New Vocoder by Softube

[Niowiad]

Same here, no interest in vocoders without an external input.
The only exception being emulations of vintage vocoders with their specific built-in carrier.

[kritikon]

Having no external carrier is pretty limiting. Bones - when you change the character and frequency content of the carrier, it drastically varies the output of the vocoder. If all you want is exactly the same character of vocoding for everything you do then that's fine and use the built in carrier. It's convenient, but extremely limiting. I can drastically change how my vocoder sounds by using choral carriers rather than the bog standard saw waves. I can do things like put in a drastically changing Wavestate pad in (any synth with morphing type sounds would work equally as well) and it gives a whole differrent dimension to it. Inbuilt carriers might possibly have some options eg saw, noise, but I haven't seen any that give anything like a wide range of sounds. And I don't ever just want noise and saw based carriers. The carrier synth will generally be pretty limited in all its other functions too - some don't even have filters etc - changing a filter/sweeping frequency/altering res etc also makes a huge difference to the vocoder output. Unless Softube put on a fully featured synth as the carrier...it's a pretty basic vocoder.

[kritikon]

Oh yeah...it'll be iLok too. Won't ever be buying it then.

[kritikon]

I tried to have a proper look at it on their site. Demo version - great, but I assume you have to iLok the f**king thing to even try out the demo. Aside from that, the vocoder itself:

Carrier synth. Probably the most basic synth I've ever seen. I know it's only there for a carrier but really? 4 waveforms (TBH I'm surprised they even could be bothered to add the PWM to the pulse) no choice of different types of noise, not any attempt at some kind of choral type wave - you can make vocal type sounds out of pulses but not if there's no synth engine. An envelope and that's it. No filter whatsoever. Can you even blend the waves together? Couldn't see it. Good price admittedly, can't fault them on that. Some of the others are $200-250 although those others tend to have around 58 times more features and tweakable parameters than this real basic vocoder. 20 bands - yeah a vocoder can sound reasonably good at that level, but it's s/w FFS, there's no excuse for not having more bands. Same coding x 5 is all. Anyone who ever used a vocoder knows that the more bands you have, the better the clarity. That's just lazy coding - not that Softube are the only culprits there. FL and Melda both make 100 band ones at the same/similar price, with external carrier capability and a shitload more under the hood. I don't see much in the way of modulation capability of the output at all.

It might sound OK for what it does (I'll never know as it's PACE shite) but first glance it looks a little like comparing a Zydeco one string carboard box bass to a Stradivarius violin. Don't look like they put much effort into it. Not impressed by Softube at all.

Found the examples on their site. Confirms all of the above. It sounds really basic. Very unclear and muddy - even at 20 bands that's the best they can make it do? Horrible sibilants - the S's were just nasty. what was it - $80 on sale price. That's around $80 too much - isn't it TAL who makes a freebie? I remember trying that one out and didn't end up using it, it sounded very similar to this one, but great value at free. Freebie quality at $80...'avin' a laff Softube, innit.
I bought the Melda vocoder at I think it was $29 or some incredible price - Softube should seriously go have a play with the Melda one (was on offer too) OR open up FL and play with that vocoder (sadly not for sale as a plugin now ) and then go back to the classroom and figure out where they went wrong. I don't particularly like slagging companies but Softube are supposed to have a reputation as great coders. Yeah, right.

[BONES]

I certainly have no interest in ever using one, it's the most cringeworthy cliche in electronic music. But I thought I knew how they worked. I had assumed that in the 21st Century they'd have replaced audio input for MIDI.

[Agreed]

But MIDI is a control signal only - if you plug in a MIDI keyboard and start playing notes without a soft synth receiving them and being controlled, nothing happens. It is not the same thing as a carrier signal, it just lets you control the internal carrier signal generator. It would be cool if you could use an external carrier signal, which would also conceivably be controlled via MIDI of course. I feel we must be misunderstanding each other here?

[elxsound]

But MIDI is a control signal only - if you plug in a MIDI keyboard and start playing notes without a soft synth receiving them and being controlled, nothing happens. It is not the same thing as a carrier signal, it just lets you control the internal carrier signal generator. It would be cool if you could use an external carrier signal, which would also conceivably be controlled via MIDI of course. I feel we must be misunderstanding each other here?

He’s not following what the benefit of an external input would be over just using the internal input.

[cthonophonic]

Well you're not going to make your guitar talk without a carrier input, that's for sure.

[whyterabbyt]

But MIDI is a control signal only - if you plug in a MIDI keyboard and start playing notes without a soft synth receiving them and being controlled, nothing happens. It is not the same thing as a carrier signal, it just lets you control the internal carrier signal generator. It would be cool if you could use an external carrier signal, which would also conceivably be controlled via MIDI of course. I feel we must be misunderstanding each other here?

He’s not following what the benefit of an external input would be over just using the internal input.

Seems more like he's not understanding what a vocoder is actually doing.

[theviirus]

But MIDI is a control signal only ... I feel we must be misunderstanding each other here?

He’s not following what the benefit of an external input would be over just using the internal input.

Seems more like he's not understanding what a vocoder is actually doing.

At this point who cares what he thinks. He's not contributing to the subject at hand at all.

So, back on topic.... mid last year I got on a vocoder kick after listening to some early Underworld; mk1 era, when they claimed they wanted to be "pop stars". Wanted a vocoder for my own uses, tried using the TAL, tried using Logic EVOC20, but they took a lot of work to get "sort of ok" and I still was not getting results I wanted to keep. I considered getting an SVC350 till I saw reverb prices, a VP330 was out of the question (also reverb prices), considered the Roland VT4, VP03, a microkorg, Digitech Talker; all the demo videos I found did not impress me. I eventually watched youtube videos doing comparisons between the Roland VP330 and Behringer VC340; that sold me! I have a VC340, it sounds great, and is so much more fun to use than software. I thought the lack of extended controls, like on the SVC350 or TAL, would be an issue; they arent. It gives you exactly what you would expect for vocoding.

This is not a hardware vs software issue, more a preference on what I feel sounds and works better for me. I may demo the Softube Vocoder, but I'm also not really sold on what I've heard in the demos. The demos really work against it. Some of the features are interesting. I really like the quality of Softube products but this one is a miss for me. I'm more than happy with my VC340.

The Starsky Carr demo is much more informative...so I'll link it here.

[kritikon]

I very nearly bought one of those Behringer vocoders. Still might - they sound pretty good even with limited bands. That's the trouble with this Softube one - maybe their demos are just very badly done, but it doesn't compare well even against a h/w vocoder that is underspecced compared to some s/w ones. I haven't heard anything from this one that TAL freebie can't do and that one doesn't cost $80. Even Starr above showed at low band numbers it's fine - does silly voices that you expect but it's when it's up at 20 bands it just is not very clear at all. I still like the idea of the hw vocoder...I can still use MVocoder for precision vocoding and weird stuff, but the VC340 just for the joy of actually playing.

Didn't realise this used to be UAD only. Makes me think UAD customers are buying into snake oil, because this is not a classy vocoder - FL and MVocoder blow this out of the water at 100 bands - like taking a blanket off the sound.

[Agreed]

I was super unimpressed with this tbh. I do not like its sounds or how it works. Tried it and I shall pass.

[theviirus]

I finally demo'ed the Softube Vocoder. Its pretty decent at what it does, but my VC340 has depth that I've not been able to match with the Softube Vocoder. If you specifically want the Roland VP330/SVC350 vocoder sound (±ensemble)...skip the Softube Vocoder as it doesn't get there. The emphasis knob, every time I used it, seemed to always make what I was doing sound worse/dull. The stereo width knob didn't really improve the sound either. The TAL Vocoder is a good alternative. (Dave Noller of Dynamix II informed the design of it too!)

So now I feel bad for side-eyeing my VC340. And it feels strange to praise Behringer as, outside of their controversies, B aren't known for quality or stellar products and their clones aren't always as close as they hope. I came to wreck a nice beach; the VC340 comes out on top for me.

[sleepypoos]

(because there are many vocoders that give the option to allow input for the carrier AND modulator...which has nothing to do with the midi or midi sequencing at all.)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. None at all. How are you going to get any note information from one instrument to another without MIDI?

fiy, pretty sure vocoders existed before MIDI...

[Friendly Noise]

Softube vocoder does sound good to me, but as good as…?