Synapse Audio Minimoog emulation "The Legend" for VST/AU and RE released!

[EvilDragon]

A restriction that an emulation of a monophonic hardware synth HAS TO BE monophonic too is quite stupid too IMO, at least with software.

No, it's not stupid. It was explained why it's like that for Monark and Repro-1 many, many, MANY times over. Reasons are entirely valid. Getting over your own preconceptions of what software should be is what needs to happen.

[Ingonator]

A restriction that an emulation of a monophonic hardware synth HAS TO BE monophonic too is quite stupid too IMO, at least with software.

No, it's not stupid. It was explained why it's like that for Monark and Repro-1 many, many, MANY times over. Reasons are entirely valid. Getting over your own preconceptions of what software should be is what needs to happen.

Sorry but given the fact that the vast majority of softsynths including a lot that are originally based on monophonic hardware synths include an option for polyphony i do not get why this would not make sense and/or should not be possible with certain new synths like e.g. Repro-1.

What many people maybe do not think about (or simplym do not want to) is that if a polyphonic Pro One emulation would sound differntly to a polyphonic hardware synth like a Prophet 5 (which with e.g. the differences in the filter Cutoff range would be obviusouly the case) it would be even more interesting to have a polyphonic Repro-1 that then would offer options not available in any existing hardware synth.
If a poly mode would be implemented properly (and i am not even speaking about adding Unison here...) like it was doen in e.g. The Legend the mono mode would still offer both a sound and features exavtly like in teh real thing. It's also not like Repro-1 does not include any advanced features compared to the hardware but nobody complains about those. Actually many people when talking about the sound of Repro-1 mean using the built-in effects, especially the Jaws wavefolder, while the raw sound could be quite different without those.

Also given the experience with many other softsynths that originally were based on monosynths but include a poly mode there is currently no way to convince me that it would not make sense to include such poly mode with new emulations of hardware monosynths. Just because this was not included in the original synths does not mean it would not make sense to have this option and this could open lots of additional options concerning sound design (especially with more complex synth engines).

At the moment Monark (as part of Komplete 10) and Repro-1 are the only dedicated monophonic softsynths i got here.


FWIW i got two monophonic analog hardware syntsh at the moment: Waldorf Pulse 2 and Novation Bass Station II
If someone would start doing a sofsynth from those the first thing i would ask for is adding polyphony.
Both got a quite complex synth engine including e.g. a multimode filter that would make polyphony really interesting (and more tan one time while playing with those synths i would really liked to have this option).
Actually with the Pulse 2 using the paraphonic modes or a poly-chain of multiple units this option is already possible while a polychain would be quite expesive and not very easy to handle in practical use.

For the future i also plan to create samples of my own patches for the Bass Station II to use them in Kontakt 5 (or other synths taht support using multisamples). Sampling seems to be one of the oldest options to create polyphonic sounds from monosynths.

[EvilDragon]

Sorry but given the fact that the vast majority of softsynths including a lot that are originally based on monophonic hardware synths include an option for polyphony i do not get why this would not make sense and/or should not be possible with certain new synths like e.g. Repro-1.

Developers made their stance and gave reasons (in case of Repro, Urs even gave NON-TECHNICAL reasons as to why it wouldn't make sense to have poly mode in Repro - and that has to be respected). If you don't understand it... well that's your (and everyone else's who thinks the same way) problem, not developer's.

[chk071]

Well, it doesn't have to be respected... it's rather a matter if you buy or not. TBH, i have enough freeware analog emus, which are not restricted to monophonic play, so, i would hardly see a reason to buy one, which only lets me play a single note at a time, strict emulation or not (already own Monark, and, again, like the first time i owned it, hardly use it due to the monophonic limitation...). I think Synapse did it right, and at least offer people 4 voices of polyphone, probably knowing that you won't gain a prize with monophonic soft synths anymore these days.

[digitalboytn]

I have to agree with Ingo on this point...

Why are we so obsessed with recreating synths and effects from the past when we have so many options available to us in the "brave new world" of digital synthesis ?

The hardware from yester year was constrained by so many factors that just don't exist in the digital world, so why do we want to keep going backwards instead of forwards ?

I know many of the classic analog synths were great sounding machines and I owned many of the top end toys back in the day so I know the score there,but that was state of the art at that moment in time...

We need to get over the BS that surrounds many of these classic emulations and get on with making music with the myriad of tools we have at our disposal at this moment in time...

The music is always more important than the tools we use to make it and that should be our focus

[Ingonator]

Sorry but given the fact that the vast majority of softsynths including a lot that are originally based on monophonic hardware synths include an option for polyphony i do not get why this would not make sense and/or should not be possible with certain new synths like e.g. Repro-1.

Developers made their stance and gave reasons (in case of Repro, Urs even gave NON-TECHNICAL reasons as to why it wouldn't make sense to have poly mode in Repro - and that has to be respected). If you don't understand it... well that's your (and everyone else's who thinks the same way) problem, not developer's.

Is that "non-technical" reason not to loose sales with a future Prophet 5 emulation? Would be the only one that actual would make sense to me.

As alraedy mentioend more than one time (including my post above) even if a polyphonic Pro One would sound differently to a Prophet 5 (and concerning the Cutoff range of the filter this is quite obvious) this would make it even more intresting, at least for me.

[EvilDragon]

There are SIX reasons and all of them are valid. And non-technical. Urs did say that making Repro-1 polyphonic would be about a week of work, but features that make Repro-1 special wouldn't work at all with polyphony, so a different concept is needed (which would end up being Repro-5, I suppose). Why is this hard to understand?

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 0#p6565560

[urosh]

Urs even gave NON-TECHNICAL reasons as to why it wouldn't make sense to have poly mode in Repro

There are some technical reasons as well:
1) FX chain would have to be polyphonic as well, which might be doable but would be dubious
2) Virtual (defacto) CV inputs and outputs that Urs promised (and I'm holding him on that promise) would make typical poly implementation either extremely difficult or impossible with current plugin standards

[Ingonator]

There are SIX reasons and all of them are valid. And non-technical. Urs did say that making Repro-1 polyphonic would be about a week of work, but features that make Repro-1 special wouldn't work at all with polyphony, so a different concept is needed (which would end up being Repro-5, I suppose). Why is this hard to understand?

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 0#p6565560

Why not let the customers decide if a polyphonic mode in Repro-1 would make sense for them or not?
How could you know if you need something or not if you never actually used it?

A polyphonic mode could still take care of features that would not work there. Actually this was also done with the poly mode in The Legend. For example you have no legato in poly mode and the volume of single voices is lower to not get the sound too loud too easy with multiple voices. You also gave 2 different trigger modes in the back panel where one of them is better suitable for polyphonic sounds.
If there would be no way to properly use the sequencer with a poly mode it would be possible to deactivate this too with polyphonic patches. An even cooler option would be to have a polyphonic sequencer in poly mode but that's another story and maybe a feature for a Prophet 5 emulation (actually the Prophet 10 seemed to include a poly sequencer with 6 tracks).

[martinjuenke]

Wonderful! The thread Legend vs Repro is closed, now the same discussion rages on in this thread. OMG!

[wagtunes]

You know, I'm a total idiot when it comes to this technology stuff, but even I get this.

Repro-1, when I play that one note which is all it's capable of playing, on some patches I'm hitting 20 to 30% CPU. Now imagine you make this synth 4 note polyphonic for that same patch. Do the math. Most CPUs would crumble. So, in order to get that 4 voice polyphony, concessions would have to be made somewhere. Those concessions would thus alter the sound. Thus, the Repro-1, sound wise, would no longer be the same Repro-1. There is absolutely no getting around this. It would be a different synth. That different synth would likely be a Repro-5 or whatever.

Point is, if you want the same sound quality and features that the current Repro-1 gives you, given the limitations of today's CPUs, then you're not getting a polyphonic instrument.

As stupid as I am, I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

So somebody explain it to me. What am I missing? I'm willing to learn.

[Ingonator]

1) FX chain would have to be polyphonic as well, which might be doable but would be dubious

If that is true using exernal FXs with polyphonic synths would not make any sense. A lot of artists actually use guitar pedal FXs with polyphonic synths...

[EvilDragon]

Hmmm... Repro-1 fully cranking (all effects on, high resonance etc) never goes above 6-8% CPU here. Granted, I have latest generation i7-6700K running at 4.5 GHz

1) FX chain would have to be polyphonic as well, which might be doable but would be dubious

If that is true using exernal FXs with polyphonic synths would not make any sense. A lot of artists actually use guitar pedal FXs with polyphonic synths...

But effects in Repro-1 are MODULATABLE, and in order to keep that on a polyphonic synth, you'd need that FX chain duplicated per voice. Which won't happen.

[kmonkey]

OMG it's like all of a sudden if Repro or Monark get polyphony it will be the end of Europe as we know it.

I think no sane person can say Repro or Monark is underrated for being monophonic but quite frankly trying to convince people that polyphony would ruin Repro or Monark is a bit hilarious.

For god sake it is software! Make polyphony as an option and be done with it.

I think developers can see how their social "adventure" of pushing monophonic instrument as "it gotta be monophonic" went down to toilet.

[kmonkey]

But effects in Repro-1 are MODULATABLE, and in order to keep that on a polyphonic synth, you'd need that FX chain duplicated per voice. Which won't happen.

To me it sounds like a cheap excuse because there are synths with modulatable effects and they are epolyphonic. Thank you my man,


Btw what does Modulatable mean? Did i understand that correctly at all. If it is reordering feature then just cough cough

edit: reading your statement - what the hell is polyphonic effect. Explain me what is polyphonic reverb or delay? For god sake i think i got it wrong from you...