Tone2 I2 vs Trueno Analog

[Highvoltage]

Firstly if this is a product that you think is not designed for your needs, then why you get angry about it?? This makes so little sense to me.

I wouldn't say I'm angry about it, but I'd say the concept is about 3 steps away from being something I might have found interesting up until I got into modular. It's missing the mark in important ways even so, though.

Now, a polivoks filter has never been emulated. It's very close sounding to to the MS-20...

In software, nope. In hardware, there are dozens of clones out there. You can get a Eurorack Polivoks clone built from the original schematic, with old-stock Russian parts, for .

I don't think they sound anything at all like an MS-20. I'm really not fond of the MS-20 sound myself.

Yeah of course i mean in software. In eurorack eveything has been 'emulated'
I know it's not an MS-20, but i feel they are very comparable in character. They are very smooth with a hint of growl up to a point, then resonance kicks in like crazy and start to feedback in an oh-so-pleasant way, and then you can go further

This kind of breakup in software i have only heard in The Lengend so far, which is a totally different filter design, but the feedback growl is right there. Monark can't do this for shit.

[ghettosynth]

Thanks ghettosynth for explaining so clearly and concisely in your reply at page 12 not only what this thing is/is not, but also for whom this may appeal. That was exactly what I was wondering about since I had personally no idea of such a potential user base with that kind of needs. Pretty much everybody I know who go hybrid want the full hands on control and also often independency from the computer.

Yeah. That's also why i'm not considering this, but, rather something like the Behringer D, if then. This thing doesn't give me any advantage over, say, something like NI Monark. "Fully analog", yeah, but, what's the difference in perceived sound quality? Maybe 5% at best.

I have to call into question this tendency that people have to try and quantify the sound difference of one thing with respect to another. It really doesn't matter on what empirical grounds you quantify that, and by that I'm talking about taking actual measurements, what matters is the perception. So, if we let p(x) be the perception function with x,p(x) in [0,1] representing proportion, you really have no idea what the output looks like. I doubt very much that it's linear. So if we say that true analog is 1 and the best emus are 0.95 (your five percent difference), and we assume for simplification that for this analogue product that p(1)=1, that is perception is 100 percent satisfied, then we really have no idea what p(0.95) is. It could be 0.95, or, more likely, it could be 0.5 or 0.3. That is, that last five percent could be where the majority of perception satisfaction comes from in the ears of the listener, or even the producer. Moreover, even if the listener can't tell the difference, we can't ignore the value to the producer if a tool is more inspiring.

[Highvoltage]

. Moreover, even if the listener can't tell the difference, we can't ignore the value to the producer if a tool is more inspiring.

This is such an interesting phenomenon. I have challenged myself to blind test between 2 synths, and i couldn't tell the difference. But when i was using them, i preferred A to B every single time, and it told my subconscious that it sounds better. (that's why i made the test) So at the end of the day one synth was better, cause it was much more enjoyable and therefore inspiring to make sounds with, but they sounded the same.

I think this largely contributes to the hardware sounds better argument, cause with a real analog pot, you have much more resolution, and it just feels way smoother to dial in.

[larsomat]

To me this seems the worst of both worlds. An analog synth with no knobs and sliders, and a mediocre looking UI, destined to be abandoned in a few years when the Twoeno is released.

To me this seems the best of both worlds. An analog synth with no knobs and sliders. I have ableton Push for that and no space left on my desk. And it integrates as well as a VST into my workflow, without eating my CPU like Repro-1 or Diva.

[ghettosynth]

. Moreover, even if the listener can't tell the difference, we can't ignore the value to the producer if a tool is more inspiring.

This is such an interesting phenomenon. I have challenged myself to blind test between 2 synths, and i couldn't tell the difference. But when i was using them, i preferred A to B every single time, and it told my subconscious that it sounds better. (that's why i made the test) So at the end of the day one synth was better, cause it was much more enjoyable and therefore inspiring to make sounds with, but they sounded the same.

I think this largely contributes to the hardware sounds better argument, cause with a real analog pot, you have much more resolution, and it just feels way smoother to dial in.

I agree. I regularly test myself for these kinds of biases and I know that in some cases that I have them. In other cases they've show to be valid perception however. I regularly post this video because I don't know of a better example of how visual bias affects perception, but here it is again anyway.

[ENV1]

...that last five percent could be where the majority of perception satisfaction comes from in the ears of the listener, or even the producer.

Personally i am convinced that that is exactly the case.

(At least i wouldnt know what else it could be.)

Whatever the exact percentage may be, who cares, its a variable aspect anyway. Whats important is that a lot of plugins are 'very close' and 'nearly indistinguishable' and 'almost there', so if the rest, however much or little it may be, wasnt significant, people wouldnt continue to crave better and better emulations, and in doing so confirm that 'almost there' is still not satisfactory enough.

Its sorta logical when you think about it.

[zerocrossing]

See info on Adaptive latency compensation in the manual.

As Trueno is a hybrid hardware/software product, it
works differently from the plugins you may already use.
We’ve worked hard to keep the latency as low as
possible whilst reducing clicks and retaining the timing
accuracy you expect from a modern sequencing
system. The points below should help you to get the
best performance out of Trueno:
Adaptive latency compensation: Trueno has built in
adaptive latency compensation. This works out the
amount of latency caused by sending data to the device
and receiving audio back. The amount of latency is
dependant on many things: the audio interface buffer
size and what other programs are running on your
computer for example. It is recommended you reopen
your project if you begin to notice timing issues, this
will reset the internal averaging of the latency
compensation.
Audio Interface: To ensure optimal timing accuracy
when sequencing, we recommend you record with
your audio interface set to a buffer size of 256 samples
or fewer.

Yeah, 256 samples is a lifetime in terms of how I use hardware instruments. Unusable. I’d do way better with a SE-02 and have an interface to tweak. Cool idea though. If they release a 6 voice with audio outs and USB MIDI in, I’d be all over it.

[SLiC]

See info on Adaptive latency compensation in the manual.

As Trueno is a hybrid hardware/software product, it
works differently from the plugins you may already use.
We’ve worked hard to keep the latency as low as
possible whilst reducing clicks and retaining the timing
accuracy you expect from a modern sequencing
system. The points below should help you to get the
best performance out of Trueno:
Adaptive latency compensation: Trueno has built in
adaptive latency compensation. This works out the
amount of latency caused by sending data to the device
and receiving audio back. The amount of latency is
dependant on many things: the audio interface buffer
size and what other programs are running on your
computer for example. It is recommended you reopen
your project if you begin to notice timing issues, this
will reset the internal averaging of the latency
compensation.
Audio Interface: To ensure optimal timing accuracy
when sequencing, we recommend you record with
your audio interface set to a buffer size of 256 samples
or fewer.

Yeah, 256 samples is a lifetime in terms of how I use hardware instruments. Unusable. I’d do way better with a SE-02 and have an interface to tweak. Cool idea though. If they release a 6 voice with audio outs and USB MIDI in, I’d be all over it.

256 samples 'or fewer' is what it says, so you can go as low as you like?

[sjm]

One long argument later, I basically agree with ghettosynth. It's not an analog synth. It's an analog plugin. You plug it into your PC and you have an analog synth in your DAW. If you think of it that way, not in terms of the synths you already know, it might make more sense who this will appeal to.

It's an interesting concept.

[zerocrossing]

...that last five percent could be where the majority of perception satisfaction comes from in the ears of the listener, or even the producer.

Personally i am convinced that that is exactly the case.

(At least i wouldnt know what else it could be.)

Whatever the exact percentage may be, who cares, its a variable aspect anyway. Whats important is that a lot of plugins are 'very close' and 'nearly indistinguishable' and 'almost there', so if the rest, however much or little it may be, wasnt significant, people wouldnt continue to crave better and better emulations, and in doing so confirm that 'almost there' is still not satisfactory enough.

Its sorta logical when you think about it.

Well, this type of logic works on something like wine, but not in a musical instrument. With wine, it is what it is. You like it or not. Maybe it is perceived differently based on food around it, but if you factor that out, it is a fixed value. WIth an instrument like a synthesizer, it can be used in such a wide variety of ways that every time you “uncork” it, it’s a different varietal. Set up one way, it’s a sub bass. Set up another, it’s a screaming sync lead. When we talk about that “5%” (or whatever) what are we talking about? To me, it seems like a lot of software gets there 100% on maybe 70% of patch types. Fewer, but still high quality plugins like Diva and PolyKB, get up to 100% on 90% of patch types. Some, like RePro and the Roland Airia plugins, seem to be batting at 100% on 100% of patch types.

Now, those numbers (which I pulled out of my a$$) aren’t about how well those plugins emulate any hardware, but how well they fool me into thinking they’re hardware analog synths. So, while RePro-1 may sound as good as something like my Neptune 2, it doesn’t sound like my Neptune 2. Nor does any plugin I own or have demoed, so there you have it: Neptune 2 keeps it’s spot in my studio. So, if you love the character of Trueno (sounds good to me, but I’m not sure I’d call it love) then buy Trueno, if it’s form factor works for you. If RePro-1 is more your cup’a, then that’s that. For me, having to set my buffer to 256 samples makes it unusable considering my Neptune’s only dealing with my 64 sample buffer just nicely. I need to be able to play it live with no more than 128, but 64 is optimal. 256 makes me crazy when playing guitar.

[chk071]

Thanks ghettosynth for explaining so clearly and concisely in your reply at page 12 not only what this thing is/is not, but also for whom this may appeal. That was exactly what I was wondering about since I had personally no idea of such a potential user base with that kind of needs. Pretty much everybody I know who go hybrid want the full hands on control and also often independency from the computer.

Yeah. That's also why i'm not considering this, but, rather something like the Behringer D, if then. This thing doesn't give me any advantage over, say, something like NI Monark. "Fully analog", yeah, but, what's the difference in perceived sound quality? Maybe 5% at best.

I have to call into question this tendency that people have to try and quantify the sound difference of one thing with respect to another. It really doesn't matter on what empirical grounds you quantify that, and by that I'm talking about taking actual measurements, what matters is the perception. So, if we let p(x) be the perception function with x,p(x) in [0,1] representing proportion, you really have no idea what the output looks like. I doubt very much that it's linear. So if we say that true analog is 1 and the best emus are 0.95 (your five percent difference), and we assume for simplification that for this analogue product that p(1)=1, that is perception is 100 percent satisfied, then we really have no idea what p(0.95) is. It could be 0.95, or, more likely, it could be 0.5 or 0.3. That is, that last five percent could be where the majority of perception satisfaction comes from in the ears of the listener, or even the producer. Moreover, even if the listener can't tell the difference, we can't ignore the value to the producer if a tool is more inspiring.

The 5% were an imaginative number, nothing you really have to calculate. What i wanted to say is that i wonder if it really makes sense to go for that last bit of sound quality, when it robs you of almost everything a "real" hardware synth is about. And, of course that is highly subjective, and your, or anyone else's opinion might differ from mine. Still wonder what the point is, for me, an analog synth is not just about being analog, the hardware factor is quite important, otherwise i could just be using a plugin, when i use a plugin to dial in the sounds anyway.

[ENV1]

When we talk about that “5%” (or whatever) what are we talking about?

Well, thats a good question. In fact its THE question and obviously i dont have an answer either.

But anyway, the point is that even a small percentage can be most significant. If say a VCF emulation is almost there, but there is that last smidgen of authenticity missing, people are gonna want that last smidgen especially if it is responsible for the very bit that makes the whole filter interesting in the first place.

As youve pointed out, when and where such a difference is actually perceivable enough to really matter varies. And thats understood. But when its there, its there, and as ghettosynth pointed out, the bit thats missing may well be exactly what people wanted most, even if its just a comparable small percentage of the whole thing. And that i agree with.

[MillerSam]

It's an interesting concept because they split the engine. Analog oscillators, analog modulation, filters on the stick and the rest like the LFO's , Envelopes, effects are in the software.

[ZaBong69]

To me this seems the worst of both worlds. An analog synth with no knobs and sliders, and a mediocre looking UI, destined to be abandoned in a few years when the Twoeno is released.

To me this seems the best of both worlds. An analog synth with no knobs and sliders. I have ableton Push for that and no space left on my desk. And it integrates as well as a VST into my workflow, without eating my CPU like Repro-1 or Diva.

Same here. I travel a lot and sadly can not take much hardware with me. A usb stick... anytime

I ordered this as a nice xmas present.

[fisherKing]

To me this seems the worst of both worlds. An analog synth with no knobs and sliders, and a mediocre looking UI, destined to be abandoned in a few years when the Twoeno is released.

To me this seems the best of both worlds. An analog synth with no knobs and sliders. I have ableton Push for that and no space left on my desk. And it integrates as well as a VST into my workflow, without eating my CPU like Repro-1 or Diva.

Same here. I travel a lot and sadly can not take much hardware with me. A usb stick... anytime

I ordered this as a nice xmas present.

same here (it's kept me from adding one of the little roland synths to my setup. look forward to hearing your thoughts (since it's not available in the US yet)...