TimewARP 2600 dead going forward...?

[DCrown]

CA 2600 is nice if you want something that doesn't sound at all like an ARP 2600.

That's the strength of cherry audio, not to sound exactly like synth X, like something you already heard a thousand times.
They just take hw synths as basic inspiration and then make their own thing. Great! But too high on cpu imo

[sacer]

I think chery audio sounds in all replicated synths like voltage modular.

[EvilDragon]

That's the strength of cherry audio, not to sound exactly like synth X, like something you already heard a thousand times.
They just take hw synths as basic inspiration and then make their own thing. Great!

I don't think that's great, I think that's disingenous.

[gentleclockdivider]

CA 2600 is nice if you want something that doesn't sound at all like an ARP 2600.

That's the strength of cherry audio, not to sound exactly like synth X, like something you already heard a thousand times.
They just take hw synths as basic inspiration and then make their own thing. Great! But too high on cpu imo

THat's just bullocks , if it doesn't sound like the modelled hardware , then they shouldn't market it as such .
Ca 2600 sounds nothing like a Arp 2600

[DCrown]

CA 2600 is nice if you want something that doesn't sound at all like an ARP 2600.

That's the strength of cherry audio, not to sound exactly like synth X, like something you already heard a thousand times.
They just take hw synths as basic inspiration and then make their own thing. Great! But too high on cpu imo

THat's just bullocks , if it doesn't sound like the modelled hardware , then they shouldn't market it as such .
Ca 2600 sounds nothing like a Arp 2600

If you want a close emu, then don't buy cherry audio. If you want new fresh interpretations of an old synth, ca might be the right choice.
To me there is nothing more boring than to have the same sounds that were used in countless songs back in the day.
Music needs innovation and uniqueness and not repetition.
Too much nostalgia especially in art leads to stagnation.

@devildragon
Disingenuous?
You can demo the plugins, can't you?!

[martinjuenke]

CA 2600 is nice if you want something that doesn't sound at all like an ARP 2600.

That's the strength of cherry audio, not to sound exactly like synth X, like something you already heard a thousand times.
They just take hw synths as basic inspiration and then make their own thing. Great! But too high on cpu imo

THat's just bullocks , if it doesn't sound like the modelled hardware , then they shouldn't market it as such .
Ca 2600 sounds nothing like a Arp 2600

I beg your pardon, but I couldn't care less.
I follow the meme of these forum communities:
If it sounds good, it's good.

[DCrown]

What sounds good is pretty subjectiv unless it obviously sounds really bad.

[martinjuenke]

What sounds good is pretty subjectiv unless it obviously sounds really bad.

CA2600 sound good for me.

[electro]

There's no space in a saturated market for emulations that don't accurately represent the source. Better to invest the time into perfecting one than releasing many too fast.

CA 2600 is nice if you want something that doesn't sound at all like an ARP 2600.

That's the strength of cherry audio, not to sound exactly like synth X, like something you already heard a thousand times.
They just take hw synths as basic inspiration and then make their own thing. Great! But too high on cpu imo

THat's just bullocks , if it doesn't sound like the modelled hardware , then they shouldn't market it as such .
Ca 2600 sounds nothing like a Arp 2600

[VELLTONE MUSIC]

i've got both 2600 and both never been used anywhere - TA2600 seems to work only if use 32bit dll - the 64bit crash really badly everything it touch
Stop alcohol.
Cheers

[DCrown]

Well, there are people who spend a lot of time on comparing a plugin to the real thing mostly not taking into consideration that two hardware units do not sound the same, especially old gear.
Some give their opinion on a plugin vs hw without ever having seen the original hw unit. You also have to be aware of the fact that if you refer to sound in a song, the room, the console, the playing style, the amp, speakers, mics, maybe tape machines, effects, mixing and mastering engineers - it all contributed to the specific sound of a synth or instrument.
So to say plugin X doesn't sound like the real thing, because I know what a
Rhodes sounds like, I heard it on several Stevie Wonder recordings, well, that's just the sound of Stevie Wonder and not a Rhodes in general.
And some just don't care whether it's close to the real thing or not. If it sounds good it's good.
So there's a market for different people.

[BONES]

That's the strength of cherry audio, not to sound exactly like synth X, like something you already heard a thousand times.

That just presents a different problem, which is that all their synths tend to sound a bit the same so, either way, you are getting a sound you've heard before.

THat's just bullocks , if it doesn't sound like the modelled hardware , then they shouldn't market it as such .
Ca 2600 sounds nothing like a Arp 2600

So if I put up a dozen random samples of each, you'd know which was which? I bet you wouldn't.

To me there is nothing more boring than to have the same sounds that were used in countless songs back in the day.

Whilst I agree completely with the sentiment, there is no reason that an instrument that sounds exactly like something from the 70s has to make those same sounds. It's a synthesiser, it can make any sound you want it to. That's where art comes from - taking the familiar and turning it on its head.

I follow the meme of these forum communities:
If it sounds good, it's good.

Is this a joke? Nothing could be further from the truth. Almost nobody here cares how good it sounds at all, the only thing they care about is what features it has and whether it sounds exactly the same as the original.

What sounds good is pretty subjectiv unless it obviously sounds really bad.

What you like is subjective but it's pretty easy to define what sounds good. The recently released MiniFreak VSTi is a good example - it has a very weak bottom end, which is definitely not good, but plenty of people seem to like it anyway.

There's no space in a saturated market for emulations that don't accurately represent the source.

Of course there is. Not everybody cares. I sure as hell don't, I like emulations because they tend to be much easier to work with than ubersynths, yet the good ones offer similarly top-notch sound quality. I use Obsession a lot more than DUNE, for example, because it has the basic qualities of an Oberheim synth, it sounds fantastic and it's much, much easier to work with.

[DCrown]

Bones, I agree, that's why I bought one cherry synth only

[masterhiggins]

If, in the 60s, when he was just starting to produce commercial synths, and someone showed Bob Moog that a computer could recreate a perfect circuit with no tuning problems or parasitics and he no longer had to worry about component shortages or compromising on cheap parts, do you think he wouldn’t have chosen that immediately?

Sure, now people love the sound of the old synths, but how much of that sound was intentional and how much was just what was available and possible with the technology back in the day?

If it had been reversed and Moog had started with software, I wonder if he’d try an analog synth and be be like, “what the hell is wrong with this thing? Why the f*** is it so noisy? Why does it sound different when it’s been left on for a few hours?”

[BONES]

EXACTLY!