KVR Audio

paterpeter · Post by **paterpeter** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:03 pm

Ingonator wrote:
If you get a modular environment/synth like e.g. Mutools MUX (that is a VST plugin itself) you could do something like this:
...

Looks good, no wonder I love MUX.

fluffy_little_something · Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:07 pm

Ingonator wrote:
fluffy_little_something wrote:I am using Mulab, so yes, I could do that. But frankly, I prefer that being done within one and the same instance so I can save it within the sound patch that I can then use in other DAWs as well. It also means a lower CPU load, especially with such modern synths that can be quite a load.
MUX is a VST plugin that could be used in all compatible DAWs. I am using it in Ableton Live 9.0.4.
The MUX patch could save all settings so on another computer you would only need the MUX presets, the MUX plugin and the synth plugin.

Within MUX you could open each layer (the grey boxes on the left of the screenshot) and save the current patch as a normal synth patch (here a U-NO-LX patch).

Ingo

I have Mulab, not Mux. So I could do all that within Mulab, but I could not reuse those Mux presets within another DAW without buying Mux as well.

electro · Post by **electro** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:30 pm

fluffy_little_something wrote:I have never played that synth, and for some time I mistakenly thought it had a unison mode. But it couldn't have had if it was monophonic, I suppose. Makes me wonder what the difference to the Juno was. I suppose mostly the number of voices as the rest (voice architecture etc.) seems very similar despite the different looks. Makes me wonder if that synth is worth it if one already has the U-NO-LX. The biggest drawback with both is that they only have one oscillator each, thus no semitone-detuning, layering etc.

When it says introductory price 40 bucks, does that mean 40 bucks forever like with the U-NO-LX? If not, will the Bassline eventually cost more than the U-NO-LX?

SH-101 being a monosynth, the way the TAL Bassline Arpeggiator works is different from the Juno 60 Arpeggiator. TAL Bassline also features the internal stepsequencer of the SH-101 and MIDI out.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:40 pm

And isn't the filter and envelopes somewhat different than Juno, too?

Kriminal · Post by **Kriminal** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:39 pm

quite simply, the TAL-101 is the closet emulation there is right now.

BDeep · Post by **BDeep** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:41 pm

Kriminal wrote:quite simply, the TAL-101 is the closet emulation there is right now.

I remember you had a real SH101 on loan not too long ago, did you test it against TAL's emulation? Nice to hear it's that close, can't wait to get my hands on it.

fluffy_little_something · Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:51 pm

If it sounds great in absolute terms fine, but basically I see no point in emulations as such. Developers should make stuff that is as good as possible by modern standards, i.e. probably going way beyond 30 year old hardware. What is the point in making a perfect emulation if the original was not spectacular to begin with? I like the OP-X emulations a lot because the original already sounded awesome, but with the old Roland gear I am not so sure...

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:52 pm

SH-101 is far from "not spectacular", though. It is really AWESOME at what it does.

Also, by the way, in 10 or 20 years there will be no more spare parts for these dinosaurs (really!), so there is EVERY reason to do spot-on emulations of them.

Kriminal · Post by **Kriminal** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:57 pm

BDeep wrote:
Kriminal wrote:quite simply, the TAL-101 is the closet emulation there is right now.
I remember you had a real SH101 on loan not too long ago, did you test it against TAL's emulation? Nice to hear it's that close, can't wait to get my hands on it.

yes, i tested extensively

zerocrossing · Post by **zerocrossing** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:18 pm

fluffy_little_something wrote:If it sounds great in absolute terms fine, but basically I see no point in emulations as such. Developers should make stuff that is as good as possible by modern standards, i.e. probably going way beyond 30 year old hardware. What is the point in making a perfect emulation if the original was not spectacular to begin with? I like the OP-X emulations a lot because the original already sounded awesome, but with the old Roland gear I am not so sure...

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but in case you hadn't noticed many early Roland analogs are considered classics by a lot of people. It's not because they were just good in there time, it's because they're good. Just because they're not your style doesn't mean they don't deserve praise and a decent emulation.

Aubrey Lamont · Post by **Aubrey Lamont** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:07 pm

zerocrossing wrote:
fluffy_little_something wrote:If it sounds great in absolute terms fine, but basically I see no point in emulations as such. Developers should make stuff that is as good as possible by modern standards, i.e. probably going way beyond 30 year old hardware. What is the point in making a perfect emulation if the original was not spectacular to begin with? I like the OP-X emulations a lot because the original already sounded awesome, but with the old Roland gear I am not so sure...
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but in case you hadn't noticed many early Roland analogs are considered classics by a lot of people. It's not because they were just good in there time, it's because they're good. Just because they're not your style doesn't mean they don't deserve praise and a decent emulation.

You're more agreeing than disagreeing with him.

I think he's saying that to the extent that the emulations are emulating something awesome, the emulations themselves are cool as well.

The disagreement would be regarding which classic synths sound good. fluffy doesn't seem to be a huge fan of the Roland synths, which is fair.

Personally, I think an SH-101 emulation would be sweet, but I wasn't going bonkers for Juno-60 emulation.

EDIT: Maybe I misread your post. Either way, it's ultimately a matter of opinion. I'm sure fluffy is aware that the Roland synths are very popular.

electro · Post by **electro** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:08 pm

fluffy_little_something wrote:If it sounds great in absolute terms fine, but basically I see no point in emulations as such. Developers should make stuff that is as good as possible by modern standards, i.e. probably going way beyond 30 year old hardware. What is the point in making a perfect emulation if the original was not spectacular to begin with? I like the OP-X emulations a lot because the original already sounded awesome, but with the old Roland gear I am not so sure...

And you're just wrong. The TAL Synths are simple to operate and based on good sounding hardware that has been proven over several decades. I don't need every softynth to have 5000 modulation options. There is a reason the feature restricted Model D is the most popular Analog Synth in history and NI captured it brilliantly in Monark.

Being able to swap out real Analogs for softsynths with total parameter accuracy is the greatest thing that has happened to Digital Recording in the last 5 years. Combine that with the right DAW and you have the best of both Analog and Digital worlds.

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:24 pm

Aren't all these software emulations mainly for some kind of nostalgia? Especially for people who have used the respective hardware synths, and are missing their sound?

OTOH better a great emulation with some great sounds than a bad "can-make-all-sounds"-synth! I cannot encourage developers to make another 100 simple 3-OSC-synths, emulations are a better way of getting some money...

fluffy_little_something · Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:33 pm

I don't like overly complex synths with zillions of controls, either, don't get me wrong

As I said, if it sounds great, fine with me. I would certainly not get a synth like that just because it is a perfect simulation of a hardware synth. I am not a synth collector like other people collect stamps. I judge modern synths based on what they offer relative to other modern synths. In other words, I don't care how close it is to the original, I compare it to the leading synth plugins of our time, like Xils, Uhe, etc., and even leading hardware synths of our time.

Nor is there any reason why such an emulation should not go way beyond the original. The plugin could have an XT button. Switching it on would make extented parameters available (unison and what not), switching it off would limit the synth exactly to the hardware version.

Again, my biggest gripe is the lack of a second oscillator. That is also one of the reasons why I sold the U-NO-LX recently.
On the other hand the sequencer/arp looks rather interesting.

I am a bit split on that synth. Let's wait for the sound...

Are there any songs where the original was used to play a striking sound? Like the Oberheim on Jump?

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:53 pm

fluffy_little_something wrote:Again, my biggest gripe is the lack of a second oscillator. That is also one of the reasons why I sold the U-NO-LX recently.

That's why I haven't even bought it...because I don't need a Juno emulation (except for "What the ***")

But on the other hand there are loads of people who have used a real hardware Juno, and they're happy that U-NO-LX sounds so close to the real Juno 60. And they will buy a TB-303 emulation and a Jomox emulation and a Roland 606 emulation and a Hammond B3 emulation and a Yamaha DX7 emulation...whatever...and if some developers can make them happy, that's great!

I rather would prefer a suite of effects that can make *EVERY* synth sound more analog or more warm or more saturated...for example I love the TAL-Chorus-LX...

TAL BassLine-101