ARP 2600 Clone?

[JonSolo]

I agree MOSTLY with the comments...in the end it hardly matters. The sound will be a part of a larger context, that of the music. The arguments against VA's over the years have honestly left me stunned with the pettiness of the snobs. We live in an incredible time where you do not need tens of thousands of dollars to own good equipment, put a song together, and release an album. Regardless of anyone's opinions of modern music, many of the top selling albums released in the past 5 years had a $150 synth plugin at the fore...one that mimic's no dinosaur like the 2600.

On the other hand I DO appreciate enthusiasts who love playing with and tweaking the old synths so much that a renaissance (here is that word again) is occurring causing hardware manufacturers to release new synths...even mimicking the old ones.

As far as GUI tweakability...

I remember going from a Polysix to a Poly800 when I was in my early teens. It was only a decade later when I actually first made the comment that I "hated the Poly800 interface". That was a LOSER thing for me to say. I made a TON of great sounds with those two data value buttons. It forced me to work harder for what I had. Today we are spoiled. I remember walking three miles in the snow....nevermind. You get it.

[db3]

General consensus seems to be the TimewARP 2600 is more authentic sounding.

No idea what model the TimewARP is supposed to emulate, but Arturias would seem to be the model with the the newer oscillators and the 4012 VCF, which means 'authentic' ultimately depends.

I just found consensus across a number of web articles. I have no idea which is more authentic, but I certainly like the sound of the Arturia...whatever it sounds like

[ghettosynth]

I agree MOSTLY with the comments...in the end it hardly matters. The sound will be a part of a larger context, that of the music. The arguments against VA's over the years have honestly left me stunned with the pettiness of the snobs. We live in an incredible time where you do not need tens of thousands of dollars to own good equipment, put a song together, and release an album. Regardless of anyone's opinions of modern music, many of the top selling albums released in the past 5 years had a $150 synth plugin at the fore...one that mimic's no dinosaur like the 2600.

On the other hand I DO appreciate enthusiasts who love playing with and tweaking the old synths so much that a renaissance (here is that word again) is occurring causing hardware manufacturers to release new synths...even mimicking the old ones.

As far as GUI tweakability...

I remember going from a Polysix to a Poly800 when I was in my early teens. It was only a decade later when I actually first made the comment that I "hated the Poly800 interface". That was a LOSER thing for me to say. I made a TON of great sounds with those two data value buttons. It forced me to work harder for what I had. Today we are spoiled. I remember walking three miles in the snow....nevermind. You get it.

Yes, and maybe, and all of that. We are spoiled, it's very easy to create sound today. Several people have brought up really valid points, but I'm going to say something that I've said before. In general, if you know what you're doing, you wouldn't be asking this question without more context in the first place. In other words, not only does the sound need a context to be able to define how important the differences (in sound) are, without context, the recommendation doesn't matter much anyway.

As I said earlier I think that the the sequencer in the arp makes it a good choice if what you're after is playing with the 2600 in a way that is similar to how it was played with back in the day. The 1613 is a very cool sequencer.

Ok, but soundwise, I've not put my hand on the timewarp, but, I can say without hesitation that it cannot be significantly better than anything else simply because it is as old as everything else and has not been updated. The technology changes in recent years simply have made newer synths that are actively developed by developers who understand the newer technology significantly better than old technology. Now, the Arturia version also has crap filters and I agree with the other poster who suggested playing with the free unit might meet OPs needs.

If you really care about the sound, you will avoid all of these, period. The poster who observed that Reaktor is the best way to go to get the sound is correct, but it won't be easy. Then again, if that's over your head, getting real sounds out of a 2600 probably is also.

You can get bent at wagtunes, but, he's largely correct, there isn't a good emulation of the 2600. A good emulation would have a good interface, modern zdf filters, audio rate modulation, and significant attention paid to the details of the 2600. None of the emulations do any of these things really. Some of the interfaces aren't bad and if the goal is to work like you would work with the 2600 then they'll do, also agreed that the arturia is hard as hell to read.

But if you want it to sound like a 2600 then as another poster pointed out, it depends so much on the details of modulation and interaction of the elements. I don't think the OP cares about this or is prepared to deal with any of these details, to that end, I don't think that the OP really needs a 2600 emulation unless the goal is to strictly work with the interface like you'd work with the 2600. If the OP did, he would have provided more context for a better recommendation.

I'm not a purist, I love analog gear, but I love plugins as well and almost everything that I do today is ITB. But, if you can't hear how bad the Arturia and Timewarp filters are then you just don't have the experience to comment on it. I'm not being a snob here, I use the Arturia, but it's filter is terrible. What I think is fun about it is playing with the 1613 emulation. If I don't want that, then you'll get much more mileage out of either ACE or Bazille.

So, here's the missing context:

If you

1) Care about being able to see the interface and you want to work like you would work with the 2600 : timewarp
2) Care about being able to use the sequencer and hope that someday the filters will be updated: Arturia
3) Care about being able to get complex modular like sounds but not so much the exact filter sound : ACE/Bacille
4) Care about being able to get complex modular sounds and really want to nail the filter sound: Reaktor Blocks (with the caveat that you will have to work your ass off to get the sounds that you want)

5) Care about all of the above and want it in one product ready to go: As wagtunes correctly points out, there's no such thing.

[jancivil]

I know I've downloaded at least one Reaktor '2600' attempt from User Library. My exposure to a real-life 2600 was just once, we borrowed one for a recording session. I don't recollect doing much with it, it was about a strings, violins type patch which we had no way of doing. We coveted it, surely. ca. 1974?

The sound of it, of a number of things of that vintage, really tend to fix to the era to my view. I'm just not impelled to capture that one for what I'd make. I don't know from any of these attempts, incl. whatever Reaktor I d'l'd. I did d'l the free Minimoog Arturia availed us of a couple yrs ago. Now, Minimoog I happened to spend a lot of time with, both in the mid-70's and after I started really composing in 1980. So, I messed with this Arturia job for a second. It was kind of like a scanned photo, you can tell what the picture is of, but it's at a certain remove, out of a lack of grain. I wasn't moved to do any music with that. I think Minimoog rather transcends the status of 'referent', I think that's been demonstrated. So after I obtained Monark, I was really ready to apply it. Technically, I suppose the Arturia's filter and envelope are too sluggish. The Minimoog has been studied, and Bob Moog has written on it so it seems clear there are things going on that are def. analog and more than the sum of parts.

So, to say "this isn't any 2600" is basically a tautology. The Monark is not a Minimoog. This sample of a trombone is not a trombone.



The Monark worked in a couple of tracks for me. In one, it was alongside a (73 EP Deconstructed) patch called "70s Cop Show". So, I'm not averse to the referential aspect even as the music is not directly that thing. I care about the Monark technically, because apparently its referent is a part of my vocabulary. But for me the more interesting is: Where does the musicality quotient place vis a vis "ARP 2600"? Some of this (cf., Roland Sound Canvas, or "You have no business even mentioning the Fender Rhodes!") type of discussion is kind of fetishistic to me. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[zerocrossing]

i'm not really sure how one can say timewarp sounds more 'authentic' than the arturia ... to me it smacks of echo-chamber commentary that just keeps bouncing back and forth, gathering more 'truth' with each repitition.

its a modular synth ... so, if say the oscillator sounds closer on one VS the other, or the filter sounds closer ... ok, that's probably fine if your patch simply involves an oscillator being run through the filter with a basic amp envelope. and maybe that's enough to say one is more authentic than the other ? maybe. you could argue that.

but is that the kind of patch most people get a machine/plugin like this to knock out ? i propose not .... to me, it seems more likely that people will be making patches that look like a plate of spaghetti - coupled with the sequencer - and I have my doubts that anyone has done such a shoot out between one of the 2600 hardware variations in 'good' calibration, vs the latest arturia, vs the latest timewarp with these kind of patches. if they have, I haven't read such shoot outs and/or heard any demos.

authenticity wasn't what was asked for anyway ... just which is the best ... and for my money the best would be the arturia .... it's kept up to date, there is no sign of arturia disappearing or abandoning it. you can demo it. wayoutware's timewarp ? ... i don't feel confident spending money with that developer, the plugin seems like abandonware and ...if I'm not mistaken, you can't demo it ? wayoutware also have conducted themselves in a shady manner as developer for roger linn's hardware product.

ymmv.

Yeah, I agree with all of that. I'd never give Wayoutwear another cent. Slimeball. 2600v has that mushy indistinct Arturia sound, but you can get some interesting stuff out of it. If there is anyone who can do it, it's Gforce. They did a great job with the Oddity 2 it seems like the time is really right for a good 2600 emulation.

[ghettosynth]

I know I've downloaded at least one Reaktor '2600' attempt from User Library. My exposure to a real-life 2600 was just once, we borrowed one for a recording session. I don't recollect doing much with it, it was about a strings, violins type patch which we had no way of doing. We coveted it, surely. ca. 1974?

To be clear, I did not mean that any existing 2600 library entry is the way to go. I was specifically referring to patching your own variant of the 2600, or just patches from the 2600, together using blocks modules. It is very unlikely that anything in the U/L that purports to emulate the 2600 implements audio rate modulation in the right places.

That said, it is unlikely that you will get the full experience because you are going to run into CPU limitations when you try to make an ensemble both generic enough and complete enough to fully emulate the 2600.

But, you can almost certainly take a 2600 patch, choose the right blocks and perhaps some other elements, wire it up, and obtain a more convincing emulation than any of the existing clones.

So, to say "this isn't any 2600" is basically a tautology. The Monark is not a Minimoog. This sample of a trombone is not a trombone.

Yes, but, if you go that far then there's not much point in having any conversation about it. No the Monark isn't a Minimoog, but it's a damn good emulation. No Diva is not a Juno, but it's a damn good emulation. You can't construct a sentence like that for the 2600 as there are only bad emulations. I can't say much about a trumpet, but the existing 2600 emulations are to the 2600 as the Sound Canvas is to a trumpet.

What I'm trying to get across is to say that if you are willing to accept the filter in the Arturia, then it doesn't matter to you, from a sound quality point of view, which one you choose. It's like trying to argue the value of a better trumpet library, or a real trumpet, to someone who is willing to accept the sound canvas. The existing models only emulate the original in a very superficial manner.

[jancivil]

So, to say "this isn't any 2600" is basically a tautology. The Monark is not a Minimoog. This sample of a trombone is not a trombone.

Yes, but, if you go that far then there's not much point in having any conversation about it. No the Monark isn't a Minimoog, but it's a damn good emulation. No Diva is not a Juno, but it's a damn good emulation. You can't construct a sentence like that for the 2600 as there are only bad emulations. I can't say much about a trumpet, but the existing 2600 emulations are to the 2600 as the Sound Canvas is to a trumpet.

I don't think acknowledgement of that reality excludes any middle or obliterates discourse on it. I take eg., Monark as thing-in-itself. It is at the end of the day significantly more useful to me than the Minimoog (partly because of extras). The je nais se quoi element (either in its tactility or in sound products of synergistics in its circuitry) is not all that consequential to me. And the people this is very important to will basically want the real thing. Just like an argument against using a (eg., Rhodes) sample library is at cross-purposes to those of us who find the "deficient" product quite useful (or even opens up new possibilities ->73 deconstructed).

I expect that what you and others have stated about these 2600 attempts is pretty much true, so I'm really positing Monark as a difference. I'm glad I don't have anything in mind for ARP 2600. It didn't - ARP as a whole didn't - leave much of a mark on me.

[ENV1]

Since the talk-to-evidence ratio is once again rather low, (low on the evidence side i mean), heres some more audio to check out.

This is hardware ARP AXXE vs ARP 2600V. Say what you want, but if that doesnt fall in the category 'indistinguishable' then i dont know what will. Or put differently, if that doesnt sound just like the ARP hardware then i should probably quit synthesizers because i obviously must be misunderstanding something.

More 2600 vs 2600V comparisons when i have time.

[IncarnateX]

FWIW, I had a good deal of fun with this Glen Stegner’s Arppe2600v freebie when it came out. It is here along with another freebie emulation, which I haven’t tested:

http://blog.wavosaur.com/2-free-arp-260 ... set-banks/

If you consider buying one of the commercial ones, I hope it is because you like just the sound better and don't make any illusions of hearing an original arp2600 when you click the mouse and close your eyes. The matching of highly compressed MP3s doesn't really say much IME. And this emulating thingy is beginning to get outdated anyway now that Korg reproduces the original hardware as close as they can and loads of other affordable analog gear.

Best advice to OP must be: Download the freebies and the demos of the commercial ones and judge yourself. If you want it to sound "close" and not just "good" to you, you can always find some sound snippets here and there and try to reproduce them on each VSTi.

Yeah yeah. I'll split now, unless one of you provokes me to stay and fight about these trivialities
C’ya

[Krezie]

Hmmm... This is one of those discussions that can go on endlessly....

In my opinion:
A software emulation is an emulation, and thus an as good as possible approximation from the programmer which can be a very nice synth. Of course it might be that emulation X nails it a little better than emulation Y, and it's up to the customer to check what fits them best. Take it for what it is, and be glad that today we have great synths at affordable prices

My 2 cents

[Ingonator]

For those who do think that TimewARP 2600 is not good enough i would recommend not to thery the free 2600 plugins as those sound much worse IMO.

While TimewARP 2600 is already old it is still one of the most analog sounding plugins IMO with a great low end.
When i did my commercial soundbank for Waldorf PPG Wave 3.V (that could do sample playback too...) some of the samples i had created for it were based on patches i had done with TimewARP 2600 (including some FM(crossmidulation stuff...).

The Arturia emulation is nice (got it with V-Collection 4) and has additional features like the step sequencer and multmode filter (that was not included in the real thing...) but IMO TimewARP 260 just sounds better.

[ghettosynth]

Since the talk-to-evidence ratio is once again rather low, (low on the evidence side i mean), heres some more audio to check out.

This is hardware ARP AXXE vs ARP 2600V. Say what you want, but if that doesnt fall in the category 'indistinguishable' then i dont know what will. Or put differently, if that doesnt sound just like the ARP hardware then i should probably quit synthesizers because i obviously must be misunderstanding something.

More 2600 vs 2600V comparisons when i have time.

If you want to produce a meaningful comparison, then rapidly modulate the filter with high resonance or setup some significant audio rate modulation. That kind of basic bass sound isn't interesting at all. If that's what you want, then any of the mentioned synths will get close enough that it doesn't matter. Of course, unless you've modified your axe, you're not going to be able to do much with it that pushes the envelope.

These kinds of comparisons always come up in these threads. If all you want is the sound of an ARP Axe, then you don't need a 2600. So, the assumption when people ask about the 2600 is that they want the modular complexity of it. If you don't, then it's just three oscillators and an ARP filter.

My suggestion is to start with the patch called Edgar.WinterFkst and post your sample when you get close to this (sweep starts at about 6:50):



Note, that's actual live playing and so the standard arguments that you have all of this production gear on top of the synth doesn't really hold. Also, I'm only asking you to get at least as convincing as the youtube video, so the argument about youtube compression/artifacts doesn't hold either. Finally, this is a fairly slow sweep of the filter, you can see him sweep the filter down, so it's not even a brutal test. Also note that it's the sound of the sweep that I want to hear, so his playing isn't a part of this demo either. This patch is described in Mark Vail's Vintage Synthesizers on page 119.

It's pretty clear to me that the aforementioned plasticky comments are pretty spot on when you start playing with that patch and, again, that's because the filter is not "new technology." It's usable for many types of patches, but it's not even close to the real thing. I don't believe that you will get anything close to the richness that is immediately clear in that video. If I get time and I feel like it, perhaps I'll create this patch with blocks. I can assure you that the blocks patch will be more believable and it is completely a function of the quality of the filters.

The Arturia synth is useful, yes, and IMNSHO, the 1613 is a huge part of that because it's fun and quirky. It's not even close to the same class of emulation as Monark or Diva though. The thing is though, with a modular, that matters much much more than it does with a simple fixed routing synth where you can't just setup some audio rate modulation by moving a cable.

[ghettosynth]

So, to say "this isn't any 2600" is basically a tautology. The Monark is not a Minimoog. This sample of a trombone is not a trombone.

Yes, but, if you go that far then there's not much point in having any conversation about it. No the Monark isn't a Minimoog, but it's a damn good emulation. No Diva is not a Juno, but it's a damn good emulation. You can't construct a sentence like that for the 2600 as there are only bad emulations. I can't say much about a trumpet, but the existing 2600 emulations are to the 2600 as the Sound Canvas is to a trumpet.

I don't think acknowledgement of that reality excludes any middle or obliterates discourse on it.

I'm just saying that it has that effect, that it comes across as "why bother, it's not the real thing." Sure, that's true, but there are degrees of closeness to the real thing and if that's what someone is asking for then talking about how far away we are is useful. To be clear though, I agree with what you wrote below, so I'm not really wanting to belabor this.

I take eg., Monark as thing-in-itself. It is at the end of the day significantly more useful to me than the Minimoog (partly because of extras). The je nais se quoi element (either in its tactility or in sound products of synergistics in its circuitry) is not all that consequential to me. And the people this is very important to will basically want the real thing. Just like an argument against using a (eg., Rhodes) sample library is at cross-purposes to those of us who find the "deficient" product quite useful (or even opens up new possibilities ->73 deconstructed).

Yes, I agree. I think that Diva is more useful than many analogs for similar reasons. I even found that the Nord Modular, shortcomings and all, was much better for live shows than the real thing. But if you don't really want the real thing, but you want to get close, then some things get closer than others, and, IMNSHO, it's more about filter technology than anything else.

I expect that what you and others have stated about these 2600 attempts is pretty much true, so I'm really positing Monark as a difference. I'm glad I don't have anything in mind for ARP 2600. It didn't - ARP as a whole didn't - leave much of a mark on me.

Yeah, they always had the budget alternative to Moog thing going.

[IncarnateX]

For those who do think that TimewARP 2600 is not good enough i would recommend not to thery the free 2600 plugins as those sound much worse IMO.

Translation: I do not recommend you to try the freebies because I think these sound worse.

Sounds like the usual KVR advice: Don't use your ears but rely on my knowledge/preferences for they are universal because I say so!

Doesn't sound like a fair advice to me, but then again the OP has been around here long enough to know that this is what he will get when asking questions like this

[Ingonator]

For those who do think that TimewARP 2600 is not good enough i would recommend not to thery the free 2600 plugins as those sound much worse IMO.

Translation: I do not recommend you to try the freebies because I think these sound worse.

Sounds like the usual KVR advice: Don't use your ears but rely on my knowledge/preferences for they are universal because I say so!

Doesn't sound like a fair advice to me, but then again the OP has been around here long enough to know that this is what he will get when asking questions like this

No, the point of my pst was that if TimewARP 2600 is not good enough then the free ones will not be better...