u-He Zebra II Vs Arturia Complete (Analog)

[hakey]

Urs, once Zebra 2.6 is released, can you make some good Mini presets for those of us who need a familiar place to get started from?

Have you tried Urs' suggestion from page 2 of this thread?

If you want to get in Moog territory your best bet is to chain three oscillators, a HP12 (cutoff 39, resonance 10, drive 25) into TWO XMFs set to "biased" mode, with the first one being the actual filter while the second one stays fully open for distortion.

[Uncle E]

Someone should point out that Minimax is very old, yet it still catch up with rookies quite well.

Minimax is my favorite VSTi, followed by the Pro12. Minimax sounds more like a Minimoog than even the Little Phatty and most other real hardware analogs. It's a timeless synth, IMO, in that it's so accurate to what a real analog synth sounds like (if not always a real Minimoog) that no one will ever be able to say it's out-of-date, unless they're calling all analog synths out-of-date in the same breath.

[Uncle E]

Have you tried Urs' suggestion from page 2 of this thread?

I read that but, as said, I'm not a Zebra power user.

[Urs]

Well, don't get me wrong, the Minimax *is* the best Minimoog emulation out there, and we had a hard time copying it in Zebra (which isn't exactly possible anyway due to Zebra's lack of a low key priority mono mode and different envelopes) - one can get close, but one can not fully get there.

However that's exactly the reason why a certain Mr. Z sent us the best of his 4 Minimoogs (and a Memorymoog too). So we can explore it, rip it apart and add its gist into our code. We spent the better part of this year on this, and I think we cracked most of the secrets (including a part that is not shown in the service manuals, but must also be present in the Little Phatty). I do think we'll soon be able to show our findings

Urs

[Uncle E]

However that's exactly the reason why a certain Mr. Z sent us the best of his 4 Minimoogs (and a Memorymoog too). So we can explore it, rip it apart and add its gist into our code. We spent the better part of this year on this, and I think we cracked most of the secrets (including a part that is not shown in the service manuals, but must also be present in the Little Phatty). I do think we'll soon be able to show our findings

Exciting!

[EvilDragon]

This is one of the better Minimoog mods

[Lotuzia]

My guess is that it was modeled after the elder statesman since I believe that Creamware's Mini e-mu was on the market before the Voyager (but I could be wrong about that)

Wikipedia says the Voyager was released in 2002. Minimax was definitely around by then or before, so the basis will be a Model D of some sort. I wonder if the coder(s) responsible are still the same people working at Sonic Core on John Bowens' Solaris? Anyone know?

Having updates isn't in any case a garantee of quality, you can update a thousand times a dull or bad synth wich will still be a dull synth in the end, and a synth wich was sounding great in its first 1.0 incarnation doesnt not necessarily "need" updates. Its only a choice made by developpers.

But I wasn't speaking in general terms about updates. I was being extremely specific to emulation accuracy alone. If people point out differences, which are ignored, then what impression do you suggest should be formed? That this doesn't matter because the synth works and sounds good enough? Stating that an update won't necessarily improve things states the obvious. The point is if a developer is prepared act, where differences are pointed out, it shows a much better attitude than if they simply don't care.

But, anyway, its clear a large/entire rewrite of Arturia's engine would probably be required to properly copy the attack behaviour of a Minimoog better (by that I also include resonance behaviours etc), and that simply won't happen. So those of us, that would like to see such a thing, must look elsewhere. The attack behaviour of the Oberheim (at least OBx/xa/8 ) wasn't always the fastest, so maybe their code limitations won't be as evident to people on the new SEM V. And, yes, the SEM V keyboard follow looks to be pretty cool. But what chance of them adding it to the rest of their emulations? Just like they didn't bother adding the Jupiter 8V's features (like VCO side FX) to anything else either. Not cool.

Add such an approach to the fact that they pay the money to use the name and likeness (the later often to the detriment of their own GUI, because they're so busy copying the likeness that it makes it difficult to see controls) and its perhaps not surprising that they are often bashed on forums, whether fairly or unfairly.

Even if they did not have any updates, the ImpOSCar ( before V2 ie 7 years) and the KOrgs MS-20 and Polysix didn(t have any updates since version 1. And there are still some of my fav VAs since this time.

Sure. But these are, again, obvious statements that nobody argued against. You can content yourself with the MS-20 in its current form. Although it's not like you have a choice in Korgs case, since it's clear they'd rather make iPad apps for now.

Tbh I would have liked they updated the MS20 GUI to avoid this ridiculous scrolling, but now I've made a template on my Novation so I cant program it almost eyesshut.

For the brand names yes you're right but I can see two sides of it. The first is purely commercial and explains the exact replica of the original synths panels. Otoh I just wonder if some brands like Gibson, Roland etc would have given their authorisation to use their name if the plugs were "that" bad.

So they might miss "more or less" according to different people of the original character of this or that synth that they try to emulate, and maybe they will translate some of the SEM features on their ancient synths I really dont know, but I agree it might not be a bad idea. Their hardware Flagship synth allows you to mix/match different oscillators with different filters etc, but its quite expensive.

LtZ

[mcnoone]

If you want to get in Moog territory your best bet is to chain three oscillators, a HP12 (cutoff 39, resonance 10, drive 25) into TWO XMFs set to "biased" mode, with the first one being the actual filter while the second one stays fully open for distortion.

Here's my go at it.
Moo -Moog emulation using Urs setup.
http://www.box.net/shared/olqdca49kp4uvy2nkmth
Added XY assignments-and an arp w/t a variation and other modules turned off in the grid.

Here's another emulation of a classic sound that I think sounds very close to the real thing.
L0L-A classic
http://www.box.net/shared/09k49bx74hv29uzbogr6
It also has XY assignments and variations with extra modules in the grid to try out.

Comments appreciated, as it kinda sucks spending many hours on these, then getting no feedback, just to hear some opinions would be good.
I believe Zebra is quite capable of producing analogue type stuff.
Although for what the OP wants, he's probably better off with the Arturia stuff.

Cheers,

Michael

[sounddesigner]

Well, here's where it gets really cloudy PAK: Creamware hired In-DSP to code the ASB and KLANG boxes; when Creamware went down, one of the principals at Creamware formed a separate overseas operation called: Use-Audio! They retained the IP that they used for the boxes, and perhaps 'borrowed' a few more Creamware IP that they had marginal possession of, and built a couple of things (including the Plugiator) based on the IP that they had so-called possession of, iirc

Frank Hund owned Creamware and now owns Indsp and i believe owns part or fully Use-Audio. Frank Hund sold to Sonic Core the ability to share the rights to SCOPE and other Creamware technologies. Sonic Core was the perfect people to sell to since they're the only ones who could code the SCOPE Platform and have love for it. Sonic Core are the original developers of SCOPE that worked for Frank long ago and know how to code the platform. John Bowen worked for Frank as well and helped in developing SCOPE's Modular synth amongs other things.

Sonic Core are all different types developers (some software some hardware}. Sonic Core started out with Holger Drenkelfort and Jurgen Kindermann. Later Sonic Core went back and hired the third main man who was 'THE MAN', the one responsible for the synth algorithms for Creamware SCOPE in the past Klaus Piehl.

Klaus Piehl is VERY VERY High-Level and a true demon in his field. He coded all the great SCOPE synths (Minimax, Pro-12, Pro One, etc) and pretty much most Library modules for the SCOPE Platform (even the SDK Atoms sound great and easily allow for nice sounding freeware and commercial devices from the amature user-base}. Klaus is the man behind the scenes no one knows about but produces VERY high quality algorithms. Klaus is also responsible for the new hardware synth Solaris algorithm (in part or full). John Bowen has stated Klaus knows even more now then before so expect great things to continue to be released.

John Bowen did bring forth a little info on the unknown Klaus here -

http://www.johnbowen.com/index.php?opti ... itstart=20

Jurgen recently left Sonic Core and started his own company Ferrofish wich just released the A16 MKII MADI i/o converters, and B4000 Organ. Jurgen has rights to the SCOPE Technology and Converter technology with his new company (He still collaborates with Sonic Core). the Organ he released uses the same algorithm as SCOPE's b2003 organ but has some feature enhancements. The algorithm is great sounding and Physical Modeling (Organ, Six String guitar Sim) is not what SCOPE was known for but was/is VERY good at, imo.

I think my main point out all this is Klaus Piehl is the mystery man behind all the great SCOPE synths. Sonic Core was smart for going to get Klaus and hireing him. Sonic Core did develope Solaris with John Bowen also and do part of the distribution. Some of the SCOPE technology is shared by several companies (Sonic Core, Ferrofish, Indsp, Use-Audio, and one more i can't think of ATM.) BUT the main important thing is who has Klaus and that would be Sonic Core .

EDITED

[Syncretia]

Thanks everyone for their comments. This has become a broad discussion about analog synthesis as opposed to how closely the sounds from the two synths emulate analog sound. I am a bit overwhelmed at the moment. I have to address this question though:

Have you tried Urs' suggestion from page 2 of this thread?

A part of the original recommendation was:

If you want to get in Moog territory your best bet is to chain three oscillators, a HP12 (cutoff 39, resonance 10, drive 25) into TWO XMFs set to "biased" mode, with the first one being the actual filter while the second one stays fully open for distortion. This however does not attenuate the resonance below 80Hz (as seen in a real Mini but hardly in any emulation)

My answer is no. Although, I will try this. But here are some points on this:

This is from wikipedia:

An Analog Modeling Synthesizer is a synthesizer that generates the sounds of traditional analog synthesizers using DSP components and software algorithms to simulate the behaviour of the original electric and electronic circuitry, in order to obtain the sound in a more precise manner from the simulated inner working of the circuitry, instead of attempting to recreate the sound directly.

From the sound of it, Zebra is not an analog modelling synthesiser. It sounds like it is a very good synth that is so flexible the it creates analog like sounds, but doesn't actually emulate analog. Would this be correct? Because as the wikipedia definition points out, an analog modeller doesn't just give you basic oscs and filters that allow you to get an approximation of the original sound, they literally attempt to emulate the voltage running through the circuits in a similar way to how physical modeling synths emulate plucked or bowed instruments.

Arturia's range however, implements TAE technology which is an attempt to model the sound based on the original circuitry. This website outlines TAE:
http://www.arturia.com/evolution/en/pro ... scillators
The main point to take away is that analog oscs and filters are imperfect. An analog waveform will never be as perfect as a pure digital wave form and it is this imperfection that creates the warm sound that we love about analog. TAE is supposed to reproduce this. Perhaps this is what I love about the Minimoog V.

I'm sorry but so far, the Zebra II presets don't do it for me as much as the Minimoog V presets. But, perhaps my understanding on this whole topic is wrong. I then read this:

Mr. Z sent us the best of his 4 Minimoogs (and a Memorymoog too). So we can explore it, rip it apart and add its gist into our code. We spent the better part of this year on this, and I think we cracked most of the secrets (including a part that is not shown in the service manuals, but must also be present in the Little Phatty). I do think we'll soon be able to show our findings

So how was it put in to the code? Here's a simple question:

Is Zebra II an analog modelling synth?

[izonin]

Well, don't get me wrong, the Minimax *is* the best Minimoog emulation out there, and we had a hard time copying it in Zebra (which isn't exactly possible anyway due to Zebra's lack of a low key priority mono mode and different envelopes) - one can get close, but one can not fully get there.

However that's exactly the reason why a certain Mr. Z sent us the best of his 4 Minimoogs (and a Memorymoog too). So we can explore it, rip it apart and add its gist into our code. We spent the better part of this year on this, and I think we cracked most of the secrets (including a part that is not shown in the service manuals, but must also be present in the Little Phatty). I do think we'll soon be able to show our findings

Urs

I would also suggest getting an UAD card and inpecting the Moog filter. Their plug-ins provide a high level of realism.

[mcnoone]

My answer is no. Although, I will try this.

I did it here already, 2 posts up.
Moo -Moog emulation using Urs setup.
http://www.box.net/shared/olqdca49kp4uvy2nkmth

Is Zebra II an analog modelling synth?

No, but no one said it was either.
There are presets around that demostrate it's ability to do very good analog type sounds. You simply haven't had time to find them yet.
Either way, just go get the Arturia pack, and forget about it.
Your minds made up anyway, so enjoy.

[Urs]

Arturia's range however, implements TAE technology which is an attempt to model the sound based on the original circuitry. This website outlines TAE:
http://www.arturia.com/evolution/en/pro ... scillators

See, I do think that Arturia's TAE burp is misleading, and you're falling for it.

Whatever they describe in this paper refers to technology that is 10 years old. Hardly any synth that came out ever since isn't doing what they describe, even at the time. Thus, their claim to have an "exclusive" technology is rather questionable. Instead it's been state of the art for a long time.

I'm seriously considering to send them a cease and desist letter because I am convinced that their msileading advertisement harms the business of other companies who in my opinion serve their clients with more honest information.

#---

That said, Zebra's XMF filter is based on analogue models, as are some of the VCF modes. They're not precise models, but neither are those of other companies, fwiw.

[Urs]

double post

[electro]

Why Creamware never made these synths accessible to the Native VST community like UAD does is still a mystery.

What the heck are you talking about ?? What mystery? UAD doesn't have single synth. Not a single one! UAD is DSP system and their plugins (effects only) are hosted on any DAW supporting VST. Ex Creamware now SonicCore is also DSP system. They offer effects AND synths and they can also run by any host with VST support.

But other then that they (Scope platform) offer near zero latency. Something which is impossible on UAD. Yes you can plug in your guitar and connect it to chain of effects and then through some modular synth and get crazy super quality tones. With about 3ms delay..

UncleE i have about the same experience. With Minimax i can get closer to what people call Moog tones (and beyond) then with Zebra (demo) but i am not Zebra power user. I would like to see some moog patches on Zebra 2.6 as well..

Meaning I can't buy a PCIexpress Creamware card, stick it in the DAW and load Creamware VSTInstruments as seamlessly as loading DSP based UAD plugins. Do Creamware VSTI support offline export?