IvyBirds wrote: Sun Jul 19, 2026 1:32 pmI 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.cobaia wrote: Sun Jul 19, 2026 10:59 amUnfortunately, you did NOT provide what I asked. I was asking for specific patches so that I could try to match and compare.IvyBirds wrote: Sun Jul 19, 2026 1:28 amThis 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 wasmambo888 wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2026 8:46 pm
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.
I provided just what they asked for and they moved the goalpostscobaia wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2026 11:17 pm 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...
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
And again, you are not really addressing analog authenticity, but Minimoog authenticity.
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.
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.In TAL's latest emulation of the Roland JX-8P there is a switch in the filter section:
They sound rather different from each other. So, which one is more analog?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.
One of them sounds much more similar to Retrologue's than the other, actually.
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.
I didn't say anywhere that it is a joke.
To me analog sound is not the same as Minimoog sound.
And it is not even the result of those imperfections you were talking about.
To me it is the overall sound.
How do you know what Retrologue, Sylenth etc. do under the hood? Have you had access to their source code?
It is not about a patch name, but a practical request. A lot of people have standard synsths like Diva, Dune etc. So it makes sense to name a specific patch so that everyone knows exactly what sound we are talking about.
. That's funny because you've just engaged one of KvR's biggest trolls. Fortunately he mainly inhabits only the instruments forum. Your argument could go on for decades, as Ivybirds is relentless in his trolling, pedantry and circular pedantic arguments. But then, I suspect you're doing the same. You could be a match made in heaven 
.