Softube Model 82

[HOTF]

I really wish they wouldn't overlap with the few emulations Tal did. The 101 was already really well done. There are others that they should focus their efforts on like the MS-20.

You guys are sleeping on the Cherry audio's PS-20. Sounds more authentic than the arturia MS-20 V imho.

[plexuss]

Hmm. The Model 82 is brighter to me - as said in the video, the ranges on the software are a little deeper, a little further than the hardware.

For me, the noise on the Model 82 is the weakest part. I don’t have the hardware, though, to compare it.

Interesting! I went and relistened and more closely. I still think the hardware is brighter. On a sawtooth patch with a completely open fliter, in the video, I hear upper harmonics buzzing away on the hardware. Those harmonics seem to be less bright on the Model 82 which for me creates a tone that is over-all less bright. Listen closely to the upper most high end of an open saw and compare. I can hear it in the video. Or, I am completely wrong which is probable. Could always look at it on a scope.

[Arashi]

You guys are sleeping on the Cherry audio's PS-20. Sounds more authentic than the arturia MS-20 V imho.

I have to disagree with you there. I have an actual MS-20 (mini), and PS-20 sounds nothing like it. I tried matching several different patches; it's not even close, and no amount of tweaking could close the gap.

Even Korg's old plugin is much closer (though it does require a lot of tweaking by ear, because the parameter ranges are totally different). I haven't done a deep dive on the Arturia plugin yet, but I did a quick attempt to match my current patch on the hardware just by copying the patch cables and knob positions and tweaking a bit, and it sounds right to me.

That's not to say PS-20 is a bad synth. I like it. It just doesn't sound like an MS-20.

[Freaqpeak]

From a production quality standpoint, take Deadmau5 for example. Love him or hate him, his music has superb production quality. Last I checked he is running everything through a Neve console with everything in Dolby. So my only real question is, what artists in Trance are putting out high level production quality music right now?

Is Deadmau5's stuff not Tarnce? What is it, then and why is it not Tarnce? (The spelling is an old KVR joke, for those who may not remember.)

It's crappy music with good production (my taste of course). Has NOTHING except a 4/4 kick drum in common with tarnce. It's pop music.

You can say that EBM got stuck in some 80's version of how to use synths. And the lyrics. .

I did an EBM track for fun at one time. I played it for EBM fans at a party and they liked it without knowing it was my production (the only way to know that people aren't being just nice). Lyrics was made up from extensive editing/reversing a singers recording from a known group in that genre (I did some remixes for them so he was kind enough to give his voice recording to play with). It sounded pretty cool and was very fun to make..
It takes me several years to make a track sometimes, in this case I just went heywire and finished it in two days. Compared to the genre it sounded like it would fit on any EBM compilation.

[HOTF]

You guys are sleeping on the Cherry audio's PS-20. Sounds more authentic than the arturia MS-20 V imho.

I have to disagree with you there. I have an actual MS-20 (mini), and PS-20 sounds nothing like it. I tried matching several different patches; it's not even close, and no amount of tweaking could close the gap.

I have not heard the MS-20 mini vs original so i can't really talk about that. However I found it came close enough to the og MS-20. It's def not identical, I think not of the emulations really are. This is subjective but for me it's close enough to get barky, screamy sounds like you would on a MS-20. Even if it's not the 1:1 it conveys the same vibe + some nice extra feratures. and i got it on sale for like 25$... was a no brainer for me. The only thing that bothers me is the color of the UI is kinda pale with no stauration it kinds of hurts the eyes

[Freaqpeak]

Which is exactly why they are one dimensional and boring

Just like EBM or any genre then. It's just a matter of perception and taste.
You do have to like repetitive beats, some based entirely on rhythms without ANY chord progressions, to enjoy some genres. Whether it's music from ancient Africa, Asia or Scandinavia... OR any contemporary tribal music, you will hate it. And btw, using chords to make progression in a song is such a cliché - you might even call it a simple trick.
African tribal music sucks because polyrhythms is such a cliché?
And they all use pretty much the same instruments all the time - and the same tricks - so it must suck. Same sounds.

What about classical pieces then? The whole genre is based on a set of acoustic instruments. What a cliché to only use those instruments

More likely they discovered how little effort was required compared to writing actual songs.

Just like me then, when I made EBM for fun, and it was SO much easier to make EBM than a good psychedelic tarnce track. It's harder for me, because I don't usually use chord progression tricks to maintain interest. I have to use the sounds themselfs.
There is so much money in goa tarnce you know. People only do it because it's easy and they can have a steady income and then make pop music or EBM as their real interest/goal.

You can't afford to do that with this shite, either. I mean listen to the 5 Goa songs that have been posted - they all use the same little tricks over and over again. If you were interested in the "auditory journey", you'd be bored blue by the third song because its the same journey over and over.

Yes I can, I love sounds. I dislike a lot of goa... but are you trying to say that "tricks" are bad? MUSIC IS ALL BASED ON TRICKS. Chord progressions = tricks. Melodies in major or minor or whatever = tricks. Listen to Ludwig's Moonlight Sonata for instance. Holy crap, the tricks he is using in there. I love it.

But the sounds are f**king boring and cliched. The whole thing is so cringeworthy it's almost kind of sad that you don't see it. Yes, our genre is definitely the same but we take the piss out of it all the time.

We take a piss of it as well. We do it all the time. People in this genre even make "make fun of tracks" that imitates trends and clichés.

Just accept that your personal view of music and taste doesn't matter to anyone else.

The things you find boring and clichéd maybe just works, that's why so many things becomes clichés, people find things that works and re-use them. Why is EBM music so stuck on the same structure and basic theme? Because it works. I hate snare fills, I never use them. I HATED 303's in the late 90's because everybody used them. But they work. It's just our taste we're talking about. Taste changes over time of course.

I take a piss at goa/psy all the time. There's so much that sounds that same. Copy-cats all over in all genres. Just like ANY genre. We took a lot of piss out of Astral Projection in the late 90's because it's quite cheezy and everyone else thought that THAT was goa tarnce only while we were bored of it. I DO love some of it though. They were definitely pioneers of that sound.

The above examples are "mainstream" goa, nothing wrong with that but you don't know the genre from those examples. For sure there are elements which are the same. That is because it works. You may not like it, but it works.

All these tracks are goa tarnce. Take a quick (or full) listen to the tracks below.

Procs


Four Carry Nuts



Tim Schuldt's remix of a FLA track


Antedeluvian Rocking Horse (loved this in the parties in the mid 90's):


Texas Faggott (haha.. just had to, it makes fun of some other music)


Hux Flux (used the SH-101 for a lot tracks).


Der Dritte Raum


The Delta


Logic Bomb


You can hate it all, but it has more diversity than many other genres, I would say. And so what? It's still a matter of taste.

[Friendly Noise]

Very nice Video Friendly Noise. Mode 82 really delivers. I´m in love with the envelope and the filter. Sometimes the filter envelope falls short for some cases and I use offset in Modular for a more prominent filter envelope. I am enjoying using the modules, you can get very nice sounds combining them with other modules. I got a nice bass sound with the sine module going to the intellijel wavefolder, summing that with the sh101 suboscilator and driving the result into the filter. Little level variations between the two oscilator sources, even subtle ones, bring lots of variations. I wish we had subpresets for the patches. We need some improvements to the Modular system, but either way I am enjoying all I can get, sounds full of character and with a real presence. It is one of the few virtual instruments that I dare to put in front of the mix with no fear.

Thanks.

I don’t know to describe it, but with the software you seem to be looking for the right sound, while the hardware is all sweep spot. Then again, when you listen to the recorded sound, the differences can be small or negligible (ymmv). I still think after the video that my SH-101 won’t be sold, but like you, I would take the Model 82 for recordings without reservations.

Have you considered that fact you’re comfortable with - and used to - the hardware? Someone using only the software for a couple years could easily say the same about the hardware - about how the software is easy but you have to hunt for the sound on the hardware.

Maybe. Maybe not. But it’s one thing you didn’t acknowledge in the video (a video I appreciate you making).

As you can imagine, I have used software instruments for many, many years (do you remember when Reaktor was still called Generator…?). My point about software is: it will be able to create any possible sound. There is nothing inherently magical in hardware. If the CPU can handle the task and the programmers were good enough, software will be indistinguishable from hardware.

That said, after comparing some software instruments with the hardware counterpart, I was always in love with the hardware. Hardware makes you use the instrument in a certain way. In the case of classic synths, this can’t be replaced by a simulation.

Maybe a comparison with guitars is in place: you can get professional results with an average instrument and a good set up, but you can’t replace the joy of playing a very good made guitar with a 300$ Korean made clone.

You need the sounds? Software is 99% enough today, 100% tomorrow.
You want the experience? Then hardware is your friend.

[vitocorleone123]

Very nice Video Friendly Noise. Mode 82 really delivers. I´m in love with the envelope and the filter. Sometimes the filter envelope falls short for some cases and I use offset in Modular for a more prominent filter envelope. I am enjoying using the modules, you can get very nice sounds combining them with other modules. I got a nice bass sound with the sine module going to the intellijel wavefolder, summing that with the sh101 suboscilator and driving the result into the filter. Little level variations between the two oscilator sources, even subtle ones, bring lots of variations. I wish we had subpresets for the patches. We need some improvements to the Modular system, but either way I am enjoying all I can get, sounds full of character and with a real presence. It is one of the few virtual instruments that I dare to put in front of the mix with no fear.

Thanks.

I don’t know to describe it, but with the software you seem to be looking for the right sound, while the hardware is all sweep spot. Then again, when you listen to the recorded sound, the differences can be small or negligible (ymmv). I still think after the video that my SH-101 won’t be sold, but like you, I would take the Model 82 for recordings without reservations.

Have you considered that fact you’re comfortable with - and used to - the hardware? Someone using only the software for a couple years could easily say the same about the hardware - about how the software is easy but you have to hunt for the sound on the hardware.

Maybe. Maybe not. But it’s one thing you didn’t acknowledge in the video (a video I appreciate you making).

As you can imagine, I have used software instruments for many, many years (do you remember when Reaktor was still called Generator…?). My point about software is: it will be able to create any possible sound. There is nothing inherently magical in hardware. If the CPU can handle the task and the programmers were good enough, software will be indistinguishable from hardware.

That said, after comparing some software instruments with the hardware counterpart, I was always in love with the hardware. Hardware makes you use the instrument in a certain way. In the case of classic synths, this can’t be replaced by a simulation.

Maybe a comparison with guitars is in place: you can get professional results with an average instrument and a good set up, but you can’t replace the joy of playing a very good made guitar with a 300$ Korean made clone.

You need the sounds? Software is 99% enough today, 100% tomorrow.
You want the experience? Then hardware is your friend.

Hmm. Not sure if you got the point I was attempting to make. It’s not about hardware and software, per se, but the fact you’re very experienced with using the hardware and not the brand new software. It’s not really possible to come to a conclusion of a fair comparison when it’s about how fast/easy it is for you to dial in sounds. Again, this is separate (but related) to whether one sounds better or not.

[Friendly Noise]

[/quote]

Hmm. Not sure if you got the point I was attempting to make. It’s not about hardware and software, per se, but the fact you’re very experienced with using the hardware and not the brand new software. It’s not really possible to come to a conclusion of a fair comparison when it’s about how fast/easy it is for you to dial in sounds. Again, this is separate (but related) to whether one sounds better or not.
[/quote]

Sorry, I think I got your point, which is legit, but I didn’t answer accordingly.

If you take a look again at the video, I wrote at 11:27 “after all, I haven’t spent much time with the Model 82”. So I agree with you: after some time with a software instrument, you will use it faster and better, know it better and get better results for your music.

[BONES]

Just like EBM or any genre then. It's just a matter of perception and taste.

Only true if you allow your music to be so tightly construed. There is infinitely greater variety within Electro-Industrial/EBM than half the dance genres put together. Songs don't have to be 4/4, tempos can range from 50bpm to 200bpm, a song can be 90 seconds or 9 minutes and it's all still the same genre. A good example would be the ballad. Can you play me a Goa ballad?

You do have to like repetitive beats, some based entirely on rhythms without ANY chord progressions, to enjoy some genres.

No you don't. That might be what you hear at a nightclulb but that's not what defines most genres outside of EDM.

Whether it's music from ancient Africa, Asia or Scandinavia... OR any contemporary tribal music, you will hate it.

Almost certainly. Your point being?

And btw, using chords to make progression in a song is such a cliché - you might even call it a simple trick.

The thing is, it's not something we do in every song, all the time. It is just one of several things we do, so that you get some variety when you listen to one of our albums. It's doing things in exactly the same way, over and over again, that makes dance music boring. In a live set we'll play TWISTED, which is 72bpm, and we'll play BLOODLUST, which is 154bpm. They are two completely different songs (and neither use any chord progessions) but they both very definitely Electro-industrial/EBM songs.

African tribal music sucks because polyrhythms is such a cliché?
And they all use pretty much the same instruments all the time - and the same tricks - so it must suck. Same sounds.

Pretty much. Again, your point is?

What about classical pieces then? The whole genre is based on a set of acoustic instruments. What a cliché to only use those instruments

Classical is defintiely a cliche but it can have a power and majesty that's hard ot get anywhere else. I love hearing a full orchestra, but chamber or ensemble music... not so much. That's the thing with Classical, there is such a massive variety, you're bound to find something you 'll enjoy. OTOH, with any EDM sub-genre, you really have to be totally committed to that one thing that sets it apart from all the other sub-genre to love it.

Just like me then, when I made EBM for fun, and it was SO much easier to make EBM than a good psychedelic tarnce track.

Obviously, given that no-one has rmanaged to make one worth listening to yet. But seriously, you have so many rules to follow that it probably is hard to keep within the lines and make something the anoraks will approve of. But that's only because you choose to impose those rules on what your'e doing. It doesn't have to be hard, you make it so.

Hard for me is trying not to just keep churning out the same thing, over and over. We are always looking for a different approach, a new formula, something to make the next one sound different to what's gone before, yet still sound like NOVAkILL. So while artists working in EDM seem to seek to constantly reinvent the wheel, we strive not to. Of course, we dont; always manage to achieve that, there are plenty of songs we'd never play together because they sound too similar, but we do OK in that regard, I think.

It's harder for me, because I don't usually use chord progression tricks to maintain interest.

So don't do it. Or do it, there don't have to be rules and it only gets boring when you do it the same way every time. That's kind of my point.

To put it another way, putting the genre first makes no sense to me. If we want to do a Post Punk song, we'll just f**king do it or, if we want to do a Metal guitar song, we'll do that, too. If we want to use a bass guitar instead of a synth bassline or put in an orchestral strings arrangemenet instead of an arpeggiated synth line, we'll do that and all of it will sit in an album or a live set just fine, because there is enough variety within our genre that listeners will not just tolerate it, they might actually appreciate the variety.

I have to use the sounds themselfs.

As do we, as does everyone. In fact, I'd suggest we do it a lot more than you do, as we have a far bigger palette to draw from.

Yes I can, I love sounds. I dislike a lot of goa... but are you trying to say that "tricks" are bad? MUSIC IS ALL BASED ON TRICKS.

Of course it is but a good artist has an arsenal of different tricks they can use, whereas you guys use the same tricks over and over, which is why it becomes so cliched, so quickly. I find the same with Reggae and it's not half as strictured as EDM.

Just accept that your personal view of music and taste doesn't matter to anyone else.

This may come as a surprise to you but I've known exactly how stupid people are for a long, long time.

The things you find boring and clichéd maybe just works, that's why so many things becomes clichés, people find things that works and re-use them.

Exactly! But without innovation, art stagnates and that's exactly what i see in most dance music - it's not aprpeciably different now to the way it was 25 years ago, those supposedly old/new Goa tracks illustrate that perfectly.

Why is EBM music so stuck on the same structure and basic theme?

It's not. Compare That Total Age and Ebbhead - the two albums could not be more different, yet Nitzer Ebb remain an Electro-industrial/EBM band and perform songs from each album side-by-side. Or look a thow FLA have changed over the years. Even between consecutive albums, Caustic Grip and Tactical Neural Implant, they changed massively, yet still remained firmly in the genre. EBM evolved and continues to evolve, throwing off sub-genres along the way. Purists may want to argue but they can go f**k themselves because it will all get played at a club and people will get up and dance their arses off to any and all of it. You can play Leaether Strip and Rammstein back-to-back and no-one will sit down, they'll all keep dancing because it's all good, the rules don't matter.

Because it works. I hate snare fills, I never use them. I HATED 303's in the late 90's because everybody used them. But they work.

You don't think that's just being lazy? At best it sounds workmanlike to me. Wouldn't it be better to find something else that works just as well, or maybe even better?

The above examples are "mainstream" goa, nothing wrong with that but you don't know the genre from those examples. For sure there are elements which are the same. That is because it works. You may not like it, but it works.

Not without vocals, it doesn't. Some of it has potential but, as with a lot of dance music, it all sounds like one big intro and I keep waiting for the actual song to start. When it doesn't, I get bored and move on.

All these tracks are goa tarnce. Take a quick (or full) listen to the tracks below. ...
... You can hate it all, but it has more diversity than many other genres, I would say. And so what? It's still a matter of taste.

Just because you say it's Goa doesn't make it so. That first track, for example, is self-identified by the artist on SoundCloud as "gy-psy-delic", which apparently is "Gypsydelic". The System is fairly obviously (not particularly good) Electro-Industrial and I doubt any of the rest of it would self-dientify as Goa, either. A couple the tracks sounded OK for the first minute or two but quickly devovled into boring. Again, I kept waiting for the song to start but it never did.

[mi-os]

I wonder if i could approximate the SH-101 sound with synths i already have and aren't a dedicated emulation. How about DIVA, Zebra, Reaktor, Massive X or even Model 84? Has anyone tried that route?

I'm just looking for excuses not to buy every single emulation released.

[sQeetz]

I can definitely do something with it. Regardless of genre, and I believe that’s the point

[HOTF]

has anyone made a Softube 84 vs TAL 101 vs D16 lush 101 comparaison ?

[ghettosynth]

I wonder if i could approximate the SH-101 sound with synths i already have and aren't a dedicated emulation. How about DIVA, Zebra, Reaktor, Massive X or even Model 84? Has anyone tried that route?

I'm just looking for excuses not to buy every single emulation released.

Of course you can. It's a simple monosynth. The thing that you don't get with the Model 84 are the modulation inputs for the filter, but, you can get pretty close with Reaktor or Diva.

[videoeyes]

The SH-101 has always been one of my favourites. I've tried a lot of analog emulation soft synths over the years and I feel like the Model 82 is the closest yet.

I like the resonance interference type sounds and gets all that dirt right. The main difference from the hardware, as with all softsynths I've tried is that the high-frequency resonance peaks have a not-as-smooth, aliased sound. This at least sounds right other than that.

One thing I wish all plugin designers would add is the ability to render it with say 8 x oversampling on export. The only plugin I've see do this is The Drop by Cytomic and it sounds great. That way you get low CPU when you want it and creamy high-end on export.

Anyway I love the Model 82. It's funny how taste differs but like the original I think it sounds good on any setting.

Thanks to cnt for posting some of the better psy-trance stuff with some of my old favs like Antedeluvian Rocking Horse and Texas Faggot (would a love a soft-synth that could reproduce the sound of that bass line). The Australian stuff was mostly my favourite. Here's one to finish on that I still respect:

Fluoro Conspiracy - Ancient Suns