Minimoog Softsynth Shootout: Diva MiniV3 Monark Legend Minimonsta vs Model D

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Instruments Discussion
Locked New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS
Diva$209.00Buy Mini V4$149.00Buy Minimonsta Monark The Legend

Post

nevernamed wrote:
Richard_Synapse wrote:
machinesworking wrote:IMO anyway a huge portion of the Oberheim sound is the filters. There's a cream to them that I don't hear in Moog or Sequential etc. synths. Playing pads on the Oberheim Xpander just sounds to me better than Sequential etc.
Interesting, I would expect a certain similarity in sound here as they both used Curtis filter chips. Perhaps the way the chips are used makes a difference in sound though.
machinesworking wrote: I'll never get whey there hasn't been a solid cross platform Memorymoog emulation though. That's a truly unique sounding synth that's hard to upkeep or get ahold of a working version of.
That's the reason, the scarcity coupled with the high price. Emulations of rare synths keep popping up all the time, but only if the vintage originals are somewhat affordable.

Richard
There is a lot of overlap between them yes. I think this guy is just stating a preference for Oberheim sound over the Sequential stuff. I have a prophet 5 rev 2 at the minute and there is a lot of overlap with that and the rest of the IC based Oberheims. You could get by impersonating one with the other for certain sounds/situations if you had to. There is a lot of emphasis on differences but there are similarities too.
I own an Xpander and a Memorymoog. The filters sound absolutely nothing alike. I'm surprised they could use the same chip? doubt it really. Moog is a moog ladder filter with extra noisy feedback, shaping etc. and the Oberheim is something like 15 filter types. The oscillators are probably the same, but even then, the built in preamp section for the outputs is 100% different, the Xpander is the quietest synth I own, and the Memorymoog is LOUD, that has to ad some color. Plus the Xpander has at least 5 LFOs, digital ADSRs lag filters etc. It's not half as good as doing FM type noise as the moog, but it's amazing at doing odd evolving sounds.
I suppose with an OBxa or the like you could make the argument that there's some overlap, but even then I would say the Memorymoog just doesn't sound like the others, it's why I would like a great emulation, it's 35 years old and will get expensive at some point maintenance wise. :eek:

Oh, and owning V Collection, the Matrix 12 from Arturia is cool, but it's not 100% more like 80%. The oscillators are too stable, and the filters are too perfect. It still sounds great, just not as dirty as a real Xpander/Matrix 12. A/B-ing factory sounds it sound like they got it right, but upon looking at the settings of the actual filter, Osc, etc. they moved a lot around to get close, dry oscillators sound synced without sync on, on the real Xpander they sound chorused even in tune.

Post

Memorymoog is not using CEM chips for the filters, only for oscillators and envenlopes. Filters in there are the classic Moog transistor ladder.

Post

<delete>
Last edited by egbert101 on Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<list your stupid gear here>

Post

egbert101 wrote:
Urs wrote: So, which hardware do you compare with? Do you have a vintage SEM or any of the re-releases?

A lowpass at 5.3k? I'll need to check that out...
Waking up with the worst hangover ever doesn't help, but I seriously question my own results and methodology after listening to the tone of the waveforms again. Whatever I was doing, trying to reproduce the waveforms in TAL-Sampler must have been simply wrong.

The Arturia SEM emulation seems to cut off at 15kHz by default, thus accounting for the slightly rounded off waveforms. Visually they look more correct at 5300Hz when I try to reproduce them, but sonically they're too dull at 5300Hz, and sound more sonically correct at 15kHz.

As far hardware, the only access I had was listening/analysing to the raw waveforms over a youtube video (the exact video I was using I've no idea, as this was done over a year ago.)

So basically, ignore my ramblings. :hihi: (ouch head).
Hehehe, yeah, I know the feeling.

Your measurements are definately off. I patched oscs and filters right out of the patch panel SEM, through Vermona TAI-4, Mackie CR16, UAD Apollo at 192. There was no filtered roll off (otehr than 3dB from Saw/Pulse) until way beyond 40khz. In fact, there was only slight roll off before 96kHz, more like 3dB.

Interestingly the oscillators are slightly highpass filtered (coupling cap?) and they get slightly louder (2-3dB) below 100Hz.

The filter however is capped at meager 16.5kHz. No modulation could move it higher.

Post

<delete>
Last edited by egbert101 on Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<list your stupid gear here>

Post

machinesworking wrote:
nevernamed wrote:
Richard_Synapse wrote:
machinesworking wrote:IMO anyway a huge portion of the Oberheim sound is the filters. There's a cream to them that I don't hear in Moog or Sequential etc. synths. Playing pads on the Oberheim Xpander just sounds to me better than Sequential etc.
Interesting, I would expect a certain similarity in sound here as they both used Curtis filter chips. Perhaps the way the chips are used makes a difference in sound though.
machinesworking wrote: I'll never get whey there hasn't been a solid cross platform Memorymoog emulation though. That's a truly unique sounding synth that's hard to upkeep or get ahold of a working version of.
That's the reason, the scarcity coupled with the high price. Emulations of rare synths keep popping up all the time, but only if the vintage originals are somewhat affordable.

Richard
There is a lot of overlap between them yes. I think this guy is just stating a preference for Oberheim sound over the Sequential stuff. I have a prophet 5 rev 2 at the minute and there is a lot of overlap with that and the rest of the IC based Oberheims. You could get by impersonating one with the other for certain sounds/situations if you had to. There is a lot of emphasis on differences but there are similarities too.
I own an Xpander and a Memorymoog. The filters sound absolutely nothing alike. I'm surprised they could use the same chip? doubt it really. Moog is a moog ladder filter with extra noisy feedback, shaping etc. and the Oberheim is something like 15 filter types. The oscillators are probably the same, but even then, the built in preamp section for the outputs is 100% different, the Xpander is the quietest synth I own, and the Memorymoog is LOUD, that has to ad some color. Plus the Xpander has at least 5 LFOs, digital ADSRs lag filters etc. It's not half as good as doing FM type noise as the moog, but it's amazing at doing odd evolving sounds.
I suppose with an OBxa or the like you could make the argument that there's some overlap, but even then I would say the Memorymoog just doesn't sound like the others, it's why I would like a great emulation, it's 35 years old and will get expensive at some point maintenance wise. :eek:

Oh, and owning V Collection, the Matrix 12 from Arturia is cool, but it's not 100% more like 80%. The oscillators are too stable, and the filters are too perfect. It still sounds great, just not as dirty as a real Xpander/Matrix 12. A/B-ing factory sounds it sound like they got it right, but upon looking at the settings of the actual filter, Osc, etc. they moved a lot around to get close, dry oscillators sound synced without sync on, on the real Xpander they sound chorused even in tune.
I think you're the only one comparing the Oberheims to a Memorymoog. I said Prophet 5 not Memorymoog. I have an Xpander as well. It's not as big a deal as people make it out to be. The difference between the Sequential stuff and the IC based Oberheims I mean. Not the same but not worlds apart either. I could impersonate one with the other in certain areas.

There is an argument to be made for archiving these old and difficult to maintain/acquire synths like the MemoryMoog or the 4Voice. Digital archiving I mean. I didn't think about this until recently I must admit and I don't see anyone talking about it either. Before these synths finally die from old age it would be nice to have their spirit captured in software. If you think about it they're a piece of iconic history aside from arguments about sound quality/uniqueness etc. Digitally archiving them is almost a duty perhaps?

Post

nevernamed wrote:Digital archiving I mean. I didn't think about this until recently I must admit and I don't see anyone talking about it either. Before these synths finally die from old age it would be nice to have their spirit captured in software. If you think about it they're a piece of iconic history aside from arguments about sound quality/uniqueness etc. Digitally archiving them is almost a duty perhaps?
You don't see anyone talking about it? You're probably not reading KVR that much, then! :)

Digital archiving in spirit is for sure some of the reason that guys like u-he and Synapse and so on go to such great efforts to really capture the details of these things, unlike some other companies that give you the broad character, feature set and artwork inspired by the original but don't put in nearly as much effort into the modelling...

Post

beely wrote:
nevernamed wrote:Digital archiving I mean. I didn't think about this until recently I must admit and I don't see anyone talking about it either. Before these synths finally die from old age it would be nice to have their spirit captured in software. If you think about it they're a piece of iconic history aside from arguments about sound quality/uniqueness etc. Digitally archiving them is almost a duty perhaps?
You don't see anyone talking about it? You're probably not reading KVR that much, then! :)

Digital archiving in spirit is for sure some of the reason that guys like u-he and Synapse and so on go to such great efforts to really capture the details of these things, unlike some other companies that give you the broad character, feature set and artwork inspired by the original but don't put in nearly as much effort into the modelling...
I've had 109 posts since, well since forever so no I don't read KVR that much. :(

Yeah I like that: "some other companies". :)

Post

nevernamed wrote:
machinesworking wrote:
nevernamed wrote:
Richard_Synapse wrote:
machinesworking wrote:IMO anyway a huge portion of the Oberheim sound is the filters. There's a cream to them that I don't hear in Moog or Sequential etc. synths. Playing pads on the Oberheim Xpander just sounds to me better than Sequential etc.
Interesting, I would expect a certain similarity in sound here as they both used Curtis filter chips. Perhaps the way the chips are used makes a difference in sound though.

Richard
There is a lot of overlap between them yes. I think this guy is just stating a preference for Oberheim sound over the Sequential stuff. I have a prophet 5 rev 2 at the minute and there is a lot of overlap with that and the rest of the IC based Oberheims. You could get by impersonating one with the other for certain sounds/situations if you had to. There is a lot of emphasis on differences but there are similarities too.
I think you're the only one comparing the Oberheims to a Memorymoog. I said Prophet 5 not Memorymoog. I have an Xpander as well. It's not as big a deal as people make it out to be. The difference between the Sequential stuff and the IC based Oberheims I mean. Not the same but not worlds apart either. I could impersonate one with the other in certain areas.

There is an argument to be made for archiving these old and difficult to maintain/acquire synths like the MemoryMoog or the 4Voice. Digital archiving I mean. I didn't think about this until recently I must admit and I don't see anyone talking about it either. Before these synths finally die from old age it would be nice to have their spirit captured in software. If you think about it they're a piece of iconic history aside from arguments about sound quality/uniqueness etc. Digitally archiving them is almost a duty perhaps?
It's best not to jump to conclusions before re-reading IMO. You didn't make the comparison sure, Richard clearly thought there should be some similarity, that's what I was responding to, so yeah I wasn't referencing your post. My original point was Oberheim has a better sounding filter than Sequential to my ears, that's all.

Post

nevernamed wrote:I have a prophet 5 rev 2 at the minute and there is a lot of overlap with that and the rest of the IC based Oberheims. You could get by impersonating one with the other for certain sounds/situations if you had to. There is a lot of emphasis on differences but there are similarities too.
Cool, how does the Rev 2 compare to the Rev 3 in your opinion? Judging from demos there seems to be quite a difference in sound.

Richard
Synapse Audio Software - www.synapse-audio.com

Post

<delete>
Last edited by egbert101 on Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<list your stupid gear here>

Post

waltercruz wrote: Gforce is quiet for some years now!
Not really, though! They released a couple different ports for Reason Rack Extensions, and the VSM one was just a few weeks ago (I wonder if they were pissed about the VST announcement shortly thereafter...eep.)

Also they've released multiple expansions for the M-Tron over the past year or so.

So they definitely are around and active! Gforce (along with u-he) make the absolute best Virtual Analog synth emulations afaic, so I'd love to see what they might do next in that realm (IF YOU'RE LISTENING DAVE -- MAKE AN OBERHEIM!!!)

-M

Post

<delete>
Last edited by egbert101 on Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<list your stupid gear here>

Post

Purchased the Legend because of this shootout, definitely in love. I'm also enjoying that I will probably never have to purchase another mini synth .. this just nails it.

Post

generaldiomedes wrote:this just nails it.
Except failing a bit on audio rate mod, but no software synth does it right.
Though it is good that i just prefer sounds that don't use high frequencies for modulation. :)
[====[\\\\\\\\]>------,

Ay caramba !

Locked

Return to “Instruments”