Minimoog Softsynth Shootout: Diva MiniV3 Monark Legend Minimonsta vs Model D

[chk071]

How is CPU usage in The Legend, in comparison with Monark?

Better. Monark is quite a hog. For Legend, the dev, Richard, applied some trick to make it CPU efficient. It isn't "easy" on the CPU, but, not as hard on the CPU as Monark. I'd rather say, like something like u-he ACE, or so.

[waltercruz]

How is CPU usage in The Legend, in comparison with Monark?

Better. Monark is quite a hog. For Legend, the dev, Richard, applied some trick to make it CPU efficient. It isn't "easy" on the CPU, but, not as hard on the CPU as Monark. I'd rather say, like something like u-he ACE, or so.

Nice! My go-to moog is Monark. Sometimes, when playing live, I use Mini V-3 in some sounds, mainly because it uses less CPU. Someday I will get The Legend, but by now, Monark+Mini V3 cover my needs very well.

[Amram]

I will stick with the hardware for now.

Is the hardware have new sounds that we didn't hear untill now.

I don't think so.

With digital you can have more easy and powerfull sounds.

[izonin]

Nice! My go-to moog is Monark. Sometimes, when playing live, I use Mini V-3 in some sounds, mainly because it uses less CPU. Someday I will get The Legend, but by now, Monark+Mini V3 cover my needs very well.

Monark is somewhat weird when it comes to CPU. First, its engine runs constantly, even if you're not playing any note. Then, it always runs at 88.2/96 internally, unless you override this setting. When you manually set it to 44.1KHz it actually uses the same CPU as the Legend.

The Legend is SSE2 optimized, which means it can calculate up to 4 voices in parallel. A big plus, because Minimoog chords can sound magnificent.

[AnX]

I will stick with the hardware for now.

Is the hardware have new sounds that we didn't hear untill now.

I don't think so.

With digital you can have more easy and powerfull sounds.

But they are still digital.

[Amram]

Edit
Double posts

[Amram]

I will stick with the hardware for now.

Is the hardware have new sounds that we didn't hear untill now.

I don't think so.

With digital you can have more easy and powerfull sounds.

But they are still digital.

U will notice in the mix
I poromise

[AnX]

I will stick with the hardware for now.

Is the hardware have new sounds that we didn't hear untill now.

I don't think so.

With digital you can have more easy and powerfull sounds.

But they are still digital.

U will notice in the mix
I poromise

I do. I poromise.

[jancivil]

I'm thinking the Minimoog that NI had on hand when they were doing Monark was a particularly harsh specimen. Their 1:1 comparison certainly shows that. And... they NAILED it.

Yeah, I hear it. My recall of working with an actual Minimoog can't be very good, last time in... 1980? but I did a lot of recording with it then and Monark today seems... wild; a little mod, or feedback particularly, and it... well it stands out, which is good for me today

[Amram]

I will stick with the hardware for now.

Is the hardware have new sounds that we didn't hear untill now.

I don't think so.

With digital you can have more easy and powerfull sounds.

But they are still digital.

U will notice in the mix
I poromise

I do. I poromise.

U r don't know what you r talking about.

[brok landers]

>snip<

That said, there's a really well done shootout between Repro-1 and a Pro-One on a German forum. Once it turned out that it was impossible to say which was which, the naysayers suggested that the Pro-One used was in bad shape and a properly set up Pro-One would sound much, much better. Yet none of the guys managed to provide any counter examples of their glorious pixiedust Pro-Ones.

So there it is. Software can not win ever. There'll always be an argument against it. Waste of time.

- U

this. it seems to be a psychological thing for those who somehow are too deep in, to allow changes that time brings naturally, they just can't let go somehow. it's like with the vinyl hype these days. even if the software would clearly sound "better" in all regards, some would still keep up their belief into the analog "gold", almost like brainwashed by a sect. you can see it in the current market - even the crappiest analog hardware (and there's quite some), sells better and has more reputation right from the start than hypothetically analog modeled software being far superior.
conclusion:
if you really want to earn money, better create analog synths of the cheapest - they'd still sell better than any software synth, no matter if it is "better" or not (leaving out the argument "i need real knobs/i'm playing live" for a moment).

[S0lo]

>snip<

That said, there's a really well done shootout between Repro-1 and a Pro-One on a German forum. Once it turned out that it was impossible to say which was which, the naysayers suggested that the Pro-One used was in bad shape and a properly set up Pro-One would sound much, much better. Yet none of the guys managed to provide any counter examples of their glorious pixiedust Pro-Ones.

So there it is. Software can not win ever. There'll always be an argument against it. Waste of time.

- U

this. it seems to be a psychological thing for those who somehow are too deep in, to allow changes that time brings naturally, they just can't let go somehow. it's like with the vinyl hype these days. even if the software would clearly sound "better" in all regards, some would still keep up their belief into the analog "gold", almost like brainwashed by a sect. you can see it in the current market - even the crappiest analog hardware (and there's quite some), sells better and has more reputation right from the start than hypothetically analog modeled software being far superior.
conclusion:
if you really want to earn money, better create analog synths of the cheapest - they'd still sell better than any software synth, no matter if it is "better" or not (leaving out the argument "i need real knobs/i'm playing live" for a moment).

It can also be a subconscious belief. People who owned the hardware for a very long time and built a kind of a "Romantic" relation ship, or the ones who payed $3000+ recently, simply don't LIKE to believe that a $100 piece of software can imitate my $3000+ , 30 years old amazing synth. Because if it did, then like "Why did I spend all that money and/or time on this?".. It's too hard for them. suddenly every one else has access to their cherished sounds. They will subconsciously try to find reasons why it's "Better". Even if they consciously try to be true and unbiased.

Edit:
Sure not talking here about play-ability, immediacy of knobs and live/performance. Only talking sound wise here. Sure a hardware instrument has an indispensable edge in many aspects.

[mcnoone]

People who owned the hardware for a very long time and built a kind of a "Romantic" relation ship

I see people having sex with their cell phones everyday, so this is certainly plausible.

[starla*]

Maybe spend some time actually playing a real minimoog before coming to silly conclusions. Theres a reason why people keep them.

[S0lo]

Maybe spend some time actually playing a real minimoog before coming to silly conclusions. Theres a reason why people keep them.

I did play once with an old minimoog in a shop, and within like 3 minutes, I droped the head phones unimpressed!!. May be it's me, or I was in a hurry. I'd keep my moog voyager though, it's always fun to play with, I like the separation of the cutoff in stereo. I won't sell that one. But I have to say, it's usually hard to waw me. I'm so saturated with sounds from other synths.