KVR Audio

faun2500 · Post by **faun2500** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:27 pm

Also got to say that the new graphics are an improvement. Slightly deeper and sharper - nice!

fluffy_little_something · Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:33 pm

faun2500 wrote:
fluffy_little_something wrote:Indeed, I wonder how many of those who bought the TAL emulation have ever used a hardware Juno.
Not used, but heard!

I am sure many people have heard a Juno 60, but did they know which sound came from which synth? I doubt it. So at the end of the day you only really know what a Juno 60 sounds like when you play it yourself...

fluffy_little_something · Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:37 pm

faun2500 wrote:Also got to say that the new graphics are an improvement. Slightly deeper and sharper - nice!

I don't know if it is just because I was used to the old version, but it seems to me that the thinner lines of slider scales are even weaker than before...

All in all I like the new GUI better though

Bronto Scorpio · Post by **Bronto Scorpio** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:48 pm

dexterbella wrote:
Bronto Scorpio wrote:A quick example (First without keytracking, then with keytracking and then with chorus): Reso Keys
Absolutely lovely!

metrosonic wrote:Stunning example of what you can achieve with the 'limited' architecture of U-No-LX.

Thanks

It's definitely possible to get a lot of ineresting sounds out of U-No-LX

Cheers
Dennis

Albert.VST · Post by **Albert.VST** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:27 pm

IncarnateX wrote:But then there is one obstacle yet to overcome with regard to emulations, namely that a blind tests with MP3s (and also wave files I think) already has shown that people can not tell a synth like Oxium from Synth 1 and these from a real Jupiter 8 (can not find the thread now though). Well if synth 1 can be taken for a Jupiter 8 and vice versa, why spend a lot on money on emulations? Under these circumstances a lot of synths could make analog-like patches that can not be distinguished from the real thing on a digital medium, even free ones. Emulation then becomes a qustion of sound design and not component modeling

Cheers

Well I remember it differently, but it is relevant for this discussion.
Originally 2 files were posted, one a VST and one real hardware. But it wasn't stated which was which. One file was then marked as 'it must be the VST because it has sound artefacts and so it can't be the real thing (anyone with some synth knowledge should hear this)'. To 'prove' the lack of quality of the VST Synth1 was used to show it even could do better.

In the end it turned out the file that was claimed to sound so good it must be the hardware in fact was the VST.

I think blind tests on synth sounds don't work so well, it will be too much a matter of personal taste. While using vocals or an orchestral work for blind tests, as often used to compare microphones, loudspeakers, converters or compression technology, will work better.

olikana · Post by **olikana** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:13 pm

the new black gui looks cool.

not had a chance to play with the new version yet but plan on doing just that this weekend.
i'm glad patricks keeping the price low as the juno was always about empowering the low budgets(altough it is one of the best synths ever

)

HunterKiller · Post by **HunterKiller** » Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:15 am

I would like to see 2 additions to the synth

1) Up/Down ARP 2 - it's where the bottom and the top note of the pattern are repeated twice.
2) A button to switch on/off, sharper more wild resonance.

faun2500 · Post by **faun2500** » Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:06 am

Did the original Juno that is emulated have these then?

Crackbaby · Post by **Crackbaby** » Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:43 am

faun2500 wrote:Did the original Juno that is emulated have these then?

Snappy like an 808 snare

If you remove the grump out of that sentence it reads:

Very unlikely as it's an exact emulation of the juno60 and thus no extra features will be added. You could try to use a midi arpeggio (like kirnu, but there's more) where you will have much more control over the arpeggiator.

faun2500 · Post by **faun2500** » Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:53 am

Edited out the grump.

faun2500 · Post by **faun2500** » Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:55 am

I asked a question! ************************************************

Edited out the grump*

sin night · Post by **sin night** » Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:34 pm

Bronto Scorpio wrote:A quick example (First without keytracking, then with keytracking and then with chorus): Reso Keys

Wow! That's impressive!

Lotuzia · Post by **Lotuzia** » Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:11 pm

Albert.VST wrote:
IncarnateX wrote:But then there is one obstacle yet to overcome with regard to emulations, namely that a blind tests with MP3s (and also wave files I think) already has shown that people can not tell a synth like Oxium from Synth 1 and these from a real Jupiter 8 (can not find the thread now though). Well if synth 1 can be taken for a Jupiter 8 and vice versa, why spend a lot on money on emulations? Under these circumstances a lot of synths could make analog-like patches that can not be distinguished from the real thing on a digital medium, even free ones. Emulation then becomes a qustion of sound design and not component modeling

Cheers
Well I remember it differently, but it is relevant for this discussion.
Originally 2 files were posted, one a VST and one real hardware. But it wasn't stated which was which. One file was then marked as 'it must be the VST because it has sound artefacts and so it can't be the real thing (anyone with some synth knowledge should hear this)'. To 'prove' the lack of quality of the VST Synth1 was used to show it even could do better.

In the end it turned out the file that was claimed to sound so good it must be the hardware in fact was the VST.

I think blind tests on synth sounds don't work so well, it will be too much a matter of personal taste. While using vocals or an orchestral work for blind tests, as often used to compare microphones, loudspeakers, converters or compression technology, will work better.

Well imho it ùight just proves that when some people "see" a soundbyte labelled "Jupiter 8" they are inclined to think that it sounds stellar.

So a lot of people did state that Oxium sounded stellar, and the real Jupiter 8 "so VSTIsh"

But the whole test was flawed : Waves originally posted by Xils were truncated, shortened, wrongly labelled, and the OP assumed that he "knew" wich file was the real Jupiter, and very loudly claimed that everyone who could not hear that was an idiot ( including me, or explicitly targeted at me actually ). Maybe this kind of comments helped people to see the light, then find Oxium so stellar, not wanting to be considered as.... well ...... idiots. Unfortunately ... the OP was proved totally wrong

Btw I have a real Juno 60 ... But well its certainly not me who should do that (A/B clips)

And now, back to topic : TAL

Bronto Scorpio · Post by **Bronto Scorpio** » Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:33 am

sin night wrote:
Bronto Scorpio wrote:A quick example (First without keytracking, then with keytracking and then with chorus): Reso Keys
Wow! That's impressive!

Thanks

The resonance of U-No-LX sounds really nice indeed!

Cheers
Dennis

HunterKiller · Post by **HunterKiller** » Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:31 am

faun2500 wrote:Did the original Juno that is emulated have these then?

Did the original have to be run on a software operating system then?

TAL-U-NO-LX. Uber accurate Juno 60 emulation.