Retrologue 2 - not authentic enough?

[cobaia]

I know very well how to program synths.

The filter in Sylenth is similar to the Minimoog's, and the oscillator as well, with the 3 pulse options and even the rare tri-saw.

I don't really like your tone, so I recommend you learn how to behave.

Imagine thinking a 2006 digital plugin is architecturally similar to a 1970s Minimoog just because it has a dropdown menu option labeled "TriSaw." That is a spectacularly superficial understanding of sound design. Those are static digital lookup tables coded for CPU efficiency—they don't drift, saturate, or dynamically interact with the filter like actual analog hardware.

They are not modeled to be anything like a Minimoog oscillator whatsoever

As for the filter the Minimoog is built entirely around a legendary, four-pole transistor ladder circuit. It is fixed as a monophonic, single Lowpass filter focused on maximum "creaminess," fatness, and low-end authority.

Sylenth1 has nothing in common with that at all. Rather than a single master filter, the synth splits its architecture across two layers (Part A and Part B), giving you two independent filter modules plus a global controller.

Each of the two filters can be set to three primary modes, with selectable roll-off slopes. It can be selected for Lowpass, Highpass, or Bandpass and either 12dB/octave or 24dB/octave slopes.

Sylenth’s filter, is also a famously clean, linear digital design built for high-voice trance plucks, not a non-linear Moog transistor ladder. It completely lacks the interactive feedback loop and low-end resonance drop of the hardware that the Minimoog has. That's why they added an optional drive control that isn't on the Minimoog that uses an additional digital algorithm to add distortion and saturation. This however is not modeled at all from the Minimoog and doesn't sound like a Ladder Filter in anyway

I didn't say anything about Sylenth's architecture, you are putting words into my mouth.
I said the oscillator is similar. It was certainly inspired by the Minimoog. But of course he added stuff.

I know Sylenth well, it not only has the Drive control, but also the Warm Drive button, which is more subtle, though.

Sylenth is pretty good at making Minimoog basses.

It does have the "low-end resonance drop", much stronger than in Retrologue.
The distortion effects in Sylenth are also decent, but not for polyphonic sounds.

Many people seem to focus a lot on resonance, it seems.

[cobaia]

Here clearly the new member is trolling.
Seems to be an especially created account to hype retrologue

I like Retrologue 2 and when I read the thread on which 4 synths people would choose, I found it strange that nobody mentioned it, iirc.
So, yes, I wonder why that is...

[cobaia]

I know very well how to program synths.

The filter in Sylenth is similar to the Minimoog's, and the oscillator as well, with the 3 pulse options and even the rare tri-saw.

I don't really like your tone, so I recommend you learn how to behave.

. 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 .

As for Retrologue, it's 1 of only 2 things I never download with new Cubase versions, the other being their Verve piano thing as I have no need of a realistic piano. Retrologue is OK and I consider it a freebie that comes with Cubase. If I had to pay directly for it, I wouldn't.
Its filter has no character as such, though obvs it does the vanilla VA thing. It has most of the features you'd want on a VA but nothing unique that makes it stand out. It's perfectly usable though. Is it one of the more analogue-sounding plugins? - a long way from it. If I absolutely had to use it, then I could as it's not as thin as many other plugins.

Anyway, enjoy your argument with Ivybirds for the next 6 months. You'll both go round in circles and end up exactly where you both started at.

I don't know your definition of trolling.
Today everyone is called a troll who defends his position.
Everything is called disinformation when it contradicts the mainstream.
We are living in fascist times...

[cobaia]

This is what I mean, the differences between Diva and Retrologue 2 are modest in the final patch.
Once part of a song, nobody will care about the difference...

This is the Diva patch FMR JunoJupiter 32 Bass 2 on both synths:
https://app.box.com/s/xnzyea7t0npj07z4mtwhi1eo7t3zchki

The most difficult part to match was actually the chorus, which is rather different on both...

[chk071]

Diva is first, right?

[cobaia]

Diva is first, right?

I think so, but I am not sure

[chk071]

Well, I'm pretty sure.

[enCiphered]

I think the interesting part of the thread isn't whether Retrologue 2 is authentic enough. It's that almost nobody agrees on what "authentic" even means. Without agreeing on the evaluation criteria first, the discussion inevitably devolves into taste, personal experience and brand loyalty rather than something that can actually be tested. Every time one of these threads appears, it follows almost the same trajectory. We start by discussing a synthesizer, but somewhere along the way we stop discussing the instrument and start defending our preferences.

The biggest obstacle isn't that you guys hear different things, it's that you are often not talking about the same thing when you say words like analog, authentic, warm, alive or sterile. One person is referring to filter saturation, another to oscillator behaviour, another to envelope response, another simply to a preset that happens to hit the sweet spot.

Without agreeing on what you are actually evaluating, the conversation becomes impossible to resolve. I find the posts that explain why someone hears a difference far more interesting than those that merely state there is one. Whether that's filter topology, nonlinearities, voice interaction, gain staging, aliasing or modulation behaviour. Those are things everyone can examine, test and discuss.

At least one thing is authentic: these threads never fail to follow the same signal path.

[IvyBirds]

I think the interesting part of the thread isn't whether Retrologue 2 is authentic enough. It's that almost nobody agrees on what "authentic" even means.

When talking about emulations of Analog Synths in plugin form, that's already predefined. If you want to authentically replicate an analog synth like a Minimoog, or an MS20, your product should actually do that. Using the phrase "authentic enough" would indicate that there is something you want to compare it to. When talking about analog synths what else but actual analog synths would you possibly mean?

[chk071]

I think the interesting part of the thread isn't whether Retrologue 2 is authentic enough. It's that almost nobody agrees on what "authentic" even means. Without agreeing on the evaluation criteria first, the discussion inevitably devolves into taste, personal experience and brand loyalty rather than something that can actually be tested. Every time one of these threads appears, it follows almost the same trajectory. We start by discussing a synthesizer, but somewhere along the way we stop discussing the instrument and start defending our preferences.

The biggest obstacle isn't that you guys hear different things, it's that you are often not talking about the same thing when you say words like analog, authentic, warm, alive or sterile. One person is referring to filter saturation, another to oscillator behaviour, another to envelope response, another simply to a preset that happens to hit the sweet spot.

Without agreeing on what you are actually evaluating, the conversation becomes impossible to resolve. I find the posts that explain why someone hears a difference far more interesting than those that merely state there is one. Whether that's filter topology, nonlinearities, voice interaction, gain staging, aliasing or modulation behaviour. Those are things everyone can examine, test and discuss.

At least one thing is authentic: these threads never fail to follow the same signal path.

More important than all of that for me is whether or not an instrument sounds good and inspires you. If Retrologue does that for the OP, no real need to discuss about it.

But, I would certainly say that Retrologue falls a bit short in terms of the usual characteristics you would familiarize with a real analog. I never had the impression that it models the tuning instabilities, the saturation in the signal path, or the voice variations of a real analog synth very well. That is what I'd call autheticity in an analog emulation.

A few months ago, I compared my Behringer Model D with NI Monark for a few days, and, that was very convincing to say the least, regarding the impression that you can very well model even vintage analog in software. Actually, the differences were so miniscule that they don't bother me at all, and I even preferred Monark when the resonance was turned up higher. And, of course it didn't detune like a motherf***er like the Model D does. Even when you let it warm up for half an hour or an hour, it's still out of tune, and the scaling along the octaves is off as well. Of course, I knew all that when I bought it, as it's well documented on the net...

[IvyBirds]

I know very well how to program synths.

The filter in Sylenth is similar to the Minimoog's, and the oscillator as well, with the 3 pulse options and even the rare tri-saw.

I don't really like your tone, so I recommend you learn how to behave.

Imagine thinking a 2006 digital plugin is architecturally similar to a 1970s Minimoog just because it has a dropdown menu option labeled "TriSaw." That is a spectacularly superficial understanding of sound design. Those are static digital lookup tables coded for CPU efficiency—they don't drift, saturate, or dynamically interact with the filter like actual analog hardware.

They are not modeled to be anything like a Minimoog oscillator whatsoever

As for the filter the Minimoog is built entirely around a legendary, four-pole transistor ladder circuit. It is fixed as a monophonic, single Lowpass filter focused on maximum "creaminess," fatness, and low-end authority.

Sylenth1 has nothing in common with that at all. Rather than a single master filter, the synth splits its architecture across two layers (Part A and Part B), giving you two independent filter modules plus a global controller.

Each of the two filters can be set to three primary modes, with selectable roll-off slopes. It can be selected for Lowpass, Highpass, or Bandpass and either 12dB/octave or 24dB/octave slopes.

Sylenth’s filter, is also a famously clean, linear digital design built for high-voice trance plucks, not a non-linear Moog transistor ladder. It completely lacks the interactive feedback loop and low-end resonance drop of the hardware that the Minimoog has. That's why they added an optional drive control that isn't on the Minimoog that uses an additional digital algorithm to add distortion and saturation. This however is not modeled at all from the Minimoog and doesn't sound like a Ladder Filter in anyway

I didn't say anything about Sylenth's architecture, you are putting words into my mouth.
I said the oscillator is similar. It was certainly inspired by the Minimoog. But of course he added stuff.

I know Sylenth well, it not only has the Drive control, but also the Warm Drive button, which is more subtle, though.

Sylenth is pretty good at making Minimoog basses.

It does have the "low-end resonance drop", much stronger than in Retrologue.
The distortion effects in Sylenth are also decent, but not for polyphonic sounds.

Many people seem to focus a lot on resonance, it seems.

The fact that you think an oscillator isn't part of a synth's architecture tells us everything we need to know. Claiming Sylenth’s static, hardcoded digital oscillator is "similar" to a physical Minimoog VCO just because they share basic geometric shapes is like saying a picture of an engine is similar to an actual V8.
And citing the "Warm Drive" button? That’s literally just a generic digital waveshaping algorithm slapped on top—it isn't a non-linear, per-voice transistor overload. You are continually confusing inline digital saturation effects with organic, interactive component modeling.
The absolute best part, though, is you hand-waving away filter resonance with "many people seem to focus a lot on resonance." Of course they do! Resonance behavior is literally the primary defining characteristic of analog filter topologies. You’ve spent this entire thread getting basic filter physics completely wrong, and now that you're backed into a corner, your grand defense is to pretend filter behavior was never important in the first place.
You keep moving goalposts, mistaking basic digital waveshapers for component modeling, and hand-waving away core synthesis concepts the second they don't fit your narrative. You can keep convincing yourself that Sylenth is a secret Minimoog, but you're still just describing standard digital approximations while missing the entire point of how analog circuits actually operate.

[kritikon]

Interesting, thanks for the info on Model D tuning . I was having passing thoughts of getting one...more to fill a 3-tier stand along with Cat & Wasp, as it seems like they're the only Behringer 70HP units, all the others are 80HP. TBH I don't really want a Moog, they never engaged me, don't much like those filters but the OCD in me wants to fill the gap. But I don't want an out of tune synth. That's the real bad old days I don't want to revisit, and in my own personal purely subjective opinion...is what makes a shit synth.

It's the final nail in the coffin that tells me if I do want anything Moog, I'll stick with a VST emu (not Retrologue ).

[chk071]

Good call, I would say. I wanted the Model D for a while, and, one day, I couldn't just say no again anymore, for such a cheap price (199 €). Watched a ton of videos about it, especially one from a guy who repairs "real" Minimoogs, who compared the Behringer to his Minimoog, and, that was very convincing for me.

The most appealing thing about it in my opinion is the one function per knob thing. It's really fun to play and tweak it. The biggest downside, again, the tuning stability. As far as I know, the Minimoog is the same - it just goes out of tune constantly. After all, they replicated the original components. And, if you're used to MIDI control, there's a lot that it lacks as well, of course, just like the original.

Fun to compare it to Monark though, and, sometimes literally my mouth stood open, because they sound SO close. I expected them to be very similar, but, not like that, to be honest. It's really amazing how software tech developed over the years, and how the people behind it understand what makes the emulated synths sound like they do.

[cobaia]

Well, I'm pretty sure.

I had used too much resonance and too little chorus, now it is much closer I think

https://app.box.com/s/xnzyea7t0npj07z4mtwhi1eo7t3zchki

[cobaia]

I know very well how to program synths.

The filter in Sylenth is similar to the Minimoog's, and the oscillator as well, with the 3 pulse options and even the rare tri-saw.

I don't really like your tone, so I recommend you learn how to behave.

Imagine thinking a 2006 digital plugin is architecturally similar to a 1970s Minimoog just because it has a dropdown menu option labeled "TriSaw." That is a spectacularly superficial understanding of sound design. Those are static digital lookup tables coded for CPU efficiency—they don't drift, saturate, or dynamically interact with the filter like actual analog hardware.

They are not modeled to be anything like a Minimoog oscillator whatsoever

As for the filter the Minimoog is built entirely around a legendary, four-pole transistor ladder circuit. It is fixed as a monophonic, single Lowpass filter focused on maximum "creaminess," fatness, and low-end authority.

Sylenth1 has nothing in common with that at all. Rather than a single master filter, the synth splits its architecture across two layers (Part A and Part B), giving you two independent filter modules plus a global controller.

Each of the two filters can be set to three primary modes, with selectable roll-off slopes. It can be selected for Lowpass, Highpass, or Bandpass and either 12dB/octave or 24dB/octave slopes.

Sylenth’s filter, is also a famously clean, linear digital design built for high-voice trance plucks, not a non-linear Moog transistor ladder. It completely lacks the interactive feedback loop and low-end resonance drop of the hardware that the Minimoog has. That's why they added an optional drive control that isn't on the Minimoog that uses an additional digital algorithm to add distortion and saturation. This however is not modeled at all from the Minimoog and doesn't sound like a Ladder Filter in anyway

I didn't say anything about Sylenth's architecture, you are putting words into my mouth.
I said the oscillator is similar. It was certainly inspired by the Minimoog. But of course he added stuff.

I know Sylenth well, it not only has the Drive control, but also the Warm Drive button, which is more subtle, though.

Sylenth is pretty good at making Minimoog basses.

It does have the "low-end resonance drop", much stronger than in Retrologue.
The distortion effects in Sylenth are also decent, but not for polyphonic sounds.

Many people seem to focus a lot on resonance, it seems.

The fact that you think an oscillator isn't part of a synth's architecture tells us everything we need to know. Claiming Sylenth’s static, hardcoded digital oscillator is "similar" to a physical Minimoog VCO just because they share basic geometric shapes is like saying a picture of an engine is similar to an actual V8.
And citing the "Warm Drive" button? That’s literally just a generic digital waveshaping algorithm slapped on top—it isn't a non-linear, per-voice transistor overload. You are continually confusing inline digital saturation effects with organic, interactive component modeling.
The absolute best part, though, is you hand-waving away filter resonance with "many people seem to focus a lot on resonance." Of course they do! Resonance behavior is literally the primary defining characteristic of analog filter topologies. You’ve spent this entire thread getting basic filter physics completely wrong, and now that you're backed into a corner, your grand defense is to pretend filter behavior was never important in the first place.
You keep moving goalposts, mistaking basic digital waveshapers for component modeling, and hand-waving away core synthesis concepts the second they don't fit your narrative. You can keep convincing yourself that Sylenth is a secret Minimoog, but you're still just describing standard digital approximations while missing the entire point of how analog circuits actually operate.

I did not say the oscillator was not part of the architecture, I said the oscillator is not the same as the architecture.
You are contradicting me for the sake of contradicting me

And frankly, I don't care what goes on under the hood. If I can get the result to sound 99% the same, it is fine with me