Mark Mothersbaugh on Classic Hardware vs Software Emulations

[jamcat]

You have made it abundantly clear here that you use presets and AI to make music.

I do now, yes, but those tools weren't always around, I used to have to do things the old fashioned way. So while your head seems to still be stuck in the 1970s, I'm using tools at the cutting edge of technology, just like a Model D was 50-odd years ago. That's why our albums chart and yours don't.

When making an album, professional artists (or their record companies) will ask, "Do we need to hire a producer? An engineer? A sound designer? A session player? A ghost singer? An orchestra? An arranger? A composer? A songwriter? A librettist? Diane Warren?"

When you're creating commercial music, the only thing that really matters is the end product, not your ego.

[VOODOO U]

Get through the intro,

Didn't make it unfortunately. Embarrassing.

[machinesworking]

But here's the thing. We are discussing the absolute value of the instruments and their fit for making music. Yes, the Arturia or Cherry emulations of the classic synths may have some minor differences - but they are still outstanding instruments just as fit for making music as the real things were.

Sure, both Arturia and Cherry are cashing in on the nostalgia value and lucrative gear worship of those old instruments - but it's not their fault that people have serious rose-colored glasses for hardware that was often flaky and inconsistent AF. They are wise to capitalize on it.

In the end, all that matters is something sounds good. I can get the same kinds of sounds out of Cherry PS-20 as I could out of a real MS-20, it will be indistinguishable in the mix, and generally using PS-20 is a far more effective workflow for me than a real MS-20 would be. Isn't that what really matters?

Again in general the only really noticeable difference between hardware analogs and softsynths is beef, thick oscillators that do not break down into white noise when overdriven. But, some softsynths have figured this out. Some sound big on their own without FX etc.

That's the part that gets missed here, you can, and I do, use thin, simple very digital sounding synths on songs, I favor soft synths really, I only have a few hardware synths, and don't always use them. I use them when I want that sound, in much the same way someone used a DX7 over a Moog to get that sound.

So when Diva or Dreamsynth claim some of the sound of the synths they take inspiration from they're being very honest and then procede to offer other variations the hardware doesn't have. With all of this we're talking about the last 10% of a sound pallete, but that is IMO usually the reason you like an Oberheim over a Moog, or a SEM over a 303.

Personally I'm just tired of emulations that don't sound really that much like the hardware when you push them into territories they're known for without just using presets. Obviously there's a market for it though.

[zerocrossing]

Now I'm depressed that I live in a world where the poles are melting, fascism is on the rise, and BONES has music that charts. Unless that chart is BONES's top hits.

[zerocrossing]

But here's the thing. We are discussing the absolute value of the instruments and their fit for making music. Yes, the Arturia or Cherry emulations of the classic synths may have some minor differences - but they are still outstanding instruments just as fit for making music as the real things were.

Sure, both Arturia and Cherry are cashing in on the nostalgia value and lucrative gear worship of those old instruments - but it's not their fault that people have serious rose-colored glasses for hardware that was often flaky and inconsistent AF. They are wise to capitalize on it.

In the end, all that matters is something sounds good. I can get the same kinds of sounds out of Cherry PS-20 as I could out of a real MS-20, it will be indistinguishable in the mix, and generally using PS-20 is a far more effective workflow for me than a real MS-20 would be. Isn't that what really matters?

Again in general the only really noticeable difference between hardware analogs and softsynths is beef, thick oscillators that do not break down into white noise when overdriven. But, some softsynths have figured this out. Some sound big on their own without FX etc.

That's the part that gets missed here, you can, and I do, use thin, simple very digital sounding synths on songs, I favor soft synths really, I only have a few hardware synths, and don't always use them. I use them when I want that sound, in much the same way someone used a DX7 over a Moog to get that sound.

So when Diva or Dreamsynth claim some of the sound of the synths they take inspiration from they're being very honest and then procede to offer other variations the hardware doesn't have. With all of this we're talking about the last 10% of a sound pallete, but that is IMO usually the reason you like an Oberheim over a Moog, or a SEM over a 303.

Personally I'm just tired of emulations that don't sound really that much like the hardware when you push them into territories they're known for without just using presets. Obviously there's a market for it though.

You're both right, but making different arguments. There are many crappy sounding albums, fidelity wise, that are filled with amazing music. There's even a famous time when the people working on a Doors album used a Dolby NR prototype, and either out of ignorance or by mistake, didn't run the mix with the decode phase of the process. I personally never came across anyone with a decent stereo system until I was a teenager. Anyone who thinks that the sound of an album has any bearing on its commercial success is a jive turkey.

But that doesn't mean that a lot of people don't care. It also doesn't mean that it's also not a matter of taste. You could make a million great sounds using the worst Model D emulation and never come across the parts where the sound falls apart. You could make a million great sounds on an appropriated game console chip, where the sound is always falling apart.

So I'm not sure why you'd bring up the need for the real thing in a thread about an emulation's authenticity. The topic isn't whether or not you can make good sounds out of it, of course you can, but the question is, how far off is it? Eventually someone will do a forensic side-by-side, and we'll have a better idea. I've not even listened to a demo yet, but my guess is that it will be a lot closer than a lot of the naysayers have been saying, but not perfect.

[stoopicus]

Now I'm depressed that I live in a world where the poles are melting, fascism is on the rise, and BONES has music that charts. Unless that chart is BONES's top hits.

These things seem somehow related.

[machinesworking]

So I'm not sure why you'd bring up the need for the real thing in a thread about an emulation's authenticity. The topic isn't whether or not you can make good sounds out of it, of course you can, but the question is, how far off is it? Eventually someone will do a forensic side-by-side, and we'll have a better idea. I've not even listened to a demo yet, but my guess is that it will be a lot closer than a lot of the naysayers have been saying, but not perfect.

From what you're saying here you probably missed the part where I've owned a Memorymoog since 1986.

My whole blather here has been based on the fact that I now own two pieces of hardware with Arturia soft synths based on them. The Matrix 12 emu is closer to the Xpander here, but that one right away has distinctly "digital" sounding oscillators, in other words they do not fatten the sound up without a lot of help. Same applies with the Memorymoog, right away the oscs with the filter open are thin compared to the hardware. That doesn't give any work they did on the filters any chance really, and on that line the self oscillation on the Memorymoog hardware is odd, sounds less like a mini, and more like guitar feedback. Urs mentioned this years ago when we chatted about him having a MM to look at from a friend.

[IvyBirds]

You have made it abundantly clear here that you use presets and AI to make music.

I do now, yes, but those tools weren't always around, I used to have to do things the old fashioned way. So while your head seems to still be stuck in the 1970s, I'm using tools at the cutting edge of technology, just like a Model D was 50-odd years ago. That's why our albums chart and yours don't.

Are we supposed to be impressed that the AI you use wrote a song that charted on the German Industrial Charts?

I mean you are obviously so successful at it that you can't even bother or afford to renew your domain

Screenshot_20260607-232803.jpg

Maybe I should buy it? That would be fun. Definitely going to inquire about it. The Wayback Machine clearly shows you used to use it. So it would be fun to revive it as my own personal blog on how to use MIDI Controllers. Maybe I can use an AI to make a website for me. I am sure you would appreciate that. I own property in Northern Virginia USA, so the NOVA branding works for me

I use it to create new instruments and sounds often with the GUI from the plugin on one monitor and custom GUI on another along with controllers.. So I am not just turning a knob I am adjusting parameters on Synths that I use to make sounds, do you find it enjoyable to use a mouse 100% of the time it's just a piece of plastic with a few buttons that click and either ball or optical sensor and maybe a scroll wheel. Is it the tool or what the tool does?

My mouse is hardly "a piece of plasitc", it is precision engineered with an aluminium chassis, finely balanced to my liking,

Sounds like my controllers

It seems like you are the one with the limited capacity for abstract thought. It's why you use presets and AI rather than designing your own sounds or writing your own music.

Nah, I just don't give a f**k about such petty considerations, I'm focused on making good music. The process is meaningless to me, I don't have a fragile ego that needs constant propping up.

Obviously the process does matter to you or your wouldn't care about what processes other people use like myself and tell us how wrong we are because it's different than your process. As for ego why did you brag about charting then? Seems weird to do so unless you need your ego stroked

In any case this seems like a good topic for my upcoming blog at Novakill.com

For me I want unlimited control to express my abstract thoughts without limitations.

Which is why you use a box of knobs, rather than take full advantage of the multifarious ways in which you can interact with features of a softsynth on a screen? Yeah, good one.

[/Quote]

Let's see I use a programmable mouse, a QWERTY Keyboard, a MIDI Keyboard, MIDi Foot Pedals, a giant touch screen monitor, and multiple dedicated MIDI control surfaces

How exactly and I not taking full advantage of the multifarious ways in which you can interact with features of a softsynth on a screen?

This however should make for multiple good blog posts on Novakill.com

[jamcat]

Herbert von Karajan sold over 200 million records of music he didn’t write or even play on.

[IvyBirds]

Herbert von Karajan sold over 200 million records of music he didn’t write or even play on.

Sure but did he brag about charting on some obscure chart while offering criticism for those who didn't?

[stoopicus]

From what you're saying here you probably missed the part where I've owned a Memorymoog since 1986.

I should also probably have mentioned that I have owned many hardware synths and own one now as well. Maybe I did? In any case I love them too and love hybrid (though mainly ITB) workflows.

[zerocrossing]

So I'm not sure why you'd bring up the need for the real thing in a thread about an emulation's authenticity. The topic isn't whether or not you can make good sounds out of it, of course you can, but the question is, how far off is it? Eventually someone will do a forensic side-by-side, and we'll have a better idea. I've not even listened to a demo yet, but my guess is that it will be a lot closer than a lot of the naysayers have been saying, but not perfect.

From what you're saying here you probably missed the part where I've owned a Memorymoog since 1986.

My whole blather here has been based on the fact that I now own two pieces of hardware with Arturia soft synths based on them. The Matrix 12 emu is closer to the Xpander here, but that one right away has distinctly "digital" sounding oscillators, in other words they do not fatten the sound up without a lot of help. Same applies with the Memorymoog, right away the oscs with the filter open are thin compared to the hardware. That doesn't give any work they did on the filters any chance really, and on that line the self oscillation on the Memorymoog hardware is odd, sounds less like a mini, and more like guitar feedback. Urs mentioned this years ago when we chatted about him having a MM to look at from a friend.

Their Matrix 12 definitely isn't great, but it's also one of their older emulations that was done before the latest crop of much better plugins. I'd love for you to publish an a/b comparison where you give it the full spectral analysis, matching levels and frequencies. I know it's using the per-voice offset thing, and that can often have a huge impact on how digital a synthesizer sounds. Some of the demos on Arturia's site sound pretty good, especially the one called "Chrome Decay," though admittedly, it's got a ton of effects.

[zerocrossing]

You have made it abundantly clear here that you use presets and AI to make music.

I do now, yes, but those tools weren't always around, I used to have to do things the old fashioned way. So while your head seems to still be stuck in the 1970s, I'm using tools at the cutting edge of technology, just like a Model D was 50-odd years ago. That's why our albums chart and yours don't.

Are we supposed to be impressed that the AI you use wrote a song that charted on the German Industrial Charts?

I mean you are obviously so successful at it that you can't even bother or afford to renew your domain

Screenshot_20260607-232803.jpg

Maybe I should buy it? That would be fun. Definitely going to inquire about it. The Wayback Machine clearly shows you used to use it. So it would be fun to revive it as my own personal blog on how to use MIDI Controllers. Maybe I can use an AI to make a website for me. I am sure you would appreciate that. I own property in Northern Virginia USA, so the NOVA branding works for me

I use it to create new instruments and sounds often with the GUI from the plugin on one monitor and custom GUI on another along with controllers.. So I am not just turning a knob I am adjusting parameters on Synths that I use to make sounds, do you find it enjoyable to use a mouse 100% of the time it's just a piece of plastic with a few buttons that click and either ball or optical sensor and maybe a scroll wheel. Is it the tool or what the tool does?

My mouse is hardly "a piece of plasitc", it is precision engineered with an aluminium chassis, finely balanced to my liking,

Sounds like my controllers

It seems like you are the one with the limited capacity for abstract thought. It's why you use presets and AI rather than designing your own sounds or writing your own music.

Nah, I just don't give a f**k about such petty considerations, I'm focused on making good music. The process is meaningless to me, I don't have a fragile ego that needs constant propping up.

Obviously the process does matter to you or your wouldn't care about what processes other people use like myself and tell us how wrong we are because it's different than your process. As for ego why did you brag about charting then? Seems weird to do so unless you need your ego stroked

In any case this seems like a good topic for my upcoming blog at Novakill.com

For me I want unlimited control to express my abstract thoughts without limitations.

Which is why you use a box of knobs, rather than take full advantage of the multifarious ways in which you can interact with features of a softsynth on a screen? Yeah, good one.

Let's see I use a programmable mouse, a QWERTY Keyboard, a MIDI Keyboard, MIDi Foot Pedals, a giant touch screen monitor, and multiple dedicated MIDI control surfaces

How exactly and I not taking full advantage of the multifarious ways in which you can interact with features of a softsynth on a screen?

This however should make for multiple good blog posts on Novakill.com

This is peak KVR.

[zerocrossing]

This is interesting:



The software is thinner, for sure. Noticeably on some sounds, less on others. I’m wondering if it’s a phenomenon I’ve come across where the hardware filter doesn’t open up all the way until you modulate it, where the software has extended parameter ranges, so the filter will be all the way open if cranked up all the way. The extra energy makes volume levels look identical, but if you look at the fundamentals on a spectrum analyzer, the software will be lower. If you start really matching things, sometimes the differences become much less. Sometimes not. I bet the bell preset was so far off because an LFO on the software was set to sync with the DAW.

[stoopicus]

I wonder how much of the perceived fatness difference between hardware and emu here is the filter being actually too clean and not having any slight distortion nonlinearities the original hardware may have?