Arturia V Collection 8 official thread

[PatchAdamz]

The Juno 6 is dummy thicc.

I think Arturia did a good job on this release.

The total list of synths now in the V collection is getting LARGE.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Anyone find the Juno-6 chorus to be generally terrible in I+II mode? The chorus was ok, but unconvincing in the individual modes, but the double mode sounded terrible to me. Otherwise, the synth itself sounded pretty good.

[briefcasemanx]

The tone of the chorus is GREAT, but it's a little weak sounding compared to the hardware. The hardware increases volume with chorus engaged so that could be part of it, and the versions I owned had more noise.

And yeah when you press I+II the behavior is way off and basically unusable. Needs to be fixed.

Also suddenly some of my other v collection synths don't work after updating everything. Buchla won't load in Studio One 4.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

My favorite Juno chorus is actually the Cloud version which doesn't do the I+II mode at all, but has the thickness and tone right for the individual modes. Damn shame that's not available as a standalone plugin. Next up is Tal, which sounds a bit on the clean side (i.e. not quite dark enough when fully wet and no noise at all). I guess unless you're going all in and doing a detailed model of the BBD chips and surrounding circuity, it's just a hard little device to pull off. Oddly, I really like the Arturia Dimension Chorus, so they can do it (or whoever they contract out the work can).

[mholloway]

Anyone find the Juno-6 chorus to be generally terrible in I+II mode? The chorus was ok, but unconvincing in the individual modes, but the double mode sounded terrible to me. Otherwise, the synth itself sounded pretty good.

And yeah when you press I+II the behavior is way off and basically unusable. Needs to be fixed.

I+II mode is mono, that's what you're hearing. It's faithful to the original. Everybody seems to incorrectly think it should sound different, but I think it's because their reference is the TAL synth software, not an actual Juno 6/60/106.

[briefcasemanx]

Anyone find the Juno-6 chorus to be generally terrible in I+II mode? The chorus was ok, but unconvincing in the individual modes, but the double mode sounded terrible to me. Otherwise, the synth itself sounded pretty good.

And yeah when you press I+II the behavior is way off and basically unusable. Needs to be fixed.

I+II mode is mono, that's what you're hearing. It's faithful to the original. Everybody seems to incorrectly think it should sound different, but I think it's because their reference is the TAL synth software, not an actual Juno 6/60/106.

I've owned a Juno 6 and currently own a Juno 106. Doesn't sound right to me.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Also, finally played with the new Rhodes yesterday. It's a big improvement, but it's still a bit of a ways off IMO. The tines are a bit too loud (I know you can adjust the volume), a bit too clean and consistent sounding. I've got a Mark I as well as Keyscape and other libraries, and I still think samples are the way to go. Or maybe VTines which is a combo of phsyical modeling and samples (never used the Pianotec Rhodes so won't comment).

But...still, huge improvement. The prior version was not good at all IMO, whereas this one just sounds a bit off and synthetic. Would probably blend well in a mix, but if the Rhodes was at the forefront of a track, I think people would recognize it wasn't the real deal.

So in my view: the Jup V4 is a big upgrade and great, the Juno-6V is good minus the chorus (which is a big deal in a Juno IMO), the Rhodes is a big upgrade but still not better than a good sample library, and the OB-X I was not a fan of when it was first released. Much preferred Obsession. Haven't tried the Emulator yet. So far, the collection isn't worth the $199 upgrade to me, but I'll pick it up on the next sale.

Arturia must contract work out because the quality of the emulations feels all over the place. I really dig the Modulation FX but really hate the compressors. I really like the new Jupiter but did not get on at all with OB-XV. I really like the DX-7, CZ, and some others, but for each of those, there's another that just does nothing for me. Overall, the quality has improved recently, but they still manage to put out duds every now and then. All in all, if you were newer to music making and haven't amassed the giant plugin collection some of us have and just wanted a ton of sounds, it'd be really hard to argue with the Collection.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I+II mode is mono, that's what you're hearing. It's faithful to the original. Everybody seems to incorrectly think it should sound different, but I think it's because their reference is the TAL synth software, not an actual Juno 6/60/106.

It's not the fact that it's mono. It sounds like there's a tremolo when both modes are on. The depth feels off. Like they modeled the TC June-60 chorus or something.

[Stefken]

My favorite Juno chorus is actually the Cloud version which doesn't do the I+II mode at all, but has the thickness and tone right for the individual modes. Damn shame that's not available as a standalone plugin.

Well, it’s available in their hardwarised plugins ( the mc 101 is probably your cheapest bet) but that’s probably not the answer you re looking for.

Although there have been a lot of attempts my favorite emulations of Roland synths actually are the... Roland ones.

[briefcasemanx]

2 of the compressors are pretty forgettable IMO (really wanted to like the 165a, damn it), but the 1176 (the 1 out of the 3 that I didn't care about because I own like 5 other versions of it) is one of the best ITB compressors. I haven't used a hardware 1176 so I'm just judging it on its own merit, rather than how faithful it is.

Preamps are pretty forgettable too IMO, but the saturation on the v76 sounds great, especially on synths IMO.

[jackson881]

Can V8 be installed on an external hard drive via the installer?

As the collection grows larger and larger, I've been hoping Arturia would eventually make this a default install option that didn't require workarounds. I'd prefer to not install the content directly on my MacBook.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

2 of the compressors are pretty forgettable IMO (really wanted to like the 160, damn it), but the 1176 (the 1 out of the 3 that I didn't care about because I own like 5 other versions of it) is one of the best ITB compressors. I haven't used a hardware 1176 so I'm just judging it on its own merit, rather than how faithful it is.

Yeah, I'll be honest, the 1176 does a good job at killing peaks, probably in part due to the lookahead. So for things like drum rooms where you want the sustain of a smashed room but not the peaks, it's actually pretty useful. But as an 1176, it's not a very good model. UAD and TrackComp are probably the closest to my hardware clone. You can pop open the Arturia 76 in Plugin Doctor and see that there's no harmonics happening at all when there's no gain reduction, which right there points to it not being the most exacting circuit emulated hardware model. So I guess it depends on the measure.

[briefcasemanx]

The Roland cloud filter and just initial tone doesn't sound right to me. It's easily the best chorus emulation i've heard though. Pretty spot on in that it gets the tone right while also sounding thick and not weak at all. I think IIRC it also boosted volume like the hardware does?

Yeah, I'll be honest, the 1176 does a good job at killing peaks, probably in part due to the lookahead. So for things like drum rooms where you want the sustain of a smashed room but not the peaks, it's actually pretty useful. But as an 1176, it's not a very good model. UAD and TrackComp are probably the closest to my hardware clone. You can pop open the Arturia 76 in Plugin Doctor and see that there's no harmonics happening at all when there's no gain reduction, which right there points to it not being the most exacting circuit emulated hardware model. So I guess it depends on the measure.

Yeah, it's my go to NY comp synth (usually on drums). I wanted to like their 165 for that purpose but couldn't get it to work for me.

[Echoes in the Attic]

So in my view: the Jup V4 is a big upgrade and great, the Juno-6V is good minus the chorus (which is a big deal in a Juno IMO), the Rhodes is a big upgrade but still not better than a good sample library, and the OB-X I was not a fan of when it was first released. Much preferred Obsession. Haven't tried the Emulator yet. So far, the collection isn't worth the $199 upgrade to me, but I'll pick it up on the next sale.

Arturia must contract work out because the quality of the emulations feels all over the place. I really dig the Modulation FX but really hate the compressors. I really like the new Jupiter but did not get on at all with OB-XV. I really like the DX-7, CZ, and some others, but for each of those, there's another that just does nothing for me. Overall, the quality has improved recently, but they still manage to put out duds every now and then.

I feel pretty much the same. A few are pretty impressive but some not so much. I personally think the Juno sounds like one of their older synths, not so impressive, muddy. Tal and Roland 106 are to me in another league. But their Mini V I've always liked. The Synthi, Buchla and Jup V4 sound like a different generation from all the rest. But in general I still feel like they are all catching up to about 5 other developers of analog emulations.

If Arturia added MPE to most of their synths and gave the 2600 and CS-80 the same treatment as the jupiter, I might become interested in the collection again.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

But their Mini V I've always liked.

That's where we wildly differ. Every now and then I'll load up Mini V thinking, "c'mon, it can't be as bad as you remember" and I find that my memory is better than I give it credit for.

Compared to The Legend, Monark, Diva, the Softube, my Poly-D...that Mini V just does not hold up at all IMO.