Arturia Prophet V

[jplanet]

Just on the virtual Vs analog, I did a recording of a/b virtual/analog. Changed the tuning while I was doing the filter sweeps, so that adds abit to the mystery of whats what.

http://s58.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=08PK ... KHIZ7P4X2D

if this is an A/B test, I have to say that both the first and the second sample sound very digital to me...like it wa the same VSTi.

If any of these is analog, I would also say the second sample...

the first sound exactly show how static most VSTi sounds in the bass department... its more described as noise.

Interesting, in the first example I can definitely agree....I seemed to hear artifacts on both in the beginning that I usually only hear from VSTi's.

However, once it gets past the single-oscillator examples, the first one sounded a little richer to me.

It would be fair to include a filter-sweep example with the enough resonance to self-oscillate...this is one example where aliasing usually makes a clear difference in digital.

But all in all, I must say that as a proof-of-concept test, it is extraordinarily close. Certainly not enough of a difference to say "I need to spend $3000 on a Minimoog instead of a $125 emulation."

I just got my Sequential Pro One, which is essentially one voice of the Prophet 5. I'll try to do some comparisons with Pro-53 soon...

[hifiboom]

Just on the virtual Vs analog, I did a recording of a/b virtual/analog. Changed the tuning while I was doing the filter sweeps, so that adds abit to the mystery of whats what.

http://s58.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=08PK ... KHIZ7P4X2D

if this is an A/B test, I have to say that both the first and the second sample sound very digital to me...like it wa the same VSTi.

If any of these is analog, I would also say the second sample...

the first sound exactly show how static most VSTi sounds in the bass department... its more described as noise.

Interesting, in the first example I can definitely agree....I seemed to hear artifacts on both in the beginning that I usually only hear from VSTi's.

However, once it gets past the single-oscillator examples, the first one sounded a little richer to me.

It would be fair to include a filter-sweep example with the enough resonance to self-oscillate...this is one example where aliasing usually makes a clear difference in digital.

But all in all, I must say that as a proof-of-concept test, it is extraordinarily close. Certainly not enough of a difference to say "I need to spend $3000 on a Minimoog instead of a $125 emulation."

I just got my Sequential Pro One, which is essentially one voice of the Prophet 5. I'll try to do some comparisons with Pro-53 soon...

that would be fantastic and I am very interested in an real A/B...

I have too agree with you that the second part of this sound test sounds much more analog.

I think the most improtant thing about the analog synths is that they suffer from all the real life environment:
-line voltage -> giving some kind of random in the waveform oscillator
-maybe little distortion when the resonance gets to high
-analog output.

-> on digital synths the waveform behaves totally static....

to produce a perfect simulation of an analog synth someone has to reproduces the distortion behaviour of the filters in extreme situations, some kind of AMP-AT-FULL-LOAD distortion etc....
(I miss something like that also in the sequencers mixer: if volume exceeds the maximum headroom I not just want a digital perfect clipping, I would like more a kind of distortion FX, like real analog mixers behave in that situations... analog clipping)


As it is hard to find a good analog sounding VST fx just for EQ-applications, its even harder to find a VST that sound analog, as it is a combination of many factors...
This is just what I think..

Maybe some synths in VSTi department sound the same compared with the hardware, if you just compare a single oscillator waveform abnd without appling any filter to it.
But what does it sound like when the synth settings gets more complex and you play it polyphon?

The result of all this is:
A good sounding VST is harder to build than a hardware one...
As real acoustic room sounds more natural than any simultion with a software algorithm...

I think the Creamware synths do sound that good because all the basic filters,etc are top notch and sound very good...
So the synth-quality, which is a interaction of all those filters, etc. depends on how good that single modules are simulated.


maybe the differeneces are not too big. thats right, but this could also been said about reverb units. The differences are not sooo big, but sometimes its enough to justify a much higher price....

[M.Dot]

I cant wait til this comes out... is it already out

[x3em]

the experience with cracked/illegal versions forces (IMHO) ALL companies to use some sort of copy protections if they want to stay in bussines in the future.
The simple "CD-ROM and serial" protection has not worked well enough for Arturia in the past (there are way too many illegal copies) so they had to go a step further.

I wouldn't really expect this to make much difference though since if the protection is broken just once then the cracked copy can be spread ad infinitum. Considering that cracks of syncrosoft protected software seem to be all over the web it doesn't seem very likely that this protection will keep the synth from being cracked.

exactly, I do not think it stops piracy at all unfortunetely. For the reasons pointed out above. It just makes it awkard for honest people. Since I will not get this synth becuase of this they have lost at least one customer due to the dongle. So I suppose you could arguee the opposite here. I was a repeat customer and now they turned me off from buying anything further from them (with a dongle at least).

[kevink]

Oh, puh-leeze. Not another "copy protection does nothing to stop piracy" whine. Integrating copy protection into software and supporting its use by customers is a major and expensive pain in the ass for software companies. And customers don't like it, because it creates a hassle factor and occasionally makes them buy an extra copy if they want to run on multiple systems. Do you really think that a plague of stupidity has descended on the entire software industry, compelling them to waste money and alienate customers? Any copy protection scheme can be compromised with enough effort and ingenuity, it's true, but from everything I've heard from people in the industry, it reduces the use of pirated copies more than enough to be worth the hassle. That's why we're seeing more, and not fewer companies using some form of copy protection.

[omissis]

Talking to the guys dropping down this new synth : show us A/B comparisons by comparing same exact sounds.
By the way, I could have been more glad if Arturia would have been releasing a virtual ELKA Synthex despite of the usual Prophet,anyway, you know, life is painful....
M

[kevink]

And to nudge the thread back toward the original topic, while I could understand Aruturia's decision to go with Steinberg-compatible dongle protection, the requirement that one have a dongle just to run the demos of their new software is really dumb. Several of us argued with one of their very brave marketeers who showed up on an Aruturia Brass thread late last year, and we came up with the solution that Arturia will sell you a Synchrosoft dongle really cheap, and reimburse the dongle+shipment if you send it back. I took advantage of this to evaluate Brass (result, I was able to determine that Brass doesn't suit me). I sent back the dongle last week, and am waiting for the reimbursment.

[kevink]

Talking to the guys dropping down this new synth : show us A/B comparisons by comparing same exact sounds.

Do you own any analog gear? One of the frustations, and part of the beauty, of analog synths is that most of the time you cannot get the *same exact sound* from one unit to the next, or even one day to the next. It would take a fair amount of trial and error and/or luck to come up with a set of analog front panel settings that can be exactly expressed as digital controller values, particularly if the digital controller operates on a range of 0-127 to support MIDI automation...

[omissis]

Of course,kev, I know you can't get a 100% exact sound but we can start from simple things like a filter's downsweep or upsweep, then another test can focus on the snappiness of the P5 ( estimated 3ms attack time or, in analogue terms, attack pot all to left !), another on the poly-mod effects etc....

[x3em]

Oh, puh-leeze. Not another "copy protection does nothing to stop piracy" whine. Integrating copy protection into software and supporting its use by customers is a major and expensive pain in the ass for software companies. And customers don't like it, because it creates a hassle factor and occasionally makes them buy an extra copy if they want to run on multiple systems. Do you really think that a plague of stupidity has descended on the entire software industry, compelling them to waste money and alienate customers? Any copy protection scheme can be compromised with enough effort and ingenuity, it's true, but from everything I've heard from people in the industry, it reduces the use of pirated copies more than enough to be worth the hassle. That's why we're seeing more, and not fewer companies using some form of copy protection.

actually it wasn't a whine, at least not a true whine. I am in the software industry myself and hate piracy with a vengence. just really disappointed that they are taking this route. copy protection is totally fine with me. I just hate dongles that's all.

[whogotthefunk]

if this is an A/B test, I have to say that both the first and the second sample sound very digital to me...like it wa the same VSTi.

Just developed a mild case of tinitus recording this, so watch your ears!

http://s61.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0XAZ ... 0B1OKK3FDT

[kevink]

Thanks, whogotthefunk, for putting up a .WAV instead of an .MP3 this time. I'm not going to make a public call here, I'm just going to say that I think I've identified the virtual synth, but not by ear! There are differences one can "see" in the spectral analysis...

[dr. orange]

tinitus

having it since silvester

[whogotthefunk]

Thanks, whogotthefunk, for putting up a .WAV instead of an .MP3 this time. I'm not going to make a public call here, I'm just going to say that I think I've identified the virtual synth, but not by ear! There are differences one can "see" in the spectral analysis...

Yes, due to the noise floor of the analog. If I get a chance I'll post some more this evening, but will mix in the noise floor from the analog with the virtual recordings...

[kevink]

Thanks, whogotthefunk, for putting up a .WAV instead of an .MP3 this time. I'm not going to make a public call here, I'm just going to say that I think I've identified the virtual synth, but not by ear! There are differences one can "see" in the spectral analysis...

Yes, due to the noise floor of the analog. If I get a chance I'll post some more this evening, but will mix in the noise floor from the analog with the virtual recordings...

I really think that it would be cheating to mix analog noise with the virtual synth, though. It defeats the whole purpose of the test. And anyway, what raised the red flag for me in the spectral analysis wasn't the difference in noise floor. In any case, the important question remains, can anyone *hear* the difference. Just go back to posting MP3s, or rely on an honor system of people honestly reporting what they thought they heard, versus what they were able to measure using analysis tools.