Waldorf Pulse 2: officially released (OS updated to v1.18)

[Ingonator]

Does the pulse 2 have the '2D' flat digital sound?

Do all software emulations have this '2D flat digital sound'?

Would I be right in thinking that the following clips are examples of the kind of amazing sound you're referring to - the kind of 3D sounds that couldn't possibly be replicated with software?

(those are your comments?)

I'm confident I can nail any of those sounds using a decent software analogue synth emulation. And I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. How about you?

It is ironic that this recent analog boom is happening right when software has gotten awesome. To me, it almost seems that people realized how much better DIVA is than their other softsynths and became interested in real analogs because of it. What we really need is a u-he DSP card.

To me that D**a comparison is pretty much pointless and nobody really needed that here.
I got that softsynth too but nobody could force me to post a comparison with it.

Of course i did always know which softsynth hakey was talking about several times but mentioning this here finally is nothing else than a derailment IMO.

Even a comparison with the Sub Phatty is pretty much pointless IMO as the features are quite different. The Bass station II seems to be much closer feature wise.


Ingo

[Kriminal]

Maybe its about sound quality, not feature set...

[Oden]

Waldorf pulse costs around the same as Minibrute and Bass station 2 in Europe. Still not sure what to pick up though...

[Bronto Scorpio]

A big + for the Pulse 2 is that it's a desktop synth and has no keyboard, at least for me. I don't understand why almost all synths still have keyboards these days, doesn't everyone already have at least one master keyboard?

I know I'm quite alone with this opinion but I also much prefer the interface of the Pulse to "one knob per function" designs. Why? There is not much in the world that annoys me as much as parameter jumps when recalling presets etc.
I actually like the layout a lot! Six knobs are enough for me as I don't think I'll ever tweak more than two knobs at a time and the parameters seem to be grouped really well.

Cheers
Dennis

[hakey]

Even a comparison with the Sub Phatty is pretty much pointless IMO as the features are quite different.

Comparisons with analogue mono synths hardly constitute a derailment in a thread about an analogue mono synth.

Certainly not worth getting worked up about.

[Ingonator]

Maybe its about sound quality, not feature set...

I prefer the sound quality and features of the Pulse 2 over any of my softsynths (and i also got the D*** synth...) and even over my Moog Slim Phatty.

Funny thing is that those people here seem to dislike the Pulse 2 that never have really used it themselves.

Also if based on the audio demos you think it sounds bad your ears must be broken...


Ingo

[himalaya]

I don't understand why almost all synths still have keyboards these days, doesn't everyone already have at least one master keyboard?

Take my example: I'm surrounded by hardware synths in my room, and I can turn to each one as the inspiration strikes. I can play a solo on one of the mono analogs while playing chords on one of the polys, then quickly jump to another duo like that...etc. Admittedly, this way of working is not really suitable for the latest complextronicdubminimaltekno, but for noodling away all night it's a dream come true!.

Having said that, I don't have any more room for new keyboards, so a desktop unit like the new Pulse is very convenient (that's why I like my Boomstar 5089 as it's a nice little box).

[Shy]

I have yet to come by the explanation why analogue synths should be superior to VA/softsynths which makes sense to me, because people tend to use very meaningless terms to describe the differences.

That's perfectly understandable. First of all there is no reason analog synths SHOULD be superior to digital synths. With a proper design, a digital synth's oscillator can sound identical (yes, identical, not similar) to a good analog oscillator. The deficiencies in digital oscillator implementations start with artifacts caused by large calculation errors which accumulate the more you use high frequency tones or modulation sources and the more things are working at once. For example audio rate frequency modulation of an oscillator with another, while hard synced to another oscillator and ring modulated - you can expect horrible results, while with an equivalent patch with an analog synth, it willjust behave/sound as it should. Not because "analog is better", because the digital implementation has accumulating errors which result in unintended artifacts in the sound, in the form of unwanted additional tones and the intended tones being "broken" since they lack "definition".

Whatever, that's just oscillators. Let's say you use a simple bread and butter sound, not some crazy hard synced and modulating shit. With a proper digital implementation, it is easy to get the same sound as whatever super mega awesome legendary bullshit analog synth, as far as the oscillators go. But then you have the filter, and that's a whole world of pain. Unlike oscillators, which are basically a "simple", fundamental thing, a filter can be built in many ways and there are many filter designs, and what makes up a filter is not as fundamental and basic as what makes up a basic analog waveform (basic electricity), they can be made from circuits where each component in them has its own unique characteristics because each transistor, resistor, diode, whatever that makes up the filter, is a versatile device with unique specifications determined by the manufacturer and the sound is determined not just by the design (how things are connected to each other and defined), but by the unique characteristics of some of the components in the circuit. If after some hard work, someone manages to simulate (model) the behavior of the real filter circuit in a specific (and static) setting, they then have to start modeling other settings, then go back and fix their code, and after a while start to work on the dynamic behavior of the circuit, like with different input levels and modulating of the cutoff frequency point, and that's the hardest part where there's the least success in getting a "convincing" result, or more importantly, "as good sounding". The bottom line is: it's not at all impossible to get a result that's as good as a good analog filter's, it's just f**king hard. The filter's sound is a huge part of a synth's overall sound, and it's usually what makes people define one synth "fat, wide, 3D, tasty, grainy, some other bullshit term" and another "thin, anorexic, sterile, cold, blah blah", and they don't even know it.

"Synth on a chip" based synths (that use CEM or SSM filters for example), may use the chip for just the filter part, or for filter as well as envelopes, or for the oscillators as well. People who dismiss those chips as "bad sounding" may have a good reason to, because they know some crappy synths based on them, but synths like PPG Wave 2, Prophet 5, Elka Synthex, use such chips for the filter and those synths sound really, really great.

Pulse's and Q+'s filter sounds fine, but from all I've heard, Waldorf's new filter in the Pulse 2 is among their best yet. Anyway, like I said many pages back, it would be nice to hear Pulse VS Pulse 2 with equivalent settings. I'd bet Pulse 2 would sound better, even if not "as fat" (the Pulse filter tends to make the bass loud, apparently).

[Ingonator]

Even a comparison with the Sub Phatty is pretty much pointless IMO as the features are quite different.

Comparisons with analogue mono synths hardly constitute a derailment in a thread about an analogue mono synth.

Certainly not worth getting worked up about.

But someone like you forcing a hardware vs software discussion is a derailment for sure and as already mentioned i'll not participate in that discussion here by starting a comparison etc.

For me the Pulse 2 is superior to all software i own, end of story for me.


Ingo

[Kriminal]

Maybe its about sound quality, not feature set...

I prefer the sound quality and features of the Pulse 2 over any of my softsynths (and i also got the D*** synth...) and even over my Moog Slim Phatty.

Funny thing is that those people here seem to dislike the Pulse 2 that never have really used it themselves.

Also if based on the audio demos you think it sounds bad your ears must be broken...


Ingo

So basically, if anyone disagrees with you, they are wrong/have broken ears


And you wonder why no-one takes you seriously...

[Bronto Scorpio]

I don't understand why almost all synths still have keyboards these days, doesn't everyone already have at least one master keyboard?

Take my example: I'm surrounded by hardware synths in my room, and I can turn to each one as the inspiration strikes. I can play a solo on one of the mono analogs while playing chords on one of the polys, then quickly jump to another duo like that...etc. Admittedly, this way of working is not really suitable for the latest complextronicdubminimaltekno, but for noodling away all night it's a dream come true!.

Having said that, I don't have any more room for new keyboards, so a desktop unit like the new Pulse is very convenient (that's why I like my Boomstar 5089 as it's a nice little box).

That's definitely true! It's also a lot more inspiring to play a synth with a dedicated keyboard, controls etc. In my opinion the real advantage of hardware is exactly that and not the sound.

I'm still surprised that there are so many keyboard synths around though. For most people a desktop or rack synth would be much more comfortable imo.

I would really like to check out the Pulse 2 one day, even if it's not the number one on my wishlist when it comes to small desktop synths (That would be an Analog 4, a Shruthi 1 or a RetroWave R-1).

Cheers
Dennis

[hakey]

But someone like you forcing a hardware vs software discussion is a derailment

I wasn't forcing anything.

Seriously, chill out.

[Ingonator]

Maybe its about sound quality, not feature set...

I prefer the sound quality and features of the Pulse 2 over any of my softsynths (and i also got the D*** synth...) and even over my Moog Slim Phatty.

Funny thing is that those people here seem to dislike the Pulse 2 that never have really used it themselves.

Also if based on the audio demos you think it sounds bad your ears must be broken...


Ingo

So basically, if anyone disagrees with you, they are wrong/have broken ears


And you wonder why no-one takes you seriously...

I guess that anyone at KVR knows that you disagree to any synth that i have "endorsed" in the past.

And yes my opinion is that anyone who thinks the Pulse 2 sounds bad should check his ears.

To be honest i am also not as "fanatic" as other concerning the fact if the Pulse 2 sounds 100% identical to the Pulse 1 or not, especially if we talk about extreme settings like distortion which could be easily done by adding some Tube Drive in the Pulse 2. Important is that i could easily load/import Pulse 1 banks to the Pulse 2 and that those imported sounds are sounding great IMO.


Ingo

[hakey]

Also if based on the audio demos you think it sounds bad your ears must be broken...

Tempted to say that anyone who thinks the following clips sound good has broken ears, but that might just be down to my refined tastes or something.

https://soundcloud.com/gryke/waldorf-pulse-2-extra-bits

https://soundcloud.com/gryke/waldorf-pulse-2

[milwel traamen]

Ehm why discussing software vs hardware. As far as I know both have there good things and bad things. The pulse is a great analog synth. Not only a mono synth but the paraphonic modes as a gift. Also the modulation and the filter fm that is really good. And yeah there are more synths like novation and the minibrute. But I dont think this thread is about other synths.

All those opinions here. But they didnt touch a button of the new actual synth at all. Let alone hear it actually. Go to the shop and try it yourself. You would be amazed. function wise and sound wise.

Lets talk about the pulse again!

Thanks!