Softube CS-80 ? - Model 77 Dual Layer Synth

[ffx]

? Why should an emulation have the same restrictions as the original from 1977 ?? That makes no sense, instead it should accurately emulate the sound, but also add all the common standard modern features of a recent plugin. Better features DO NOT HARM the original sound... That's what modern plugin development is about. Also the feature set of 1977 was very small, it's not so hard to make that better...

[Echoes in the Attic]

? Why should be an emulation have the same restrictions as the original from 1977 ?? That makes no sense, instead it should accurately emulate the sound, but also add all the common standard modern features of a recent plugin. Better features DO NOT HARM the original sound... That's what modern plugin development is about. Also the feature set of 1977 was very small, it's not so hard to make that better...

It depends how it's implemented. I think there's a point where something loses it's workflow and immediacy. I think of some vintage synths where they took it pretty far and ended being a much different thing like the D16 101 or the Korg ARP2600. Both no longer have the ease of use of the originals they are based on. Still cool, but a much different beast.

But I very much agree when it comes to enhancements that don't clutter the interface. As many people have mentioned, the CS-80 didn't have a super unique sound, but was very expressive for the time. The polyAT and the pitch ribbon. I think the way to expand on that while keeping the original intent on it, would be to add MPE (a natural extension of poly aftertouch). Arturia did that for example. But Arturia have a cool extended view in their instruments that add new modulation sections. I think it's a pretty good approach where you want to keep an authentic UI otherwise. Softube have something similar but it's a side panel with additional modulations. Would be good for them to add MPE but I don't think it's something on their radar as they haven't done MPE with anything at all.

And I definitely don't think MPE needs to be in every synth. But in the CS-80 it really would make sense.

[IvyBirds]

That's a rather large leap in logic to make. The tech stack is outdated because an emulation of a synthesizer from 1977 doesn't do everything you want? Why would it? Softube's instruments stick very closely to the originals. They're not trying to add features on to that.

Only problem with your hypothesis is that Softube themselves disagrees with you. They state right on the product page that

"More than a strict model, Model 77 has added features and workflow enhancements"

https://www.softube.com/us/plug-ins/mod ... ayer-synth

It's quite the logical leap to declare that Softube is doing something they themselves say they are not doing

They also say on the product page that it's

"The most expressive synth of its time, redesigned."

They also go on to say that unlike the original they have added

"stereo processing and DAW sync" and have new features like an

"Aging Slider for vintage vibes, such as oscillator drift and variations over filter cutoff, pulse width, and envelope time. This addition lets you adjust between a stable modern sound and a more vintage, aged sound."

This entire premise you are presenting that Softube is stuck with limitations of 1977 analog electronics is simply not true in anyway.

[beely]

For those not aware of Softube's general design ethos they are using in their instruments, it's to stay more or less as true to the originals and be authentic as they can, only adding the bare minimum of modern features (eg velocity support) to fit into a modern workflow. They won't even give the Prophet 5 an option for more than five voices, for example, which IMO is a bit silly. (They could at least give an option for 10 voices - that remains authentic to the original product line, and the sticklers for authenticity can leave it set to 5...)

So expecting complete implementations of things like MPE, or other sophisticated features (eg modulation matrices, more synthesis options and going much further than the originals, integrated multi FX and so on) will be disappointed - that's simply not what they want to do with these things. And in the case of the CS80, they've chosen to simplify the UI to try and make it more accessible than stuff like Arturia's version, which can be somewhat overwhelming for people who aren't deep synth nerds. (I'm a reasonably deep synth nerd, and I find it somewhat overwhelming...)

It's a development choice, not a constraint, or a lack of technical ability or an "outdated tech stack". For those who find that too limiting, there are plenty of other options - and this is mostly why I prefer other companies' emulations of the instruments they do - although I do really like the UI overhaul they did to their CS80 (but as I don't find the CS80 a particularly compelling synth generally, I'm not tempted enough to buy it. And Vangelis covers are just not my thing).

[Aloysius]

I hate when developers bow down to the squeaky wheels and start adding every imaginable thing to every synth. We might as well just have one synth. But why doesn't the CS-80 sample? But why doesn't it ... etc.

[beely]

Yeah, deciding what features to add is always a careful consideration. The answer is rarely "just add every feature everyone might want", especially when some of those things can turn an instrument into something else and destroy the concept of the original it's trying to emulate. Design and implementation is always a balance.

[IvyBirds]

I hate when developers bow down to the squeaky wheels and start adding every imaginable thing to every synth. We might as well just have one synth. But why doesn't the CS-80 sample? But why doesn't it ... etc.

MPE is not sampling however, that's a rather silly leap to make

Softube already designed the plugin to utilize MIDI keyboards with polyphonic after touch. Right on the product page they tell you to use a MIDI keyboard with Poly AT

You might not be aware in 1977 Midi with Poly AT didn't exist

So if it already is going to respond to MIDI why not respond to more of it?

[Aloysius]

Had to translate to ChatGPT ...

Um, actually… MPE isn’t sampling. I don’t even know how you jumped to that — it’s kind of a really silly leap.

Softube literally already made the plugin to work with MIDI keyboards that have polyphonic aftertouch. Like, it’s right there on the product page. They tell you to use a keyboard with Poly AT. It’s not a secret.

And, just so you know, in 1977 MIDI with Poly AT didn’t even exist, so obviously nobody was using it back then.

So if the plugin is already listening to MIDI… why wouldn’t it just listen to more of it? Seems pretty obvious.

[IvyBirds]

For those not aware of Softube's general design ethos they are using in their instruments, it's to stay more or less as true to the originals and be authentic as they can, only adding the bare minimum of modern features (eg velocity support) to fit into a modern workflow.

Only that is 100% not true and the Model 77 is not marketed as such.

[IvyBirds]

Had to translate to ChatGPT ...

Only problem is ChatGPT was not used in my response

But maybe if you had used it before your post you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself and equate sampling with requests for enhanced MIDI features

You know especially since the plugin already has MIDI technology that wasn't available in 1977

But nah

[Aloysius]

I'm embarrassed for you.

[beely]

Only that is 100% not true and the Model 77 is not marketed as such.

I'm not sure why you're pointing out that the phrases "general design ethos" and "more or less true to the original" as "not 100% true", but yes, that is implied in the exact choice of words I made. Otherwise I would have (incorrectly) chosen to say something like "their plugins are 100% authentic, true and faithful to the originals in all cases and implement no additional modern features" (or whatever). I didn't do that, of course.

Also, a design ethos, and how something is marketed, are two different things, and often come from completely different groups of people - don't confuse them.

I can't find an example Softube instrument emulation that violates my general descriptions - the SH-101's and Minimoogs are monophonic and don't add significant extra features over the originals. The Juno 106 is six-voice poly and only adds velocity (even Roland decided to give theirs an optional second envelope), the Model 80 again doesn't add anything much significant over the Prophet 5, compared to the competition. All these things support my above assertions, which I believe to be true - more or less, as I said.

(Yes, they all have "MIDI" and automation and sample accurate notes and patch save/recall unlike the originals, features that we expect all plugins of this type to have - none of which takes away from an emulation's "authenticity" as much as a modern plugin can have.)

If you don't agree and *really* wish to argue about it, feel free to present a counter opinion...

[IvyBirds]

Only that is 100% not true and the Model 77 is not marketed as such.

I'm not sure why you're pointing out that the phrases "general design ethos" and "more or less true to the original" as "not 100% true",

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to clarify as you try to gaslight

You stated

For those not aware of Softube's general design ethos they are using in their instruments, it's to stay more or less as true to the originals and be authentic as they can, only adding the bare minimum of modern features (eg velocity support) to fit into a modern workflow.

Your entire premise was that they only add the bare minimum of modern features like velocity support

That once again is simply not true. The entire premise is wrong. For example they added stereo reverb, and they added an aging slider. Those have nothing to do with a modern workflow. Stereo reverbs have been around since the 1950s, even digital stereo reverbs were around in 1977

If they were just going to support "Modern Workflows" they would not hesitate to add MPE as that is a modern workflow

[zvenx]

I would say they improved rather than extended (yes I know it is a very thin line between the two) the hardware versions.

The thing though is I wished there was an Arp in the Model 84, beyond that I am not sure I would want additional stuff in any of the others... How do you please everyone?

Part of why Model 72 is my favourite moog, model 80 my favourite prophet 5, model 82 my favourite sh-101 is their almost barebones featureset and for sure no effects... The CS-80 hardware without any reverb or effects is not as pleasing to my ears, whereas the others without reverbs are more pleasing, to my ears..

How do you please everyone?
rsp

[DashOfLime]

? Why should an emulation have the same restrictions as the original from 1977 ?? That makes no sense, instead it should accurately emulate the sound, but also add all the common standard modern features of a recent plugin. Better features DO NOT HARM the original sound... That's what modern plugin development is about. Also the feature set of 1977 was very small, it's not so hard to make that better...

Thats not how Softube make their products. Hell the thing doesn't even have any effects built in.

edit: ok its got the reverb. I was thinking more along the lines of what u-HE does for Repro for example (and other companies like Arturia).