Softube CS-80 ? - Model 77 Dual Layer Synth

[David_Wise]

I had the pleasure of standing next to a real CS-80 keeping me warm for around 18 months when I was a little younger. Although it was quite old even then.

The Softube 77 really is quite accurate, as I remember it.
And the Softube Juno ( 84 ) is uncannily accurate.

One comment on here mentioned how bland the 77 is.
And to be honest, the real one really was - when it worked.
And it's quite remarkable that Vangelis managed to coax so much expression from it.

Many early synths were quite unremarkable.
I also had an old Jupiter 4. You could cook eggs on it. It had a really bad odour. And without a tape delay and an Ensemble-D - it was completely disappointing. However, I digress.

In my opinion, the GX-80 from Cherry Audio is a great compromise of sounding similar enough to the original ( much better to my ears ), with some really usable performance features and some very playable patches.

Both the 77 and the GX-80 are great CS-80's, but for completely different reasons.

[swilow11]

How does it compare to Arturias emulation? To my ears, that sounds really lovely in a thin and eerie way.

[zerocrossing]

All right, I picked it up. Had to. Sounds great, but most of all, someone figured out a way to make a CS-80 simple to use. I’ll use it when pure sound is paramount, and complex modulation isn’t necessary. I’ll still use CS-80 V, as I think it sounds good, and while a little more “boxy,” it clearly does so much more that it’s a fun synth in it’s own right. GX-80 is good too, but the UI is not great.

[C-note]

I like the Arturia CS80 better. The Softube model 84 while great sounding, is not close to my Juno 106.

[mholloway]

I like the Arturia CS80 better. The Softube model 84 while great sounding, is not close to my Juno 106.

Interesting, you are the first person I've ever seen claiming the Softube Juno is not accurate to the hardware...What is off about it, specifically?

[Vortifex]

Other than aftertouch expressivity what is it that the CS-80 does well? What is the sound that you'd go to the CS-80 for? Maybe I just don't 'get' this plugin but I found it difficult to make sounds that I liked.

[BONES]

Not much, it's architecture is quite limiting. It seems to have a few sweet spots but they are over a very narrow range.

[trmupstage]

I think it's ineresting to see all these emulations of vintage synths. I am old enough to remember very clearly when they came out. I also worked as an electronics repair tech for most of my early life so I know full well how difficult it was to maintain them. The CS80 was always on my list (40 years ago) of synths I wanted. I settled for a more affordable Jupiter 6. Very different beasts but both were a lot of fun. The CS80 was always bigger and thicker sounding to me, or at least the sounds I gravitated to. Yes, without all the effects of modern synths, the CS80 sounds pretty boring. I always looked at all the earlier synths as building blocks where I would layer them and add my own external effects. I know I sound like an old man now, but I do miss those days. I'd buy a new synth and then work at learning it for months as I incorporated it into my band and records. That "magic" is sort of gone now. Plugins are very good but there is something about tactile switches and knobs that allows you to be more creative, if you are into sound design. I 100% do not miss fixing them though.
I'm rambling....

[zvenx]

rsp

[Cuauhtli]

I remember an interview with a guy who was Vangelis' assistant (or whatever). Iirc he said that they cranked up the voltage on the oscillators to overdrive the filters to get a more aggressive sound, or something to that affect. Maybe that's part of what's lacking in these emulations

[bonch]

I remember an interview with a guy who was Vangelis' assistant (or whatever). Iirc he said that they cranked up the voltage on the oscillators to overdrive the filters to get a more aggressive sound, or something to that affect. Maybe that's part of what's lacking in these emulations

This is very vague, and I can't find a source for it. However, I don't think anything is sonically lacking in the well-known emulations anyway. They sound the way CS-80s sound, and with the amount of processing CS-80s are typically put through, nobody would ever be able to tell the difference regardless.

[zerocrossing]

I think it's ineresting to see all these emulations of vintage synths. I am old enough to remember very clearly when they came out. I also worked as an electronics repair tech for most of my early life so I know full well how difficult it was to maintain them. The CS80 was always on my list (40 years ago) of synths I wanted. I settled for a more affordable Jupiter 6. Very different beasts but both were a lot of fun. The CS80 was always bigger and thicker sounding to me, or at least the sounds I gravitated to. Yes, without all the effects of modern synths, the CS80 sounds pretty boring. I always looked at all the earlier synths as building blocks where I would layer them and add my own external effects. I know I sound like an old man now, but I do miss those days. I'd buy a new synth and then work at learning it for months as I incorporated it into my band and records. That "magic" is sort of gone now. Plugins are very good but there is something about tactile switches and knobs that allows you to be more creative, if you are into sound design. I 100% do not miss fixing them though.
I'm rambling....

One of my first synths was a DX100. I didn't pick it because I loved it, I picked it because it was cheap and I found a used one that was even cheaper. I couldn't really figure out how to program it, so I used presets and effects to sculpt the sounds. I got a lot of great sounds out of that setup. By the time I started working in music retail, that's where Yamaha was. I never saw any Yamaha analogs in the shop around 1983. I was only dimly aware of the CS-80 because of Blade Runner.

I didn't really get deeply into synthesis until the early 90s, and by that time digital had become ubiquitous. I got used to all that it offered, and going back to analog felt weird, like something was missing. Like ordering an ala carte steak and wondering why it didn't come with any sides or even sauce. It took me a bit to get it. What you lack in modulation and effects, you make up for in subtle things. I think Model 77 nails that, but if you're used to the Arturia emulations, you'll feel like it's too plain, but that's the point. You get to add what you like and craft what you want.

[BONES]

In the 80s and 90s, I never worried about how any of my synths sounded. What mattered was how I could use them to make songs I could perform on stage. Sound quality was a long way down my priority list, to the point that it never really occurred to me that one synth might sound better than another. I was far more interested in the range of sounds I could get out of them, not the quality, so I figured that more expensive synths were more likely to give me a broader sonic palette, rather than a higher quality one. It was a consideration with mixers and, to a lesser extent, with effects, but not when it came to the synths I was spending all my money on.

It's only since we started working ITB, around 20 years ago, that I could afford the luxury of being picky about sound quality. We are so spoiled for choice these days that I can dismiss a synth like the Model 77 because of it's limited architecture and largely ignore the incredible sound quality it offers. Just like the old days, sort of.

[kraster]

In the 80s and 90s, I never worried about how any of my synths sounded. What mattered was how I could use them to make songs I could perform on stage. Sound quality was a long way down my priority list, to the point that it never really occurred to me that one synth might sound better than another. I was far more interested in the range of sounds I could get out of them, not the quality, so I figured that more expensive synths were more likely to give me a broader sonic palette, rather than a higher quality one. It was a consideration with mixers and, to a lesser extent, with effects, but not when it came to the synths I was spending all my money on.

It's only since we started working ITB, around 20 years ago, that I could afford the luxury of being picky about sound quality. We are so spoiled for choice these days that I can dismiss a synth like the Model 77 because of it's limited architecture and largely ignore the incredible sound quality it offers. Just like the old days, sort of.

That makes sense.

I'm another old timer relatively speaking but one thing that for me is really important is usability.

I do think the CS80 is kind of a hard sound to nail down even with synths with broader palettes. The Cherry Audio GS-80 and Arturia both have a broader palette than the Model 77 but they're both too fiddly and cluttered in use.

So if you're really looking for that sound AND having something that's approachable that's where the Model 77 shines imho.

[BONES]

I'm never looking for the specific sound of any particular instrument. it's just not how I think about it. e.g. I've done 4 different New Order covers and in each one I have used a different method of replicating Peter Hook's bass. One of them is a sampled bass guitar with effects, the other three are different synths, some with an effect, one without. But they all sound enough like the original to get the job done. I'll always just use the first thing I find that I think might do the job and take it from there. I'm not more than remotely interested in making something that sounds exactly like the original. If I can find a sound that I like more, that works in the part, that's what I'll use. At the end of the day, I just want to make the best version of the song that I can, not the one that sounds the most like it.