Jean Michelle Jarre sounds

[eXode]

I think that Jarre is a great composer, I think he really shines on Equinoxe. Equinoxe Part III is a great example where he uses, imho, classical structures and harmonies. Many people think that Jarre's music is simple, but imho that is part of the trick, to make it seem simple. If you take time and listen to the actual structure and various components of his music you will see that it's very clever and deeper than it might seem at first.

[Chris-S]

Also good old FM8 can do Jarre:

[Numanoid]

Michelle?

[fluffy_little_something]

While Superwave is a bit expensive by modern standards, I don't think it is poor, poor quality. It is mediocre quality in my view, mediocre quality for people with mediocre computers

I didn't say "Superwave", Fluffy... I said "Superwave Equinox".


One of my ten preferred synths ever is... Superwave P8.

And not because of his "price" (it is free), but really because it is particularly successful, highly well designed. One of the true flasgships of the excellent SynthEdit creations.

In Mulab (an excellent DAW, like Reaper that I have also) we can create several "default configuration" (kinds of "templates") among which we can chose at each start. I have created six "Default configurations" and the P8 is in two of them in order to have it as first choice loaded immediately at the load of Mulab when choosing one of these two among my six most frequent configurations. And you can be sure... I use it very often, generally in combination with Night Flight (an awesome Eminent310 emulation for only 11 euros) and with the Korg Mono/Poly (all them are very complementary, an ideal combination).

I have not tried the new Superwave synth. Actually, it is basically the same as the old Ultimate. Your statement makes me conclude that Chris' Jarre patches are not so good. Could be, dunno. I noticed with his other synths that he has the habit of using delay with almost every patch, which is a bit annoying.

Funny you mention the P8. I disliked it a lot because velocity sensitivity was hardwired to max if I remember correctly. I am not nearly good enough to play in such a nuanced way That is why I bought his bundle, and indeed the Professional is pretty good. Even better in my view is the Trance-Pro (I hate trance, but abuse it for all kinds of old-skool sounds) because it is without Gibbs effect, thus it sounds much brighter and thus more appealing, especially in the lower octaves. And its GUI color scheme is better for my eyes.
I have about 50 to 60 patches for those two synths, unfortunately one cannot import them between the two, despite identical architecture, so I recreate them manually, parameter by parameter If the Trance-Pro had double clicking for detune controls and a 24db LP filter, I would be totally happy with it.

I have the Night Flight as well, but hardly ever use it, especially not as a string machine.

[yessongs]

Also good old FM8 can do Jarre:

Awesome makes me want fm8

[V0RT3X]

i never really got into JMJ. I tried and listened to a few albums but in the end I preferred other stuff .. like stuff from Vangelis.

I still got to give the guy kudos for his achievements though..

and it's pretty wild how he and others can manage to run all of this stuff together for a live show..


I imagine how infuriating it must have been when the synthesizers would go out of tune and stuff..

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb08/a ... mjarre.htm

[V0RT3X]

I like his quote in that SOS article though...

“By playing with real analogue stuff, you realise how unique these instruments are. All the musicians and engineers working with me said the same thing. Those instruments are incredibly rich — no one can beat that. We have fantastic virtual synthesizers and emulations of vintage instruments, and you can do lots of interesting music with the technology, but they are so different you cannot compare them — just forget it! "

[Urs]

I like his quote in that SOS article though...

“By playing with real analogue stuff, you realise how unique these instruments are. All the musicians and engineers working with me said the same thing. Those instruments are incredibly rich — no one can beat that. We have fantastic virtual synthesizers and emulations of vintage instruments, and you can do lots of interesting music with the technology, but they are so different you cannot compare them — just forget it! "

That was 2008… before things changed

[Kriminal]

i doubt he has changed his mind. Quality might have improved, but having a bank of synths infront of you just doesnt compare to sitting infront of a computer with a mouse

[eXode]

I like his quote in that SOS article though...

“By playing with real analogue stuff, you realise how unique these instruments are. All the musicians and engineers working with me said the same thing. Those instruments are incredibly rich — no one can beat that. We have fantastic virtual synthesizers and emulations of vintage instruments, and you can do lots of interesting music with the technology, but they are so different you cannot compare them — just forget it! "

That was 2008… before things changed

I know it's not exactly what Jarre is saying but it's not really about software vs hardware, imho, it's about interfacing with the instrument. Having gone through a couple of hardware synths, as well as a modular synthesizer (Eurorack format) I've come to this ultimate conclusion.

In software you are always forced to look at a damn monitor, and you cannot run your instrument without it/a computer. That will NEVER compare to having i.e. a Yamaha CS-80 in front of you, with all that direct control. Arguably if someone did a hardware controller mimicking 1:1 of all the functionality (including poly at) with the possibility to run the software inside the box (i.e. a DSP version of a CS-80). The same is true for modular imho. It's a different feeling/interaction patching physical cables and tweaking that "wall of sound" compared to a monitor and a mouse click. Generic controllers do not compare either imho.

That said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with software sound wise, and if you are comfortable working in software there's absolutely no need for being concerned when it comes to the sound quality, imho.

[Z1202]

I like his quote in that SOS article though...

“By playing with real analogue stuff, you realise how unique these instruments are. All the musicians and engineers working with me said the same thing. Those instruments are incredibly rich — no one can beat that. We have fantastic virtual synthesizers and emulations of vintage instruments, and you can do lots of interesting music with the technology, but they are so different you cannot compare them — just forget it! "

That was 2008… before things changed

Yes, there have been some advancements in getting the "basic analog sound" right since then. But analog synths are so much more than that. Besides the "perfect" side of analog sound, there is an incredible number of imperfections, contributing to the richness of the sound. And my belief, is that, while, as the perfect side of the analog sound goes, we are pretty close, at the same time we are still rather at the beginning of the path, as the imperfections go.

Edit: to make myself more clear. The examples of the perfect side:
- no aliasing
- consistent response of the filters at different signal and cutoff frequencies
- smooth modulation behavior of filters even at audio-rate modulations
The imperfect side:
- the specifics of the oscillator tuning issues (the random "detune" is just a very basic first shot to emulate that)
- various saturations (I believe that even Antti's model of the Moog filter is not "fully close")
- various leakages (which are not really arbitrary)
- lots more

Furthermore, in a real analog synth, these imperfections are tuned against each other at the stage of the synth prototyping, so that they interact in a nice and musical way. Personally I don't think that the engineers who constructed those synths were explicitly aware of the "musical significance" of those imperfections, but they invested time into the sonic and musical consistency of the final product. In the modern VA emulations the primary goal is to be "close to the original". But it's never possible to be 100% close. Still, I would assume that instead of musical consistency tuning, the effort is being put into being as close as possible (because those two goals are somewhat contradicting, as long as the sound is not 100% identical, and you have to choose between the two).

Edit2: also the analog synths were made for professional musicians and aimed to substitute (if not fully replace) the "real" instruments. So they had to compete against real instruments in playability, expression, response etc. OTOH, if you look at the modern software synth market, the 99% of the customer demand is just for the "features". Some people complain about more "musical" issues, but their voice is drowned in the roar of the rest

[fluffy_little_something]

I think having as many synths as shown on that studio pic is counterproductive. I would get lost in sound design and technology instead of making music And my music would be too synth-etic

[murnau]

michelle???

[Numanoid]

and it's pretty wild how he and others can manage to run all of this stuff together for a live show..

How "live" was that? Didn't Dreyfus sue him because the Oxygene live record sounded just like the original Oxygene from 1976

As analogue gear has such lifes of their own, it's quite strange that they sound exactly the same 30 years later

[murnau]

I think having as many synths as shown on that studio pic is counterproductive. I would get lost in sound design and technology instead of making music And my music would be too synth-etic

interesting sidenote. i think thats the difference between you both.