What hardware are you missing in software?

[beely]

Just because something better exists, doesn't denigrate a particular instrument's appeal.

Yes, a good software synth is in many ways superior to some crappy old synth hardware, but there are still reasons why a crappy old synth can have appeal, character, nostalgia, and make interesting, useful noises, and fit in perfectly in a piece of music.

It's generally not about the "best" instrument, but the "right" instrument, or one that is inspiring to you at any given time. If that's Diva, great! If it's a Casio Vl-Tone, great!

I love how I can get a flavour of some of those old instruments I grew up with / owned / lusted after, load up those sounds, and play with an authentic interface - it makes it a fun experience, and in many ways can be a fun and more emotional experience than loading up a Falcon with 8 bazillion parameters in front of you.

More is not automatically better.

[beely]

Forward-thinking, proudly software VSTis are the ones that push the envelope.

Sure. And for some, envelope pushing is important.

Not so for others, where the music is more important. After all, there hasn't been much envelope-pushing going on with the piano for hundreds of years - it doesn't stop it being a useful instrument...

[fmr]

Not so for others, where the music is more important. After all, there hasn't been much envelope-pushing going on with the piano for hundreds of years - it doesn't stop it being a useful instrument...

You have no idea... The current concert grand piano is miles ahead of the pianos built 100 years ago

[fluffy_little_something]

I guess a 100% proper emulation of a Moog Memorymoog could be a real killer synth. So far there is only Memorymoon (owned it a while ago and sold it) and i did not feel it really nails the real thing. Besides that it currently still is a 32-bit Synth edit synth (opposing to ME80 that is also 64-bit now).

It seems to be posible to come somehow close with the Moog filter and the Jupiter 8 modules in Diva while of course this is still no proper emulation and the Memorymoog had 3 oscilators which is very rare with polyphonic analog synths (the Minimoog Oscs in Div a do not seem to allow PWM).
In the real thing only the filter seemed to be from Moog while the rest was based on CEM chips. While the Jupiter 6 seemed to be based on the same CEM3340 VCO chips the Osc module in Diva seems to be based on the Jupiter 8 that is based on Roland VCOs (and the Jupiter module has one oscillator less than a Memorymoog).
Roland MKS-80 Super-Jupiter up to Revison 4 seemed to have used the CEM3340 too (same for some Oberheim synths like OB-8 and OB-Xa). With Rev 5 Roland IR-3R03 VCO chips semed to be used.

Wasn't the Memorymoog basically just a set of (6?) integrated Minimoogs?

Luckily there are a number of software synths with 3 or more oscillators.

[do_androids_dream]

"Authentic vintage analog sound" is not the final solution for music. It's just an illusion that sells plugins, and none of the emulations took us anywhere.

Very true.

Forward-thinking, proudly software VSTis are the ones that push the envelope.

I don't know really. I tend to think that this whole idea of 'progression' or pushing the envelope is just variation on a theme. And it's about how you use it. There was subjectively 'better' and more interesting (than currently) experimental electronic going on in the 50's/60's/70's - proving that all this progression has little to do with actually progressing anything other than a different or more gimmicky way to make 'synthbass1' lol.

[Urs]

(the Minimoog Oscs in Div a do not seem to allow PWM).

But of course they do. Waveforms crossfade seamlessly, like in a Little Phatty. This can be modulated therefore Diva's Triple VCO can do PWM

[chk071]

Yes, a good software synth is in many ways superior to some crappy old synth hardware, but there are still reasons why a crappy old synth can have appeal, character, nostalgia, and make interesting, useful noises, and fit in perfectly in a piece of music.

I totally get that. For me, it's just that the advantages of software, or virtual analog, by far outshine the advantages of analog, or hardware in general, and when i take a look at used prices for "classic vintage synth", then i get pale TBH. Can get a used car or two for those prices. If hardware, then for me, it'd be something like the Virus TI Polar, with lots of control on the synth. But again, the price, the price... not to mention the necessary change of workflow. So easy working in-the-box.

[Ingonator]

I guess a 100% proper emulation of a Moog Memorymoog could be a real killer synth. So far there is only Memorymoon (owned it a while ago and sold it) and i did not feel it really nails the real thing. Besides that it currently still is a 32-bit Synth edit synth (opposing to ME80 that is also 64-bit now).

It seems to be possible to come somehow close with the Moog filter and the Jupiter 8 modules in Diva while of course this is still no proper emulation and the Memorymoog had 3 oscilators which is very rare with polyphonic analog synths (the Minimoog Oscs in Div a do not seem to allow PWM).
In the real thing only the filter seemed to be from Moog while the rest was based on CEM chips. While the Jupiter 6 seemed to be based on the same CEM3340 VCO chips the Osc module in Diva seems to be based on the Jupiter 8 that is based on Roland VCOs (and the Jupiter module has one oscillator less than a Memorymoog).
Roland MKS-80 Super-Jupiter up to Revison 4 seemed to have used the CEM3340 too (same for some Oberheim synths like OB-8 and OB-Xa). With Rev 5 Roland IR-3R03 VCO chips semed to be used.

Wasn't the Memorymoog basically just a set of (6?) integrated Minimoogs?

Luckily there are a number of software synths with 3 or more oscillators.

No, only the filter was from Moog, other parts were CEM chips (e.g. CEM3340 VCOs) as i alraedy posted BTW and could have noticed if you read my previous post properly.

The Minimoog Model D was also not capable of variable/adjustable Pusewidth, PWM, Osc Sync and some other stuff possible with the Memorymoog, including the mod matrix. Within the Oscs it also seemed to be possible to use multiple waveforms at once (like in the Prophet 5), as there were on/off switches for teh waveforms and no selection knob like in a Minimoog. The Memorymoog also had full ADSR envelopes (opposing to ADS or ADSD in the Minimoog Model D). It also had a dedicated LFO instead of using the 3rd Oscc as a LFO (like in the Mini).
If you compare the interfaces of both directly you should be able to see the differences in terms of features.

(the Minimoog Oscs in Div a do not seem to allow PWM).

But of course they do. Waveforms crossfade seamlessly, like in a Little Phatty. This can be modulated therefore Diva's Triple VCO can do PWM

Oops, looks like i missed that when i posted this. Now i remember I had even used that feature a longer time ago...

Anyway the qustions is also how close this could sound to the CEM3340 VCOs in the Memorymoog and also if the wave morphing in the Minimoog Oscs of Diva really sounds similar to the dedicated PWM in the Memorymoog. In the past i found that concerning PWM there could be smaller or even bigger differences and some synths seem to do this better than others. AFAIK the Memorymoog was also able to use multiple waveforms in one oscillator (wit hdedicated on/off switches for each waveforms like in a Prophet 5) which is difficult or impossible with morphable waveforms. The same is also possible with the Jupiter Osc in Diva (called "Dual VCO") but this misses the 3rd oscillator then.

[pdxindy]

It's just an illusion that sells plugins, and none of the emulations took us anywhere.

Actually, I disagree with that. The analog emulated filter development has led to sonically more interesting filters... filters that modulate in more pleasing ways and which have more coherence when heavily modulated. I am quite pleased with the results. Then I want those filters added to creative new sound generators... like in Bazille.

[.jon]

I don't know really. I tend to think that this whole idea of 'progression' or pushing the envelope is just variation on a theme. And it's about how you use it. There was subjectively 'better' and more interesting (than currently) experimental electronic going on in the 50's/60's/70's - proving that all this progression has little to do with actually progressing anything other than a different or more gimmicky way to make 'synthbass1' lol.

I meant progression in a technological sense, and surely you agree that the hot hit EDM producers have been exploiting the additive and wavetable plugins (not hot new tech, but much more better implemented and accessible than before) and DAW automation to create new sounds and even new genres. Unfortunately our (western) culture is on a decline in general, and new music doesn't carry the same emotional or revolutional payload than music of past decades did. And the music that does, stays in the marginal.

[.jon]

It's just an illusion that sells plugins, and none of the emulations took us anywhere.

Actually, I disagree with that. The analog emulated filter development has led to sonically more interesting filters... filters that modulate in more pleasing ways and which have more coherence when heavily modulated. I am quite pleased with the results. Then I want those filters added to creative new sound generators... like in Bazille.

Ok, I'll give you that, ZDF is a happy by-product of the emulation craze that has stalled plugin development for the past decade. But like you said, it only starts to bear fruit when taken from boring emulations and put into innovative products.

[.jon]

Just because something better exists, doesn't denigrate a particular instrument's appeal.

Yes, a good software synth is in many ways superior to some crappy old synth hardware, but there are still reasons why a crappy old synth can have appeal, character, nostalgia, and make interesting, useful noises, and fit in perfectly in a piece of music.

Absolutely, character and nostalgia are undeniable. I just don't agree that those transfer over in VST format.

[fluffy_little_something]

No, only the filter was from Moog, other parts were CEM chips (e.g. CEM3340 VCOs) as i alraedy posted BTW and could have noticed if you read my previous post properly.

The Minimoog Model D was also not capable of variable/adjustable Pusewidth, PWM, Osc Sync and some other stuff possible with the Memorymoog, including the mod matrix. Within the Oscs it also seemed to be possible to use multiple waveforms at once (like in the Prophet 5), as there were on/off switches for teh waveforms and no selection knob like in a Minimoog. The Memorymoog also had full ADSR envelopes (opposing to ADS or ADSD in the Minimoog Model D). It also had a dedicated LFO instead of using the 3rd Oscc as a LFO (like in the Mini).
If you compare the interfaces of both directly you should be able to see the differences in terms of features.

Sure, there were additional features and differences, but I have repeatedly heard people say that by and large the Memorymoog was 6 Minimoogs in one, and then some. On Wiki it also says so:

"While the earlier Polymoog synthesizer (1975) featured unlimited polyphony, the 6-voice Memorymoog is considered sonically superior, and is often described architecturally as six Minimoogs in one unit."

Anyway, even the Memorymoog's the 18-voice unison mode can be emulated in something like Predator.

[beely]

Absolutely, character and nostalgia are undeniable. I just don't agree that those transfer over in VST format.

Software is not the same as hardware, of course. However good the emulation, even if it's *perfect*, the *experience* of using hardware will always be different to the experience of using software.

But, certainly some of the character comes through in a good emulation - the character arising from the sound of the various components, the behaviours of the components like envelopes, the features on offer, and the features it *doesn't* have, as well as the more subjective things like how you interface and drive the machine, all influence the end result.

I'm also not saying emulations are perfect as of now, but they are certainly good enough that anyone who knows anything about synths can identify a JP8, Prophet 5, CS80, Prophet VS, CZ1 and so on from their software emulations alone - so a certain amount of the character of the originals *is* coming through.

But software will never be "as good as" hardware because it's a different thing - you don't get the custom dedicated hardware interface, the smell, the hum of electricity, the knowledge you own something special, the feel of the controls - all those things influence the experience of using hardware to significant degrees. There's just some things you can't emulate (currently) and any individual is either ok with that, or they do what it takes to get (and maintain) an original machine.

At least for me, the emulation stuff is good enough and gives me enough of a flavour of the originals, without the huge financial investment, or space taken up, and I'm perfectly OK with that. They make a useful contribution to my music, and I'm old enough to have a lot of nostalgia for the original machines.

The equation isn't the same for everybody, of course.

[.jon]

Well, that's elegantly expressed, and I just have to say that I'm non-sarcastically happy it works for you that well!