BONES wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:07 pm
You are completely missing my point, which is that modelling old hardware is pointless and largely a waste of time. Seriously, RePro-1 and RePro-5 sound amazing, for example, but Hive is way better overall because it doesn't have to slavishly stick to some ancient formula that is 30 years past its use-by date. It can be those synths but it can also be 100 other synths if it needs to be, too. RePro-1/5 are good but there is nothing special or unique in their sound that I'd be willing to pay full price for and the opportunities to deploy them are few and far between in comparison to DUNE or Hive.
Actually, the FX in Repro-1 are 100% the reason I like it, specifically the wavefolder, Jaws. Beyond that it's got a decent sounding oscillator. I've never bothered to compare it to the "real thing" it sounds good enough.
Good designs are good designs
Really? Do you think any 20 year old car could hold a candle to the version being sold today? No, they were good designs in their day
but time and technology move on. People who buy vintage cars understand this, they don't even pretend that their old banger is actually any good, yet here in the world of synthesisers people cannot accept the same simple facts. I loved my ARP Axxe in it's day, as I did my ESQ-M and my O1R/W, but you couldn't pay me to take any of those things today. Their time has passed, things have moved on and so have I.
I drive a 95 Toyota. It's a great design, absolutely no interest in modern cars.
We will see how well modern cars run in 25 years. I'm guessing pretty much only the body will be left, because modern cars are not designed to last.. You certainly won't see any 40 year old modern cars. Car analogies suck. Or more to the point, you lost all your old synth edit synths, because computers are not permanent pieces of gear, no one is willing to hold onto old computers, but if a well designed hardware synth makes someone happy, why reinvent the wheel? Personally I like both, and see the advantages of both.
Some modern filter designs are thin as shit sounding.
Name one. Filters are meant to be thin, that's their job - to thin out the sound being passed through them. In any event, there are plenty of really ordinary hardware filters out there, too. e.g. Every Roland filter, every Moog ladder filter, all three filter types on the various ARP Odyssey versions.
Two different arguments there, ordinary does not equal thin. Ladder filters stay popular because they sound big. We all should know the inherent contradiction of subtractive synthesis (or we should) that a full spectrum tone is dull and lifeless, and sounds, thin. I hate throwing U-He under the bus, but Zebra has 23 filter types in it, and I think I've used about ten of them, a lot of duds in there, and that can be said of almost any modern synth with over a dozen filters. No argument here that some classic filters 'sound' thin, I always thought Sequential filters were dull, not that the whole synths were bad, but that the filter wasn't the strong point.
In the end I only use modeled synths for basic sounds, but some sound like their own instrument, like Diva and Repro-1 which sounds nothing like a Pro 1 to me, which is great, I always thought that synth was overrated.
Yet two minutes ago you were arguing that until someone models the MemoryMoog, softsynths won't be any good. Do you not see the contradiction there?
Hmm? I over did the bombast on that statement for sure, it doesn't sound 'exactly' like a Pro 1, it's close enough to me. Plus as mentioned it's the fairly unique Jaws wavefolder that makes that synth. I'm not a purist, but so far nothing sounds close enough to the Memorymoog, believe me I will sell it if someone comes close. It's well beyond my paygrade, I've just owned it since it was out of style and cheap in the 80's.