.I am in between. I didn't work on M:M (apart from the Melohman concept) and didn't have any experience on the subject before doing Ohm Force. Thus I have learned a bit in the process.
I start this thread because I feel I could clarify some points raised so far. Of course, I am bloody biased and worse, I am not the most informed one. But I am pretty sure every dev involved in the match up will read this thread so if you ask "advanced" questions, we could get some "advanced" answers at least from GForce side, and hopefully from Arturia's side too.
For now, there are a few common infos I would like to spread for everyone interested to evaluate the differences (on the pure emulation side - the extra function side being apparently better understood).
*Default patches*
M:M demo default patch has been obviously designed to show the differences with MMV demo default one - it's the same thing. The funny thing is that from this comparison some people seems to think that it proves MMV better bass... Apparently those ppl fall in the good old "play it louder" commercial trap (a classic in some guitar amp stores).
To evaluate the difference, load both demos and feed them with the same continuous note. Then go to your mixer and compare VU meter, and especially peak.
Now, raise M:M gain until its peaks matches MMV's peak (or lower MMVs one). Solo one then the other. See ? Now you do compare the synths, instead of comparing gain settings...
Note also how M:M generates a more consistent loudness. This is important even if you're not interested in exact replication of the original, because this is typically what makes the Minimoog one of synth that fits the best in a mix.
From that test there are more advanced geeky test you can do (we certainly did, starting by Minimoog vs M:M) but I don't extrapolate here. The main point is that M:M deliver more loudness for the signal than MMV and as much as a MiniMoog, which is a must for such an emulation.
*filters*
From that point, why not to compare filters ? Just set both synths to their max sustain level in the filter enveloppe, to hear the filters at a mid range constant cutoff... This would allow to evaluate how both can shine in the mix.
Now, it's time to be mercyless
. Shut down all osc but first one on both synths. Rise emphasis to the max... Now play with cutoff. Hear the difference ? Now imagine that each time both synths will play a patch with emphasis and an enveloppe, the same difference will exist...
CPU usage
CPU usage varies on a lot of things. For instance, MMV CPU usage is note dependant : higher notes takes more CPU. Thus a comparision can be relevant as long as both synths are emulating the same settings and are playing something you could actually play.
First thing is to make sure you compare MMV in soft clip mode (no soft clip having no equivalent in M:M).
Second, let's take that copycat starting patch again. Then set both synths in polyphonic mode, set 8 voices, play eight keys. Check CPU...
Another way of evaluating CPU usage is to check out modulation. Still having your eight note playing, use both synths matrix to put an LFO on the cutoff. Check the CPU usage variations...
OK, enough for now. Some ppl will certainly find all of this very boring... But we have put so much time in M:M (in the meantime, Arturia did release MiniMoog V, CS-80, Moog Modular II, Arp 2600 V and more...) that we feel crucial that at least people evaluate our work in fair condition. It's no need to be a tech geek to do so. Just check out VU meter to start with
