Why don’t u-he synths Sound as good as hardware?

[ghostwhistler]

I have Repro and think it sounds fantastic. I'll never own the hardware and don't care to. But, as I have Pigments for wavetable fun, is there any reason to also pick up the Arturia prophet vst?

Assuming you're talking about the Prophet VS emulation, I'd say yes. Prophet VS isn't a wavetable synth, it uses 4 waveforms that you can morph between. Even if it's not the most accurate emulation, it's still a pretty cool vsti that can do some evolving nice pads.

The arturia version has more waveforms than just the 4.

[itanever]

I have Repro and think it sounds fantastic. I'll never own the hardware and don't care to. But, as I have Pigments for wavetable fun, is there any reason to also pick up the Arturia prophet vst?

Assuming you're talking about the Prophet VS emulation, I'd say yes. Prophet VS isn't a wavetable synth, it uses 4 waveforms that you can morph between. Even if it's not the most accurate emulation, it's still a pretty cool vsti that can do some evolving nice pads.

The arturia version has more waveforms than just the 4.

No-no. I mean you can use 4 waveforms simultaneously, kind of like having 4 oscillators.

[whyterabbyt]

i think it has been used as a excuse..

I know its a fact that components age, and that affects the circuits they're in. I also know its a fact that 40 years ago, part tolerances were not as good as they are now, so there were differences between the systems straight from the factory. and there were different revisions of systems that looked outwardly the same.

if it s in good condition their is probably not much very big difference

capacitors still age, good condition or not. that's why refurbished synths where the components have been replaced attract even higher prices than 'good condition'.

And its a thing that's been asserted time and time again by people who own this age of equipment.
I'll take their word against yours any day of the week. Feel free to find three vintage MS-20s that sound identical, though, that'd be a laugh.

[whyterabbyt]

Prophet VS isn't a wavetable synth, it uses 4 waveforms that you can morph between.

The waveforms are held in single-cycle wavetables.

Chris Meier, one of the three designers, considers that they intended it to be based on what he specifically calledwavetables, and even looked at the PPGs and DWs as to potential implementations.

https://learningmodular.com/the-story-o ... rophet-vs/

[zerocrossing]

Arturia's Prophet is not great. Neither is their moog.
So no, Arturia isn't closer to hardware and Repro isn't harsh, you're just uninformed.

You disqualified yourself with that statement about Arturia’s Minimoog.

As far as Repro, I’m only informed by what I heard. And it sounds like garbage in that video. You can’t honestly listen to it and claim otherwise.

Now you’re totally trolling. Hard.

Unless you have a sweet potato in each ear, the differences are pretty clear.

From my experience with several Minimoog emulations (Arturia Mini V, Monark, Diva, Model 72, Legend), I think that none of them really is perfect, and they're all different. Arturia surely is the furthest from the real thing though. Like the other Arturia synths, it sounds like a soft synth, in a bad way. Too generic, too clean, not enough bang in the envelopes, no pleasant analog resonance behavior of the filter.

Even comparing the others, they all have the one or the other shortcoming, or differences which may have been in the units they were modelled on. E.g. Model 72's filter almost has an unusual character for a Moog ladder filter. At least it sounds different than Monark's and Diva's filters, which are very close. On the other hand, neither Monark nor Diva have such clicky envelopes as the Model 72. I'm not sure how the envelopes on the real thing are, but, to me it seems like they exaggerated a bit in the Model 72. Same with the saturation. And Diva seems to be darker/more dampened than the others, which you also hear in the video your posted.

Let's just say that the holy grail surely hasn't been achieved yet. If it will ever be achieved.

Well, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, “the units they were modeled on.” We have no idea, and it’s common knowledge that no two Model Ds sound exactly the same and that probably gets magnified over time. I think the difference between Legend and Model 72 are small enough to be considered caused by those differences.

I have no actual first hand experience with a Model D, though for a year I worked on a project where the keyboard player had one. It didn’t get a lot of use, though. No music store I worked in ever stocked them. I’ve heard them on albums, like everyone else, and those go though the entire mixing and mastering process. However, I do have an ATC-X, which isn’t a Model D, but it does have its oscillators and one of its filters based on the Model D’s. Going by that, the oscillator and filter tone of Legend and Model 72 sound the closest, but more importantly, they sound very good and, dare I say it… analog. Monark sounds good too, but maybe a bit too constrained. I don’t use it outside the context of Reaktor’s blocks system. Diva… sounds really off to me. It’s never sounded right, IMO. Good? Yes, but it seems like accuracy was sacrificed for other things. Probably voice count.

I really don’t care about getting the Holy Grail. I saw what happened to King Arthur when he attempted finding it and I do not want to get taunted by Frenchmen in a castle that’s inexplicably in the English countryside. I don’t think anyone wants that. What I want are good sounding synthesizers, and I think anyone who rejects software of any type is painting themselves into a corner. Maybe they’re happy in that corner, but I wouldn’t be. I like to stretch out and explore. Hardware, outside of Eurorack, is usually very basic. I use it all the time, but for some things, software rules, even though it usually sounds a bit more constrained and polite compared to hardware. Sometimes, that’s exactly what you want, especially when you have a more wild and raw hardware analog that’s dominating a mix. Like my Dominion 1, for instance. It’s literally in the name. What did you expect!?

I’ll also add that this topic is officially moot in 2022. Not happy with U-He’s Prophet 5 emulation? Buy the real deal. They’re making them. Too expensive? Wait for Behringer’s, which you know is going to get released at some point. (Maybe) Diva’s Model D isn’t hitting your G-Spot? Uli’s Model D is available in two flavors. Take your pick, or buy both. They’re certainly cheap enough. 10 years ago this wasn’t really an option, but now using hardware synths is inexpensive enough for almost anyone, and if Behringer’s new $99 synths ever get released, the excuse to not have some sort of hardware will become even thinner. The exclusive club of analog synth owners is over. Come join us… or not. No one will notice either way, except other nerds who don’t really matter much in the grand scheme of things.

[zerocrossing]

Prophet VS isn't a wavetable synth, it uses 4 waveforms that you can morph between.

The waveforms are held in single-cycle wavetables.

Chris Meier, one of the three designers, considers that they intended it to be based on what he specifically calledwavetables, and even looked at the PPGs and DWs as to potential implementations.

https://learningmodular.com/the-story-o ... rophet-vs/

I think PPG and Waldorf forever defined the way people think of a “wavetable” synth. I don’t personally think of the VS as a wavetable synth either, even though I know it technically is. My Prophet 12 also has 4 oscillators, and each oscillator has the ability to “morph” between 3 wave choices. The results can sound very similar to what people consider as wavetable synths, but I don’t really think of them in the same way that I’d think of something like the Waldorf Microwave synths, or even my Novation Peak.

[whyterabbyt]

Yeah, people keep insisting on that, but its not as universal as they insist. Its only been about a week since someone posted asking about wavetable synths, but after a request for disambiguation, it turned out all their examples were based around single-cycle wavetables.

[HAL76]

I don´t really get why the discussion seems to turn around wellness hotels now, but I´d say that the answer on the question from the headline is simple: The U-he synths don´t sound like hardware because they are software synths and digital by nature.

Call me stupid now, call me daddy, whatever - I believe that simplissity is never really untrue as well as I respect the wide spread opinion that it would be in this case. I wouldn´t say that I´d give a beep on those assesments but it´s fine if you think so. Really. No discussions bout that, better ask your mom or migrate your needs to the adequate subforum.

[Urs]

Well, any recording of an analogue hardware synth played back in a YouTube video digital by nature, too. I don't think the "nature of things" says anything about the quality of perception.

People so far can only distinguish the two with certainty if they see somebody wrestling keys of the hardware while staring at a bland screenshot when the software is heard. Another giveaway is when they actually don't even play the same notes.

And sometime the difference in programming is a lot more obvious than the difference in base sound.

[zerocrossing]

Yeah, people keep insisting on that, but its not as universal as they insist. Its only been about a week since someone posted asking about wavetable synths, but after a request for disambiguation, it turned out all their examples were based around single-cycle wavetables.

It’s just semantics. We all ask for a “Kleenex” when we should say, “tissue,” but who’s going to say that, and who doesn’t know what is meant when you use the brand name?

Also, I don’t know about the technical aspects of things, but I’d imagine that some synths that we call wavetable synths aren’t using a sample the way traditional wavetable synths work. Does Hive? It doesn’t really seem like it.

You can I could set up a coalition to come up with more defied terms for the differences between a Microwave and a 002, but getting people to actually use those terms is probably impossible. We’re just going to have to have this conversation over and over again until we die.

[itanever]

Prophet VS isn't a wavetable synth, it uses 4 waveforms that you can morph between.

The waveforms are held in single-cycle wavetables.

Chris Meier, one of the three designers, considers that they intended it to be based on what he specifically calledwavetables, and even looked at the PPGs and DWs as to potential implementations.

https://learningmodular.com/the-story-o ... rophet-vs/

I think PPG and Waldorf forever defined the way people think of a “wavetable” synth. I don’t personally think of the VS as a wavetable synth either, even though I know it technically is. My Prophet 12 also has 4 oscillators, and each oscillator has the ability to “morph” between 3 wave choices. The results can sound very similar to what people consider as wavetable synths, but I don’t really think of them in the same way that I’d think of something like the Waldorf Microwave synths, or even my Novation Peak.

Yeah, I agree. In my mind VS is in a different compartment.

[kobal]

i think it has been used as a excuse..

I know its a fact that components age, and that affects the circuits they're in. I also know its a fact that 40 years ago, part tolerances were not as good as they are now, so there were differences between the systems straight from the factory. and there were different revisions of systems that looked outwardly the same.

if it s in good condition their is probably not much very big difference

capacitors still age, good condition or not. that's why refurbished synths where the components have been replaced attract even higher prices than 'good condition'.

And its a thing that's been asserted time and time again by people who own this age of equipment.
I'll take their word against yours any day of the week. Feel free to find three vintage MS-20s that sound identical, though, that'd be a laugh.

agree yes but when listening the arturia or even some stuff in monark i wouldn t say it s cause it s modeled on a different moog. it s clearly not things i heard with analog synth , or not on par with analog synths , i don t know legend and model 72 but i m pretty sure some spots are also not like the hardware it s modelled on.
all the emulations feel like different synths with same architecture almost, some of that is cause of the synths it s modelled but it feel like it s also cause of different modelling technics, synapse uhe softube they all have their sound to me, specially arturia.

[whyterabbyt]

It’s just semantics.

actually, its a technical term.

We all ask for a “Kleenex”

but that's something else entirely, a genericized trademark.

now, if you were to say that you always ask for 'wine' when it could be red wine, or white wine, or rose, and argued that everyone expects it to mean red wine, you'd be closer.

Also, I don’t know about the technical aspects of things, but I’d imagine that some synths that we call wavetable synths aren’t using a sample the way traditional wavetable synths work.

do you mean traditional single-cycle wavetables, or traditional multi-cycle wavetables?

[zerocrossing]

I don´t really get why the discussion seems to turn around wellness hotels now, but I´d say that the answer on the question from the headline is simple: The U-he synths don´t sound like hardware because they are software synths and digital by nature.

Call me stupid now, call me daddy, whatever…

You’re stupid, daddy.

Kidding aside, what is your point? There are plenty of digital hardware synths. They all sound like themselves, but there isn’t some “hardware” sound, though people would love to make you believe it. I guess it’s time for my favorite story. We all know how I love to drone on about it. Had to (not really) go ITB for a time. Started looking into a full laptop setup. I never actually went ITB (the cause went away), but I did ditch my digital hardware synths. I spent a few weeks going over each synth with acceptable replacement plugin. Some were spot on, or even better, like the case of my Wavestation vs. Korg’s Wavestation plugin. (The plugin used the full 16 bit ROM waveforms while the hardware used truncated 11 bit waveforms, if memory serves.) Other synths, like my Virus C and MS2000 had no direct emulations, but plugins like Zebra 2 or Sylenth did a fine job of getting in the neighborhood, and in some ways surpassing the hardware.

Smash cut to 2022, and plugin development has flourished, while digital hardware synths have seen a lot less development. Only recently are we seeing things like the Iridium and Hydrasynth that are turning people’s attention away from software, or more like providing the no-software crowd with modern hardware tools to get up to speed. I’ve personally got no dog in this race, but I’ve yet to hear a digital hardware synth that makes me want to buy it, except for Modor’s NF-1, but I’ve been able to get pretty close using ArcSyn. (Plus, ArcSyn does a lot more.) If you feel like hardware sounds better, knock yourself out. There’s plenty of choice these days and no reason to put anything down.

[whyterabbyt]

The U-he synths don´t sound like hardware because they are software synths and digital by nature.

so are vast numbers of hardware synths.