olepro wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:01 am
The filter and analog output is not all to make the emulation.
All the modulators has to behave the same, envelope times, levels and I could go on...
And it's all these things SQ8L does correct
SQ80-V still has some issues there, and with sysex import also, IF you want it to be a perfect emulation of the hardware
OK, as I said, I agree that it must be perfected WHEN COMPARED WITH THE HARDWARE
not with SQ8L, if there are noticeable differences.
If you are comparing SQ80 V with SQ8L don't expect to be taken seriously. It's the hardware you have to compare it to - no matter how high you place SQ8L, it isn't the one to reference here. You said you have an Ensoniq SQ-80. Start comparing with it, and report all things you find to Arturia. Forget SQ8L.
And there is a compromise that I, as a user, don't want to see crossed - the possibility to damage the sound of other parts (like, for example the envelopes) for the sake of 100% compatibility with the SQ80 ones. We have THREE KINDS of envelopes. I have to say that, in all the presets I already did, I rarely used the SQ80 ones. I used much more the other two. Regarding modulations, we have A LOT MORE than we had in the SQ80. If messing with the SQ80 ones will risk to modify those, it's better to leave things as they are.
A software instrument is a software instrument. Arturia follows a path where they don't simply emulate an existing instrument - they enrich it with new and updated features. Maybe to do that some compromises have to be made - I don't know. If that's the case, I will gladly abdicate of the extra 1% accuracy in favor of more and better features. As I said, I never used the SQ8L exactly because of it's "accuracy"
which was taken so seriously as to emulate the stupid and completely archaic user interface.
To sum it up - NO, it's not SQ8L that has to be taken into account here, no matter how good YOU think it is. If you want to be taken seriously, you should stop talking about it, and start talking about the Ensoniq SQ-80 instead - which, BTW, I didn't heard you talking about, except to say you own one.
I also have a Roland Juno-60 (and other stuff too - I just mentioned the Juno-60 because it seems to be very popular these days), and I rarely pick it. I really don't care how good it sounds. I only use it for teaching purposes. To make music, I always use the software. And I don't care if it is 90% accurate, 95% accurate or 99% accurate. I program the sounds I want on the sofware, and use them - exactly as I did before with the hardware, without comparing anything with anything.