Why do people here hate on cherry audio?

[Pawel L]

I already own Arturia V Collection so I don't see the point.
Mostly, do we need another brand developing not very accurate "emulations" of old hardware?

I fully agree. I have more than enough synth vsts as it is, why spend more money on inaccurate emulations? I'd rather invest in top quality synths and stick to that investment (Diva is still top notch, just like Arturia's recent synths).

If the emulations aren't accurate, I might as well use awesome non-emulations like Massive X, Pigments, Vital, Super 8.

For modular, there's VCV Rack and Reaktor.

Old and good Sylent1

[wwjd]

Perfectionism: a known, self inflicted bane on society.

"these do NOT emulate a synth" "sounds NOTHING like the real"

so easy to beg to differ.
I own a real, fully functioning MG-1 and compared to the Cherry Audio version. It's not a PERFECT copy of >>MINE<<, it's way more than close enough and in most ways (other than missing physical knobs, sliders) is BETTER in every way, better than the oscillators that are staticy, and too sloppy to use, and old, crackly sliders and knobs.

The DCO106 sounds WAY CLOSER to the original (opposed to "not even close") that we can swap it into our 1980's songs that used a real 106 and no one would ever know the difference.

Sent some test sounds to a buddy that owns a REAL MS-20 or two, and his response was "definitely sounds like a 20", not "Nope, doesn't sound ANYTHING like a real one"

I own a real MOOG clone that is slightly different than a real moog, but better, and it compare so well to the MINIVERSE, I could easily swap the two in productions, and it will make no difference.

I don't know about people who sit on their hands, not playing any music, staring through microscopes at wave data and marketing material, but for those doing MUSICAL stuff, cherry audio is perfectly great.

I am never inspired to grab any Arturia bloated, FX laden presets that don't remind me of the original gear, but constantly reach for Cherry Audio synths just to play, have fun and experiment with.

Great synths, great support, seems like a great company to me.

[ramseysounds]

I don't know about people who sit on their hands, not playing any music, staring through microscopes at wave data and marketing material, but for those doing MUSICAL stuff, cherry audio is perfectly great.

I am never inspired to grab any Arturia bloated, FX laden presets that don't remind me of the original gear, but constantly reach for Cherry Audio synths just to play, have fun and experiment with.

Great synths, great support, seems like a great company to me.

This sums it up perfectly and separates the good guys from the snobs

[Tj Shredder]

I go by how it feels, which is related to how it sounds. I owned in the past a real Arp 2600. First got the Arturia, sounded fine but did not touch me as much as, in my memory, the real one. I don’t think it was the sound - who knows…
Then I got the TimeWarp. Its tiny interface also did not get me to the same feeling I had with the real one. Then the CA2600 and I am happy. The only one that implemented the paraphonic mode and suddenly it was inspiring. I did complain a bit about aliasing, which was quite audible, and they fixed it! I am happy with this one, though of course the missing knobs and cabling does make a difference, but all the other advantages including investment are compensating that…

[FotoxBr]

I think that the only way to prevent people from complaining about emulations not sounding like the real thing is to stop making emulations of HW. I never owned any vintage synths anyway, so I do not care.
I like the the "emulations" of CA and Arturia for what they are. No need to add wooden panels to the GUI

[BONES]

The DCO106 sounds WAY CLOSER to the original (opposed to "not even close") that we can swap it into our 1980's songs that used a real 106 and no one would ever know the difference.

I'd suggest that woudl also be true of 50 different VSTi that aren't trying to sound like a Juno-6. OTOH, I'd be surprised if their 8 Voice would be able to sound like half the things you might create from a real one. That doesn't make it a bad synth, just not an accurate emulation.

My problem with Cherry Audio isn't that their emulations aren't accurate, it's that their synths aren't as good as a whole lot of other instruments I own, many of which were similarly priced or cheaper. They don't sound as good and their GUIs are mostly horrible. IN both areas they lack that last bit of polish that might make them competitive with the best.

I am never inspired to grab any Arturia bloated, FX laden presets that don't remind me of the original gear, but constantly reach for Cherry Audio synths just to play, have fun and experiment with.

I'm not a huge fan of the Arturia synths, either, but I think they are definitely superior to anything Cherry have put out and I'd be far more likely to use them over any Cherry synth, if for no other reaosn than they have more inviting, usuable GUIs. In my case, the Arturia Collection was a helluva lot cheaper than the Cherry stuff, too, even if I only count the synths I will actually use.

Then the CA2600 and I am happy. The only one that implemented the paraphonic mode and suddenly it was inspiring. I did complain a bit about aliasing, which was quite audible, and they fixed it!

Really? I think it sounds very, very generic. Any of the patches could be any old freeware synth. I bought it on spec when it was released and I've never found any use for it at all. But you got me wondering if maybe I had missed something so I downloaded CA2600 and installed it again. Playing some of the presets on it and then the Arturia version back to back, the Cherry one sounds so much thinner and weaker, almost like the Cherry synth was playing through the laptop speakers and the Arturia was running through the Genelecs. And both synths have plenty of effects applied. The GUIs are complete opposites. The Arturia one invites you to want to play around with the patch cables, where the Cherry one actually puts me off even trying. Honestly, it's chalk and cheese for me and reinstalling CA2600 has just confirmed for me how ordinary their stuff is.

[jamcat]

I think the Surrealistic MG-1 is really nice for a free synth.

[skiltrip]

I have Cherry Audio's DCO-106 and i quite like it. I love this interface and the way they implemented all the extra non-hardware features. Sonically it's very sweet sounding, very clean, very pretty.

I also have Softube Model 84 and been demoing Arturia Jun-6 for quite a while. Softube definitely has the edge for just sounding incredible. I'm happy to have both and will be picking up V Collection at some point next time there's a sale, so I'll also have Jun-6. Happy to have been using them all, honestly. Sorta wish I could put Softube's sound in the DCO-106 interface!

[BONES]

Really? I love the Model 84's interface. Of the hundreds of VSTs I have, it's probably my favourite GUI. I like the basic look and I love the slide-out panel with the extra features. DCO-106 looks cheap and nasty by comparison.

[Tj Shredder]

Obviously its more about personal taste than precision. Different versions inspire different people. And never underestimate the influence of the other gear in your studio like speakers and the coffee machine…

[blatanville]

The chalk, apparently:

CHERRY-AUDIO-DCO-106.jpg

is it the change to the aspect ratio of the push buttons?

And the cheese:

model-84_ingang.jpg.45f707dfbaa4681eb8862b9d2a16b7d2.jpg

It must be the way Softube used 40% of the interface for the discoloured keys, the chipped labels, and the impression of a thin coating of nicotine or pot resin that makes the difference.
Or is it the 1970s leftover sunrise/keyboard logo?
(also, why is the High Pass Filter labelled "EQ"?)

_______________________________________________
Now, the Official 106 plugin is what I'd call cheap and nasty.

RolandJuno106.png

WTF is with all that extra crap? Level meters? The Condition and Tune knobs crouched down tight against the top label row? The preset name font? The fake sheen on the black keys? The envelope graphics "modelled" on the D-50? Blech.

Just for reference, here is what a bunch of other devs, with varying degrees of skill, money, etc. have done with that famous Juno 106 livery:

kwop7.png

maxresdefault (1).jpg

maxresdefault (2).jpg

maxresdefault.jpg

and, ultimately, the real deal:

Roland-Juno-106-100v-Analog-Synthesizer-2.jpg

[ramseysounds]

The Softube one looks awful. I don't get that devs have to add in faded keys, rust, screws, broken keys etc. FWIW the CA one is clear concise and easy to read. But let’s not forget, GUI’s are distracting and it’s all about the sound

[D-Fusion]

The chalk, apparently:

CHERRY-AUDIO-DCO-106.jpg
is it the change to the aspect ratio of the push buttons?

And the cheese:

model-84_ingang.jpg.45f707dfbaa4681eb8862b9d2a16b7d2.jpg

It must be the way Softube used 40% of the interface for the discoloured keys, the chipped labels, and the impression of a thin coating of nicotine or pot resin that makes the difference.
Or is it the 1970s leftover sunrise/keyboard logo?
(also, why is the High Pass Filter labelled "EQ"?)

_______________________________________________
Now, the Official 106 plugin is what I'd call cheap and nasty.

RolandJuno106.png
WTF is with all that extra crap? Level meters? The Condition and Tune knobs crouched down tight against the top label row? The preset name font? The fake sheen on the black keys? The envelope graphics "modelled" on the D-50? Blech.

Just for reference, here is what a bunch of other devs, with varying degrees of skill, money, etc. have done with that famous Juno 106 livery:

kwop7.png

maxresdefault (1).jpg

maxresdefault (2).jpg

maxresdefault.jpg

and, ultimately, the real deal:

Roland-Juno-106-100v-Analog-Synthesizer-2.jpg

The official Roland Juno 106 has 2 Gui options (Light and Dark).
I prefer the Juno 60 version more since it looks better + you have Juno 60+106 in one.

My Favorite of them all is the Softube Juno 106 and i find the Quirky Touches to their Models Cool and a breath of fresh air from those Clinical Boring Standard vst Gui's.

And if you don't like Yellow Keys you can always hide the Keyboard and save it as default.

[Lazarus451]

CA sliders are not that clear. I have to look them quite long to see the settings. Softube is clear even when I keep my eyes almost closed. It's good for usability that you can distinguish sliders from their backgrounds.

[BONES]

The chalk, apparently:

is it the change to the aspect ratio of the push buttons?

Where are the sliders at? You can barely see them, which forces you to study the interface really closely to get any information from it.

And the cheese:

Here you can see at a glance where all the sliders are, thanks to the different colour and the obvious drop shadow.

It must be the way Softube used 40% of the interface for the discoloured keys, the chipped labels, and the impression of a thin coating of nicotine or pot resin that makes the difference.

Despite all of which, the labels on the controls are equally readable here, even with the Model 84's image border reducing the size of the actual interface.

(also, why is the High Pass Filter labelled "EQ"?)

Because it's not a HP Filter, it's a specialised EQ thing. It has 4 discrete settings, it's not a continous slider, and sometimes it's quite useful.