Arturia V Collection 6

[Stefken]

This has happened before with some other synths too. I could for instance never get to grips with the sound of Sylenth, no matter how many people kept praising it.. to me it just sounds annoying, no matter what.

I guess Sylenth was great at the time but now I also consider the sound dated.
I much prefer Spire or Icarus which also have that Trance spirit.

Also consider the processing, mixing (and mastering) in a song, which can change the sounds in quite a dramatic way.

[egbert101]

<delete>

[sfxsound3]

Then imagine how it sounds to a rat!

Everything is subjective, but with that said, the correct answer to your dilemma is: Sylenth - good, Arturia - bad.

No need to thank me, I just did you a favour for free, 'coz I'm generous!

Another troll trying to win the troll cup

Not really. Couldn't give half a shit about anything that happens on this forum. I've been reading here since 2004 - pointless discussions ad nauseam, ad infinitum, rinse and repeat.

Let me say it another way: Arturia SUCKS

You don't like what I say? More BARF to you!

[Gamma-UT]

Not really. Couldn't give half a shit about anything that happens on this forum. I've been reading here since 2004 - pointless discussions ad nauseam, ad infinitum, rinse and repeat.

And yet, here you are.

[Scotty]

+100 You nailed it. Most people wouldn't be able to back up their absolute disdain for all things Arturia in a blind listening test or in the context of mix that they completed 3 minutes ago.

Well, you can make an easy experience. Record some similar sounds done with Arturia synths and those that you praise. DO NOT label them. Then revisit the track after a year from now, ands try to recognize which ones you hate

[wagtunes]

+100 You nailed it. Most people wouldn't be able to back up their absolute disdain for all things Arturia in a blind listening test or in the context of mix that they completed 3 minutes ago.

Well, you can make an easy experience. Record some similar sounds done with Arturia synths and those that you praise. DO NOT label them. Then revisit the track after a year from now, ands try to recognize which ones you hate

I keep saying I'm going to do this but one day I actually will. Post a track with like 20 different synths and see if anybody can name even just one of them let alone all 20.

That's why I laugh when I hear people talk about how Synth X sounds so much better than Synth Y. They probably couldn't pick either one out of a crowd.

[Stefken]

I keep saying I'm going to do this but one day I actually will. Post a track with like 20 different synths and see if anybody can name even just one of them let alone all 20.

That's why I laugh when I hear people talk about how Synth X sounds so much better than Synth Y. They probably couldn't pick either one out of a crowd.

Obviously there are differences one can hear. Beyond that you enter in a fussy range with a lot of subjectivity. I can understand if someone would call Arturia harsh. I would rather go for 'thin'. At least for the old emulations.

But hearing the difference between 2 synths/signals and actually naming the synth are 2 different tests.

[beely]

That's why I laugh when I hear people talk about how Synth X sounds so much better than Synth Y. They probably couldn't pick either one out of a crowd.

You're assuming though that that means that someone could hear 0.3 seconds of a saw wave from two synths, and reliably pick them apart, which is very very difficult and probably not feasible - there is just not enough information conveyed in a small, vanilla clip.

*However*, playing with their sound, character and behaviour, for some time, you *do* built up a better picture of why a synth sounds/feels/behaves better for you. Do an audio of a few minutes of noodling around on, say, the Arturia JP8m using a variety of features, vs the Roland Cloud JP8, and many many people would reliably be able to pick them, as you have enough information to make informed decisions.

[wagtunes]

I keep saying I'm going to do this but one day I actually will. Post a track with like 20 different synths and see if anybody can name even just one of them let alone all 20.

That's why I laugh when I hear people talk about how Synth X sounds so much better than Synth Y. They probably couldn't pick either one out of a crowd.

Obviously there are differences one can hear. Beyond that you enter in a fussy range with a lot of subjectivity. I can understand if someone would call Arturia harsh. I would rather go for 'thin'. At least for the old emulations.

But hearing the difference between 2 synths/signals and actually naming the synth are 2 different tests.

Maybe, but if Joe says he loves Synth X and hates Synth Y and I put both of those in a mix with 18 other synths, I seriously doubt he could pick out which synth he loved and which synth he hated, let alone which synth was which.

And to prove my point, yep, one day I'm gonna do it.

Just so I can laugh my ass off when all the "Diva" lovers tell me how crappy the synth sounds. Or whichever synth it might be.

[Stefken]

Do an audio of a few minutes of noodling around on, say, the Arturia JP8m using a variety of features, vs the Roland Cloud JP8, and many many people would reliably be able to pick them, as you have enough information to make informed decisions.

I didn't mention it above but the JP8 was the first synth I was thinking about. I find it one of the least succesfull emulations of Arturia, certainly V2 .

The difference is pretty obvious.

[wagtunes]

That's why I laugh when I hear people talk about how Synth X sounds so much better than Synth Y. They probably couldn't pick either one out of a crowd.

You're assuming though that that means that someone could hear 0.3 seconds of a saw wave from two synths, and reliably pick them apart, which is very very difficult and probably not feasible - there is just not enough information conveyed in a small, vanilla clip.

*However*, playing with their sound, character and behaviour, for some time, you *do* built up a better picture of why a synth sounds/feels/behaves better for you. Do an audio of a few minutes of noodling around on, say, the Arturia JP8m using a variety of features, vs the Roland Cloud JP8, and many many people would reliably be able to pick them, as you have enough information to make informed decisions.

But that's not the real world of listening to "music". And that's my point.

I mean let's put it this way in regard to "noodling around."

Which would you rather? A synth that sounds great but has a workflow so painful that it makes you want to tear your hair out or a synth that maybe doesn't sound quite as good but has a workflow so wonderful that it's an absolute joy to work with.

I know which one I'D pick. Especially since, in the final analysis, in the context of the mix, once you've added in all the compression, reverb, delay, chorus and God knows how many other FX, you couldn't tell the damn difference anyway.

Everybody's different, but for me it's the end result. The song. And for that, with all the external processing we have available to us, the actual synth we use doesn't really make a ton of difference.

Legend, Monark or Arturia Mini, trust me, NOBODY is going to tell the difference inside the mix.

Nobody.

[Stefken]

Maybe, but if Joe says he loves Synth X and hates Synth Y and I put both of those in a mix with 18 other synths, I seriously doubt he could pick out which synth he loved and which synth he hated, let alone which synth was which.

And to prove my point, yep, one day I'm gonna do it.

Just so I can laugh my ass off when all the "Diva" lovers tell me how crappy the synth sounds. Or whichever synth it might be.

As I said the other day to an "analog freak" who has a real modular synth and was going on about that perfect square wave: "All very nice, but will you still be able to hear that in the mix".

But you might still hear the difference between a Monark and the legend as the filters are quite different.

BTW: freak in Dutch means somebody who is obsessive about something.

[beely]

But that's not the real world of listening to "music". And that's my point.

Yes. As I said, it coms down to how much information is conveyed. If you are listening to a generic pad sound, deep in a mix, with various other FX/EQ etc on it, then, unless it is a very characteristic sound, or a known recognisable preset, then there is no enough information to be able to tell the synth apart.

If however, there is more information - a very characteristic filter sweep, or a feature that's unique, then there may well be enough information to pick the synth from a mix - you can reliably tell a DX7 from a JP8 in a mix as there is enough information to inform you which is which (providing you have some knowledge of how they sound etc).

However, there may not be enough information in a mix where some sounds come from the Arturia JP8 and some come from a real JP8 - this is not a comment on the emulation quality, as playing them outside of a mix would clearly show you the differences, it's purely about how much information is conveyed in a sound clip, to let you reliably tell.

Especially since, in the final analysis, in the context of the mix, once you've added in all the compression, reverb, delay, chorus and God knows how many other FX, you couldn't tell the damn difference anyway.

Yes, I think that's largely true, at least in probably the majority of cases.

Everybody's different, but for me it's the end result. The song. And for that, with all the external processing we have available to us, the actual synth we use doesn't really make a ton of difference.

It probably doesn't make a difference to the listener, however, don't overlook the difference it makes to the composer - developing and playing a part on a real Minimoog (or whatever) is (no matter what anyone says) *a different experience* to loading up a plugin on a computer and using that - however close the sound may be, the experience is different, and that can lead to different results, quite apart from how close the resultant recorded sound might be.

Legend, Monark or Arturia Mini, trust me, NOBODY is going to tell the difference inside the mix.

Like I say, it depends on the information being conveyed in the mix. For the most part, there is not enough information in there to reliably tell the difference. However, not in all cases, as some things can give the tool away (some piece of information that *can* let you tell the difference).

But in the most part, I agree with you. It's all about the music, and I don't really care whether some waveform or some filter behaviour is 100% exactly like the original in all cases, as long as it makes a sound I like that works in context an doesn't turn me off when composing.

[rezoneight]

Do an audio of a few minutes of noodling around on, say, the Arturia JP8m using a variety of features, vs the Roland Cloud JP8, and many many people would reliably be able to pick them, as you have enough information to make informed decisions.

I didn't mention it above but the JP8 was the first synth I was thinking about. I find it one of the least succesfull emulations of Arturia, certainly V2 .

The difference is pretty obvious.

Except of course to those who disagree with you. I remember specific examples of successful musicians who owned real JP8s that thought it was quite good. Not to mention each real Jupiter 8 won’t sound the same as another.

[beely]

Except of course to those who disagree with you. I remember specific examples of successful musicians who owned real JP8s that thought it was quite good. Not to mention each real Jupiter 8 won’t sound the same as another.

Well, the difference between the Arturia and Roland JP8 plugins was pretty obvious to me - have you tried them? I found the Roland has much nicer highs, and instantly put me in a place that reminded me of many classic JP8 recordings, and it felt more "lively".

The Arturia has the sound I associate with the bulk of the Arturia emulated plugins - fairly clamped highs, a kind of smooth/compressed sound, and a fairly dead sound.

But maybe others can't tell much of a difference - I certainly could - although I can't tell you which is the better emulation as I haven't personally compared them to the real thing. The Roland to me sounds by far the more satisfactory and good-sounding emulation for me, though (although as a plugin it is by far less than optimal in terms of features, gui, CPU us etc as we all know)... ymmv.