Arturia V Collection 6

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Instruments Discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS
Buchla Easel V Clavinet V CMI V DX7 V

Post

wagtunes wrote:Thank Stevie Wonder and Superstition for my fascination with that instrument.
:lol: :clap:

Post

May have missed, it, but is there confirmation as to what Fairlight sample libraries/disks are included with CMI-V?

Post

cowby wrote:Guys, I just demoed DX7 v but I couldn't find the FM Matrix session (I am from FM8 vst). Is there something I've overlooked?

Please advise
DX7 V does not have a freely routable matrix like in FM8 but has 32 algorithms like in the real DX7.
For each operator you could set the ratio/tuning and the level. For the modulators the level coresponds to the FM amount.
In the algorithm display each opearor has a certain color which at the GUI is also reflected with the settings for each operator.

In the original DX7 each algorith had only a single FM feedback (and a fedback knob for that is found right to the algorithm display). Feedback means that an operator modulates itself (so it could be a carrier and modulator at the same time) which in FM8 could be used for all operators.
In DX7 V each operator could have it's own feedback amount too and additionally also it's own filter (which could be bypassed). In FM8 there seems to be only a single filter and not one for each operator.

The feedback that is available for each iof the 6 operators in DX7 V seems to have a bigger range than the single feedback included with the algorithm. This means that with both feedback options you could get different results depending on the feedback amount used. At a high or maximum amount the additional feedback parameter in the operators could result in a sound not available with the single feedback available in the algorithm.
Last edited by Ingonator on Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ingo Weidner
Win 10 Home 64-bit / mobile i7-7700HQ 2.8 GHz / 16GB RAM //
Live 10 Suite / Cubase Pro 9.5 / Pro Tools Ultimate 2021 // NI Komplete Kontrol S61 Mk1

Post

Ingonator wrote:
cowby wrote:Guys, I just demoed DX7 v but I couldn't find the FM Matrix session (I am from FM8 vst). Is there something I've overlooked?

Please advise
DX7 V does not have a freely routable matrix like in FM8 but has 32 algorithms like in the real DX7.
For me, this is a serious weakness and I think that different choices would have really elevated this as a more serious FM synthesizer. I'm sure that the DX7 purists prefer it this way though.

Post

ghettosynth wrote:
Ingonator wrote:
cowby wrote:Guys, I just demoed DX7 v but I couldn't find the FM Matrix session (I am from FM8 vst). Is there something I've overlooked?

Please advise
DX7 V does not have a freely routable matrix like in FM8 but has 32 algorithms like in the real DX7.
For me, this is a serious weakness and I think that different choices would have really elevated this as a more serious FM synthesizer. I'm sure that the DX7 purists prefer it this way though.
It might look like a step backwards but DX7 V offers a feedback parameter and a filter (3 filter modes) for each operator which allows going far beyond what is possible in the real DX7. As just mentioned above the feedback parameter in the opeartor also seems to be able to have a bigger range and/or a bigger effect on the sound than the single one related to the algorithm (which is available as a dedicated knob too).

Besides that in DX7 V each opearator could have one of 25 different waveforms so you do not have to "waste" an operator to get certain shapes. Of course this also opens the option to get sounds not possible when using only sine waves for the operators.
Ingo Weidner
Win 10 Home 64-bit / mobile i7-7700HQ 2.8 GHz / 16GB RAM //
Live 10 Suite / Cubase Pro 9.5 / Pro Tools Ultimate 2021 // NI Komplete Kontrol S61 Mk1

Post

Ingonator wrote:
For me, this is a serious weakness and I think that different choices would have really elevated this as a more serious FM synthesizer. I'm sure that the DX7 purists prefer it this way though.
It might look like a step backwards but DX7 V offers a feedback parameter and a filter (3 filter modes) for each operator which allows going far beyond what is possible in the real DX7. As just mentioned above the feedback parameter in the opeartor also seems to be able to have a bigger range and/or a bigger effect on the sound than the single one related to the algorithm (which is available as a dedicated knob too).[/quote]

I have not demo'ed DX7 V but I imagine from your description, that I would like its featureset more than FM8... and of course, the quality and character of the feedback and filters would be what mattered most to me.

Post

Ingonator wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:
Ingonator wrote:
cowby wrote:Guys, I just demoed DX7 v but I couldn't find the FM Matrix session (I am from FM8 vst). Is there something I've overlooked?

Please advise
DX7 V does not have a freely routable matrix like in FM8 but has 32 algorithms like in the real DX7.
For me, this is a serious weakness and I think that different choices would have really elevated this as a more serious FM synthesizer. I'm sure that the DX7 purists prefer it this way though.
It might look like a step backwards but DX7 V offers a feedback parameter and a filter (3 filter modes) for each operator which allows going far beyond what is possible in the real DX7.
I get that, but then they half-assed it with the outdated idea of fixed algorithms. There's really no need for that in a modern implementation other than to be purist. That's why I think that it's weird, it's not really purist enough for the purists, but hamstrung for the non-purists.

Post

ghettosynth wrote:
Ingonator wrote:
cowby wrote:Guys, I just demoed DX7 v but I couldn't find the FM Matrix session (I am from FM8 vst). Is there something I've overlooked?

Please advise
DX7 V does not have a freely routable matrix like in FM8 but has 32 algorithms like in the real DX7.
For me, this is a serious weakness and I think that different choices would have really elevated this as a more serious FM synthesizer. I'm sure that the DX7 purists prefer it this way though.
It is a weakness but has also the advantage to be visually easily graspable which is better for beginners and hence an important factor too. Just Op. #1 (the default "starting point") is a bad start as a carrier because in roughly the half of the algorithms the configuration is just 2->1. Starting with Op. #3 as a carrier gives more choices to alter the modulation configuration to it later on in the design process. I guess this could work quite well.

What I am missing a bit is a selector for the algorithms that gives an overview of all of them.

Post

pdxindy wrote: I have not demo'ed DX7 V but I imagine from your description, that I would like its featureset more than FM8... and of course, the quality and character of the feedback and filters would be what mattered most to me.
The feedback in each of the operators in it's effect on the sound seems to go further than that included with the algorithms (and the dedicated knob for that "global" feedback).

The filters offer a Lowpass, Bandpass and Highpass mode and could be also bypassed with a switch. Each of them offers Cutoff and Resoance parameters and wit ha switch you could add keytracking.

In the mod matrix (MOD page) you could modulate both the Cutoff and Resonance using the available modulators including e.g. the 6 envelopes of the operators, the pitch envelope, 2 additional mod envelopes and also the 2 LFOs.

The feedback parameters in each of the operators are available as mod destinations too.

In the mod matrix you have 3 x 8 = 24 slots where each source selected from teh drop-down menu within a 2D matrix could be routed to 8 destinations while using only one of the 24 available slots. So overall you could do a lot more than 24 mod routings this way. It is possible to route 24 sources to 8 destinations for each of them.
The 4 macro faders at the main GUI are available as mod sources too and could be routed in teh mod matrix.

At the ENVELOPES page the envelopes could be switched between a DX7 (default), a DADSR and a powerful MSEG mode (with this you could add a lot of envlope stages, edit the slopes and also add a envelope loop).
Last edited by Ingonator on Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ingo Weidner
Win 10 Home 64-bit / mobile i7-7700HQ 2.8 GHz / 16GB RAM //
Live 10 Suite / Cubase Pro 9.5 / Pro Tools Ultimate 2021 // NI Komplete Kontrol S61 Mk1

Post

jme-audio wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:
Ingonator wrote:
cowby wrote:Guys, I just demoed DX7 v but I couldn't find the FM Matrix session (I am from FM8 vst). Is there something I've overlooked?

Please advise
DX7 V does not have a freely routable matrix like in FM8 but has 32 algorithms like in the real DX7.
For me, this is a serious weakness and I think that different choices would have really elevated this as a more serious FM synthesizer. I'm sure that the DX7 purists prefer it this way though.
It is a weakness but has also the advantage to be visually easily graspable which is better for beginners and hence an important factor too. Just Op. #1 (the default "starting point") is a bad start as a carrier because in roughly the half of the algorithms the configuration is just 2->1. Starting with Op. #3 as a carrier gives more choices to alter the modulation configuration to it later on in the design process. I guess this could work quite well.

What I am missing a bit is a selector for the algorithms that gives an overview of all of them.
No doubt, and I can see the implementation advantage of a slide show of pretty pictures is easier to implement than an actual operator matrix. It just weakens the instrument. So many of the interesting FM8 patches are not using the DX7 algorithms. I think that with a flexible matrix and a much more powerful arpeggiator this had potential to really dominate. I'll definitely use it, but I still think that there is room in the market for the definitive FM synth. For me, this is not it.

Post

ghettosynth wrote: No doubt, and I can see the implementation advantage of a slide show of pretty pictures is easier to implement than an actual operator matrix. It just weakens the instrument. So many of the interesting FM8 patches are not using the DX7 algorithms. I think that with a flexible matrix and a much more powerful arpeggiator this had potential to really dominate. I'll definitely use it, but I still think that there is room in the market for the definitive FM synth. For me, this is not it.
Besides the other advanced features in DX7 V (also see my post above) having the 32 algorithms in combination with a dedicated feedback and a dedicated resonant multimode filter for each operator (which could be bypassed) is really complex and versatile enough for my taste and goes far beond the original DX7.
Ingo Weidner
Win 10 Home 64-bit / mobile i7-7700HQ 2.8 GHz / 16GB RAM //
Live 10 Suite / Cubase Pro 9.5 / Pro Tools Ultimate 2021 // NI Komplete Kontrol S61 Mk1

Post

ENV1 wrote:
fmr wrote:Did you REALLY measured how much RAM 4 instances would demand?
No, of course not, i just consulted my crystal ball. :roll:

(I think you know me well enough to know that if i had just been guessing or assuming i wouldnt have stated it as a fact. I have posted 2 GIFs in that post showing the launching of 3 standalone instances of DX7 V and FM7 so go and see. The post is on page 21.)
So, by now (consult my own measures) you could just see that you aren't exactly right. Sure, DX7 V demands more RAM than the old FM synths - it is a modern soft synth, with much more features. But not THAT much as you were implying. And nowadays, 1 GB for around six instances, is not THAT much. Any computer dedicated to audio is probably running a 64-bit OS and has at least 8 GB of RAM.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

Ingonator wrote:
ghettosynth wrote: No doubt, and I can see the implementation advantage of a slide show of pretty pictures is easier to implement than an actual operator matrix. It just weakens the instrument. So many of the interesting FM8 patches are not using the DX7 algorithms. I think that with a flexible matrix and a much more powerful arpeggiator this had potential to really dominate. I'll definitely use it, but I still think that there is room in the market for the definitive FM synth. For me, this is not it.
Besides the other advanced features in DX7 V (also see my post above) having the 32 algorithms in combination with a dedicated feedback and a dedicated resonant multimode filter for each operator (which could be bypassed) is really complex and versatile enough for my taste and goes far beond the original DX7.
You're repeating yourself, I think that I commented about those extra features pages ago, they're great. I really like the per-op filter and I hope that it's well done, I haven't heard it yet in enough isolation to know how useful, by which I mean how good, it is.

Going beyond the DX7 isn't a valuable metric to me and I'm just going to disagree with you that it's versatile enough. It's really more than that though, it's a pain if you have a structure that you like and you know what you need to add but that addition doesn't match an existing DX7 algorithm. FM8 allows this in spades and it really is the better way to do FM today.

Like I said, I think that they left the door wide open for someone else. I wish this would light a fire under NIs widening complacent ass, but I have my doubts about that.

Post

ghettosynth wrote: No doubt, and I can see the implementation advantage of a slide show of pretty pictures is easier to implement than an actual operator matrix. It just weakens the instrument. So many of the interesting FM8 patches are not using the DX7 algorithms. I think that with a flexible matrix and a much more powerful arpeggiator this had potential to really dominate. I'll definitely use it, but I still think that there is room in the market for the definitive FM synth. For me, this is not it.
For the time being, the aim was to recreate a perfect emulation of the DX7, as is the usual departure point with all Arturia instruments, although with many added features.

As you, I also want something more powerful features, and a freely configurable algorithm is one of them, of course. Actually, I would gladly see an emulation of the FS1R, as that is way beyond the DX7, and, even just as an FM synth, is much more powerful. Hopefully, Arturia may come with something in that vein in the future.
Last edited by fmr on Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

fmr wrote:
ghettosynth wrote: No doubt, and I can see the implementation advantage of a slide show of pretty pictures is easier to implement than an actual operator matrix. It just weakens the instrument. So many of the interesting FM8 patches are not using the DX7 algorithms. I think that with a flexible matrix and a much more powerful arpeggiator this had potential to really dominate. I'll definitely use it, but I still think that there is room in the market for the definitive FM synth. For me, this is not it.
For the time being, the aim was to recreate a perfect emulation of the DX7, as is the usual departure point with all Arturia instruments, although with many added features.

As you, I also want something more powerful, and a freely configurable algorithm is one of them, of course. Actually, I would gladly see an emulation of the FS1R, as that is way beyond the DX7, and, even just as an FM synth, is much more powerful. Hopefully, Arturia may come with something in that vein in the future.
Well, I'll say this, they are getting better at what they do. I think that this is a strong release and combined with the Synclavier from last release is actually an upgrade that I'm looking forward to. Being a disciplined consumer I'll wait for a sale, but I do think that they've upped their game this time around.

Post Reply

Return to “Instruments”