Retrologue 2 - not authentic enough?

[swilow11]

Super 8 sounds better than them all. Fight me.

[IvyBirds]

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

So after endlessly trying to lecture everyone on filter drops, tri-saw waves, and "Warm Drive" buttons, you finally fall back on the ultimate cope: "I don't care what goes on under the hood, it sounds 99% the same to me."

So of you genuinely believe Retrologue sounds "99% the same," then explain how it handles any of these—because architecturally, Retrologue literally lacks the code to do them

1.)Per-Voice Component Tolerance Drift: Diva’s Trimmers panel allows individual voice cards to have unique pitch offsets, envelope speeds, and filter cutoffs, making polyphonic chords sound alive. Retrologue runs every single voice through the exact same mathematically identical digital code.

2.)Dynamic, Non-Linear Filter Saturation: Diva’s Ladder and Bite filters dynamically react to input drive, self-oscillation, and resonance phase shifts (like the natural low-end drop of a Moog or the screaming clipping of an MS-20). Retrologue uses static, linear digital filter equations that remain sterile regardless of input level.

3.)Cross-Hardware Modular Hybridization: Diva lets you route Moog Triple VCOs directly into a Korg MS-20 Sallen-Key filter or an Oberheim SEM state-variable filter. Retrologue locks you into a single, generic subtractive engine.

4.)Analog Capacitor Charge/Discharge Curves: Diva’s ADS and Analogue envelope modules model the actual non-linear voltage curves of physical hardware components, whereas Retrologue relies on standard digital envelope shapes.

So, here is the question: how, exactly, is Retrologue sounding "99% the same" when it is physically incapable of doing so? DIVA can make the sound of actual analog hardware that Retrologue can not

Finally you said

You are contradicting me for the sake of contradicting me

I’m not contradicting you "for the sake of contradicting you"—I’m contradicting you for the sake of factual accuracy. There’s a massive difference.
If you stopped making up wildly incorrect claims about synth physics and DSP architecture, I wouldn't have anything to correct. Pointing out that your technical statements are completely wrong isn't a personal vendetta; it's basic fact-checking.
Slapping a smug on a total lack of technical substance doesn't make you right—it just makes you confidently incorrect. If you want people to stop contradicting you, try saying something that is actually true

[IvyBirds]

Super 8 sounds better than them all. Fight me.

Super 8 models the Roland Juno voice layout. Instead of picking a single static waveform from a dropdown box, Super 8 uses Roland’s classic slider-blend structure, letting you simultaneously mix saw, pulse, sine, and sub-oscillators to recreate the phase coupling and harmonic weight of Roland's physical voice cards.

One the filter it is modeled after the Sequential Circuits Prophet-5. It recreates the non-linear 24dB low-pass drive, saturation, and resonant punch of the original SSM/CEM filter chips.

So Super 8 literally pairs Roland oscillator blending with a Prophet filter topology.

Comparing that to Retrologue isn't even fair. Super 8 is an explicit component-level mashup of two specific vintage icons, while Retrologue isn't modeling a Roland oscillator or a Prophet filter.

If you like the sound of Super 8 better than DIVA you won't get any arguments from me

[cobaia]

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

So after endlessly trying to lecture everyone on filter drops, tri-saw waves, and "Warm Drive" buttons, you finally fall back on the ultimate cope: "I don't care what goes on under the hood, it sounds 99% the same to me."

So of you genuinely believe Retrologue sounds "99% the same," then explain how it handles any of these—because architecturally, Retrologue literally lacks the code to do them

1.)Per-Voice Component Tolerance Drift: Diva’s Trimmers panel allows individual voice cards to have unique pitch offsets, envelope speeds, and filter cutoffs, making polyphonic chords sound alive. Retrologue runs every single voice through the exact same mathematically identical digital code.

2.)Dynamic, Non-Linear Filter Saturation: Diva’s Ladder and Bite filters dynamically react to input drive, self-oscillation, and resonance phase shifts (like the natural low-end drop of a Moog or the screaming clipping of an MS-20). Retrologue uses static, linear digital filter equations that remain sterile regardless of input level.

3.)Cross-Hardware Modular Hybridization: Diva lets you route Moog Triple VCOs directly into a Korg MS-20 Sallen-Key filter or an Oberheim SEM state-variable filter. Retrologue locks you into a single, generic subtractive engine.

4.)Analog Capacitor Charge/Discharge Curves: Diva’s ADS and Analogue envelope modules model the actual non-linear voltage curves of physical hardware components, whereas Retrologue relies on standard digital envelope shapes.

So, here is the question: how, exactly, is Retrologue sounding "99% the same" when it is physically incapable of doing so? DIVA can make the sound of actual analog hardware that Retrologue can not

Finally you said

You are contradicting me for the sake of contradicting me

I’m not contradicting you "for the sake of contradicting you"—I’m contradicting you for the sake of factual accuracy. There’s a massive difference.
If you stopped making up wildly incorrect claims about synth physics and DSP architecture, I wouldn't have anything to correct. Pointing out that your technical statements are completely wrong isn't a personal vendetta; it's basic fact-checking.
Slapping a smug on a total lack of technical substance doesn't make you right—it just makes you confidently incorrect. If you want people to stop contradicting you, try saying something that is actually true

It is just your opinion that the points you listed are important for analog sound.
I don't need all those types of drift, I don't even want it, except for the pitch drift to prevent ugly cancelling effects with overlapping notes.

To me what matters more is the overall sound, and of course the sound design.
Basically to me analog sound is the opposite of digital sound, the DX7 sound etc.
Compared to a DX7, Retrologue/Sylenth/Diva sound the same.

While envelopes are of course different from synth to synth, often one can get very close by fiddling with the ADSR parameters, the envelope amount, velocity to envelope amount, key follow.

It took me a quarter of an hour to get it more or less right with the updated patch I have posted.

In terms of parameter settings Retrologue and Diva are very different. So it is not easy to match patches across synths.

[cobaia]

PS: Feel free to make and upload a patch for Diva that shows exactly what you say Retrologue can't do.
So I can load it and try to match it

[IvyBirds]

PS: Feel free to make and upload a patch for Diva that shows exactly what you say Retrologue can't do.
So I can load it and try to match it

I have already told you, why don't you prove me wrong? Make a patch in Retrologue that has the behavior of the Moog Ladder filter where the bass lowers when you crank up the resonance

We all know you can't, you say you can do prove it. Show is how you can, and please don't fake it by stealing the velocity parameter because that wouldn't replicate DIVA

[IvyBirds]

It is just your opinion that the points you listed are important for analog sound.
I don't need all those types of drift, I don't even want it, except for the pitch drift to prevent ugly cancelling effects with overlapping notes.

To me what matters more is the overall sound, and of course the sound design.
Basically to me analog sound is the opposite of digital sound, the DX7 sound etc.
Compared to a DX7, Retrologue/Sylenth/Diva sound the same.

While envelopes are of course different from synth to synth, often one can get very close by fiddling with the ADSR parameters, the envelope amount, velocity to envelope amount, key follow.

It took me a quarter of an hour to get it more or less right with the updated patch I have posted.

In terms of parameter settings Retrologue and Diva are very different. So it is not easy to match patches across synths.

Congratulations on setting the absolute lowest bar for technical comprehension in the history of audio forums.

Defining "analog sound" simply as "anything that isn't 80s Frequency Modulation synthesis" is mind-blowing. By that logic, a 1995 Casio toy keyboard playing a subtractive saw wave counts as "analog" just because it isn't an FM patch. Subtractive synthesis and component-level circuit behavior are two completely different things.
And no, non-linear circuit saturation, harmonic distortion, and voice-card drift being key characteristics of analog hardware isn't "just my opinion"—it’s electrical engineering and fact

However thanks for finally admitting your threshold for "analog" is just any synth with a filter knob.

[IvyBirds]

PS: Feel free to make and upload a patch for Diva that shows exactly what you say Retrologue can't do.
So I can load it and try to match it

On 2nd thought glad to help! You don't even need to wait for me to upload anything—just open Diva’s stock Factory Library and check out these exact presets:

1.)HS Amnesia Poly2 or HS Hail Jupiter
Play a 4-note chord repeatedly. Notice how every single voice card in Diva triggers with a subtly different filter cutoff, envelope attack speed, and pitch drift (controlled via Diva's Trimmers panel). You can't match that in Retrologue, because Retrologue’s polyphony executes identical math on every voice, making repeated polyphonic chords sound totally static and will be exactly the same every time

2.)HS Plastic Monster or HS A Tack Attack
These patches use Diva’s Bite Filter (modeled on the early Korg MS-20 Sallen-Key circuit) with high resonance and Filter FM.

Crank the resonance in Retrologue and hear how it cleanly and predictably rings out like a pristine digital sine wave. In Diva, the Bite filter produces non-linear, screaming, asymmetric distortion that dynamically breaks up based on input amplitude. Retrologue’s linear filters don't have the math to fold or saturate like that.

3.)HS Kontrablast or HS Pazong
These bass patches route the synth’s audio output directly back into the filter input (Diva’s Feedback module) to overdrive the Moog Ladder filter. In Diva, pushing feedback causes natural low-end compression, harmonic saturation, and a subtle shift in the filter cutoff frequency. In Retrologue, adding digital drive just adds harsh, linear clipping on top of the signal. So please replicate that warm, self-compressing analog feedback loop in Retrologue without your patch turning into a brittle digital mess.

Thanks in advance for posting audio examples where you are able to match these in Retrologue

[Essent]

Retro, like many other digital synths, obviously models analog subtractive synthesis. Everyone with an engineering degree can tell you, you can do this to varying levels of accuracy. Just like you can model the weather. One weather prediction model predicts better / more days ahead than another model. Retro is probably good enough for the average user, the purist wants something better and will find his needs with something like Diva or synths by Arthuria / Softtube.

Note: making the GUI identical to the original hardware analog synth is an easy way to give the average user an acceptable model of the original.

[cobaia]

It is just your opinion that the points you listed are important for analog sound.
I don't need all those types of drift, I don't even want it, except for the pitch drift to prevent ugly cancelling effects with overlapping notes.

To me what matters more is the overall sound, and of course the sound design.
Basically to me analog sound is the opposite of digital sound, the DX7 sound etc.
Compared to a DX7, Retrologue/Sylenth/Diva sound the same.

While envelopes are of course different from synth to synth, often one can get very close by fiddling with the ADSR parameters, the envelope amount, velocity to envelope amount, key follow.

It took me a quarter of an hour to get it more or less right with the updated patch I have posted.

In terms of parameter settings Retrologue and Diva are very different. So it is not easy to match patches across synths.

Congratulations on setting the absolute lowest bar for technical comprehension in the history of audio forums.

Defining "analog sound" simply as "anything that isn't 80s Frequency Modulation synthesis" is mind-blowing. By that logic, a 1995 Casio toy keyboard playing a subtractive saw wave counts as "analog" just because it isn't an FM patch. Subtractive synthesis and component-level circuit behavior are two completely different things.
And no, non-linear circuit saturation, harmonic distortion, and voice-card drift being key characteristics of analog hardware isn't "just my opinion"—it’s electrical engineering and fact

However thanks for finally admitting your threshold for "analog" is just any synth with a filter knob.

That is not what I wrote. You have to read more carefully and stop putting words into my mouth...
I wrote "Basically to me analog sound is the opposite of digital sound, the DX7 sound etc."
Etc. means all kinds of synthesis, FM being just one.

[chk071]

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

1. Retrologue
2. Diva

IMO.

Anyway, it's a bit pointless to compare a single patch. A sythesizer has to sound good over the whole "bandwidth", so to speak, when you create sounds with it, or just jam with it. And, that's also where the wheat separates from the chaff.

[cobaia]

PS: Feel free to make and upload a patch for Diva that shows exactly what you say Retrologue can't do.
So I can load it and try to match it

On 2nd thought glad to help! You don't even need to wait for me to upload anything—just open Diva’s stock Factory Library and check out these exact presets:

1.)HS Amnesia Poly2 or HS Hail Jupiter
Play a 4-note chord repeatedly. Notice how every single voice card in Diva triggers with a subtly different filter cutoff, envelope attack speed, and pitch drift (controlled via Diva's Trimmers panel). You can't match that in Retrologue, because Retrologue’s polyphony executes identical math on every voice, making repeated polyphonic chords sound totally static and will be exactly the same every time

2.)HS Plastic Monster or HS A Tack Attack
These patches use Diva’s Bite Filter (modeled on the early Korg MS-20 Sallen-Key circuit) with high resonance and Filter FM.

Crank the resonance in Retrologue and hear how it cleanly and predictably rings out like a pristine digital sine wave. In Diva, the Bite filter produces non-linear, screaming, asymmetric distortion that dynamically breaks up based on input amplitude. Retrologue’s linear filters don't have the math to fold or saturate like that.

3.)HS Kontrablast or HS Pazong
These bass patches route the synth’s audio output directly back into the filter input (Diva’s Feedback module) to overdrive the Moog Ladder filter. In Diva, pushing feedback causes natural low-end compression, harmonic saturation, and a subtle shift in the filter cutoff frequency. In Retrologue, adding digital drive just adds harsh, linear clipping on top of the signal. So please replicate that warm, self-compressing analog feedback loop in Retrologue without your patch turning into a brittle digital mess.

Thanks in advance for posting audio examples where you are able to match these in Retrologue

I have 245 patches from HS in Diva, only 1 of the 6 you mentioned is among them: Pazong.
I will look into it later today, but it sounds horrible. Such noise would never enter music of mine. I grew up with music that was very keen on clean production. I am allergic to noise and distortion

[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

1. Retrologue
2. Diva

IMO.

Anyway, it's a bit pointless to compare a single patch. A sythesizer has to sound good over the whole "bandwidth", so to speak, when you create sounds with it, or just jam with it. And, that's also where the wheat separates from the chaff.

Well, some of the most popular, classic analog synths were not very versatile, like the Juno 6/60.

[cobaia]

PS: Feel free to make and upload a patch for Diva that shows exactly what you say Retrologue can't do.
So I can load it and try to match it

On 2nd thought glad to help! You don't even need to wait for me to upload anything—just open Diva’s stock Factory Library and check out these exact presets:

1.)HS Amnesia Poly2 or HS Hail Jupiter
Play a 4-note chord repeatedly. Notice how every single voice card in Diva triggers with a subtly different filter cutoff, envelope attack speed, and pitch drift (controlled via Diva's Trimmers panel). You can't match that in Retrologue, because Retrologue’s polyphony executes identical math on every voice, making repeated polyphonic chords sound totally static and will be exactly the same every time

2.)HS Plastic Monster or HS A Tack Attack
These patches use Diva’s Bite Filter (modeled on the early Korg MS-20 Sallen-Key circuit) with high resonance and Filter FM.

Crank the resonance in Retrologue and hear how it cleanly and predictably rings out like a pristine digital sine wave. In Diva, the Bite filter produces non-linear, screaming, asymmetric distortion that dynamically breaks up based on input amplitude. Retrologue’s linear filters don't have the math to fold or saturate like that.

3.)HS Kontrablast or HS Pazong
These bass patches route the synth’s audio output directly back into the filter input (Diva’s Feedback module) to overdrive the Moog Ladder filter. In Diva, pushing feedback causes natural low-end compression, harmonic saturation, and a subtle shift in the filter cutoff frequency. In Retrologue, adding digital drive just adds harsh, linear clipping on top of the signal. So please replicate that warm, self-compressing analog feedback loop in Retrologue without your patch turning into a brittle digital mess.

Thanks in advance for posting audio examples where you are able to match these in Retrologue

I have 245 patches from HS in Diva, only 1 of the 6 you mentioned is among them: Pazong.
I will look into it later today, but it sounds horrible. Such noise would never enter music of mine. I grew up with music that was very keen on clean production. I am allergic to noise and distortion

Frankly, I don't understand you.
You give me a patch to match which uses the digital oscillator, in order to show how analog Diva sounds?!
I don't even know how that digital oscillator works. And frankly, I don't want to know.

[IvyBirds]

That is not what I wrote. You have to read more carefully and stop putting words into my mouth...
I wrote "Basically to me analog sound is the opposite of digital sound, the DX7 sound etc."
Etc. means all kinds of synthesis, FM being just one.

Clarifying that you meant "all non-subtractive digital synthesis" doesn't save your point—it makes it infinitely worse.

You are continuously confusing a synthesis method (subtractive) with an audio domain (analog vs. digital).

Retrolouge is adigital plugin executing digital math on a digital CPU. The only reason you think it sounds "analog" compared to a DX7 is because they use a standard subtractive signal path instead of frequency modulation.

Subtractive synthesis is just a routing structure; "analog sound" comes from component physics, harmonic saturation, and circuit non-linearities. Defining "analog" as simply "any synth with a low-pass filter that isn't FM or wavetable" is like saying a plastic toy car is an authentic V8 engine just because it isn't a boat.
Tacking "etc." onto a fundamentally broken definition doesn't make you misunderstood—it just proves you still can't tell the difference between how a synth shapes a waveform and how a physical circuit actually behaves