Tal J-8

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Funny.

So you are pretty sure they could´ve got the same sounds. I´m not so sure. I haven´t heard the Tal J-8, in isolation or in mix, that -- when pushed -- sound more than the usual thin, bodyless and strained VST sound. I´m sure that if it was really capable of sounding like the actual hardware, TAL would be all over it in several demos. Prove me wrong.

Are you familiar with the term confirmation bias?

Patrick from TAL has got an actual Jupiter-8 that he built the J-8 off of and referenced. If you've got a Jupiter-8, I'd love to hear your comparisons to your hardware - just remember to parameter match by ear.

Out of the Arturia, Roland Cloud, and TAL emulations I have (and no, I don't have an OG), the TAL sounds the best to me. The Roland Cloud sounds nasally and doesn't get as punchy with the envelopes/env depth, the Arturia sounds pretty good but a bit different, and the TAL version sounds excellent to my ears.

It sounds very different than my hardware Prophet-10 Rev 4 hardware (that costs 53 times as much as the J-8), but I don't think it sounds any worse in my well treated room with monitor correction and good gear. The TAL J-8 doesn't lack punch or sound strained or whatever to me. But if it does to you, then I guess you've made up your mind and don't really need to explore it any further.

[suthnear]

He did, though: https://soundcloud.com/tal-togu-audio-l ... vs-tal-j-8

[vertibration]

Tal-J8 is marvelous, sonically sounds much better than other jupiter emulations, and it is the only one with split!!!

Besides the UAD Moog synth, the J8 from Tal very much sounds the same as the hardware

[hebex]

Are you familiar with the term confirmation bias?

Sure. I take it it is confirmation bias by me to not equate this

Ferrari real deal.jpg

with this

Ferrari toy.jpg

Any difference between the above cars is just in my head.

Conclusion: You didn´t prove me wrong.

[waltercruz]

I think that most of us kinda always have a memory of the old synths already very processed.

To @hebex or anyone that wants to compare the raw sounds of the synths, download the demo and compare with these audios of Synthmania playing the factory presets demo or TheSynthFreq video on youtube playing the same factory patches and compare with TAL Jupiter 8 factory patches that I uploaded here on kvr. I think that they compare really well.

http://www.synthmania.com/jupiter-8.htm



ps: to anyone that already downloaded these patches in the past, I did a correction on the first patch (11 Neg Sync) last week, so, please download again

[zvenx]

Thanks for the correction
rsp

[steff3]

Will we see a clap-version of j8, mod, and others?

[waltercruz]

Will we see a clap-version of j8, mod, and others?

Tal is in the list of "companies and projects are already evaluating CLAP for their host and plug-in software", so I bet that we will see a clap version of their plugins, but it wouldn't hurt sending a e-mail to Patrick asking for it

https://u-he.com/community/clap/

[vitocorleone123]

Funny.

So you are pretty sure they could´ve got the same sounds. I´m not so sure. I haven´t heard the Tal J-8, in isolation or in mix, that -- when pushed -- sound more than the usual thin, bodyless and strained VST sound. I´m sure that if it was really capable of sounding like the actual hardware, TAL would be all over it in several demos. Prove me wrong.

Are you familiar with the term confirmation bias?

Patrick from TAL has got an actual Jupiter-8 that he built the J-8 off of and referenced. If you've got a Jupiter-8, I'd love to hear your comparisons to your hardware - just remember to parameter match by ear.

Out of the Arturia, Roland Cloud, and TAL emulations I have (and no, I don't have an OG), the TAL sounds the best to me. The Roland Cloud sounds nasally and doesn't get as punchy with the envelopes/env depth, the Arturia sounds pretty good but a bit different, and the TAL version sounds excellent to my ears.

It sounds very different than my hardware Prophet-10 Rev 4 hardware (that costs 53 times as much as the J-8), but I don't think it sounds any worse in my well treated room with monitor correction and good gear. The TAL J-8 doesn't lack punch or sound strained or whatever to me. But if it does to you, then I guess you've made up your mind and don't really need to explore it any further.

I still preferred the Arturia sound. Close call, though.

I haven't regretted selling off TAL J8. Seems I should give it another demo again.

Even though it's a totally different synth, Model 84 sort of stepped in a took over for all my Jupiter needs, sounding far better than either Jupiter 8 emulation. To me.

[hebex]

Even though it's a totally different synth, Model 84 sort of stepped in a took over for all my Jupiter needs, sounding far better than either Jupiter 8 emulation. To me.

Hey, there must be some confirmation bias going on there if you prefer Model 84 over TAL!

Just kidding. I prefer Softube Model 84 myself over any of TAL´s products. Still, neither of them come enough close to the sound of a real hardware Juno 6 or 60, even less Jupiter 8, if you want to hear them shine in music without drowning them in reberb in a dense mix.

I don´t wanna spit on the VST-instrument developers. On the contrary, things would be so much more convenient if I could go all in the box, with total recall of all settings and skipping old archaic midi protocol of most hardware synths. Not to mention the price compared to hardware. And VST-instruments have come a long far way since they appeared 20+ years ago. So respect to the developers.

But don´t fool yourself to believe that VST-instruments are there yet. There is still a long way to go. And people in KvR who can´t hear the difference and rave over how VST-instruments -- attempting to clone classic analog hardware synths -- have crossed the finished line, alarm me. That would mean that VST-instruments risk only go perhaps 80-85% of the way and that those of us who know the difference will have waited all those years in vain.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

You're certainly welcome to buy a Jupiter-8 and tell us how far off it is. Just please let me come over and play it when you do!

As to how close software is, I'll say this: every time I play my Prophet-10 Rev 4 I think "holy crap, this sounds incredible, way better than VSTi's!" But every time I've sat down at RePro-5 and tried to recreate the patch, then A/B'd them, the difference wasn't so big in the end. Like, I can get them really really close to the point where it doesn't matter. Assuming they use like-features. Example: the P10 has poly-unison, and the "Vintage" knob gets sloppy in a very different way than RePro-5, which is a big contributor to the Rev 4 sound. If I tighten up the Vintage knob and don't use Poly Unison, they're very close. Also gotta be using the Curtis filter on the hardware.

But if I'm making good use of the Vintage knob on the Rev 4, I can't get RePro-5 to sound that close even with moderate amounts of Detune. RePro-5 just doesn't get sloppy enough in other areas (filter cutoff, res, envelope timings) while still somewhat holding tuning. Though...I suspect the CLAP version of RePro-5 will allow for changing that in Bitwig with polyphonic modulation - you should be able to replicate the Vintage knob behavior of the hardware to a good degree with clever polyphonic modulation. And at that point, the software capabilities would extend beyond what the hardware can do in terms of polyphonic modulation. If U-he added slop trimmers to the Tweaks page to add slop for Envelope Timing, Env Depth, Filter Cutoff, Filter Res, and Tuning...I bet I'd be able to get RePro-5 so close it wouldn't matter. But right now, they're just built differently.

I also run the hardware through an FX chain of a Strymon Ola, into a Strymon Timeline, into an Eventide Space, into an OTO BAM (obviously those are enabled on an as-needed basis). RePro has it's own effects compliment. Again, turn off the FX or run through the same ones and some of the differences disappear.

I usually play the hardware standing up across the room, versus normally playing RePro sitting down in front of my monitors. So that's another difference I experience. Sit down and listen to both on playback and a world of difference I thought I was hearing/experiencing suddenly vanishes.

But RePro-5 doesn't bring the same joy as playing on the massive Prophet 10. It's hard to describe how big that synth is and how premium everything about it feels from the chunky knobs on smooth pots to the aftertouch on the excellent Fatar keybed. So that's my take: sound-wise, they're not that different when you do the work of giving the software a chance to compare to the hardware, even if your memory and/or perception of the hardware makes you swear it's just much better.

If you have some analog hardware that's got a close approximation in the software domain and have entirely different experiences after trying to properly A/B them, I'd love to hear about your firsthand experiences. But don't just say stuff like you're concerned about people who don't hear the difference, based on something like I saw a YouTube video with some Frankie Goes To Hollywood stems, don't know how to recreate the patch on a softsynth, then therefore think softsynths can't sound like that. Because that's how it came across to me. And that sounds like confirmation bias.

[hebex]

You're certainly welcome to buy a Jupiter-8 and tell us how far off it is. Just please let me come over and play it when you do!

As to how close software is, I'll say this: every time I play my Prophet-10 Rev 4 I think "holy crap, this sounds incredible, way better than VSTi's!" But every time I've sat down at RePro-5 and tried to recreate the patch, then A/B'd them, the difference wasn't so big in the end. Like, I can get them really really close to the point where it doesn't matter. Assuming they use like-features. Example: the P10 has poly-unison, and the "Vintage" knob gets sloppy in a very different way than RePro-5, which is a big contributor to the Rev 4 sound. If I tighten up the Vintage knob and don't use Poly Unison, they're very close. Also gotta be using the Curtis filter on the hardware.

But if I'm making good use of the Vintage knob on the Rev 4, I can't get RePro-5 to sound that close even with moderate amounts of Detune. RePro-5 just doesn't get sloppy enough in other areas (filter cutoff, res, envelope timings) while still somewhat holding tuning. Though...I suspect the CLAP version of RePro-5 will allow for changing that in Bitwig with polyphonic modulation - you should be able to replicate the Vintage knob behavior of the hardware to a good degree with clever polyphonic modulation. And at that point, the software capabilities would extend beyond what the hardware can do in terms of polyphonic modulation. If U-he added slop trimmers to the Tweaks page to add slop for Envelope Timing, Env Depth, Filter Cutoff, Filter Res, and Tuning...I bet I'd be able to get RePro-5 so close it wouldn't matter. But right now, they're just built differently.

I also run the hardware through an FX chain of a Strymon Ola, into a Strymon Timeline, into an Eventide Space, into an OTO BAM (obviously those are enabled on an as-needed basis). RePro has it's own effects compliment. Again, turn off the FX or run through the same ones and some of the differences disappear.

I usually play the hardware standing up across the room, versus normally playing RePro sitting down in front of my monitors. So that's another difference I experience. Sit down and listen to both on playback and a world of difference I thought I was hearing/experiencing suddenly vanishes.

But RePro-5 doesn't bring the same joy as playing on the massive Prophet 10. It's hard to describe how big that synth is and how premium everything about it feels from the chunky knobs on smooth pots to the aftertouch on the excellent Fatar keybed. So that's my take: sound-wise, they're not that different when you do the work of giving the software a chance to compare to the hardware, even if your memory and/or perception of the hardware makes you swear it's just much better.

If you have some analog hardware that's got a close approximation in the software domain and have entirely different experiences after trying to properly A/B them, I'd love to hear about your firsthand experiences. But don't just say stuff like you're concerned about people who don't hear the difference, based on something like I saw a YouTube video with some Frankie Goes To Hollywood stems, don't know how to recreate the patch on a softsynth, then therefore think softsynths can't sound like that. Because that's how it came across to me. And that sounds like confirmation bias.

Sensible post IMO worthy of contemplating, thank you.

That Clap thing sounds interesting, hopefully that and other things will make VST-instruments come closer to sounding like the hardware originals.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I think in general you're finding developers figuring out that one of the big keys to that analog sound are those types of detailed per-voice offsets that softsynths from TAL, Arturia and Synapse have started adding, and that Sequential built into modern hardware synths like the Prophet Rev. 4's and OB-X8. Couple those per-voice offsets with a terrific sounding filter and that's a big part of the secret sauce of analog polysynths - sometimes a little VCA/VCF saturation needs to happen too, which can be emulated in good models. But I think that's why boring comparisons of just an Oscillator or just a Filter sweep don't paint the whole picture and where VSTi's and emulations just frankly fell apart in the past compared to hardware. I think good emulations are very close now, particularly when those types of features are emulated.

[hebex]

... boring comparisons of just an Oscillator or just a Filter sweep don't paint the whole picture

I´ve always thought the same.

I´ve followed the discussions on the P rev 4 since it was announced a couple of years ago and recently OBX8 as well, and it´s interesting that you draw that parallell.

The P sounds close to the original, but IMHO the jury is still out if they´ve really made it with the OBX8, I guess we will have to wait for more extensive and detailed demos to be able to judge that.

Anyway, yeah, it seems they somehow "emulate" (the word "fake" may sound too harsh here) it even with the new hardware versions of the old classics. There are just things in 40+ year old synths that can´t be replicated without somehow "emulating" it, I guess, since the hardware counterparts of today aren´t exactly the same. Compare for example the guts of the new P10 to the old P10 -- it´s only a fraction in size.

[waltercruz]

Ok, so can TAL J-8 *convincingly* do this sound?

(9 min 47 sec)
Anyone got it? I demoed the Tal J-8 when it came out and I highly doubt it is capable of this raw Jupiter-sound.

https://soundcloud.com/walteraudio/frankie-j8