ARP 2600 Clone?

[ghettosynth]

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...

While I agree, if you qualify better as "better value", then I think that the free ones might be just that, depends on what you're looking to get out of the synth.

But, you're right in the sense that they don't sound as good as the commercial variants.

[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

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

Probably not if he thinks in terms of most precise emulations, I'll give you that. However going from this probability to advice him not to give them a try is a little too conclusive. He may like them for what they are in terms of "VSTis with similar architeture" or he may find that arppe2600v emulates his favorite patches to an extent, where there is no need for a commercial one.
As you see, some claim that none of them really emulate the arp, so this leaves room for considering them in their own right depending on your needs.

[ENV1]

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):

I havent listened to it yet, but i can tell you right now that if it involves very high resonance this will probably be a futile endeavor, because as i said, the 2600Vs filter is lacking the 'growl' the real 4012 has at high resonance, and obviously thats no small factor. I might give it a shot just for the fun of it anyway, but i highly doubt that it will be anywhere near as closely matched as in the other clips id posted if very high resonance is indeed playing a crucial role.


As for the comptests in general, (well, mine anyway), IMO when you do such tests you obviously begin with the basics, (i.e. Oscs, Filter and Envs), because if these things are off by a parsec already you obviously neednt waste another minute on it. Also these elements are also what ultimately defines the fundamental character of a synthesizer, so thats what im always checking first, and from what i can see the 2600V is doing pretty well indeed because the fundamental character that should be there according to the reference material definitely is there.

(Of course things like the missing filter growl and the Saws ramping in the wrong direction (downwards instead of upwards) are things that should have been addressed years ago. Still, and thats really the whole point, the basics are close enough to speak of an actual emulation, i.e. you are not just dealing with a graphical copy of the hardwares UI slapped around 'some sound generator', you actually do get the character of the real thing, which proves that the emulation is nowhere near as bad as some peoples statements/opinions would imply. (I mean one guy all but accused Arturia of committing fraud. I mean...wow.))

Anyway, will these tests against reference material from the hardware ultimately reveal that the emulation is 100% accurate in every regard? No. Of course not. And i already know that. IMO the fact alone that plugins are software running on a digital system makes it pretty clear that you cannot expect each and every nuance present in a analog-synth -> analog-amplifier configuration, i.e. the ultimate question will always be 'how close is it'. So far i havent had any problems matching stuff to my reference material; whether this will remain so remains to be seen. I will probably do some more basic stuff first, (personally i see very little practical use in patches that use 582 patchcables just to modulate everything to death), but i will check if i can find something like that in my reference material too so i can compare this aspect as well. I will keep you posted.

[ImNotDedYet]

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...

Probably not if he thinks in terms of most precise emulations, I'll give you that. However going from this probability to advice him not to give them a try is a little too conclusive. He may like them for what they are in terms of "VSTis with similar architeture" or he may find that arppe2600v emulates his favorite patches to an extent, where there is no need for a commercial one.
As you see, some claim that none of them really emulate the arp, so this leaves room for considering them in their own right depending on your needs.

LOL, that's exactly what OP was asking! What are opinions on the best ARP 2600? He/she was asking for opinions. If he/she was willing to demo the freebies, he/she would have already.

[ghettosynth]

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):

I havent listened to it yet, but i can tell you right now that if it involves very high resonance this will probably be a futile endeavor, because as i said, the 2600Vs filter is lacking the 'growl' the real 4012 has at high resonance, and obviously thats no small factor. I might give it a shot just for the fun of it anyway, but i highly doubt that it will be anywhere near as closely matched as in the other clips id posted if very high resonance is indeed playing a crucial role.

Not only that, but FM of the filter as well.

As for the comptests in general, (well, mine anyway), IMO when you do such tests you obviously begin with the basics, (i.e. Oscs, Filter and Envs), because if these things are off by a parsec already you obviously neednt waste another minute on it.

I completely disagree. Turn up the resonance, sweep the filter, that is always the first test because it immediately tells you whether you are dealing with a quality analog emulation or an outdated one. It takes less than a minute and it's the first thing that I do with any synth. This test tells you so much about the character of the filter which will define so much about the character of the synth.

Also these elements are also what ultimately defines the fundamental character of a synthesizer, so thats what im always checking first, and from what i can see the 2600V is doing pretty well indeed because the fundamental character that should be there according to the reference material definitely is there.

I really don't agree. I think that the filter is responsible for the bulk of the character of the sound in most analog and virtual analog synths. The further the filter is away from the real thing, the less authentic it will sound. I'm not going to point fingers because it will serve no purpose and would be rude, but, I've seen simple examples like you've presented used to sell certain synths as quality clones of the original when it's known from the technology involved that the synths are generic synth.

(Of course things like the missing filter growl and the Saws ramping in the wrong direction (downwards instead of upwards) are things that should have been addressed years ago.

Well, it wasn't really possible when the 2600v came out and I suspect that it's non-trivial to revisit an emulation's code without a lot of testing, so it's not cheap to just replace it with a more modern filter. That's Uhe's advantage, since he's not cloning a specific synth, there's no pressure to make the controls match exactly, it just has to sound good.

Still, and thats really the whole point, the basics are close enough to speak of an actual emulation, i.e. you are not just dealing with a graphical copy of the hardwares UI slapped around 'some sound generator', you actually do get the character of the real thing, which proves that the emulation is nowhere near as bad as some peoples statements/opinions would imply. (I mean one guy all but accused Arturia of committing fraud. I mean...wow.))

I'm not going all the way to fraud, that's a stretch, but I don't agree that it's a capable emulation of a modular, it just doesn't sound good pushed. You don't need 582 patch cables, just a couple, that's why I suggested the Frankenstein patch, it's really simple, and yet it reveals what a real modular, or a capable emulation is good for, and why the Arturia isn't quite the way there for that.

If you want to do slow modulations driven by the sequencer and not push the filter too hard, it's good for that. And, of course, since it's polyphonic, that's nice, you can create some nice berlin school type sounds with it. The modular aspect makes it immediate, but it falls apart when you want it to be a real modular.

[IncarnateX]

LOL, that's exactly what OP was asking! What are opinions on the best ARP 2600? He/she was asking for opinions.

Maybe, bit the OP asks where to find it and mentions nothing of opinions. However, my opinion is that he should decide for himself. Still the best advice. But You do know what they say about opinions, right? What jerk would basically decide from these, when you can test it yourself. It's not like people agree, is it?

However, the OP is an oldie and doesn't really need advice on this at all, so let's stop pretending this is for real. It is the principles of "as if it was true" we are dealing with here. A chance for another emulation debate for the pioneers in this KVR discipline.

[ENV1]

As for the comptests in general, (well, mine anyway), IMO when you do such tests you obviously begin with the basics, (i.e. Oscs, Filter and Envs), because if these things are off by a parsec already you obviously neednt waste another minute on it.

I completely disagree. Turn up the resonance, sweep the filter, that is always the first test because it immediately tells you whether you are dealing with a quality analog emulation or an outdated one. It takes less than a minute and it's the first thing that I do with any synth. This test tells you so much about the character of the filter which will define so much about the character of the synth.

Well, i disagree. The filter is certainly an important part to check, but rating an entire synthesizer only based on that aspect would be a little too superficial for my taste because in the end it will only tell me something about the filter, and i consider Oscs and Envs at least equally important contributors to a synthesizers character.

Also these elements are also what ultimately defines the fundamental character of a synthesizer, so thats what im always checking first, and from what i can see the 2600V is doing pretty well indeed because the fundamental character that should be there according to the reference material definitely is there.

I really don't agree. I think that the filter is responsible for the bulk of the character of the sound in most analog and virtual analog synths. The further the filter is away from the real thing, the less authentic it will sound. I'm not going to point fingers because it will serve no purpose and would be rude, but, I've seen simple examples like you've presented used to sell certain synths as quality clones of the original when it's known from the technology involved that the synths are generic synth.

No problem. Like i said, i have a slightly different opinion on that, but ive learned a long time ago that one cannot expect everyone to share ones own views, so im happy to agree to disagree.

(Of course things like the missing filter growl and the Saws ramping in the wrong direction (downwards instead of upwards) are things that should have been addressed years ago.

Well, it wasn't really possible when the 2600v came out and I suspect that it's non-trivial to revisit an emulation's code without a lot of testing, so it's not cheap to just replace it with a more modern filter. That's Uhe's advantage, since he's not cloning a specific synth, there's no pressure to make the controls match exactly, it just has to sound good.

Well in this case the main problem could be that the original coder of the 2600V, (Xavier Oudin, now XILS lab), is no longer with Arturia. Maybe they are just having trouble working with his code, but of course i dont know that. It is a possibility though, and yes, i agree that a complete rewrite even of parts such as the filter would probably require more time and resources than Arturia are willing to put in at this time.

Still, and thats really the whole point, the basics are close enough to speak of an actual emulation, i.e. you are not just dealing with a graphical copy of the hardwares UI slapped around 'some sound generator', you actually do get the character of the real thing, which proves that the emulation is nowhere near as bad as some peoples statements/opinions would imply. (I mean one guy all but accused Arturia of committing fraud. I mean...wow.))

I'm not going all the way to fraud, that's a stretch, but I don't agree that it's a capable emulation of a modular, it just doesn't sound good pushed. You don't need 582 patch cables, just a couple, that's why I suggested the Frankenstein patch, it's really simple, and yet it reveals what a real modular, or a capable emulation is good for, and why the Arturia isn't quite the way there for that.

Well, ill get to that. Ive already made a few presets for my personal use that use audio-rate modulations and found them quite alright, but if the comparison with the reference material should reveal that certain things really dont sound right then i will say that too because im not interested in being 'right', only in the facts. (And the facts are what they are.)

[ImNotDedYet]

LOL, that's exactly what OP was asking! What are opinions on the best ARP 2600? He/she was asking for opinions.

Maybe, bit the OP asks where to find it and mentions nothing of opinions. However, my opinion is that he should decide for himself. Still the best advice. But You do know what they say about opinions, right? What jerk would basically decide from these, when you can test it yourself. It's not like people agree, is it?

However, the OP is an oldie and doesn't really need advice on this at all, so let's stop pretending this is for real. It is the principles of "as if it was true" we are dealing with here. A chance for another emulation debate for the pioneers in this KVR discipline.

Perhaps I incorrectly identified someone halfway through the thread complaining about the multiple people claiming that no one had nailed the 2600, and they just wanted to know "the best." I just figured that was the OP.

I'm not going to go into semantics here, but anyone that comes on an Internet forum and asks, "what's the best way to get such and such a sound" is asking a bunch of strangers around the world for their opinion.

But I will agree with you, that the best course of action is to demo the options available and make a decision for yourself. The problem is, people may not know what those options are without asking for the opinions of a bunch of strangers on the Internet.

My experiences over the last couple years of making electronic music, both ITB and OTB, is that I could care less if someone nailed an emulation of some piece of hardware. If it sounds good to my ears, it's good. 99.9 percent of people listening to my music (which equates to about 2 people) are not going to know what hardware I'm trying to emulate. And even the .1% of people that listen to my music (which equates to about 1/100th of a person) that do recognize the hardware I'm trying to emulate, aren't going to care if it's the actual hardware device or just sounds good in the song.

[fluffy_little_something]

Maybe a good Odyssey emulation gets close soundwise since it was the same company that made the originals, just thinking aloud here...

[BasariStudios]

The only thing that gets close to an Arp is WOW TimewArp...Arturia Sounds like a Casio CZ...lol.

[ghettosynth]

As for the comptests in general, (well, mine anyway), IMO when you do such tests you obviously begin with the basics, (i.e. Oscs, Filter and Envs), because if these things are off by a parsec already you obviously neednt waste another minute on it.

I completely disagree. Turn up the resonance, sweep the filter, that is always the first test because it immediately tells you whether you are dealing with a quality analog emulation or an outdated one. It takes less than a minute and it's the first thing that I do with any synth. This test tells you so much about the character of the filter which will define so much about the character of the synth.

Well, i disagree. The filter is certainly an important part to check, but rating an entire synthesizer only based on that aspect would be a little too superficial for my taste because in the end it will only tell me something about the filter, and i consider Oscs and Envs at least equally important contributors to a synthesizers character.

In your own words, if the filter is "off by a parsec", there's no point in wasting any more time. Clearly, if the filter passes the test then you move on to other things, however, for many synths that pass those other things just fine, they fail on the filter. The reality is that improvements in filter technology over the last few years have made a dramatic impact on how synths sound, but, there really have not been comparable improvements in other areas. Additionally, it is most often the filter which defines a particular sound, insofar as such sounds actually exist, e.g., the Moog Ladder, and the Roland Diode variant are largely responsible, respectively for what users identify as the Moog or Roland sound.

[pdxindy]

In your own words, if the filter is "off by a parsec", there's no point in wasting any more time. Clearly, if the filter passes the test then you move on to other things, however, for many synths that pass those other things just fine, they fail on the filter. The reality is that improvements in filter technology over the last few years have made a dramatic impact on how synths sound, but, there really have not been comparable improvements in other areas. Additionally, it is most often the filter which defines a particular sound, insofar as such sounds actually exist, e.g., the Moog Ladder, and the Roland Diode variant are largely responsible, respectively for what users identify as the Moog or Roland sound.

For me, whether a filter emulation sounds reasonably close to the analog counterpart in the sense having the knobs in the same positions gives an approximation of the sound is secondary to whether the emulation has the alive character of an analog filter.

The Arturia filter does a credible job of the former... but it still sounds like a decade old digital filter. As ghettosynth said, there have been significant improvements in digital filter technology in the past few years and it shows as soon as one actually uses/pushes it. And it is not just high resonance, but also with filter FM, fast cutoff modulation or feedback.

There is something satisfying in how an analog filter can sound on a mono/legato patch when jumping up/down a couple octaves with keytracking. The filter sounds so solid even with such a fast modulation.

[EnGee]

n/m

[electro]

The only thing that gets close to an Arp is WOW TimewArp...Arturia Sounds like a Casio CZ...lol.

The WOW emulation had posted audio demos of filter sweeps since its introduction 10 years ago.

[ENV1]

In your own words, if the filter is "off by a parsec", there's no point in wasting any more time.

Yeah, but the 2600Vs filter isnt off by a parsec. (Quite the contrary.) There certainly is room for improvement, especially with regards to high resonance, and ive already conceded that. But this does by no means negate the fact that the filter is doing pretty well at low and no resonance, so the only thing that can be said here is that certain aspects of it can still be made better. Anything beyond that just isnt based on fact.

(I mean, sorry for being blunt, but have you even listened to the first clip i posted? Wouldnt you say that these 2 non-resonant filter sweeps sound pretty darn identical? So how can a filter which is 'total crap' sound so identical to the hardware? I mean you do see the problem here, right?)

You see, i prefer to see things realistically. The way they really are. And when i see a filter emulation which is close but not perfect then that is exactly how i would describe it. Close but not perfect. Anything outside of that really doesnt interest me because anything outside of that isnt facts.

Clearly, if the filter passes the test then you move on to other things, however, for many synths that pass those other things just fine, they fail on the filter.

The point is that the emulation is just fine in many regards. And this fact wont change no matter what anyone says, i.e. there is no point in arguing about it because everyone with enough motivation to do it can prove this very easily. A synthesizer is not only its filter, or its audio-rate modulations. There is a whole lot more to it, so if most of the things are right and only certain specific aspects call for improvement then i obviously cant say that the whole thing is crap if i want to be realistic. The only thing that i CAN say in this situation is that certain specific aspects call for improvement. Anything else would be pointless, not in accordance with the facts, and helping noone.