Why do people here hate on cherry audio?

[wwjd]

Tools are only as good as the people using them... In the right hands the ‘Wasp’ synth sounds unbelievable but in the wrong hands it sounds like ‘The Wasp’.
And so it is with software, even the stuff from CA.

STOP MAKING SENSE!! There's no interest is sense in 2022

[plexuss]

Tools are only as good as the people using them... In the right hands the ‘Wasp’ synth sounds unbelievable but in the wrong hands it sounds like ‘The Wasp’.
And so it is with software, even the stuff from CA.

Stop being so logical, reasonable and objective! You need to be stupid and divisive and only talk about your own opinion as if it was the truth! Otherwise this forum will devolve into accepting diversity and providing high value content! Take some lessons from some of the other members here on how to conduct yourself in the most unreasonable ways. Then you will be a successful contributor!

[chk071]

Tools are only as good as the people using them... In the right hands the ‘Wasp’ synth sounds unbelievable but in the wrong hands it sounds like ‘The Wasp’.
And so it is with software, even the stuff from CA.

Synths, software or hardware, which don't inspire me are utterly useless for me.

I think we really have to distinguish these things. If a musical instrument would be just a tool which is supposed to get you from A to B, then Synth1 is enough for anything. If you take a musical instrument for a source of inspiration, simply because it's fun to play it, then it's a whole different animal. I would say a musical instrument is much more than a mere tool for the handicraft music.

People wouldn't collect a whole hall full of synthesizers, if they were only handy tools.

[plexuss]

People wouldn't collect a whole hall full of synthesizers, if they were only handy tools.

Your comment brings us full circle: This, IMHO, is why analogue modelled-digtial audio tools are a "thing" - when it comes to hardware products, significant cost and effort is required, and there is increased business risk compared to digital products (typically). Those involved in delivering hardware gear typically have to come out with a product that is going to make business sense (eg. profit). Doing so requires mitigating a lot of risk in the design and functionality of the product to ensure it's desirability to a wide customer base, which creates a lot of design constraints. This is one reason why hardware gear manufactures work to create products that will have wide appeal. And why, I specifically, gravitate to hardware modelled-digital tools because if done well, the digital tool will come with the benefits of the hardware. But with digital tools not based on hardware, there is less business risk than hardware. There are also less constraints. Digital products allow more flexibility in features and functions and so there is more risk that a product won't appeal to a wide enough audience to keep the business functioning. Take a look at the devs that have gone out of business lately and this is likely one reason why.

To the customer, hardware is expensive and software is cheap. I think this is why I have so many digital products and so few hardware products.

This, perhaps, is the issue with Cherry's modelled synths: they don't quite capture the full experience of the original and hence become part of the larger pool of non-hardware based digital products. I think what saves Cherry is their low prices. You don't get the full benefits of the original hardware but you do get something close(ish) for not a lot of money. I think customer value is still high with Cherry for those not looking for a really accurate top tier emulation. YMMV

[BONES]

"finding out" something which supports your already set view on things doesn't make you any more interesting

I don't have set views on anything. If you can make a compelling argument, I'll change my mind in a heartbeat. Trouble is, instead of explaining your position you make it personal, exactly like this. It's pathetic and, by extension, it makes you look pathetic, as well as making it clear you have no counter-argument, no explanation of why you work the way you do. And if you don't know why you are doing something, why the f**k would I want to do it and be as stupid as you? At least my brand of stupid makes sense.

Bones is a genius surrounded by a confederacy of dunces. Congratulations.

I think that's been well established over many years, don't you?

[BONES]

This is plain and simply not true. Due to good free plugins, the music industry has become a bit skewed, but in almost all art forms that I’ve had the privilege to play a part in, professionals are using the best tools they can get their hands on. Even Steve Jones played a stock 1974 Les Paul Custom, not some no name piece of garbage, as his demeanor would suggest he’d play.

OTOH, the highly regarded lead guitarist of The Celibate Rifles, Kent Steedman, preferred his Epiphone knock-off to any Fender or Gibson original. I think pros mostly buy the expensive tools because they've lusted after them earlier in their careers and finally get to a point where they can afford them and/or justify the expense. Because there are also plenty of rich kids who have all the best tools and never do anything worthwhile with them. I've seen plenty of Les Paul's and Starts on stage with bands who never did anything of note.

Beck might have recorded his first album on a four track cassette deck, but he sure moved into a professional studio by his second.

That was a very different time, though, don't you think?

Anybody who does what you did to I Travel has no right to call anything Suoixsie & the Banshees did 'shite'

I quite like what we did to I Travel but it's different to the version I'd play in one of my 80s sets. The original is actually quite weird when you listen to it, there is one stupidly loud synth line over the top of the mix in parts that you don't really notice until you do. But neither of my versions are too different from the original.

I think Tinderbox is the only Siouxsie album I really like (and it is very important to me that I pay due respect to the artist and spell their name correctly). I think they were very much a singles band but they ended up being way too poppy for me.

[blatanville]

People wouldn't collect a whole hall full of synthesizers, if they were only handy tools.

Your comment brings us full circle: This, IMHO, is why analogue modelled-digtial audio tools are a "thing" - when it comes to hardware products, significant cost and effort is required, and there is increased business risk compared to digital products (typically)...YMMV

Yes.
This is the a major consideration for many things, esp. these days.
- I have a LOT of books; but I have more ebooks.
- I have a few boxes full of comics I collected in the 80s (some of them might even be worth something on the collector's market); but I have a LOT more digital comics.
- I had a lot of CDs (my wife says I still have too many); but my digital music collection has (according to the media server) 3597 albums/EPs/singles/etc.
- (movies are a slightly different matter, the space required to store a HQ, HD or 4k video is prohibitively expensive, for now. So I have Blu Rays and some DVDs (out of the 100s of DVDs I used to own)).
(you may conclude, correctly, that I'm a bit of a packrat.)

The point being that for many of these things, it's the information they contain that is more important than the physical object. Not that the physical objects don't have value - they can have different kinds of value to different people, in different ways - but it comes down to:

• do you have access to the song or the movie or the book or the photo?

• Is the quality and accessibility sufficient to the purpose or need?

If yes, then, the digital version will suffice or surpass, especially if space and materials are a concern [yes, technology has an environmental impact, but the energy required to create and maintain 1 hard drive's worth of data compares favourably with the energy and resources required to create enough CDs or vinyl records or books or DVDs to contain the same amount of information. And that's an important consideration in the face of climate change and the precipice we're headed for. And the physical device is smaller than a mass market paperback.]

The same or similar can be said of many kinds of musical instruments and devices: is the size, space, price, convenience/accessibility of the software version sufficient to not need the physical version? If yes, then that's a win, isn't it?
[and software can open up possibilities that are impossible or impractical in the physical realm.]

Many people might be able to justify this or that hardware instrument or device, and that's great - there are a few instruments and devices that I would love to possess, given the space and funds. And, many more people who simply don't have the resources (space, money, etc.) to justify them, but want much of the essence or function of the instrument or device.
Do you NEED a genuine TR-808, or will a very good set of samples suffice?
That's up to you to decide.

[melomood]

This is plain and simply not true. Due to good free plugins, the music industry has become a bit skewed, but in almost all art forms that I’ve had the privilege to play a part in, professionals are using the best tools they can get their hands on. Even Steve Jones played a stock 1974 Les Paul Custom, not some no name piece of garbage, as his demeanor would suggest he’d play.

OTOH, the highly regarded lead guitarist of The Celibate Rifles, Kent Steedman, preferred his Epiphone knock-off to any Fender or Gibson original. I think pros mostly buy the expensive tools because they've lusted after them earlier in their careers and finally get to a point where they can afford them and/or justify the expense. Because there are also plenty of rich kids who have all the best tools and never do anything worthwhile with them. I've seen plenty of Les Paul's and Starts on stage with bands who never did anything of note.

Beck might have recorded his first album on a four track cassette deck, but he sure moved into a professional studio by his second.

That was a very different time, though, don't you think?

Anybody who does what you did to I Travel has no right to call anything Suoixsie & the Banshees did 'shite'

I quite like what we did to I Travel but it's different to the version I'd play in one of my 80s sets. The original is actually quite weird when you listen to it, there is one stupidly loud synth line over the top of the mix in parts that you don't really notice until you do. But neither of my versions are too different from the original.

I think Tinderbox is the only Siouxsie album I really like (and it is very important to me that I pay due respect to the artist and spell their name correctly). I think they were very much a singles band but they ended up being way too poppy for me.

I have no doubt they will overcome the slight slight,pick up the pieces and move on with their lives

[pekbro]

My guess is that basically, what it boils down to is this: If you know that people will likely abandon you if you try to initiate a subscription service, but you still want them to pay you as such, what do you do? Quickly as you can, churn out plugins made out of your already in place modular system, sell them cheap and try to pretend like that's not what they actually are, maybe?

[BONES]

People wouldn't collect a whole hall full of synthesizers, if they were only handy tools.

Of course they would. People collect stamps and they are more valuable if they have been used, which means they have literally no real value. People collect old cars when old cars are universally useless compared to new cars. People will collect anything, it seems to be in our nature.

- I have a LOT of books; but I have more ebooks.

I pass books on when I have read them. Keeping them to myself seems selfish. When my Kobo gets full, I'll delete all the books I've read, they have no intrinsic value to me.

(you may conclude, correctly, that I'm a bit of a packrat.)

If that's the same thing as a hoarder, then yes.

The point being that for many of these things, it's the information they contain that is more important than the physical object.

Clearly this is not true for you, because you have collections of things that can be accessed via the internet at least as easily. e.g. Spotify is far more convenient, yet you continue to hoard digital music. To be clear, I'm the same with music; it's not a criticism, merely an observation. It proves my point above - people will collect anything, whether those things have utility or not.

[Tj Shredder]

people will collect anything, whether those things have utility or not.

True, seems to be part of the human nature…
If there is no effort to keep it, might be useful in the future…
It can be a precious memory…
Physical objects can be status symbols…

[blatanville]

- I have a LOT of books; but I have more ebooks.

I pass books on when I have read them. Keeping them to myself seems selfish. When my Kobo gets full, I'll delete all the books I've read, they have no intrinsic value to me.

You delete them from your Kobo, but do you also delete them from your Kobo account? If you don't delete them from the account, they're still there, just a download away.
And you never re-read a book? Ever? That's why many people keep some of their books around.
I do also give them to people I think might be interested, or who have expressed interest. Some of them I've kept around in hopes my kids will discover them on the shelf one day, pull them down, and read them too.
And I get rid of physical books. I've sold or donated many, many boxes full, when I'm done with them and don't see myself wanting to read them again.

(you may conclude, correctly, that I'm a bit of a packrat.)

If that's the same thing as a hoarder, then yes.

There's a neurological component to the hoarder mind. They're not typically doing it for pleasure or need, but a compulsion.
I have ADHD. There's a bit of that same impulsive/compulsive behaviour associated with that, it's true. I'm learning to recognize when I do fall into the acquisition-for-acquisition's sake groove, and to try to put the brakes on. I've divested myself of many books (and DVDs and CDs) purchased for the dopamine hit of acquisition when I don't need really need them. And those are easily gotten rid of. Digital items can be deleted (it would be cool if there was a digital second-hand market, but it's utterly impractical.)

The point being that for many of these things, it's the information they contain that is more important than the physical object.

Clearly this is not true for you, because you have collections of things that can be accessed via the internet at least as easily. e.g. Spotify is far more convenient, yet you continue to hoard digital music. To be clear, I'm the same with music; it's not a criticism, merely an observation. It proves my point above - people will collect anything, whether those things have utility or not.

spotify.jpg

I don't subscribe to streaming services, and I don't listen to music via YouTube; I reward artists for their work by buying the albums, the books, the movies, the comics... I buy the work I like and want to see more of. If I only stream the music I like, I'm basically getting what I want, while giving only a microscopic reward to the creator the of the music. I think that's shitty. Sure, Spotify (Apple Music, YouTube Music, and the others) can be a way to discover new music, if you don't let the algorithm decide what you're going to hear next. But once you've found something meaningful to you, I think you owe it to the artists to support them.
Also, I didn't limit "value" to just "utility." There are many ways to value something beyond just its utility. What a dull world it would be if we only appreciated the utility of things.
As for

"Clearly this is not true for you,"

1. P*ss off. You don't know me, you can't diagnose me from a few posts on KVR.
2. That "hoard" of digital music, 80%** or more was actually purchased on disc or as a download. I keep it because I never know what I'll be in the mood to listen to.
Working in record stores, despite the shit pay and shitty customers, is a good way to build a music collection.
**Yes, this is me admitting some of that "hoard" was simply ripped from CDs I didn't pay for, or maybe something I downloaded off Usenet back in the day. But there are dozens of artists whose work I found there and then went out and bought.
3. The physical media I didn't or don't get rid of does indeed have some value for the "thing" of it, not just the contents. Some of them are of sentimental value (those old comics, for instance); some of them are rare or strange or interesting packages that I admire; some of the CDs and DVDs are extremely hard to find, not available to buy or rent online, etc. Keeping a copy is insurance against a hard drive crash.
4. I'm also aware that when I buy a digital item from an online purveyor (e.g. Amazon, Kobo, Google, Apple, etc.) I'm at their mercy as to how long they will continue to make it accessible to me. Amazon has already demonstrated they can reach out into your Kindle device and delete files from it and remove them from your account. Terms of Service can change in an instant. I'm not taking the chance if I can help it.

P.S.
[the length of this post is another side effect of ADHD; your "clearly this is not true for you" line really pissed me off (more than it deserved, sure, but that's the way ADHD hyperfocus works), it got stuck in my brain, and I was unable to "let it go," as they say. ]
[if there are any typos in this, I apologize in advance for disrespecting the English language. ]

[blatanville]

My guess is that basically, what it boils down to is this: If you know that people will likely abandon you if you try to initiate a subscription service, but you still want them to pay you as such, what do you do? Quickly as you can, churn out plugins made out of your already in place modular system, sell them cheap and try to pretend like that's not what they actually are, maybe?

Do you know that Cherry Audio considered a subscription-only plan, or are you just guessing?

[blatanville]

... My Juno 106 used to randomly and quite suddenly go out of tune, a mark of authenticity I haven't seen even the more expensive emulations capture properly

a friend of mine got a 106 back in the mid-80s. He had been a trained accordion player, but wanted something a little more...cool...to play, and he chose the 106 because of the rich sound. He told me once he used to use his accordion for reference to re-tune the instrument when it would drift too far.

Please stop your nonsense you guys. A 106 has DCO's so doesn't drift or go suddenly out of tune.

When a 106 starts drifting it is broken. When it goes out of tune it is broken. Which is not a 'mark of authenticity' but a sign that it needs repair.

Your friend is dumb or liar, as the Juno 106 used a DCO (digitally controlled oscillator) so that it would never drift.

1. A quick Google of 106s and tuning, it appears there are several possible electro-mechanical reasons for a 106 to go out of tune: slight wear on the LFO slider can cause it to produce pitch changes when you don't want them; mechanical issues in the pitch bender can also cause the tuning to be off; the tuning knob on the back panel might be dirty and cause tuning issues if it's not quite returned to the neutral position; etc. (these issues obviously can affect almost any hardware synthesizer)
Yes, as you said, it's a sign the instrument needs repair. Doesn't mean it couldn't be out of tune (see below)

2. Digital != infallible. Sure, the chances of tuning drift are slim, but not impossible. Usually, again, due to a need for repair, but things don't always just fail completely: they can fail gently, too, right?
"All oscillators remain in tune between voices, even if the master pitch drifts. This is highly unlikely since it is a digital crystal oscillator."
Highly unlikely doesn't mean "never" or "impossible."
"The map is not the territory."
there's some brain-bending electronics info here that demonstrates some of the complexities of creating a digitally-controlled analog synthesizer.

And, for me, I'd never consider drift on a 106 emulation to be a mark of authenticity. That's not something the synth is known for.

---

As for calling my friend an idiot, grow the f**k up. Please.

[BONES]

Those are all things you can fix so if your friend didn't fix them, I'm going to have to side with zerocrossing on this one, as unpleasant as that reality is.

You delete them from your Kobo, but do you also delete them from your Kobo account? If you don't delete them from the account, they're still there, just a download away.

Where they will stay forever. I don't consider them part of a collection, they are just books I've read.

And you never re-read a book? Ever?

I re-read what I had remembered as the best book I've ever read and, 30 years on, it was actually pretty terrible. That is the one and only book I have ever re-read and the experience put me off. There are more than enough books I haven't read to keep me going.

There's a neurological component to the hoarder mind. They're not typically doing it for pleasure or need, but a compulsion. I have ADHD. There's a bit of that same impulsive/compulsive behaviour associated with that, it's true. I'm learning to recognize when I do fall into the acquisition-for-acquisition's sake groove, and to try to put the brakes on.

I'd suggest it's the same for all of us, to a greater or lesser degree. e.g. The fact that I may want to re-read a book is not a good enough reason for me to keep it around, given how cheap they are to re-purchase, but I keep albums I don't like from artists I do like, for the simple sake of completeness.

My CDs live in boxes in storage. By any rational measure I should just get rid of them but I don't. A large part of that is the fact that their value to me is far greater than their market value, so it would feel like selling all those artists short to get rid of the CDs for a couple of bucks each.

I don't subscribe to streaming services, and I don't listen to music via YouTube; I reward artists for their work by buying the albums, the books, the movies, the comics... I buy the work I like and want to see more of.

So you don't buy things second-hand, even if you can't get them new? I also like to support artists but that doesn't stop me from buying used CDs, sometimes at a grossly unfair mark-up.

Also, I didn't limit "value" to just "utility." There are many ways to value something beyond just its utility.

Sure but that was the intimation from the post I originally responded to, from someone else.

As for

"Clearly this is not true for you,"

1. P*ss off. You don't know me, you can't diagnose me from a few posts on KVR.

I dunno, it seems from your own admission that I wasn't too far off the mark at all. But my remark was aimed specifically at the evidence in front of me, it should not be construed to apply outside those very narrow borders.

That "hoard" of digital music, 80%** or more was actually purchased on disc or as a download. I keep it because I never know what I'll be in the mood to listen to.

Same for me. I don't use Spotify because it doesn't have all the music I might feel like listening to. But that doesn't excuse me holding onto my Ultravox! CD, which I know I will never listen to again. That's pure compulsion on my part.

Working in record stores, despite the shit pay and shitty customers, is a good way to build a music collection.

Owning one was a great way to whittle mine down to almost nothing. I sold heaps of my CDs and most of my vinyl in the 18 months I had that shop. The whole second-hand department were cast-offs from my and my business partner's private collections.

**Yes, this is me admitting some of that "hoard" was simply ripped from CDs I didn't pay for, or maybe something I downloaded off Usenet back in the day. But there are dozens of artists whose work I found there and then went out and bought.

The only time I've ever done that sort of thing is after I have exhausted all legal means of obtaining something. e.g. There are a couple of Peel Sessions I've ripped from YouTube and a few singles by local 80s bands I've downloaded of various music blogs.

3. The physical media I didn't or don't get rid of does indeed have some value for the "thing" of it, not just the contents. Some of them are of sentimental value (those old comics, for instance); some of them are rare or strange or interesting packages that I admire; some of the CDs and DVDs are extremely hard to find, not available to buy or rent online, etc. Keeping a copy is insurance against a hard drive crash.

Pretty flimsy justifications, I keep CDs because they are part of a collection that I value highly. It's definitely not rational but I do it anyway.

I'm also aware that when I buy a digital item from an online purveyor (e.g. Amazon, Kobo, Google, Apple, etc.) I'm at their mercy as to how long they will continue to make it accessible to me.

That's true only of Kindle books. I don't buy most of my books from Kobo, I prefer to get them from local online stores like Angus & Robertson, so Kobo has no control over them at all. And once I download an mp3, it's mine for life (great Ultravox song) and I don't have to worry about someone taking it back or killing DRM on it. Even Apple realised what a dick move that was and stopped doing it.

Amazon has already demonstrated they can reach out into your Kindle device and delete files from it and remove them from your account. Terms of Service can change in an instant. I'm not taking the chance if I can help it.

That was just one reason I swapped my Kindle for a Kobo.