz.. like fabfilter.


..but wait, that would mean that it's .. oversampled, right?

-bManic

[munchkin]

Oh dear I listened to the comparisons and the real thing is so much better IMO. I'm not a great analogue buff with loads of old synths - in fact I have no real analogue synths but even I can tell the difference. The high end sound too brittle in the softsynth - it becomes painful to listen to. If this softsynth is supposed to be better than Arturia's offering then I'd not hold out much hope for that.

Umm.. if you think this synth has a brittle 'digital' top end then you might as well write off 99,95% of all other VSTi's that try to make an "analogue" sound. This synth comes definately into the top 5 of high quality. Remeber that ALL the demos there except the arpeggios are AUDIO RATE modulations. Ever heard another piece of DSP doing that so convincingly? I think not.. now go do it with the arturia moog modular demo and then tell me these demos are "brittle".

Cheers!
bManic

I'm not saying that Arturia is any better. I think either the synth sounds like the real thing or it doesn't. I think it doesn't judging by the comparisons. I'm not really interested whether it's DSP or made out of green cheese. It sounds brittle and that's that.

I don't see how you can compare this specialised synth with 99% of other softsynths. They are all so different. If you're saying that this synth is the best thing since sliced bread then I've heard it all before. I remember when this was announced ages ago. I'm sure some will love it and buy it. But that's preference and does not necessarily make this synth better than others.