Why do people here hate on cherry audio?

[zzz00m]

Dan Goldstein of Cherry Audio is a synth hardware collector. He explains his approach to soft synth design in this May 2022 interview. Skip ahead to 8:40 where he is introduced:

[Xenos]

Voltage Modular is excellent. Love it. My take on their other synths is they're targeting a certain market. Of course there are better emulations, but if someone is strapped for cash and just starting out in building their collection, I recommend them. On the other hand....DreamSynth? More like "WeirdFeverDreamSynth" lol. While I like it, personally (absolutely love the sound design options it offers for the price!), I only rarely use the included samples. Some of those samples are downright awful . This synth works well for synthwave, oldschool techno and distressed/dark cinematic stuff, but no way would I approach DS in the same way I would a normal ROMpler. If they would've let you import YOUR OWN samples into it, that would've made a huge difference.

[Uncle E]

Cherry Audio has been teasing a new original synth.

[Tricity Type Music]

This might be a little off subject, but it definitely relates to how authentic some of these emulations really are. I recently purchased a Behringer 2600 and I own Arturia's 2600 V, so I decided to try and recreate some patches from the 2600 V on my Behringer clone, which is a very accurate scaled down version of the original Arp 2600. It was with the intent of learning more about how things are patched as I follow along with the preset. What I found out when trying this was very surprising to me, as several of the patch points on the 2600 are either incorrect, or intentional changed, as well as some additional patch points added in several of the modules. I set out to try and recreate some sounds anyways using some creative patching substitutions, I figured even if it wasn't entirely accurate I could get close. But once everything was patched and levels set accordingly, I was completely dumbfounded to find out that I had created an entirely different patch altogether! I mean I thought it would be close, but it wasn't even in the same vicinity at all, and I still couldn't get any closer making further adjustments. This leads me to believe, and I've seen it said before, that the 2600 V, while capturing the overall "spirit" of the original, is actually a completely different instrument. I realize this post was originally about Cherry Audio emulations, and that's actually how I got the idea to compare the 2600 v to the Behringer. I've watched multiple videos of Starsky Carr on YouTube where he actually recreates the same patches on both his vintage analogs vs their Cherry Audio emulations, and he was able to nail the sounds completely, taking into account that one is analog and the other digital so that makes a difference. I'm sure he probably made some adjustments to get them matched up like that, and I'm actually going to buy the CA2600 and do a comparison to that plugin to see how close they are in comparison with Arturia. I actually have serious doubts now about the accuracy of any Arturia emulations after this experience. Not that they aren't high quality VST's, they're very powerful synths indeed. I'm only talking about the accuracy of the emulations.

[losangeles]

This might be a little off subject, but it definitely relates to how authentic some of these emulations really are. I recently purchased a Behringer 2600 and I own Arturia's 2600 V, so I decided to try and recreate some patches from the 2600 V on my Behringer clone, which is a very accurate scaled down version of the original Arp 2600. It was with the intent of learning more about how things are patched as I follow along with the preset. What I found out when trying this was very surprising to me, as several of the patch points on the 2600 are either incorrect, or intentional changed, as well as some additional patch points added in several of the modules. I set out to try and recreate some sounds anyways using some creative patching substitutions, I figured even if it wasn't entirely accurate I could get close. But once everything was patched and levels set accordingly, I was completely dumbfounded to find out that I had created an entirely different patch altogether! I mean I thought it would be close, but it wasn't even in the same vicinity at all, and I still couldn't get any closer making further adjustments. This leads me to believe, and I've seen it said before, that the 2600 V, while capturing the overall "spirit" of the original, is actually a completely different instrument. I realize this post was originally about Cherry Audio emulations, and that's actually how I got the idea to compare the 2600 v to the Behringer. I've watched multiple videos of Starsky Carr on YouTube where he actually recreates the same patches on both his vintage analogs vs their Cherry Audio emulations, and he was able to nail the sounds completely, taking into account that one is analog and the other digital so that makes a difference. I'm sure he probably made some adjustments to get them matched up like that, and I'm actually going to buy the CA2600 and do a comparison to that plugin to see how close they are in comparison with Arturia. I actually have serious doubts now about the accuracy of any Arturia emulations after this experience. Not that they aren't high quality VST's, they're very powerful synths indeed. I'm only talking about the accuracy of the emulations.

I’d be more suspect of Behringer than Arturia, but perhaps you’re onto something.

[Tj Shredder]

But once everything was patched and levels set accordingly, I was completely dumbfounded to find out that I had created an entirely different patch altogether! I mean I thought it would be close, but it wasn't even in the same vicinity at all, and I still couldn't get any closer making further adjustments.

One crucial feature is not possible in the Arturia. The extra CV for duophonic playing. Any patch that uses that will sound completely different. The CA2600 does cover that part and does it well. They might have thought the only use for that is getting closer to polyphony, but did not think about the possibility to use the second cv other than just for that...
Anyway, could you share pictures of those two patches? One from the Behringer and a screenshot from the Arturia? (And the preset from the V as well…) I assume completely different patches means different connections. The setting of knobs might be different, but that is not crucial…

[zzz00m]

I'm actually going to buy the CA2600 and do a comparison to that plugin to see how close they are in comparison with Arturia. I actually have serious doubts now about the accuracy of any Arturia emulations after this experience. Not that they aren't high quality VST's, they're very powerful synths indeed. I'm only talking about the accuracy of the emulations.

Arturia has updated some of their instruments with more accurate emulations, particularly their CS-80 v4, which is a completely new instrument compared to the CS-80 V3. Also their new Prophet-5 V is a new iteration on the classic.

So you have hit upon something with the Arturia emulations in that they were not always exactly close in the past, but moving forward with updated versions they are getting better. But mostly they have always sounded decent and have been usable in a mix if you weren't looking for an exact recreation.

I think your plan to check out Cherry Audio is worthwhile. Those guys work from original vintage hardware units and schematics and attempt to understand every function of the original that goes into their emulation. Obviously when working with software versions some opportunities may arise for some "improvements", but their attitude is to do it sparingly and only in keeping with the spirit of the original. And they have noted that often no two hardware units will sound exactly alike, so keep that in mind. But they should be close.

[wagtunes]

I have most of their stuff. I like it. There's hate for all companies by somebody. No one company is universally loved.

[sircuit]

Who hates u-he or TDR or Xfer? (rhetorical question)

[Boy Wonder]

It's psychological. If it's cheap it must suck. How many people run around touting the synths you can get for free? If I repackaged Dreamsynth and offered it for $199, they'll say it's great. SMH

[zerocrossing]

Not too long ago, I’d be the first person to criticize Arturia. Actually, I’ll do it right now. Their old plugins don’t sound that great. I feel the same way about most of Cherry Audio’s plugins. GX-80’s the first one I demoed that I felt was really good quality, so I bought it. So, I don’t hate any developer, but if I don’t like their software and there’s a call for opinions, I’ll give one.

I’ve not tried some of them because their interfaces seemed terrible to me. Sines? What were they thinking? Some, like Dreamsynth, just seemed like another version of something I already have. I had Voltage Modular for a while, and it was good, and a good value, but when I upgraded my computer and got Softube Modular working smoothly, it was really no contest. Voltage Modular isn’t as good. Put Mercury up against Roland’s Jupiter 4 and Mercury was a joke. Mercury sounded like something from 2000.

So, no hate, but I hope that they take a breather and spend some time polishing what they have, instead of a conveyor belt of mediocre synths with a few gems. I’ll pay $200 for a great plugin, but not $50 for one that’s just OK.

[JerGoertz]

I never got the criticisms of Voltage Modular's sound quality. To me it sounds really good.

[zerocrossing]

It's psychological. If it's cheap it must suck. How many people run around touting the synths you can get for free? If I repackaged Dreamsynth and offered it for $199, they'll say it's great. SMH

I paid $59 for Softube’s Model 82 and I think it sounds fantastic.

You should really stop with the pseudo psychological b.s. Of course there is such a thing as confirmation bias, but there’s also sometimes people come to a conclusion that something isn’t worth buying. Sometimes people just assess a plugin and find it lacking for whatever reason.

[Boy Wonder]

It's psychological. If it's cheap it must suck. How many people run around touting the synths you can get for free? If I repackaged Dreamsynth and offered it for $199, they'll say it's great. SMH

I paid $59 for Softube’s Model 82 and I think it sounds fantastic.

You should really stop with the pseudo psychological b.s. Of course there is such a thing as confirmation bias, but there’s also sometimes people come to a conclusion that something isn’t worth buying. Sometimes people just assess a plugin and find it lacking for whatever reason.

I guess I stepped in that one.

[mholloway]

One plugin synth, three dozen different UIs for it and a new one every other week-- what's to like about 'em?