Wavestation Shootout: Hardware vs. VST

[egbert101]

<delete>

[wagtunes]

I owned a Wavestation for over 25 years so I think I'm more than qualified to comment on the sound of the VST.

When I first heard it I said "Holy shit...That is dead on the money."

And why shouldn't it be? The Wavestation wasn't an analog synth. It was digital to begin with. So what's so hard about just taking the same digital code and making it into a VST?

Ignore anybody who says they don't sound alike because they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

And I still have my old Wavestation recordings that I can upload if I have to.

So yeah, no difference. None, nada, zilch.

[chk071]

Ignore anybody who says they don't sound alike because they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Well, they could sound different, after all, there are always DAC's involved. And, considering CPU power is also a lot higher nowadays, there are possibilities in the plugin the hardware didn't have back then. Actually, i'm 100 % certain they will sound (slightly) different, everything else would be wizardry. Question is if that is not neglectable.

Here's a discussion about the same thing, BTW: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/electro ... tware.html

[beely]

Simple: Don't listen to, or engage with the idiots.

Woody's tests are not really "scientific" (and listening to that video, YouTube audio quality comments aside, I don't necessarily think it' a good example of the differences - it sounds a bit weird to me), but anyone who has had experience of both should be able to tell you that the software *is* the original code and waveforms, just slightly higher quality as the samples have more top end and the lack of the cheap convertors give a slightly cleaner, more hifi, flatter sound - the WS's convertors are quite coloured, giving a slightly duller, softer, more "defocused" sound, which some people prefer - it's certainly a character I'm very familiar with.

When people use terms like "nothing like" in this context what they usually mean is "there is a difference I can hear", but "nothing like" is just an over-exagerated sensationalism they use to try to add weight to their opinion.

I have had a real WS since the early nineties, and I'm perfectly happy to use the Legacy version, and I like the extra clarity (and other thing like the polyphony benefits etc).

[chk071]

BTW, as we're on the topic: Some people consider the older Waldorf synths to be sounding better compared to the Blofeld, or their newer soft synths. The synths sound brighter now, more present, more bottom end, the filters are improved, and the envelopes are probably faster too, yet people prefer the old synths. And i can't blame them even, some of the typical Waldorf "airy" sound is due a high cut, there's simply not so much going on in the high frequencies than on their newer synths, which adds to the sound (and also some aliasing, most probably, because anti-aliasing filters weren't quite there yet). I heard that one some other older hardware VA's too, they're simply not as bright as nowadays soft synths, and VA's. As i mentioned before in other threads, this striving for ultra clean, ultra bright oscillators with zero aliasing can be quite counterproductive, when it takes away from the sound. Others may disagree, and that's fine too, because it's rather a matter of personal preference, than really something which is written in stone.

[Astralp]

BTW, as we're on the topic: Some people consider the older Waldorf synths to be sounding better compared to the Blofeld, or their newer soft synths. The synths sound brighter now, more present, more bottom end, the filters are improved, and the envelopes are probably faster too, yet people prefer the old synths. And i can't blame them even, some of the typical Waldorf "airy" sound is due a high cut, there's simply not so much going on in the high frequencies than on their newer synths, which adds to the sound (and also some aliasing, most probably, because anti-aliasing filters weren't quite there yet). I heard that one some other older hardware VA's too, they're simply not as bright as nowadays soft synths, and VA's. As i mentioned before in other threads, this striving for ultra clean, ultra bright oscillators with zero aliasing can be quite counterproductive, when it takes away from the sound. Others may disagree, and that's fine too, because it's rather a matter of personal preference, than really something which is written in stone.

In terms of the Blofeld it's certainly less Bassy than older synths and even a bit less defined, it seems that they spent less on the DACs which is probably the cause. I've owned lots of Waldorf Gear in the past but did do my own comparison with the micro-q when deciding which to keep and soundwise the Micro-q had a lot more punch and bottom end to it, but in the end the Blofeld is much easier and more fun to program and is still a great synth. I would say the same for the Wavestation, I used to have an SR and found it painful to program, the plugin (especially the ipad version) is a lot more fun and has had more use.

[Examigan]

Simple: Don't listen to, or engage with the idiots.
The WS's convertors are quite coloured, giving a slightly duller, softer, more "defocused" sound, which some people prefer - it's certainly a character I'm very familiar with.

I wonder what effect plugin that might be able to get some of that colored and defocused quality you mention. I'd like to try it out to see how it sounds.

[beely]

I wonder what effect plugin that might be able to get some of that colored and defocused quality you mention. I'd like to try it out to see how it sounds.

Yeah... certainly rolling off a little top will help. I don't think things like bit crushers or compressors will do the right things. Maybe some kinds of saturation or tape sims driven *very* subtley might be more ballpark.

I'm sure one of these days someone will do a DAC modelling plugin featuring a range of popular DACs from throughout the history of digital audio...

Edit: maybe someone with a WS A/D could run an impulse sweep through the unit so they could impulse the convertors for a convolution plugin...

[chroma]

I'm sure one of these days someone will do a DAC modelling plugin featuring a range of popular DACs from throughout the history of digital audio...

plogue chipcrusher might fit the bill....

https://www.plogue.com/products/chipcrusher/

[Examigan]

I wonder what effect plugin that might be able to get some of that colored and defocused quality you mention. I'd like to try it out to see how it sounds.

Yeah... certainly rolling off a little top will help. I don't think things like bit crushers or compressors will do the right things. Maybe some kinds of saturation or tape sims driven *very* subtley might be more ballpark.

I'm sure one of these days someone will do a DAC modelling plugin featuring a range of popular DACs from throughout the history of digital audio...

Edit: maybe someone with a WS A/D could run an impulse sweep through the unit so they could impulse the convertors for a convolution plugin...

That would be cool! Good idea.

[Examigan]

I'm sure one of these days someone will do a DAC modelling plugin featuring a range of popular DACs from throughout the history of digital audio...

plogue chipcrusher might fit the bill....

https://www.plogue.com/products/chipcrusher/

I have Decimort 2, so I should try it out with that.
I'll check out Chipcrusher also.

[Ah_Dziz]

I wonder what effect plugin that might be able to get some of that colored and defocused quality you mention. I'd like to try it out to see how it sounds.

Yeah... certainly rolling off a little top will help. I don't think things like bit crushers or compressors will do the right things. Maybe some kinds of saturation or tape sims driven *very* subtley might be more ballpark.

I'm sure one of these days someone will do a DAC modelling plugin featuring a range of popular DACs from throughout the history of digital audio...

Edit: maybe someone with a WS A/D could run an impulse sweep through the unit so they could impulse the convertors for a convolution plugin...

Regardless of whether or not this is ridiculous overkill or not, trying to capture the full effect of and conversion to or from digital would require dynamic convolution as it's going to be a non linear process. Anything you could achieve with a standard convolution process could be done with proper equalization. Since we're already talking about OCD levels ofsound difference I would think going all out to capture the proper nonlinearities would have at least as much effect if not more than just wanging an impulse response on there. I personally would rather have the newer cleaner version of classic sounds and then f**k them back up to taste if I feel the need. The aliasing and quantization are pretty much impossible to remove but pretty easy to add in a variety of ways giving a much broader pallete of sounds. I would recommend using something like "insert the name of the insanely latency introducing dynamic "something kernel" processor" here.

Damn. I can't remember the name of that software. Anyway they have a setup for creating dynamic IRs that comes with the package.

[Ah_Dziz]

Nebula. That would properly capture the characteristics of a converter. Seems like a bit much, but probably the way to go for cats that gotta have it.

[beely]

Regardless of whether or not this is ridiculous overkill or not, trying to capture the full effect of and conversion to or from digital would require dynamic convolution as it's going to be a non linear process.

Is it? I would have thought a static regular convolution would be plenty good enough, I can't imagine there would be a huge difference between low and high levels to the actual audio. Maybe if we're getting into "OCD" territory, but I can't be bothered with all that - something simple that gets you 95% there for those that want the option sounds like a good enough, and quick to do, solution.

Anything you could achieve with a standard convolution process could be done with proper equalization.

No - you can, for instance, do a reverb with convolution, but you can't do a reverb with an EQ... The slightly "defocused" quality of the conversion is not just an EQ thing (if it was, that I would have suggested that as an option.) As a visual metaphor, it's more like when you have glasses on and have crystal sharp vision, but when you take them off, the vision blurs very slightly.

I personally would rather have the newer cleaner version of classic sounds and then f**k them back up to taste if I feel the need.

Me too. And it's mostly what I do already. But the suggestion for a quick impulse response to "defocus" things a bit might be useful, for those cases, no? The hardware is in some ways easier to fit in a mix because of this quality (although I suspect this mostly comes from the reduced highs) and while the software sounds "better" (in pure quality terms), the hardware sounds "nice" and it's a character I'm very used to. It's not a massive thing, and it's not one that's enough of an issue for me personally to dig out my hardware to print a track in place of the software, but I *am* curious as to what the convertors are doing to see how an impulse would work. Maybe it wouldn't work very well and sound crap, but hey, it's still an interesting thing to try.

Anyway they have a setup for creating dynamic IRs that comes with the package.

The software isn't the problem, there are many tools to create impulses one way or another. As I said, the problem is I don't have a WS A/D to capture a sweep through, which is I why I suggested it for someone who does...

[Teksonik]

Why "dumb down" the plugin to make it sound like the hardware ?