Why even modern VST Synths can't sound like 20 year-old Hardware VA Synths?

[SJ_Digriz]

It sounds more like you have a plugin on some channel that has an ass-ton of latency (linear EQ, quad comp, IR based reverb..). Simple test. Set the buffer size to 512. What does Reaper say your latency is with no tracks loaded?

Then make one instrument track to a simple VSTi synth. What does reaper say the latency is now?
Do you have playable latency at this setting?

[JCJR]

It sounds more like you have a plugin on some channel that has an ass-ton of latency (linear EQ, quad comp, IR based reverb..). Simple test. Set the buffer size to 512. What does Reaper say your latency is with no tracks loaded?

Then make one instrument track to a simple VSTi synth. What does reaper say the latency is now?
Do you have playable latency at this setting?

Thanks for the idea, will check tomorrow. The only immediate suspect, I almost always have voxengo span on the master bus with a 32768 FFT size, but since it is a display-only plugin wouldn't have thunk it would report to Reaper that it has latency. If I find something like that is the culprit it would be great.

[Chrisk-K]

I agree with the OP. New technology doesn't necessarily mean better sound quality.

No modern electric guitar sounds better than a '54 Strat or a '59 Les Paul.
No modern bass guitar sounds better than a '57 P bass or a '62 Jazz Bass.
Most importantly, no musical instrument sounds better than a 250 year old Stradivarius violin!

[starflakeprj]

This is the typical discussion of taste, mostly based on nostalgia and hardcoded personal opinions. Like...

LP vs CD
Analog vs Digital
American muscle cars vs European super sport cars
Vintage cars vs Modern cars
Skiing vacation vs Beach vacation

[JCJR]

It sounds more like you have a plugin on some channel that has an ass-ton of latency (linear EQ, quad comp, IR based reverb..). Simple test. Set the buffer size to 512. What does Reaper say your latency is with no tracks loaded?

Then make one instrument track to a simple VSTi synth. What does reaper say the latency is now?
Do you have playable latency at this setting?

Downloaded latest XR18 driver update, Downloaded latest Reaper 6.11. Went thru prefs with a fine-tooth comb.

Made a new test song project with only one track, set for din-in-din-out Midi thru with no Midi processing.

Set big ASIO latency at 2048 samples 44.1kHz. About 46 ms single buffer latency. With Reaper idling in stop mode, only one track din-in-to-din-out with no Midi processing-- Enormous hardware Midi playthru. Didn't measure but around 50 ms seems about right.

Reducing ASIO buffer size in steps, 1024, 512, 256, 128, 64. On every downward step the din Midithru latency got smaller until "it just don't matter" <= 128.

Will probably ask Justin if it is somehow avoidable but it do look like Reaper saves up din MIDI thru for audio buffer bounds. Tech details of windows hardware Midi have nothing "naturally reliant" on tech details of windows hardware audio.

Reaper makes it easy to write jsfx Midi processor plugins, which is a great feature. Midi processor plugins are called on audio buffer bounds. Am guessing that Justin figured most folks use softsynths and he would have to invent some entirely different way to support din-in-to-din-out midi processor plugins or even two different ways to apply his own built-in channel mapping which for simplicity probably hooks into the same place, ASIO audio callback buffer bounds. I could be somehow guessing wrong. Tis just a wild guess.

Because the programs I used to write supported MIDI before audio was even thunk up, mine actually did have dual paths for Midi processing. The first for Din Midi then a second Midi processing method later added for softsynth support. Just because I had to write new Midi processing for the softsynths didn't mean I had to tear out the old din-only Midi processing. But doing it two different ways would be more trouble if ya started writing a DAW after softsynths had already been invented.

Doesn't seem to affect Reaper din Midi playback timing. Din Midi playback timing seems tight. Just the din Midi playthru timing. The only Reaper issue that bugs me.

Double-checking minimum stable XR18 latency, loaded a recent project with 21 audio tracks, 7 mono and 14 stereo tracks plus typical Fx plugin load. Also 18 Midi tracks, previously hardware-dubbed to audio then muted. The project "almost" plays glitch-free at 256 samples. OK except occasional burbles. Therefore "big project" always-stable buffer size is probably 512 samples as earlier reported. Maybe with mostly din Midi track projects could work at 128 or even 64 sample buffers. Testing needed. Runs glitch free at 64 samples with a stopped empty song just sitting there idling with din Midi Playthru. Maybe it could handle many din-Midi-only tracks at 64 sample buffers. Or not.

Possible non-Reaper fixes:
_1_ Re-rack the old MOTU MTPII. Cross-wire the MTPII with the Midi Express 128. Use MTPII as Midi router-merger to record-monitor direct from the 88 key controller to the synths, rather than MIDI looped thru Reaper before hearing playthru.

MTPII is useless as MIDI interface ever since Macs stopped having SCC chips. However MTPII is also a nice standalone router/mapper/merger.

This would be a hassle but would not be expensive.

_2_ Retire old Yamaha KX88. Replace it with maybe MODX8. Always monitor record tracks using MODX sounds via Local Control always ON. Never enable Reaper Record Thru monitoring.

From my experience recording on one synth then playing back on another can mess up the feel of a track. One plays different according to the nature of each synth. So not an ideal fix.

_3_ Hmm a cheaper equivalent of option 2-- Just run the Kx88 into an old Sound Canvas or whatever GM box around here has fairly low latency, then route the Sound Canvas MIDI Thru into the computer. Otherwise treat it like option 2 without buying anything. Always record while direct monitoring a Sound Canvas or whatever sacrificial synth whose audio never makes it into the final song.

Oh well apologies a long boring completely uninteresting message. TLDR.

[MadDogE134]

maybe wore out caps and resistors? lol it is the inconsistencies of analog that the digital world tries so hard to attain

[Shiek927]

Software has definitely caught up to hardware for quite some time now. If you dislike the sound of the softsynths that are out there, it has much more to do with the character of those synths and your own personal taste as opposed to technology and what's digitally feasible. I can say that my own personal tastes are actually similar to yours in a way because I love late 90's virtual analog synths like Novation Supernova and Yamaha An1X. I personally am pining for a plugin based on the former, Roland JD800, Roland V-Synth, and especially the WaldorfQ -- simply because I love the character of these synths and the era in which they came from. It's not about better or worse because there's technically nothing that any of these synths can do that can't be done on most software synths that are out there, some of which are more powerful or can be had for extremely cheap. I remember I briefly had a Nord Lead 2 and, I kid you not, I found the freeware Synth1 to be an easier and better sounding synth to my ears. A free plugin found superior to a $500-ish dollars on eBay.

Vengeance Avenger, u-he Diva, Xfer Serum, Synapse Audio Dune3 and other synths are all out there and re-affirm they are just as amazing. They might not be the precise earworm you're looking for, but they are just as amazing and that's why many people use them. They might not always be the most appropriate to what you're trying to do, of course. If you're trying to make a very authentic sounding 80s or 90s style track, it won't sound as "real" or authentic as if you were using hardware or plugins inspired by plugins of that era -- just in the same way that 90s hardware and gear might not be the best choice if you're trying to make modern-day Dubstep.

Hardware is extremely expensive. These days, you'd have to really want something these guys can offer that simply can't be found anywhere else, because what's readily available nowadays is so powerful and so inexpensive compared to a giant rack or keyboard that needs space, a MIDI interface, cabling, annoying firmware updates, and everything that comes about dealing with something inherently archaic. But if there's something you just can't live without and there's no telling when a specific piece of hardware will finally make the jump to software, then it's totally valid to save up and make the investment.

[JCJR]

This is the typical discussion of taste, mostly based on nostalgia and hardcoded personal opinions. Like...
LP vs CD
Analog vs Digital
American muscle cars vs European super sport cars

Oh I think personal opinion can be reasoned but not necessarily. So far as sound and workflow I agree it seems a matter of taste...
Kimchi vs Chow Chow
Grits vs Cream of Wheat
Chitlins vs Menudo
Borscht vs Haggis
Mogen David 20/20 vs Mickey's Malt Liquor

[Shiek927]

Well, you can tell them from me that they are complete f**king idiots. You should certainly have no respect for their opinions because they clearly have no idea what they are talking about. I have an Ultranova, the ultimate refinement of the SuperNova engine, and I can assure it doesn't sound as good as DUNE or Thorn or Equator or any of my other more high-end V/A VSTi. It's a great synth, probably the best hardware synth I have ever owned, but it can't hold a candle to DUNE's sound quality.

Agree to disagree because I think the Supernova engines sound better than the Ultranova!

[NAD]

Mac vs PC
Good vs bad
Light vs dark
Cats vs dogs
Alien vs predator
Cow vs chicken
Avocado vs toast
This is fun!

[EvilDragon]

Wait. You can't make a wavetable of a supersaw.

Nope you can't, as detuned supersaw is an aperiodic waveform. Wavetable only allows to run a single oscillator, so you need 7 of them.

Massive X disagrees as it comes with a few supersaw wavetables.

Korg Delta would probably come closest, closer even than the Mono/Poly I had, but no-one is ever going to make an emulation of that and I don't blame them.

Full Bucket Nabla.

[BONES]

It's pretty close to how I remember it, actually, for better or worse. Found it a few weeks ago but thanks.

[EvilDragon]

Ha didn't know if you did or didn't, but just wanted to point it out since you mentioned "no-one is ever..."

That said, Björn's emulations are more datasheet based and subjective tweaking based on audio demos, rather than "take the actual hardware and probe the shit out of it" approach, so it is probably not dead-on accurate, but it should at least get in the ballpark.

[EvilDragon]

Will probably ask Justin if it is somehow avoidable but it do look like Reaper saves up din MIDI thru for audio buffer bounds. Tech details of windows hardware Midi have nothing "naturally reliant" on tech details of windows hardware audio.

Reaper makes it easy to write jsfx Midi processor plugins, which is a great feature. Midi processor plugins are called on audio buffer bounds. Am guessing that Justin figured most folks use softsynths and he would have to invent some entirely different way to support din-in-to-din-out midi processor plugins or even two different ways to apply his own built-in channel mapping which for simplicity probably hooks into the same place, ASIO audio callback buffer bounds. I could be somehow guessing wrong. Tis just a wild guess.

Yes Reaper buffers MIDI inputs, so yes they are bound to audio buffer size. MIDI processing through JSFX is one reason for it, yes. There is a decade old feature request for MIDI in pass-through to out without buffering but nothing happened just yet. Maybe nudge Justin/schwa a little bit

https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=34533

There, I bumped it a bit. Join me?

[BONES]

Björn's emulations are more datasheet based and subjective tweaking based on audio demos, rather than "take the actual hardware and probe the shit out of it" approach, so it is probably not dead-on accurate, but it should at least get in the ballpark.

You have just described my perfect "emulation" - something that embodies the spirit of the original without slavishly reproducing it in every detail. His Mono/Fury has very quickly become a favourite of mine, where I never got into Korg's slavish recreation of Mono/Poly at all. Using Mono/Fury instantly evokes all the fun I had when I owned a real Mono/Poly, whereas I never felt that connection with Korg's, for whatever reason.