TAL BassLine-101
- KVRAF
- 24402 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia
Oscillators definitely don't sound weak in either case. They're virtually identical sounding.
-
fluffy_little_something fluffy_little_something https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281847
- Banned
- 12880 posts since 5 Jun, 2012
I am not sure, but I think I hear a slight soft hissing sound in the second examples, some higher-frequency noise content, especially with the first couple of sounds.
-
- KVRAF
- 6365 posts since 8 Jun, 2009
That makes it a better test of perception though even if he just sampled the noise floor of the real SH-101 and added it to the VI - it at least stops people from looking at the file and deciding instantly which is which.BDeep wrote:Is it me? It strikes me as odd that there doesn't seem to be a difference in noisefloor between the sw and the hw.
I could hear differences in the bassier sounds. They were very small differences though.
- KVRist
- 424 posts since 12 Oct, 2009 from London, UK
Sounds great, I didn't know this was in development. My 101 is definitely my favourite synth so look forward to this
Deep N' Dusty House Grooves !!!
Artist: http://soundcloud.com/nigel
Label: http://soundcloud.com/diplopiarecords
Artist: http://soundcloud.com/nigel
Label: http://soundcloud.com/diplopiarecords
-
- KVRAF
- 35671 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
Even though i guess most people are aware of it, here's the predecessor: http://www.kvraudio.com/product/tal_bas ... audio_line
-
penguinfromdeep penguinfromdeep https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=193898
- KVRAF
- 1993 posts since 18 Nov, 2008
I can hear a difference even on laptop speakers but I'm sure he will refine the sound more! Love Tal Uno LX and I hope this will be as good ...
circuit modeling and 0-dfb filters are cool
-
- KVRAF
- 2973 posts since 10 Sep, 2003 from Karlskoga, Stockholm, Sweden
Insta-buy
now tap tap tap while waiting
-
- KVRAF
- 2747 posts since 13 Feb, 2012 from Amsterdam
You're right, he probably did something to either the original or his plugin to make the differences less obvious. Or, he went all the way with modelling, adding noisy amp noise in the processGamma-UT wrote:That makes it a better test of perception though even if he just sampled the noise floor of the real SH-101 and added it to the VI - it at least stops people from looking at the file and deciding instantly which is which.BDeep wrote:Is it me? It strikes me as odd that there doesn't seem to be a difference in noisefloor between the sw and the hw.
I could hear differences in the bassier sounds. They were very small differences though.
- KVRAF
- 5223 posts since 20 Jul, 2010
I'm a sucker for a simple synth. There's something almost mystical about the simple complexity of these "basic" analog synths and good emulations of them. Especially if like me you learned synthesis on first and second generation VAs where the interactions between compoments was very weak and obvious - in fact you could listen to each parameter in high, mid and low value and know every possible sound you could make because there were no unexpected interactions.
http://sendy.bandcamp.com/releases < My new album at Bandcamp! Now pay what you like!
-
- KVRAF
- 8674 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
Yeah, not the most difficult synth to emulate, although it does have some quirks. I agree with FLuxmind though - quite a bit of difference between the two examples when the filters are driven driven hard. Which is usually where s/w struggles. The straight forward non self resonating sounds are close enough that nobody would care. But also, it's not hard to make a bog standard 24dB/Oct filter - which is exactly what 101s have. I mean bog as in real swamp standard.
I hope if TAL still obsess about Roland emulations, he goes for something like a JP6 next time, or even the earlier Jupiters. 101s are still not even that expensive to buy are they? (at least not last timer I looked). And it's not as if there aren't plenty of 101 type VSTis around. I still use my 202, and sure it's great, it's fun etc etc but to be really honest, it's the sequencer that gets the real results. I've had s/w emus that get close enough to the sound for quite a while to keep me happy. Even going back to ReFX Claw - it did enough of a 101/202 to be good enough. ABLPro etc, Lush101 - all perfectly useable.
Still, I'm sure he'll sell a few if it's cheap.
I hope if TAL still obsess about Roland emulations, he goes for something like a JP6 next time, or even the earlier Jupiters. 101s are still not even that expensive to buy are they? (at least not last timer I looked). And it's not as if there aren't plenty of 101 type VSTis around. I still use my 202, and sure it's great, it's fun etc etc but to be really honest, it's the sequencer that gets the real results. I've had s/w emus that get close enough to the sound for quite a while to keep me happy. Even going back to ReFX Claw - it did enough of a 101/202 to be good enough. ABLPro etc, Lush101 - all perfectly useable.
Still, I'm sure he'll sell a few if it's cheap.
-
- KVRAF
- 2802 posts since 31 Aug, 2011
Not entirely improbable, because NoiseMaker has a 'Vintage Noise' option too.BDeep wrote: Or, he went all the way with modelling, adding noisy amp noise in the process
(Maybe its even the same module.)
-
- Banned
- 18651 posts since 2 Oct, 2001 from England
Maybe he's got a seq in the soft version...kritikon wrote:. I still use my 202, and sure it's great, it's fun etc etc but to be really honest, it's the sequencer that gets the real results. .
I loved the 101 but never used the seq, used to play basslines live....killed my fingers.
A mate used to drive his using the accent from the 707(or was it the dr110..?), but you still had to program the seq.k
- KVRian
- 1369 posts since 29 Apr, 2012 from Paris
This emu associated to the Drop from Cytomic might be just awesome !
