TAL BassLine-101

[fluffy_little_something]

Yes, that is a great effect. Although it is the same as the chorus built into the U-NO-LX, I often used the external version in combination with the U-NO-LX because one can reduce/remove the stereo effect, which is great for basses etc.

[afreshcupofjoe]

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...

This argument again? Really? Hasn't this topic been done to death already? Every time a new emulation of an old piece of gear comes out we have this exact same debate. There have been hundreds of pages going back and forth on this topic already. Why do you feel the need to bring it up again? Are you a troll? Seriously, what's your problem? Can we just end this? If you want to have an argument about vintage emulations, why don't you just go troll one of the hundreds of other threads that already exist? This thread is about people who are interested in TAL Bassline-101. If you are only interested in criticizing the hard work of developers and starting a flame war, this thread isn't for you. Just get the f**k out already. You are not wanted here. GO AWAY.

[bailees7irish]

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...

This argument again? Really? Hasn't this topic been done to death already? Every time a new emulation of an old piece of gear comes out we have this exact same debate. There have been hundreds of pages going back and forth on this topic already. Why do you feel the need to bring it up again? Are you a troll? Seriously, what's your problem? Can we just end this? If you want to have an argument about vintage emulations, why don't you just go troll one of the hundreds of other threads that already exist? This thread is about people who are interested in TAL Bassline-101. If you are only interested in criticizing the hard work of developers and starting a flame war, this thread isn't for you. Just get the f**k out already. You are not wanted here. GO AWAY.

Amen!

[Aubrey Lamont]

I agree that his post would be more appropriate in a different thread, but I couldn't help but lol at the above reaction.

[Decagon]

I really look forward to this one. I love the sound of Roland instruments. TAL, MC-202 next?

[BDeep]

With the step sequencer added, it's almost a MC-202, right? Wouldn't add much to make a separate MC-202 IMHO.

[tomtoo]

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...

This argument again? Really? Hasn't this topic been done to death already? Every time a new emulation of an old piece of gear comes out we have this exact same debate. There have been hundreds of pages going back and forth on this topic already. Why do you feel the need to bring it up again? Are you a troll? Seriously, what's your problem? Can we just end this? If you want to have an argument about vintage emulations, why don't you just go troll one of the hundreds of other threads that already exist? This thread is about people who are interested in TAL Bassline-101. If you are only interested in criticizing the hard work of developers and starting a flame war, this thread isn't for you. Just get the f**k out already. You are not wanted here. GO AWAY.

Very argumentative.

[Crackbaby]

Just get the f**k out already. You are not wanted here. GO AWAY.

Don't pretend like you're speaking for everyone.

[tomtoo]

Just get the f**k out already. You are not wanted here. GO AWAY.

Don't pretend like you're speaking for everyone.

+1

Even i think that emulating hardware was a great step into making a good sound.

This was rude and not clever.

[re*MD9@3!Tm^]

This argument again? Really? Hasn't this topic been done to death already? Every time a new emulation of an old piece of gear comes out we have this exact same debate. There have been hundreds of pages going back and forth on this topic already. Why do you feel the need to bring it up again? Are you a troll? Seriously, what's your problem? Can we just end this? If you want to have an argument about vintage emulations, why don't you just go troll one of the hundreds of other threads that already exist? This thread is about people who are interested in TAL Bassline-101. If you are only interested in criticizing the hard work of developers and starting a flame war, this thread isn't for you. Just get the f**k out already. You are not wanted here. GO AWAY.

Better if you get out of here, I'm interested in the 101, but I would never think about oppressing opinions I personally don't like for whatever reason. And not everyone here has read all those hundreds of threads you are talking about.

[v1o]

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...

What makes you think the SH101 is not highly desired by many? It's one of the best bass machines ever produced. It's only very recently with the likes of Diva and Monark that technology has allowed VSTis to sound close to real analogue circuits. And there are many who want a new generation of software synths that sound as good as their old analogue not inferior.

[Ingonator]

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...

As TAL is using zero delay feedback filters since U-NO-LX and offering both Windows/Mac and 64-bit versions he actually IS using modern standards in terms of DSP technology. Anyway while e.g. TAl U-NO-LX is not really low on CPU it is much more usable in terms of CPU than some other modern plugins.

With the the old Roland gear there are many classics and IMO they deserve to get a proper emulation. For example i had owned a real Jupiter 8 (and lots of other Roland gear) in the past and even if Arturia Jupiter 8 and Diva are good attempts at the jupiter 8 i am still waiting for a perfect 1:1 clone. Something like the interface and parameter ranges of the Arturia and the sound of the Diva modules plus a little additional "magic" would do it...
Not much that has to be improved about a Jupiter 8 IMO except maybe more voices, a step sequencer and some FXs.

Another point is that certain old synths like the Minimoog were already perfect at what they did so no need to "reinvent the wheel". So far all "huge" synths with tons of options that tried to do everything failed in doing such specific sound really accurate.

Finally there are enough new software synths with new approaches but in many cases those are ignored or selling very bad.
I have also heard people saying "this synth works differently than the common subtractive synths so i am not interested i it".
in fact most of the very popular synths are using an quite basic approach on synthesis and not everybody that uses e.g. Alchemy does have a real knowledge about using additive synthesis which could be very complex. In some cases this is reduced to resynthesis of a known instrument and tweaking some of the partials.

How many people beyond some really talented sound designers like Howard and some others do use e.g. Zebra really beyond the usual subtractive synthesis?

How many people are really using the advanced features of Synthmaster like additive oscillators (for additive synthesis, not doing supersaws...), wavetable scanning, vector synthesis and 2d envelopes?


Ingo

[chk071]

It's only very recently with the likes of Diva and Monark that technology has allowed VSTis to sound close to real analogue circuits. And there are many who want a new generation of software synths that sound as good as their old analogue not inferior.

Let's rather say "It's only very recently that we have the technology to model these synths in all details". Inferior, superior? I still think you can do good music also with synths which weren't specifically modelled on analog hardware. Also, keep in mind that there is a lot of think you can realize in software which you couldn't with analogue hardware, like having literally gazillions of oscillators, dozens of LFO's, envelopes and what not. But what do i argue, it's always the same arguments in threads like this anyway, i guess all has been said a million times, no need for more. Each to its like.

[Teksonik]

How many people beyond some really talented sound designers like Howard and some others do use e.g. Zebra really beyond the usual subtractive synthesis?

How many people are really using the advanced features of Synthmaster like additive oscillators (for additive synthesis, not doing supersaws...), wavetable scanning, vector synthesis and 2d envelopes?

More than you would think....but if a simple Saw Osc and filter is enough to impress you then by all means keep using emulations of highly limited hardware from the 70's and 80's..........others are looking forward to the future of synthesis not to the past.......

[fluffy_little_something]

Gee, so many replies, and a very friendly one, too, by the thought police and official KVR speaker ^^

I am NOT against emulations, I never said that. Nor have I come across many threads on emulations, actually just 4 or 5, including the U-NO-LX thread and my own thread where I was asking for Obermeim SEM emulations myself. So obviously I am not against emulations at all.

All I am saying is that I am not so sure the SH 101 is special enough to justify an emulation...
If musicians were to compile a list of the 25 most important and widely used synths ever made, would the SH 101 be on it? I doubt it, frankly.

The main reason it was often used as a bass synth was probably that it only had one voice. Had it had 6 or 8 voices, it would have been just another synth, very similar to the Junos.

Just like with plugins. Who needs a bass synth plugin when you aleady have a great poly synth with a mono switch and legato?

Another reason for the SH 101's popularity might have been the format and handle, which made it ideal for acrobatic stage performances ^^ I don't know how widely used it was or is in studios...

I agree with Ingo, I had thought just yesterday that I would love to see a Jupiter 8 emulation by TAL. Although I am moving away from software, I guess I would buy it even if it cost 200 dollars, because I am sure it would be fantastic. And I am sure I could get bass sounds out of the Jupiter 8 that could keep up with the SH 101's.