Arturia Minifreak VST

[PieBerger]

There is no TILT setting that I can find in the FREE version of SPAN.

I might be using the wrong terminology for SPAN; different plugins call it different things. IIRC it's called Slope in Pro Q 3 which is why I used it when I first replied to you. When I fire up the studio machine later, I'll ry to find the setting in SPAN, as I'm 99% sure it's in there somewhere!

[Vortifex]

It's Slope on SPAN. But tbh I think it's a waste of time anyway. The analog oscs are fine. For me the thinness is in the innate character of most of the oscs, it's not really something you can illustrate well with a frequency spectrum. I don't consider it a defect, it's just the unique character of the synth. Plus it can be ameliorated somewhat with unison.

[JS_SEA]

Not sure, but Arturia might have made it sound this way intentionally to have a different product than existing products.

Seems like a pretty stupid move to me if they did.

I agree "thin digital sound" is a good description, but what about DX7 sound to bring another example? Some like it, some don't!

You've never owned one, have you? The DX9 I bought in 1983 probably had the second biggest bottom end of any synth I've owned, after my DSS-1. I don't know anyone who'd say they don't like the sound of a DX7.

Of course they didn't - what they did was create something that has more of a West Coast character than some people are used to - using algos derived from boutique hardware modules from Noise Engineering and Mutable Instruments.

If that was the case, why did they also have to make the standard waveform algorithm sound the same?

The sound is pretty much the same as you would get if you combined a couple of those modules with a filter and effects section plus multiple routing and modulation possibilities.

And people wonder why I hate modulars.

I remember a reply
where someone wrote
to a post in a thread
with quite the
same initial words but with
the opposite meaning
"you obviously never owned a DX7, it's
one of the worst synths" hehe
It's not about whether DX7 is good or not,
maybe not the best example
because it's a too good synth imo
but could have written any other synth
it's about the fact that people
have different views on things
and everyone prefers using different instruments
for his music
and it's good that it is
this way
It's possible that even a generally
bad sounding synth could be a
good choice for a song
there are many examples
where so called cheap or bad gear
was successfully used on songs
whether it's a synth, guitar or mic
or reverb, it can add an interesting
and special touch too music
Maybe one more example,
if I could choose any real organ I want,
I would not choose a Hammond,
even though it's one of the most
popular ones, I'd prefer a different one
Ketchup or mayonnaise or rather mustard?
Believe it or not
I know someone
who hates ketchup

[tony10000]

It's Slope on SPAN. But tbh I think it's a waste of time anyway. The analog oscs are fine. For me the thinness is in the innate character of most of the oscs, it's not really something you can illustrate well with a frequency spectrum. I don't consider it a defect, it's just the unique character of the synth. Plus it can be ameliorated somewhat with unison.

Most people are used to lots of detuned voices. As MiniFreak V only has 6 voices and 2 oscillators, it is only going to provide so much "heft". That said, the low frequency information is there.

[BONES]

Except, Tony, it has Superwave oscillators that do the massive unison thing effortlessly. But that's not something you use when you want a lot of bottom end, as there is often too much phase cancellation and it gets messy down low anyway. There is some bottom end in MF but not enough for a well-rounded bass sound, unless you use filter resonance to boost it, which restricts you to a comparatively narrow range for bass patches.

It's an easy comparison with TRK-01 Bass, which you can get for free from NI. Put them side by side and you'll hear how much more bottom end TRK-01 has.

I remember a reply where someone wrote to a post in a thread with quite the same initial words but with the opposite meaning "you obviously never owned a DX7, it's one of the worst synths" hehe

Those two statements are not incompatible. Model D also has a huge bottom end but I think the synth, overall is a piece of shit. I got some great sounds out of my DX9 but it was totally random and, ultimately, very frustrating. But when it worked and you got something good, it was often really good. That doesn't make it a good instrument. Maybe a good sounding instrument but that's a different thing.

it's about the fact that people have different views on things

It's not about that at all, it's about some clueless idiot suggesting that all digital synths lack bottom end and using DX7 as an example. You'll notice that when I say something sounds "digital", I'll always add a qualifier, like "and not in a good way" because not all digital synths are the same and it's stupid to think in that way anyway, because there are plenty of analogue synths that could do with more bottom end, too.

[tony10000]

"Except, Tony, it has Superwave oscillators that do the massive unison thing effortlessly. But that's not something you use when you want a lot of bottom end, as there is often too much phase cancellation and it gets messy down low anyway. There is some bottom end in MF but not enough for a well-rounded bass sound, unless you use filter resonance to boost it, which restricts you to a comparatively narrow range for bass patches.

"It's an easy comparison with TRK-01 Bass, which you can get for free from NI. Put them side by side and you'll hear how much more bottom end TRK-01 has."

I have played around with MiniFreak V quite a bit and have no problem coming up with decent bass sounds. They may not be as "phat" as other VA synths with juicier filters, but they are definitely usable. More of the west coast flavor...and they can be made beefier by use of wave folding and or distortion.

[sQeetz]

...and they can be made beefier by use of wave folding and or distortion.

Or, god forbid, external FX......

[seangm]

I remember a reply
where someone wrote
to a post in a thread
with quite the
same initial words but with
the opposite meaning
"you obviously never owned a DX7, it's
one of the worst synths" hehe
It's not about whether DX7 is good or not,
maybe not the best example
because it's a too good synth imo
but could have written any other synth
it's about the fact that people
have different views on things
and everyone prefers using different instruments
for his music
and it's good that it is
this way
It's possible that even a generally
bad sounding synth could be a
good choice for a song
there are many examples
where so called cheap or bad gear
was successfully used on songs
whether it's a synth, guitar or mic
or reverb, it can add an interesting
and special touch too music
Maybe one more example,
if I could choose any real organ I want,
I would not choose a Hammond,
even though it's one of the most
popular ones, I'd prefer a different one
Ketchup or mayonnaise or rather mustard?
Believe it or not
I know someone
who hates ketchup

This reads like some form of extended haiku. Pretty cool actually.

[JS_SEA]

I remember a reply where someone wrote to a post in a thread with quite the same initial words but with the opposite meaning "you obviously never owned a DX7, it's one of the worst synths" hehe

Those two statements are not incompatible. Model D also has a huge bottom end but I think the synth, overall is a piece of shit. I got some great sounds out of my DX9 but it was totally random and, ultimately, very frustrating. But when it worked and you got something good, it was often really good. That doesn't make it a good instrument. Maybe a good sounding instrument but that's a different thing.

it's about the fact that people have different views on things

It's not about that at all, it's about some clueless idiot suggesting that all digital synths lack bottom end and using DX7 as an example. You'll notice that when I say something sounds "digital", I'll always add a qualifier, like "and not in a good way" because not all digital synths are the same and it's stupid to think in that way anyway, because there are plenty of analogue synths that could do with more bottom end, too.

I refered to
my example
and explained
without
the intention
of a comparison
of course you could also
compare a Tele to a Les Paul
both "just" guitars
but it's the player who plays
the most important role
rest is
gear
effects
mic placements
mixing
the sound and color
of your daw**
not trying
to imply
the rest
would not be
important!
There are two*** songs
pretty known
that prove
that a DX7 was used
so its sound
should be known
I suppose
A statement
that requires some
additional information !
b e c a u s e
many things shape
the sound
it's not
just the instrument
itself
as far as I am
concerned
btw
I prefer my dishes
without
ketchup
mayonnaise
or
mustard
less is more
sometimes
and you can
focus
easier on
the main thing
without
spoiling
or
affecting
the natural
pristine
character
and
taste!










**just kidding










*** kidding again
there are three songs!

[Vortifex]

This guy's going to wear out my scroll wheel

[tony10000]

...and they can be made beefier by use of wave folding and or distortion.

Or, god forbid, external FX......

No external FX needed. There is an internal distortion effect...it also has a dual fold option. There is also a wave shaper oscillator option.

[sQeetz]

...and they can be made beefier by use of wave folding and or distortion.

Or, god forbid, external FX......

No external FX needed. There is an internal distortion effect...it also has a dual fold option. There is also a wave shaper oscillator option.

exaggeration of the need of anything "beefing up" the sound of this plugin is unwarranted.
I like it the way it is

[tony10000]

...and they can be made beefier by use of wave folding and or distortion.

Or, god forbid, external FX......

No external FX needed. There is an internal distortion effect...it also has a dual fold option. There is also a wave shaper oscillator option.

exaggeration of the need of anything "beefing up" the sound of this plugin is unwarranted.
I like it the way it is

That is exactly my point. If you know how to program synths, all of the tools are there.

[BONES]

No, they aren't. There is not enough bottom end, for a start. OK, you can do things to address the problem but doesn't it make more sense to just use a better synth that doesn't require so much effort?

of course you could also
compare a Tele to a Les Paul both "just" guitars but it's the player who plays
the most important role

The guitarist would disagree with you. The relationship is very different. A guitar is more about the feel, a synth is all about the sound.

No external FX needed. There is an internal distortion effect...it also has a dual fold option. There is also a wave shaper oscillator option.

Do any of those things actually give it as much bottom end as TRK-01?

[tony10000]

No external FX needed. There is an internal distortion effect...it also has a dual fold option. There is also a wave shaper oscillator option.

BONES sez: "Do any of those things actually give it as much bottom end as TRK-01?"

I have both. They sound quite similar to me. YMMV.