KVR Audio

djanthonyw · Post by **djanthonyw** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:29 pm

psychematic wrote:Unless someone wants to post an example of Synth Squad that does a better job of showing how it's comparable. Right now I'm not convinced it's capable.

.... www.synthsquad.com

Angus_FX · Post by **Angus_FX** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:37 pm

For Synth Squad in the raw, best to check the dry preset demos for each Synth Squad synth on the right hand side of their info pages on the main FXpansion web site.

http://www.fxpansion.com/index.php?page=62&tab=182
http://www.fxpansion.com/index.php?page=62&tab=183
http://www.fxpansion.com/index.php?page=62&tab=184
http://www.fxpansion.com/index.php?page=62&tab=185

At the risk of casting flame bait.. does it prove anything if I can make an analogue (Andromeda would be the obvious choice, a clean example of a late-model Roland or Obie would likely do OK at it too) sound like _2_..?

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 11:17 pm

Angus_FX wrote:At the risk of casting flame bait.. does it prove anything if I can make an analogue (Andromeda would be the obvious choice, a clean example of a late-model Roland or Obie would likely do OK at it too) sound like _2_..?

Well then it would just turn into a discussion about how analog a DCO is

WMP · Post by **WMP** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 11:49 pm

For sure Synth Squad sounds very nice indeed.

But to my ears it's not there yet.

It's still I can't believe it's not butter vs Butter..... totally useable, but if you want THAT sound then you gotta have THAT synth or at least some good samples of it.

Give it 10 years and software will be sooooo close.

longbongsilver · Post by **longbongsilver** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:35 am

Considering the bass end of Cypher had me switch my vote, while the high end was smoother on the analog when detuned, either they're pretty damn close or I have an inaccurate view of what analog bass sounds like.

djanthonyw · Post by **djanthonyw** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:18 am

WMP wrote:It's still I can't believe it's not butter vs Butter..... totally useable, but if you want THAT sound then you gotta have THAT synth or at least some good samples of it.

You mean like Phaedra? IMO Synth Squad actually sounds better and they're actual native software synths, not samples.

WMP · Post by **WMP** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:44 am

I meant my own personal collection of samples.

Whenever I use a great preset in my tunes from the analogs I sample them for future use.

IncarnateX · Post by **IncarnateX** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:23 am

Mans wrote:
IncarnateX wrote:
living sounds wrote:Here's an example using just a single sawwave oscillator of a Roland SH-2 and me playing around with the filter and the envelope. No processing added.
I still think it hardly is worth discussing differences with these MP3s. They sound awfull. Makes the sound flat, thin, lifeless and flakey.
There's no MP3 compression on that file..

ehh

??? ... erhm... Oops

..but..ermh..what I really meant was that...eeh.. IF it had been compressed to a MP3 like most examples...THEN it would have sounded flat, thin, lifeless and flakey

Lotuzia · Post by **Lotuzia** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:14 am

pschelfh wrote:
Lotuzia wrote:
herodotus wrote:
pdxindy wrote:One thing I note, is that the analog examples that get posted in these threads are not usually trying to be musical. Let's hear an analog/VA comparison as it would be played in a song (without the foray into radical resonance settings and envelop swings). Under those extreme circumstances it is easy to hear the analog difference, but how about in more musical circumstances?
You really should purge your mind of this silly 'musical instruments are for making music' notion.

These tools are clearly made to amuse gear afficionados who do precisely these sorts of tests and comparisons. The same goes for equalizers and (especially) compressors. The point isn't to ask 'are they useful for making music?', but rather, to ask how they stand up to comparison with some mythical perfect vintage source of magic pixie dust, and then to do a thousand 'tests' that are never really conclusive, but which give people lots of opportunities to insult each others listening skills.

In other words, these things are totems of a nascent religion. An obscure religion to be sure, but a religion nonetheless.

Music has nothing to do with it.
Well when I'm playing on one of my old vintage ladies, until now I had merely the impression that I was playing music .........

Now if you tell me that I'm just entering a sect ....

LtZ
Count me in Laurent! We should start an obscure sect and kiss turkey's behinds (from 'The thin blue line')!!
Things will never be the same when I play my old analogs now.

Peter.

At least a sect where we know what to eat on Xmas evenings

I'd suggest we team up with a sect that only uses Theremins and are specialized in Puddings to complete the dinner

LtZ

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 3:33 pm

pdxindy wrote: One thing I note, is that the analog examples that get posted in these threads are not usually trying to be musical. Let's hear an analog/VA comparison as it would be played in a song (without the foray into radical resonance settings and envelop swings). Under those extreme circumstances it is easy to hear the analog difference, but how about in more musical circumstances? When I compose a song, the bass is relatively monotonous. By that I mean it is as it is and there are not generally wild modulation swings etc. It is fulfilling a part in a greater composition. Under these circumstances, I believe VA holds up better than under the 'let's do every wild modulation to show how VA cannot keep up' method.

The thing with the good analogs is that you can pile them up over each other, like a 909 + an SH-2 + a 303 + a Juno60 and it fits with hardly any additional processing. All these problems where people cut the low end etc. To get rid of mud and make sounds work together hardly exist when you record those units through a good DI and converter or just sum them in a good console. I've got a great example here with an 808 kick layered over with another kick, two basses and a few other synths where there's insane amounts of deep bass, no EQ and still it all sounds punchy and fits. Unfortunately that's release material and I cannot upload it.
Some of the good digital synths have this "stability" in the mix as well, my favourite being the JD-990.

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 3:53 pm

Here's a short demo for a remix that I never came around to do:

www.scherer.de/Download/Substance_scratch.mp3

The drums are samples and went all together through some good outboard (which does a comparable thing to a good analog synth for the dynamics). As far as I remember there is no EQing besides the cut low end (in the console) on the distorted phased sound (microcon II going through a Moog MF-103 overdriving the console input). The bass is the SH-2, the chord a Chroma Polaris, the pad in the background a JD-990. This was only a 10 minute scratch.
Sounds quite a lot better at 192khz lossless still. Should look for a better downsampling algorithm.

WMP · Post by **WMP** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 4:44 pm

Living Sounds, I think you hit the nail onthe head. I always found that I just didn't need any eq with analogs. Maybe a bit of compression to give it more oomph.

Nice track by the way...solid and punchy without the flabby bottom end.

Have a listen to this, I was messing about with some sounds on the CS-30 and Odyssey....oh and a crappy little guitar sound from the DX7. Sampled them all up and whacked them through my hardware fx and here it is (excuse the mp3 encoding):

http://soundcloud.com/eventide/hardware-demo-mp3 (hit more options and dowload it as the playback on their site is 128kps

)

This isn't trying to show superiority or anything, I just thought I'd have a go and making the anlogss more digital he he

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 5:42 pm

WMP wrote:Living Sounds, I think you hit the nail onthe head. I always found that I just didn't need any eq with analogs. Maybe a bit of compression to give it more oomph.

Nice track by the way...solid and punchy without the flabby bottom end.

Have a listen to this, I was messing about with some sounds on the CS-30 and Odyssey....oh and a crappy little guitar sound from the DX7. Sampled them all up and whacked them through my hardware fx and here it is (excuse the mp3 encoding):

http://soundcloud.com/eventide/hardware-demo-mp3 (hit more options and dowload it as the playback on their site is 128kps )

This isn't trying to show superiority or anything, I just thought I'd have a go and making the anlogss more digital he he

Sounds great. What FX did you use?

WMP · Post by **WMP** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 10:05 pm

I used a couple of home made programs on the Lexicon PCM81 and Eventide H8000FW.

It's a bit of a monster sonic headroom wise to fit in a mix, but a fun experiment.

I was going to get rid of the Lexicon when I bought the Eventide but it is the dark to the Eventides light and complements it so well. It also does plates really well, something that I didn't think the Eventide excelled at.

Love them both to bit's.

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 10:45 pm

WMP wrote:I used a couple of home made programs on the Lexicon PCM81 and Eventide H8000FW.

It's a bit of a monster sonic headroom wise to fit in a mix, but a fun experiment.

I was going to get rid of the Lexicon when I bought the Eventide but it is the dark to the Eventides light and complements it so well. It also does plates really well, something that I didn't think the Eventide excelled at.

Love them both to bit's.

So how much of the sound is actually the eventide? You've got a kind of flanger/phaser going on, reverb obviously, compression probably, what else? Sounds like a great unit, but also comes with a heavy price tag.

Analog or digital ?