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

[IncarnateX]

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.

Bad test or not, we have had a lot of blindtests like this that all show the same, e.g. U-he made once made some bass test where Zebra was mistaken for a minimoog. Then there are the op-x comparison files etc. To blur things up further we will have to consider that in a mix it can be even harder to tell what is real analog patches and what is simulated. I' d say any decent softsynth that does not sound like an old atari computer on batteries that are about to quit can be used for some analog emulation of classic patches. Some synths make this an easy job, other hard, but at the end of the day it is the sound designer' s ass you gratefully have to kiss.

Cheers

[Crackbaby]

In the mix, two guitars may sound the same. But if one feels better to play on and has some magic year of manufacturing, it will be better played by the player and that will be heard in the mix. Not sure how/if this applies to softsynths, but i think it does for me. Im glad it's not an issue for me as i got enough (not much mind you) cash to spend on whatever softsynth i want

[IncarnateX]

In the mix, two guitars may sound the same. But if one feels better to play on and has some magic year of manufacturing, it will be better played by the player and that will be heard in the mix. Not sure how/if this applies to softsynths, but i think it does for me.

Pretty good point. Maybe I was too confidence and quick here. You are right, at the end of the rainbow, we just have to praise whoever that delivers whatever that will inspire us to make good music. Point taken

[PAK]

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

Someone posting a great track might influence whether someone tries a VST. But I doubt a comparison, especially one as limited (and with less than noble motives) as that one, really would've put anyone off trying your product regardless of which was right or wrong. I can understand why you'd want to defend against the kind of thing posted in that thread, but the best defence is to keep making good products and let the software do most of the talking which has to be done.

Which reminds me of the biggest of all differences which separates analogue from digital. You can demo plugins in your own home easily. There's no need to rely on the words and audio examples of others before you spend money. The more unavailable and unattainable something is, the more mystique and rubbish tends to surround things. There's a real democracy about plugins which hardware will never emulate

Btw, even though it was a very limited example (I never listened to the full files) I do think it's amusing when people (including me ) think a Jupiter 8 sounds "more VST" than the VST's

[PAK]

I'd say any decent softsynth that does not sound like an old atari computer on batteries that are about to quit can be used for some analog emulation of classic patches. Some synths make this an easy job, other hard, but at the end of the day it is the sound designer' s ass you gratefully have to kiss.

Yeah, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. It's really about how widely, and how easily, a synth covers things. But the synth still doesn't drive itself. That's one reason why comparisons can be futile and/or misleading, because a lot depends on the pilot.

But it can be very useful if you're trying to get specific.. EG If I were to say Uno LX makes authentic Juno sounds more easily than any plugin, who's to believe me unless they try both themselves? But if I mention specifics between it and other Juno inspired plugins - how the chorus behaves at certain settings, how the polyphony is handled (makes a bigger difference than you'd think!) etc then it's easier for people to understand what you're talking about and verify things themselves.

In that sense, audio comparisons can be handy in attempting to demonstrate what one thing does that another doesn't. But they're only a guide. The person doing the comparison often hasn't done the best possible job. Unless software emulating something specific was part of the goal, you're just talking about the similarities which exist between synths with similar architectures, the flexibility of the synth, and the skill of the sound designer. These are totally different things which don't communicate how easy or difficult it is to arrive at those results.

I know some people think "why compare - just accept everthing as its own unique special thing". Problem is that's not very practical, unless you're ok with having hundreds of synth plugins installed, or want to be like the guy who owns 20 different variations of early 80's Roland hardware synths. Sometimes it's more productive to focus on what a smaller number of things do really well.

And, talking of what synths do really well. After using Uno LX for about a month, and with the V2 update, I can't recall a plugin where I've gravitated towards the resonance as much, instead of running away from it..

[metrosonic]

And, talking of what synths do really well. After using Uno LX for about a month, and with the V2 update, I can't recall a plugin where I've gravitated towards the resonance as much, instead of running away from it..

I couldn't agree with this statement more. And as far as Roland emulations go, I've not found anything better as yet (much as I love the Korg and Moog filters on DIVA, I've been less happy with the Jupiter filters especially at high resonance).

JM
------------
https://soundcloud.com/leftside-wobble

[Sendy]

Which reminds me of the biggest of all differences which separates analogue from digital. You can demo plugins in your own home easily. There's no need to rely on the words and audio examples of others before you spend money. The more unavailable and unattainable something is, the more mystique and rubbish tends to surround things. There's a real democracy about plugins which hardware will never emulate

I think that hits the nail on the head, really. Analog synths are rare compared to the bountiful crop of VST's we have so many of we're throwing them away practically. Gold is valuable because of it's rarity, not because it's actually useful for anything... Well, it's useful at being rare, I suppose. A planet made of gold might have banks with vaults full of rare and precious mud

By default, analog is far more musical than naiive digital synthesis, but where we're at now, the gap has closed almost to a grace note of musical relevance.

Rarity = lack of exposure/knowledge = mystique and intrigue = the imagination at play = teh awesome

[faun2500]

Did the original Juno that is emulated have these then?

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

Don't think so. Maybe you should research it.

[HunterKiller]

Did the original Juno that is emulated have these then?

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

Don't think so. Maybe you should research it.

That's a stupid recommendation, I have one right next to me. You know very well what I meant, quit playing dumb!

[Crackbaby]

I don't think he's playing

[HunterKiller]

I don't think he's playing

Why so serious?

[Lotuzia]

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

Someone posting a great track might influence whether someone tries a VST. But I doubt a comparison, especially one as limited (and with less than noble motives) as that one, really would've put anyone off trying your product regardless of which was right or wrong. I can understand why you'd want to defend against the kind of thing posted in that thread, but the best defence is to keep making good products and let the software do most of the talking which has to be done.
Which reminds me of the biggest of all differences which separates analogue from digital. You can demo plugins in your own home easily. There's no need to rely on the words and audio examples of others before you spend money. The more unavailable and unattainable something is, the more mystique and rubbish tends to surround things. There's a real democracy about plugins which hardware will never emulate

Btw, even though it was a very limited example (I never listened to the full files) I do think it's amusing when people (including me ) think a Jupiter 8 sounds "more VST" than the VST's

Well I certainly wish you were right, but some people just declare that this intentionally flawed and disinforming test made them loose interest in Oxium.

Then if I had not been there to reestablish the reality, or truth, this test would have been even more damaging for Xils-Lab. Believe me I'd really like not to have to loose time and energy to deal with such things. Unfortunately .....

[Lotuzia]

Bad test or not, we have had a lot of blindtests like this that all show the same, e.g. U-he made once made some bass test where Zebra was mistaken for a minimoog. Then there are the op-x comparison files etc. To blur things up further we will have to consider that in a mix it can be even harder to tell what is real analog patches and what is simulated. I' d say any decent softsynth that does not sound like an old atari computer on batteries that are about to quit can be used for some analog emulation of classic patches. Some synths make this an easy job, other hard, but at the end of the day it is the sound designer' s ass you gratefully have to kiss.

Cheers

You might be right, but ime/imo its the exact opposite that happens : Its in real mix situations that intruments instantaneously show their qualities, or less.

A lot of synths can sound interesting in isolation. Place them in an average busy mix, and a lot of this interest might disappear at once, as the "sound" of these instruments. Ymmv.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[IncarnateX]

i can see you are not huge on diva, all good, but please don't think i was saying that, it's actually one of my faves. Just have to save for it again.

cheers

No worries ttoz, I was not implying anything about your views upon diva, I just took you on the note that what matters to you about the Uno is whether you like it's sound and not whether it is an accurate emulation. And I think DIVA sounds great too, so I agree, but I just don't think it sounds analog in the sense that my analog synths does.