Retrologue 2 - not authentic enough?

[cobaia]

Since someone - probably the owner - has closed the old Retrologue thread, I will open a new one

So, we were comparing it to Diva, Repro, Dune 3 etc.
Some suggested it does not sound as authentically analog as the others.
And I was asking for people to name me specific patches in Diva etc. that show how it should sound. I am still waiting...

[BBFG#]

Guess you missed the obvious indication to let go of something no one can prove to another unless they want it to.

on if you must.

[IvyBirds]

Since someone - probably the owner - has closed the old Retrologue thread, I will open a new one

So, we were comparing it to Diva, Repro, Dune 3 etc.
Some suggested it does not sound as authentically analog as the others.
And I was asking for people to name me specific patches in Diva etc. that show how it should sound. I am still waiting...

To answer your question directly, the reason you are waiting for specific examples is that the difference isn't about a generic "sawtooth pad" preset; it is about how the emulation handles extreme circuit behavior. If you want to put this to the test, there are three specific types of patches you can dial up in Diva right now that Retrologue 2 simply cannot replicate accurately because it lacks the underlying component modeling.
First, try dialing up a classic, aggressive Korg MS-20 style monophonic lead or bass patch using Diva’s "Bite" filter with the resonance cranked up past two o'clock. If you feed the Dual VCO Eco module into that Bite filter and push it into self-oscillation, Diva accurately recreates the chaotic, screaming, non-linear distortion of the original Sallen-Key circuit. If you try to recreate that exact patch in Retrologue 2, the filter will sound polite, predictable, and distinctly digital. Retrologue’s filters are mathematically perfect, meaning they lack the unstable, gritty, and borderline dangerous clipping behavior that defines the MS-20 sound.
Second, test a classic, heavy Minimoog Model D bass patch using the Triple VCO and the "Ladder" filter, and pay close attention to what happens when you turn up the resonance. On the real hardware, and inside Diva, turning up the resonance causes a natural, organic drop in the low-end frequencies, coupled with a distinct warmth as the transistor ladder saturates. Diva mimics this exact architectural quirk. If you attempt this patch in Retrologue 2, the low end remains completely linear and unmoving because its filter doesn't model that specific component limitation. Retrologue’s built-in tube or diode drive stages will just apply a uniform waveshaping effect across the whole sound, rather than the subtle, interactive saturation that happens inside a real Moog filter circuit.
Finally, look at any polyphonic pad patch that heavily utilizes Diva’s "Trimmers" panel for voice-by-voice variance. In Diva, you can set up a lush Jupiter-8 style pad where Voice 1 has a slightly higher filter cutoff, Voice 2 has a faster envelope decay, and Voice 3 has a slightly drifted oscillator pitch. When you play a chord, the patch feels alive because every single note sounds subtly different, mimicking a physical circuit board that has aged over forty years. Retrologue 2 cannot do this. You can add global random detune or LFO modulation to a pad in Retrologue, but every single voice is still running through the exact same mathematically identical filter and envelope curves. It will always sound static and "perfect" compared to the deep, per-voice circuit drift that Diva pulls off.
That is where the "authentically analog" argument holds water. Retrologue is a fantastic workhorse for clean, modern subtractive synthesis, but it can't mimic the beautiful flaws of specific historical circuits when you push them to their limits.

[cobaia]

Since someone - probably the owner - has closed the old Retrologue thread, I will open a new one

So, we were comparing it to Diva, Repro, Dune 3 etc.
Some suggested it does not sound as authentically analog as the others.
And I was asking for people to name me specific patches in Diva etc. that show how it should sound. I am still waiting...

To answer your question directly, the reason you are waiting for specific examples is that the difference isn't about a generic "sawtooth pad" preset; it is about how the emulation handles extreme circuit behavior. If you want to put this to the test, there are three specific types of patches you can dial up in Diva right now that Retrologue 2 simply cannot replicate accurately because it lacks the underlying component modeling.
First, try dialing up a classic, aggressive Korg MS-20 style monophonic lead or bass patch using Diva’s "Bite" filter with the resonance cranked up past two o'clock. If you feed the Dual VCO Eco module into that Bite filter and push it into self-oscillation, Diva accurately recreates the chaotic, screaming, non-linear distortion of the original Sallen-Key circuit. If you try to recreate that exact patch in Retrologue 2, the filter will sound polite, predictable, and distinctly digital. Retrologue’s filters are mathematically perfect, meaning they lack the unstable, gritty, and borderline dangerous clipping behavior that defines the MS-20 sound.
Second, test a classic, heavy Minimoog Model D bass patch using the Triple VCO and the "Ladder" filter, and pay close attention to what happens when you turn up the resonance. On the real hardware, and inside Diva, turning up the resonance causes a natural, organic drop in the low-end frequencies, coupled with a distinct warmth as the transistor ladder saturates. Diva mimics this exact architectural quirk. If you attempt this patch in Retrologue 2, the low end remains completely linear and unmoving because its filter doesn't model that specific component limitation. Retrologue’s built-in tube or diode drive stages will just apply a uniform waveshaping effect across the whole sound, rather than the subtle, interactive saturation that happens inside a real Moog filter circuit.
Finally, look at any polyphonic pad patch that heavily utilizes Diva’s "Trimmers" panel for voice-by-voice variance. In Diva, you can set up a lush Jupiter-8 style pad where Voice 1 has a slightly higher filter cutoff, Voice 2 has a faster envelope decay, and Voice 3 has a slightly drifted oscillator pitch. When you play a chord, the patch feels alive because every single note sounds subtly different, mimicking a physical circuit board that has aged over forty years. Retrologue 2 cannot do this. You can add global random detune or LFO modulation to a pad in Retrologue, but every single voice is still running through the exact same mathematically identical filter and envelope curves. It will always sound static and "perfect" compared to the deep, per-voice circuit drift that Diva pulls off.
That is where the "authentically analog" argument holds water. Retrologue is a fantastic workhorse for clean, modern subtractive synthesis, but it can't mimic the beautiful flaws of specific historical circuits when you push them to their limits.

But you are not really describing analog sound, but specific analog synths.
There never was 1 analog sound. The Juno's sounded very different from the Minimoog or Oberheims.

1. Frankly, I don't know that Korg synth, so it is hard for me to GUESS what kind of sound you have in mind. I followed your vague description for Diva and didn't hear chaotic screaming. Maybe I was doing something wrong, got more screaming out of R2
Not that I liked that type of sound, though. I don't think it was used on any of the old songs I like.

2. Yes, synths that have a ladder filter suffer from that lack of low-frequency, but not all classic analog synths had that kind of filter. Others had built-in volume compensation, Oberheims and Jupiter 8 I think.
In R2 you can get the same result if you use the LP18 + HP6 filter combo instead of a normal LP filter, if you want the bass to be gone.

3. If that is what you want, you can emulate that with velocity to cutoff, decay, pitch modulations, which will also be applied differently on a per-note basis.


I get the impression that U-he, TAL, etc. spend a lot of time and CPU cycles on emulating what was not even intended in the originals
Later analog synths with DCO's and better components were much more stable, anyway. And yet they sounded just as analog as the older ones.

[IvyBirds]

But you are not really describing analog sound, but specific analog synths.
There never was 1 analog sound. The Juno's sounded very different from the Minimoog or Oberheims.

Correct and DIVA can mimic those actual analog synths rather well, Retrologue can't as I pointed out

There has never been any analog synth that sounds like Retrologue. You seem confused as to what analog synths sound like and are incorrectly ascribing basic subtractive Synthesis characteristics as analog sounding. It's not.

1. Frankly, I don't know that Korg synth, so it is hard for me to GUESS what kind of sound you have in mind. I followed your vague description for Diva and didn't hear chaotic screaming.

Wow so you never have heard of the MS20 and are clueless as to what it sounded like? In any case you can't get that sound in Retrologue, because Retrologue doesn't model the behavior of the actual analog components

Maybe I was doing something wrong, got more screaming out of R2
Not that I liked that type of sound, though. I don't think it was used on any of the old songs I like.

So because you don't like the authentic analog synth sounds of the MS20 means it doesn't exist? Retrologue can't make it

Yes, synths that have a ladder filter suffer from that lack of low-frequency, but not all classic analog synths had that kind of filter.

That behavior is an artifact of the actual analog circuits of the Moog Ladder Filter. It's literally an analog sound. You asked for examples of authenticity of Analog sounds and I gave you one, one Retrologue can't do. So if you want the authentic analog sound of a Moog Ladder Filter DIVA is the clear winner

Others had built-in volume compensation, Oberheims and Jupiter 8 I think.

Oh, brilliant. You figured out that different vintage synths used different filter topologies. Someone get you a trophy! Except you’re completely missing the forest for the trees here. The Moog ladder filter was just one example of a specific hardware quirk. The actual point—which seems to have flown right by—is that Diva models the unique, non-linear behaviors of all those different circuits, while Retrologue doesn't model any of them. That's called authentic analog sounds. Something Retrologue doesn't have

And just for the record, a vintage Jupiter-8 absolutely loses low-end chunk when you crank the resonance. It didn't have some magical, modern active bass-compensation circuit built into its 1981 analog boards.

The Oberheim SEM doesn't drop bass as drastically simply because it's a completely different state-variable design, not because of a correction circuit.

But let’s pretend your history lesson was 100% accurate anyway. The point still stands: Diva models the exact, quirky way that Jupiter cascade filter behaves under pressure, and it models the distinct slope of the Oberheim SEM. Retrologue, on the other hand, gives you the exact same mathematically perfect, sterile digital filter curve whether you select its 12dB or 24dB option. It treats every filter with the same generic algorithm. It's not modeling the authentic analog sounds it's digital

So yes, congratulations on knowing that not every vintage synth is a Minimoog. But the fact remains: Diva models how those specific, individual analog circuits actually react in the physical world, faults and all, while Retrologue just plays dress-up with generic digital code. But hey, keep moving those goalposts.

In R2 you can get the same result if you use the LP18 + HP6 filter combo instead of a normal LP filter, if you want the bass to be gone.

Wow. This is a truly breathtaking misunderstanding of how basic synthesis actually works. Are you genuinely trying to argue that slapping a static high-pass filter on a patch to permanently butcher your low end is the same thing as dynamic, non-linear circuit interaction?
Let me spell this out for you, since the concept of "interactivity" seems completely alien. In a real ladder filter, or inside Diva's component modeling of one, the bass loss is directly and dynamically tied to the resonance knob. Turn the resonance up, and the low end drops because of the phase shift in the internal feedback loop. Turn the resonance down, and the bass comes roaring back instantly. It is a living, reactive circuit response of the actual analog circuits.

If you use your brilliant "LP18 + HP6" workaround in Retrologue, that HP6 filter is just sitting there cutting your low end like a blunt instrument regardless of what your resonance knob is doing. If you turn the resonance down, your bass is still completely gone because you permanently filtered it out with a static digital curve. You aren't "emulating" a hardware quirk; you're just using a basic EQ cut to cripple your own patch.

The fact that you think a static high-pass filter is an acceptable substitute for interactive component modeling proves you have absolutely no idea how actual analog hardware behaves or sounds . You are trying to replicate a dynamic, organic physical reaction with a rigid, linear digital band-aid.

If that is what you want, you can emulate that with velocity to cutoff, decay, pitch modulations, which will also be applied differently on a per-note basis.

Imagine confidently claiming that velocity modulation is the same thing as per-voice component drift. This is a genuinely embarrassing misunderstanding of how synthesis actually works.

Velocity is entirely dependent on performance dynamics. If a bassline is sequenced at a fixed velocity of 100, your brilliant "workaround" does absolutely nothing. True hardware drift—and Diva’s Trimmers panel—models separate, uncalibrated physical voice cards cycling through a round-robin pool. Voice 1's envelope is naturally slower and Voice 2's oscillator is slightly sharp, completely independent of how hard you strike a key.

Worse yet, by hijacking velocity to clumsily fake circuit slop, you completely destroy its actual purpose: musical expression. You've sacrificed dynamic control over your performance just to copy a static approximation of hardware instability.

I get the impression that U-he, TAL, etc. spend a lot of time and CPU cycles on emulating what was not even intended in the originals
Later analog synths with DCO's and better components were much more stable, anyway. And yet they sounded just as analog as the older ones.

And there it is—the absolute pinnacle of moving the goalposts to cover up a total lack of technical understanding. You started this thread demanding concrete proof of what Diva can do that Retrologue can't. When presented with objective architectural facts, you tried to hand-wave away interactive filter behaviors, utterly failed to understand basic MIDI velocity mapping, and now your grand coping mechanism is to claim that the actual physics defining the analog sound "don't matter anyway."

.A Juno or Oberheim didn't sound analog because they were "stable"; they sounded analog because their voice chips, filters, and VCAs were still full of the non-linear saturation and component tolerances that Diva models and Retrologue completely lacks.

Those "unintended" circuit behaviors are literally the exact physical definition of what human ears perceive as "analog sound" it's warmth and depth. Dismissing them as a waste of CPU is just embarrassing

[chk071]

There has never been any analog synth that sounds like Retrologue.

I actually heard a pretty convincing comparison between Retrologue and the MFB Kraftzwerg once.

Admittedly, the comparison was made so that they sound close, like many other comparisons.

Not sure if it's worth the discussion though. Again, Diva is a different league in terms of analog modelling. Retrologue is a good VA, nothing more nothing less.

[cobaia]

But you are not really describing analog sound, but specific analog synths.
There never was 1 analog sound. The Juno's sounded very different from the Minimoog or Oberheims.

Correct and DIVA can mimic those actual analog synths rather well, Retrologue can't as I pointed out

There has never been any analog synth that sounds like Retrologue. You seem confused as to what analog synths sound like and are incorrectly ascribing basic subtractive Synthesis characteristics as analog sounding. It's not.

1. Frankly, I don't know that Korg synth, so it is hard for me to GUESS what kind of sound you have in mind. I followed your vague description for Diva and didn't hear chaotic screaming.

Wow so you never have heard of the MS20 and are clueless as to what it sounded like? In any case you can't get that sound in Retrologue, because Retrologue doesn't model the behavior of the actual analog components

Maybe I was doing something wrong, got more screaming out of R2
Not that I liked that type of sound, though. I don't think it was used on any of the old songs I like.

So because you don't like the authentic analog synth sounds of the MS20 means it doesn't exist? Retrologue can't make it

Yes, synths that have a ladder filter suffer from that lack of low-frequency, but not all classic analog synths had that kind of filter.

That behavior is an artifact of the actual analog circuits of the Moog Ladder Filter. It's literally an analog sound. You asked for examples of authenticity of Analog sounds and I gave you one, one Retrologue can't do. So if you want the authentic analog sound of a Moog Ladder Filter DIVA is the clear winner

Others had built-in volume compensation, Oberheims and Jupiter 8 I think.

Oh, brilliant. You figured out that different vintage synths used different filter topologies. Someone get you a trophy! Except you’re completely missing the forest for the trees here. The Moog ladder filter was just one example of a specific hardware quirk. The actual point—which seems to have flown right by—is that Diva models the unique, non-linear behaviors of all those different circuits, while Retrologue doesn't model any of them. That's called authentic analog sounds. Something Retrologue doesn't have

And just for the record, a vintage Jupiter-8 absolutely loses low-end chunk when you crank the resonance. It didn't have some magical, modern active bass-compensation circuit built into its 1981 analog boards.

The Oberheim SEM doesn't drop bass as drastically simply because it's a completely different state-variable design, not because of a correction circuit.

But let’s pretend your history lesson was 100% accurate anyway. The point still stands: Diva models the exact, quirky way that Jupiter cascade filter behaves under pressure, and it models the distinct slope of the Oberheim SEM. Retrologue, on the other hand, gives you the exact same mathematically perfect, sterile digital filter curve whether you select its 12dB or 24dB option. It treats every filter with the same generic algorithm. It's not modeling the authentic analog sounds it's digital

So yes, congratulations on knowing that not every vintage synth is a Minimoog. But the fact remains: Diva models how those specific, individual analog circuits actually react in the physical world, faults and all, while Retrologue just plays dress-up with generic digital code. But hey, keep moving those goalposts.

In R2 you can get the same result if you use the LP18 + HP6 filter combo instead of a normal LP filter, if you want the bass to be gone.

Wow. This is a truly breathtaking misunderstanding of how basic synthesis actually works. Are you genuinely trying to argue that slapping a static high-pass filter on a patch to permanently butcher your low end is the same thing as dynamic, non-linear circuit interaction?
Let me spell this out for you, since the concept of "interactivity" seems completely alien. In a real ladder filter, or inside Diva's component modeling of one, the bass loss is directly and dynamically tied to the resonance knob. Turn the resonance up, and the low end drops because of the phase shift in the internal feedback loop. Turn the resonance down, and the bass comes roaring back instantly. It is a living, reactive circuit response of the actual analog circuits.

If you use your brilliant "LP18 + HP6" workaround in Retrologue, that HP6 filter is just sitting there cutting your low end like a blunt instrument regardless of what your resonance knob is doing. If you turn the resonance down, your bass is still completely gone because you permanently filtered it out with a static digital curve. You aren't "emulating" a hardware quirk; you're just using a basic EQ cut to cripple your own patch.

The fact that you think a static high-pass filter is an acceptable substitute for interactive component modeling proves you have absolutely no idea how actual analog hardware behaves or sounds . You are trying to replicate a dynamic, organic physical reaction with a rigid, linear digital band-aid.

If that is what you want, you can emulate that with velocity to cutoff, decay, pitch modulations, which will also be applied differently on a per-note basis.

Imagine confidently claiming that velocity modulation is the same thing as per-voice component drift. This is a genuinely embarrassing misunderstanding of how synthesis actually works.

Velocity is entirely dependent on performance dynamics. If a bassline is sequenced at a fixed velocity of 100, your brilliant "workaround" does absolutely nothing. True hardware drift—and Diva’s Trimmers panel—models separate, uncalibrated physical voice cards cycling through a round-robin pool. Voice 1's envelope is naturally slower and Voice 2's oscillator is slightly sharp, completely independent of how hard you strike a key.

Worse yet, by hijacking velocity to clumsily fake circuit slop, you completely destroy its actual purpose: musical expression. You've sacrificed dynamic control over your performance just to copy a static approximation of hardware instability.

I get the impression that U-he, TAL, etc. spend a lot of time and CPU cycles on emulating what was not even intended in the originals
Later analog synths with DCO's and better components were much more stable, anyway. And yet they sounded just as analog as the older ones.

And there it is—the absolute pinnacle of moving the goalposts to cover up a total lack of technical understanding. You started this thread demanding concrete proof of what Diva can do that Retrologue can't. When presented with objective architectural facts, you tried to hand-wave away interactive filter behaviors, utterly failed to understand basic MIDI velocity mapping, and now your grand coping mechanism is to claim that the actual physics defining the analog sound "don't matter anyway."

.A Juno or Oberheim didn't sound analog because they were "stable"; they sounded analog because their voice chips, filters, and VCAs were still full of the non-linear saturation and component tolerances that Diva models and Retrologue completely lacks.

Those "unintended" circuit behaviors are literally the exact physical definition of what human ears perceive as "analog sound" it's warmth and depth. Dismissing them as a waste of CPU is just embarrassing

Listen, I don't know exactly what programmers build into their synths.
I was merely offering workaround in order to achieve similar results. Even if they work very differently. At the end of the day what matters is the resulting sound.

I don't think Diva sounds warm, frankly. I think that is a positive bias towards analog synths. I used to have a Roland analog synth, and it did not sound warm at all.
Maybe people assume they sound warm because they know them from certain old songs they like. But I guess there is a lot of polishing going on in the studio...

[rasmusklump]

I smell trolling.
It has a reason the old thread was locked.

[cobaia]

I smell trolling.
It has a reason the old thread was locked.

No idea what your definition of trolling is.

Probably, not sharing your opinion...

[Danilo Villanova]

The only thing that matters is if it makes girls move their buttocks on the dance floor.

[mambo888]

Authentic to what?

It sounds good and have a lot of good presets. Who cares if not the same as Diva? Every synth is different in some way or other.

Someone who swears to hardware would look down on Diva, that crowd cannot be pleased. For everyone else analog is what sounds good for you.

Btw. Nothing is analog, everything is digital, everything is quantized. Learn about quantum theory in physics.

[IvyBirds]

Someone who swears to hardware would look down on Diva, that crowd cannot be pleased. For everyone else analog is what sounds good for you.

Btw. Nothing is analog, everything is digital, everything is quantized. Learn about quantum theory in physics.

This thread wasn't started to try to convince anyone to abandon hardware however. It started as a question specifically addressed to plugin users and that question was

So, we were comparing it to Diva, Repro, Dune 3 etc.
Some suggested it does not sound as authentically analog as the others.
And I was asking for people to name me specific patches in Diva etc. that show how it should sound. I am still waiting...

I provided just what they asked for and they moved the goalposts

Ask yourself if you want to emulate the sound of a resonant Moog Ladder Filter in a plugin which would be better? DIVA that actually has the same behavior as it? Or Retrologue which doesn't?

So the answer regarding is Retrologue 2 authentic enough? And the answer without any doubt is no

When it comes to replicating certain behaviors of analog circuitry that DIVA emulates which is the original question of the OP, Retrologue doesn't even attempt to do so there is 0% authenticity. You can argue all day if any plugin would ever be good enough for the hardware purists and they would say no. That's not the question asked. Assume that DIVA is even 25% there (it's significantly higher than that) since Retrologue is 0% there DIVA would be the clear winner if AUTHENTICITY to specific Synths and behaviors of them is your goal and you are using plugins

When someone asks about AUTHENTICITY that is definable because you would have to have something to compare it to that you view as authentic. In this case it would be analog synths. Repro is an authentic virtual Prophet 5, however it totally lacks authenticity if you are trying to make Minimoog sounds.

Now if AUTHENTICITY isn't the goal and you just want generic VA sounds then Retrologue is perfect for that. It was designed to be a generic VA that is light on CPU so you could easily run multiple instances of it in Cubase. Stenberg gives it away as a stock plugin with Cubase

[cobaia]

Someone who swears to hardware would look down on Diva, that crowd cannot be pleased. For everyone else analog is what sounds good for you.

Btw. Nothing is analog, everything is digital, everything is quantized. Learn about quantum theory in physics.

This thread wasn't started to try to convince anyone to abandon hardware however. It started as a question specifically addressed to plugin users and that question was

So, we were comparing it to Diva, Repro, Dune 3 etc.
Some suggested it does not sound as authentically analog as the others.
And I was asking for people to name me specific patches in Diva etc. that show how it should sound. I am still waiting...

I provided just what they asked for and they moved the goalposts

Ask yourself if you want to emulate the sound of a resonant Moog Ladder Filter in a plugin which would be better? DIVA that actually has the same behavior as it? Or Retrologue which doesn't?

So the answer regarding is Retrologue 2 authentic enough? And the answer without any doubt is no

When it comes to replicating certain behaviors of analog circuitry that DIVA emulates which is the original question of the OP, Retrologue doesn't even attempt to do so there is 0% authenticity. You can argue all day if any plugin would ever be good enough for the hardware purists and they would say no. That's not the question asked. Assume that DIVA is even 25% there (it's significantly higher than that) since Retrologue is 0% there DIVA would be the clear winner if AUTHENTICITY to specific Synths and behaviors of them is your goal and you are using plugins

When someone asks about AUTHENTICITY that is definable because you would have to have something to compare it to that you view as authentic. In this case it would be analog synths. Repro is an authentic virtual Prophet 5, however it totally lacks authenticity if you are trying to make Minimoog sounds.

Now if AUTHENTICITY isn't the goal and you just want generic VA sounds then Retrologue is perfect for that. It was designed to be a generic VA that is light on CPU so you could easily run multiple instances of it in Cubase. Stenberg gives it away as a stock plugin with Cubase

Unfortunately, you did NOT provide what I asked. I was asking for specific patches so that I could try to match and compare.

And again, you are not really addressing analog authenticity, but Minimoog authenticity.

In TAL's latest emulation of the Roland JX-8P there is a switch in the filter section:

MODERN
Uses the same filter, but runs the signal hotter into the filter with more drive and can
add more resonance until self oscillation. The volume does not drop that much when
resonance is added.

They sound rather different from each other. So, which one is more analog?
One of them sounds much more similar to Retrologue's than the other, actually.

[chk071]

Inspired by this thread, I installed Retrologue again, after years of not having used it. Waste of time, as usual. Even as a general purpose VA (think Sylenth1, Spire etc.), it disappoints. Let alone as an analog emulation.

There is a reason why I don't use stuff, and that's usually because either the sound is not good IMO, or the handling or GUI is bad. It's just a waste of time, which I rather spend with instruments that I like, and which inspire me.

[IvyBirds]

Someone who swears to hardware would look down on Diva, that crowd cannot be pleased. For everyone else analog is what sounds good for you.

Btw. Nothing is analog, everything is digital, everything is quantized. Learn about quantum theory in physics.

This thread wasn't started to try to convince anyone to abandon hardware however. It started as a question specifically addressed to plugin users and that question was

So, we were comparing it to Diva, Repro, Dune 3 etc.
Some suggested it does not sound as authentically analog as the others.
And I was asking for people to name me specific patches in Diva etc. that show how it should sound. I am still waiting...

I provided just what they asked for and they moved the goalposts

Ask yourself if you want to emulate the sound of a resonant Moog Ladder Filter in a plugin which would be better? DIVA that actually has the same behavior as it? Or Retrologue which doesn't?

So the answer regarding is Retrologue 2 authentic enough? And the answer without any doubt is no

When it comes to replicating certain behaviors of analog circuitry that DIVA emulates which is the original question of the OP, Retrologue doesn't even attempt to do so there is 0% authenticity. You can argue all day if any plugin would ever be good enough for the hardware purists and they would say no. That's not the question asked. Assume that DIVA is even 25% there (it's significantly higher than that) since Retrologue is 0% there DIVA would be the clear winner if AUTHENTICITY to specific Synths and behaviors of them is your goal and you are using plugins

When someone asks about AUTHENTICITY that is definable because you would have to have something to compare it to that you view as authentic. In this case it would be analog synths. Repro is an authentic virtual Prophet 5, however it totally lacks authenticity if you are trying to make Minimoog sounds.

Now if AUTHENTICITY isn't the goal and you just want generic VA sounds then Retrologue is perfect for that. It was designed to be a generic VA that is light on CPU so you could easily run multiple instances of it in Cubase. Stenberg gives it away as a stock plugin with Cubase

Unfortunately, you did NOT provide what I asked. I was asking for specific patches so that I could try to match and compare.

And again, you are not really addressing analog authenticity, but Minimoog authenticity.

I explicitly detailed how to test the Korg MS-20 filter, Roland Jupiter voice cards, and Oberheim SEM modules. Pretending this is just about "Minimoog authenticity" is a pathetic attempt to rewrite the thread because your argument got completely demolished.
As for your whining about specific patch names: if you actually knew how to program a synthesizer instead of blindly scrolling through factory presets, you wouldn't need to be spoon-fed. I gave you the exact blueprint. Init a patch, swap the modules to the MS-20 or Jupiter circuits, and turn the knobs I described. The fact that you can't even dial in a basic initialized patch to test these component behaviors yourself proves you don't understand the first thing about sound design.

You don’t want to "match and compare"—you want an escape route because you are completely incapable of operating the gear you're trying to debate.

In TAL's latest emulation of the Roland JX-8P there is a switch in the filter section:

MODERN
Uses the same filter, but runs the signal hotter into the filter with more drive and can
add more resonance until self oscillation. The volume does not drop that much when
resonance is added.

They sound rather different from each other. So, which one is more analog?
One of them sounds much more similar to Retrologue's than the other, actually.

Let's clear up your confusion about TAL's "Modern" switch. It isn't bypassing emulation; it is changing the simulated hardware physics. It models what happens when you modify a physical analog circuit to run hotter, gain-stage it aggressively, and alter the resonance feedback loop. It is still a non-linear, component-level simulation of physical components under stress, dripping with harmonic distortion and analog saturation.

Retrologue does not do any of that. It runs a mathematically perfect, linear digital algorithm. It doesn't dynamically react to input gain or model circuit saturation; it just passes numbers through a fixed textbook equation. Just because TAL's modern mode retains bass and self-oscillates harder doesn't mean it suddenly sounds like Retrologue's lifeless digital code—it just means you lack the ears to hear the complex harmonic distortion happening under the hood in both of TAL’s modes.

To answer your question: both of TAL's modes are infinitely more analog because they both model the behavior of physical components. Retrologue models a spreadsheet.

Let’s wrap this up with a question so blindingly simple even you should be able to parse it.
If we want to determine what sounds "more analog," do you think it’s the software meticulously coded to emulate the actual circuits, components, and physical behaviors of real analog hardware... or is it the plugin that literally does not model a single piece of analog hardware in existence?

I know, it’s a real cognitive mountain to climb. It’s a total mystery.

So let’s address the massive contradiction in your entire argument: why do you even care?

​You are literally on record in this exact thread claiming that developers like u-he and TAL are wasting their time and CPU cycles emulating "unintended" circuit behaviors. If you genuinely believe that component-level modeling is a pointless waste of resources, why are you still here begging for patch names and obsessing over what sounds "more analog"?

Pick a lane. You can't dismiss the entire concept of authentic emulation as a useless waste of CPU, and then turn around and whine that nobody is proving the authenticity to you, it's circular logic to mask the fact that your technical arguments completely collapsed

The absolute most bizarre part of all of this is the glaring hypocrisy you're choking on. Since you've already established that for you authentic circuit modeling is a useless waste of CPU, why do you care so intensely about how "authentically analog" Retrologue is or isn't? If real analog behavior is pointless to you, then Retrologue’s complete failure to emulate it shouldn't matter to you in the slightest. Yet here you are, frantically moving goalposts to validate its "authenticity" when you've spent the last four posts arguing that authenticity doesn't even exist. It’s a masterclass in intellectual bankruptcy—you're desperately trying to defend a plugin's analog honor while simultaneously arguing that analog emulation itself is a joke.