Softube CS-80 ? - Model 77 Dual Layer Synth

[cryophonik]

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

Totally agree, right down to also wishing the Model 84 had an arp! Yes, I can easily work around that issue by using Logic's arp MIDI plugin, but I'd love to have the option of saving arp patches right on the Model 84. Oh well

I can still see a case for including MPE in these synths for those who want it (even though I don't use it myself). I don't think it would really subtract from the authenticity of the synth emulation itself.

[DashOfLime]

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

I don't understand why people want to fight over what companies do or don't do like what happens normally on this forum. It's so ridiculous (as is the overuse of the term "gaslight"). There is nothing about what Beely said that constitutes gaslighting. Softube doesn't do what you or the other guy want. They haven't in any of their instruments - likely because most customers don't care. You're free to vote with your wallet.

[DashOfLime]

I can still see a case for including MPE in these synths for those who want it (even though I don't use it myself). I don't think it would really subtract from the authenticity of the synth emulation itself.

I don't think anyone is saying it would take anything away. Most are saying that it's just not what Softube does. Their thing is sticking closely to the original. And FWIW Cherry Audio's GX-80 doesn't have MPE nor does xils' The Eighty. *shrug*

[Kai Enaki]

I can still see a case for including MPE in these synths for those who want it (even though I don't use it myself). I don't think it would really subtract from the authenticity of the synth emulation itself.

Agreed. I don't think it would change much for me as a user if they added support for MPE. It'd be something else if they decided to add FX modules or something else that would change the layout of the synths.

[BONES]

You have a very deep misunderstanding of what MPE is, if you honestly think that. I mean that is just a shockingly bad take

Yeah, that's right, I own a dozen or so MPE controllers but I haven't the first f**king clue what they are or what they do.

With MPE I can get polyphonic expression across multiple parameters that is continuous

Which you would use for what, exactly? Give us an example and I'll tell you an easier way to achieve it than hogging all 16 MIDI channels.

[beely]

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

Indeed, as a general principle, and I think it holds true and is reasonably self-evident to me, and I gave some examples to back up my opinion on that.

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

So let's look at that one specific feature, reverb. On their CS80 they didn't add, like many synths do, a complete multi-FX section - on the CS80 *only*, they added a reverb. No reverb on any of their other synths. (The Juno 106 has a chorus, but that's part of the actual synth itself, not an additional feature over the original). In general, they don't add effects to their synths at all (again, supporting my general premise).

So why did they do this on their CS80? I would posit they did it for exactly two reasons - one, the actual synth side of the CS80 itself is pretty underwhelming, thin-sounding, as pretty much all of the Yamaha analogs from that era are (yes, I've had a few of them, I never really warmed to them). Most CS80 owners (and I know many notable ones) will tell you that the beauty of the CS80 is not so much the power or fundamental sound of the synthesizer, but how it comes "alive" under the great control aspects. A reverb does help disguise this and make it immediately more appealing sounding. (It does have a somewhat unique sound character which isn't easy to replicate on other instruments, which is in it's favour, imo. I'm *not* saying it's a crap synth.)

But possibly even more so, there's the second reason, which is that this particular instrument is so heavily attached to the sound of one artist, and even one project in particular, that for many people, the sound they have in their head of a CS80 is a synthy brassy lead going through a massive Lexicon 224 reverb. Anything else just wouldn't be a CS80 to them - so Softube decided to add that for those reasons, to satisfy those users who might expect that out of a CS80 emulation.

So yes, they chose to implement that one effect as an important part of the product they wanted to make. As opposed to, say, another approach by Cherry Audio, which is at the opposite end of my premise between adding minimal extra features from Softube's approach.

Let's look at their just released Jupiter 8 for example (I'm not sure what their CS80 does offhand, so let's just use this as an example of a different approach to the emulation of a classic synth), and the effects section they've added. It's not just a simple one reverb algorithm. It's multiple chained FX algorithms. Per layer. *And* also globally. And there are independent sequencers and arpeggiators per layer, 16 voices per layer (versus 4 on the hardware), modulation matrix and so on - this is an example of the *other* approach from Softube's "try to stay as authentic as possible" end of the emulation spectrum, which is to throw all kinds of extra features on there that go way beyond the original (and, imo, somewhat losing the essence of the original instrument, albeit you have more flexibility within the instrument).

Now, these two approaches to me seem to be very much different ends of the spectrum of how a company decides to design their synthesizer emulations.

I'm sorry you feel my entire premise is wrong, but it's so self-evident to me, I can only assume that I'm communicating poorly and you're simply misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Now I'm sure you can take any particular feature of a synth, designate it outside of the context of my general premise, and use it to invalidate the entire premise, rather than just recognising the general trueism of the premise - such arguments are pointless and unproductive, so if you feel you need to continue to argue the point, feel free, but I won't be joining in with that. If you need to have the last word, go for it.

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

I think you're possibly getting caught up with interpreting words into something that I wasn't saying. By "modern workflows", I mean, using plugins in DAWs, rather than how we used the originals. We get "MIDI", automation, sample-accurate note placement, patch save/recall, multiple instances, no arbitrary polyphony limits and so on, as opposed to using the originals, which were largely hand-played to tape, often without patch save/recall for things like the Minimoogs etc. And we largely expect those features to work, as part of our "modern workflow".

It doesn't mean every feature that's technically available should be implemented for every instrument - but that's the designer's choice for each product they make.

I hope I communicated that adequately... if not, well, I won't labour the point more than I already have.

I don't think anyone is saying it would take anything away. Most are saying that it's just not what Softube does. Their thing is sticking closely to the original.

Exactly this.

[PAK]

On their CS80 they didn't add, like many synths do, a complete multi-FX section

I’d say you’ve written a good assessment missing but one detail. It isn’t a CS80 model. It’s a CS60 model. The clue is that it’s missing the chorus / tremolo. Softube, to their credit, didn’t just approximate it as most would’ve done - they left it out. This speaks to their integrity and demand for accuracy, even if they’re otherwise marketing it as the 80..

[beely]

Thanks - so when they say they "We modeled and accurately articulated every detail of the circuits of three legendarily expressive Japanese synthesizers from 1977", does that mean they modelled three different CS60's (a one layer synth) but made the plugin two layers to make people *think* they modelled the CS80? Confusing, and they are vague about the exact synths they modelled in their marketing...

"With presets that can be heard on countless incredible recordings, we had to include all the original factory presets for all three synthesizers with Model 77."

It does suggest they were looking at the CS80 (as well as the 50/60), and their marketing certainly implies this... And I think most people treat is as a CS80 (because of the dual layer stuff) despite the streamlined interface. I certainly do/did.

(Maybe they just found the chorus too hard to model... )

[cryophonik]

I thought it was clear all along that Model 77 was intended to emulate a combination of the CS80, 60, and 50. Everybody just refers to it as a CS80 emulation because that’s the flagship and it has the dual layers.

[DashOfLime]

End of the day I like how it sounds and the price was right. I'll never understand the "it HAS to have MPE or it's worthless" crowd (or in this case "the tech is behind the times" which is plain old ridiculous). *shrug*. I'm enjoying it either way.

[PAK]

Thanks - so when they say they "We modeled and accurately articulated every detail of the circuits of three legendarily expressive Japanese synthesizers from 1977", does that mean they modelled three different CS60's (a one layer synth) but made the plugin two layers to make people *think* they modelled the CS80?

Well, if they modeled every detail, where is the chorus and tremolo?! So, now we’ve established that it's not quite every detail we get to guess why.. Because it proved very difficult, like you said? Could be. Or maybe because it’d eat a giant freaking chunk of any potential profit margin getting a CS80 on-site?

The most likely scenario is they had users of CS80’s to consult with / help for reference, but didn’t have one on-site because of the rarity and expense involved. Enter the more obtainable and (by comparison) affordable CS60. More or less the same minus the extra layer and that missing chorus / tremolo. Stick the 224 style verb on there and nobody will ever notice, right?

If you went that route it's simple to double up the voices etc. The only missing detail would be the chorus / tremolo. Co-inky-dink? Me-thinks not!

[zvenx]

How did the others (Xils, Arturia, Cherry Audio) model the chorus and Tremolo? Or maybe they just guessed and it isn't a true emulation?
I can't imagine either Xils or Cherry Audio (arturia might) have more finances to be able to attain a CS-80...

I had asked them why they hadn't.. I can't quite remember their answer.

edit: i checked the email, they never quite answered why there was no chorus or tremolo.
rsp

[beely]

The most likely scenario is they had users of CS80’s to consult with / help for reference, but didn’t have one on-site because of the rarity and expense involved. Enter the more obtainable and (by comparison) affordable CS60. More or less the same minus the extra layer and that missing chorus / tremolo. Stick the 224 style verb on there and nobody will ever notice, right?

If you went that route it's simple to double up the voices etc. The only missing detail would be the chorus / tremolo. Co-inky-dink? Me-thinks not!

I mean if we're all speculating, they might have just thought the one on the synth sucks*, and you can do better with external FX, and panel space was getting tight, so it stayed on the cutting room floor... Unless Softube tell us, we simply don't know... They must have had *some* access to an 80, otherwise they probably wouldn't be able to get the presets that are only in the 80 out and into the plugin (unless there is some way to get that data by other means).

I don't think it's out of the bounds of possibility that Softube could get access to all three synths, even if it's only one of each. I guess if they're being somewhat evasive about answering why they didn't include it, it might indicate something possibly, but we're guessing again. But it's certainly possible they did what you're speculating, for sure.

I can't imagine either Xils or Cherry Audio (arturia might) have more finances to be able to attain a CS-80...

Dan from Cherry has most of these analog synths in his sizeable collection, and some of the other people there have some of those synths too, so they often have access to multiple machines. The only thing they modelled they don't have is the Korg PS3300 - they went and camped out in a studio that does own one to measure and analyse it.

Also, people in the synth community usually know people that have these synths too, so they can usually get access as a favour, or at least, get some independent measurements and recordings to check variability between machines.

* I checked the Arturia one, and I can't say that their version of these effects are especially notable. But how accurate they are, I've no idea, I've never had the pleasure of fondling an eighty... So I'm vying for they intentionally chose not to bother as they possibly felt it didn't add much for the extra interface space needed.

[IvyBirds]

You have a very deep misunderstanding of what MPE is, if you honestly think that. I mean that is just a shockingly bad take

Yeah, that's right, I own a dozen or so MPE controllers but I haven't the first f**king clue what they are or what they do.

With MPE I can get polyphonic expression across multiple parameters that is continuous

Which you would use for what, exactly? Give us an example and I'll tell you an easier way to achieve it than hogging all 16 MIDI channels.

Lots of people own things they don't have a clue about

And you didn't answer my question. You claimed I could do everything I want without MPE, you haven't answered how that could possibly be

You also seem very ignorant to the reality that in modern workflows we have unlimited MIDI channels available to use. So sure MPE uses 16 channels. So what. I can have hundreds of available MIDI channels if I need them

[IvyBirds]

Indeed, as a general principle, and I think it holds true and is reasonably self-evident to me, and I gave some examples to back up my opinion on that.

Only it doesn't, that premise has never ever been communicated by them. That only exists as speculation in your head. When the reality is even you contradict your own theory

So let's look at that one specific feature, reverb. On their CS80 they didn't add, like many synths do, a complete multi-FX section - on the CS80 *only*, they added a reverb. No reverb on any of their other synths. (The Juno 106 has a chorus, but that's part of the actual synth itself, not an additional feature over the original). In general, they don't add effects to their synths at all (again, supporting my general premise).

The fact they did it at all contradicts your premise.

So why did they do this on their CS80? I would posit they did it for exactly two reasons -

And right here is where your premise gets blown up by your own words. If they had some kind of corporate culture where they only did what was on the original they would have made the original. However since your premise is wrong, they felt free to just do whatever they want

the actual synth side of the CS80 itself is pretty underwhelming, thin-sounding, as pretty much all of the Yamaha analogs from that era are

And? If as you claim they seek to keep to the original that is what they would have modeled. Their entire culture would have said that is what Yamaha did and that is what we will do. However they didn't do so

But possibly even more so, there's the second reason, which is that this particular instrument is so heavily attached to the sound of one artist, and even one project in particular, that for many people, the sound they have in their head of a CS80 is a synthy brassy lead going through a massive Lexicon 224 reverb.

Sure, but again that directly contradicts with your premise. You are admitting they had no intentions of ACTUALLY making an authentic model of the unit that left the Yamaha factory floor in 1977, they instead sought to model something else

I agree with and that is my point which is why the lecture that Softube only does accurate modeling and it's somehow crazy and "quite the leap" to assume anything but is so wrong

What they did with other synths or products is nit relevant to the discussion of the Model 77. Even you admit they didn't seek to make an authentic model of a Yamaha product, as such even more extra features should be on the table because authenticity was even