KORG Collection 5 with ARP 2600 Emulation coming Summer 2024

[HunterKiller]

Hmm.. been test driving this for a day now and I'm a bit torn about it. It's got "the authenticity" on point, in terms of how it behaves. It's by far the most "accurate" emulation in the way it lets you explore what could be done with the ARP 2600. However, in terms of "sound reproduction", the actual sound itself, it's quite lackluster in my opinion. It unfortunately falls under the category "sounds like a plugin" to my ears. So what you end up with is the overall macro sound of what you'd end up with on the real deal but the actual sound itself doesn't have the nuances of the original. It's a bit hard to explain.. but basically it's got the overall sound but misses the actual sound by a mile.

In my opinion, it doesn't "sound" analogue. It sounds digital but it's very accurate to the original in what it can do. Sort of like some analogue emulations of the past where they can sort of do the same sound, on a macro level, but don't capture any of the nuance.

Ugh.. I just can't find the correct way to describe what I'm trying to say here. Will try again later.

That's a shame. Too bad it's not the next Repro.

[IvyBirds]

That's a shame. Too bad it's not the next Repro.

Many people disagree with that hypothesis

It sounds very much like a hardware 2600 which doesn't sound like a Prophet 5, a Minimoog, or a CS80

The 2600 has a unique ability to both sit well in a mix and still be felt and heard

It's why it's featured on so many progressive rock records from the 1970s

People expecting an authentic sounding 2600 plugin to be some massive thick phat analog beast that is up in your face will be left disappointed

[D-Fusion]

That's a shame. Too bad it's not the next Repro.

Many people disagree with that hypothesis

It sounds very much like a hardware 2600 which doesn't sound like a Prophet 5, a Minimoog, or a CS80

The 2600 has a unique ability to both sit well in a mix and still be felt and heard

It's why it's featured on so many progressive rock records from the 1970s

People expecting an authentic sounding 2600 plugin to be some massive thick phat analog beat that is up in your face will be left disappointed

+1

[bmanic]

Well unlike some people who just assume that everything called "analogue" has to be thick and phat and that whenever somebody critiques it surely has to mean just that.. I actually have used the real deal and two hardware clones (the Korg re-issue and the Behringer monstrosity). So yeah, what I'm basing my observations on is actual real world hands on experience.

But like I said, it's difficult to put it into words what is missing. The closest I can compare it to is like many other plugin analogue emulations of almost anything. It's virtually spot on in terms of what it can do, meaning you can patch things in a way that you can on the real deal and it'll produce a very similar kind of sound, but it's NOT the same. It's missing "that something". Don't get me wrong though, this IS the definitive ARP 2600 emulation, that's for sure. But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't expecting a bit more.

Reminds me of how Pianoteq sounds like an acoustic piano but yet doesn't. Or how the UAD Manley Vari-Mu compressor reminds me very much of how the real deal sounds but yet it doesn't. All the compression action and how it responds is _almost_ spot on.. yet it isn't. Or how a ToneX capture of an amplifier is sort of in the ballpark yet it isn't. The sound is sort of there with this ARP2600, yet it isn't.

Is it good enough to be rather irrelevant within the context of a complex mix, provided that you avoid extrmes? Yes, definitely! Does it invoke the sort of joy to use and play as the real deal? No, it doesn't. Does it deal with extremes (heavy FM at very high pitches) as well as the real deal, no.. it does not.

[BBFG#]

Play anything long enough and it eventually sounds "different" and unreal. Even a real piano goes through this phenomenon. That says more about your relationship to the instrument than it does about the actual instrument. And the sine qua-non is more about how it makes you feel than how it appears to sound on the oscilloscope. This instrument is quite nice in and of itself. I'm just not sure I have a need for any of them in my current compositions. It is a nostalgic thing of a memory of a memory. And it ticks that box better than other emulations of it for me.

also...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogue_(literature)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog

[IvyBirds]

I actually have used the real deal and two hardware clones (the Korg re-issue and the Behringer monstrosity). So yeah, what I'm basing my observations on is actual real world hands on experience.

Awesome and what does that experience tell you?

Is it good enough to be rather irrelevant within the context of a complex mix, provided that you avoid extrmes? Yes, definitely!

Can we ask anything more from a plugin that costs thousands less than the original hardware, or thousands less than the Korg Reissue, or hundreds less than the Behringer Clone?

My upgrade price is $100 for which I get 3 instruments so for $33.33 I can have something that a user with your vast experience says most definitely sounds so close that in a mix any differences are irrelevant

Not only that but I can do so without taking up any physical space, or any needing any actual patch cords, can be played with actual polyphony and can used multiple times in every track without having to multi track live, with patch memory and instant recall

Gee wonder which is better?

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Hmm.. been test driving this for a day now and I'm a bit torn about it. It's got "the authenticity" on point, in terms of how it behaves. It's by far the most "accurate" emulation in the way it lets you explore what could be done with the ARP 2600. However, in terms of "sound reproduction", the actual sound itself, it's quite lackluster in my opinion. It unfortunately falls under the category "sounds like a plugin" to my ears. So what you end up with is the overall macro sound of what you'd end up with on the real deal but the actual sound itself doesn't have the nuances of the original. It's a bit hard to explain.. but basically it's got the overall sound but misses the actual sound by a mile.

In my opinion, it doesn't "sound" analogue. It sounds digital but it's very accurate to the original in what it can do. Sort of like some analogue emulations of the past where they can sort of do the same sound, on a macro level, but don't capture any of the nuance.

Ugh.. I just can't find the correct way to describe what I'm trying to say here. Will try again later.

Have you discovered the Tweaks panel with the voice variation section yet? That really livens things up in an analog way with polyphony enabled.

[davidka]

Certainly good enough for me! Big thanks Korg for putting this out. You are in the right direction.

[Genetic_Junk]

Does it deal with extremes (heavy FM at very high pitches) as well as the real deal, no.. it does not.

I watched some videos with the 2600 doing heavy fm at normal pitches. In my attempts to match the sound of the hardware, the korg emulation held up pretty well. I couldn't find any videos of the 2600 doing fm at very high pitches. Do you have any sound examples?

[danatkorg]

I just posted a couple examples of FM patches on both the 2600 M hardware and the 2600 software. With patches that are so dependent on minute differences in pitch, it's hard to be exact, but I think I got pretty close. See what you think!
https://soundcloud.com/dan-phillips-mus ... /arp-v-arp

[egbert101]

Well unlike some people who just assume that everything called "analogue" has to be thick and phat and that whenever somebody critiques it surely has to mean just that.. I actually have used the real deal and two hardware clones (the Korg re-issue and the Behringer monstrosity). So yeah, what I'm basing my observations on is actual real world hands on experience.

But like I said, it's difficult to put it into words what is missing. The closest I can compare it to is like many other plugin analogue emulations of almost anything. It's virtually spot on in terms of what it can do, meaning you can patch things in a way that you can on the real deal and it'll produce a very similar kind of sound, but it's NOT the same. It's missing "that something". Don't get me wrong though, this IS the definitive ARP 2600 emulation, that's for sure. But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't expecting a bit more.

Reminds me of how Pianoteq sounds like an acoustic piano but yet doesn't. Or how the UAD Manley Vari-Mu compressor reminds me very much of how the real deal sounds but yet it doesn't. All the compression action and how it responds is _almost_ spot on.. yet it isn't. Or how a ToneX capture of an amplifier is sort of in the ballpark yet it isn't. The sound is sort of there with this ARP2600, yet it isn't.

Is it good enough to be rather irrelevant within the context of a complex mix, provided that you avoid extrmes? Yes, definitely! Does it invoke the sort of joy to use and play as the real deal? No, it doesn't. Does it deal with extremes (heavy FM at very high pitches) as well as the real deal, no.. it does not.

It lacks soul.

[HunterKiller]

That's a shame. Too bad it's not the next Repro.

Many people disagree with that hypothesis

It sounds very much like a hardware 2600 which doesn't sound like a Prophet 5, a Minimoog, or a CS80

The 2600 has a unique ability to both sit well in a mix and still be felt and heard

It's why it's featured on so many progressive rock records from the 1970s

People expecting an authentic sounding 2600 plugin to be some massive thick phat analog beast that is up in your face will be left disappointed

Totally agree with that. Been saying that for 2 decades myself, whenever anyone discusses the ARP sound vs the Moog sound (which most softsynths emulate).

My post was addressing another aspect of the emulation, that bmanic mentioned.

[IvyBirds]

It lacks soul.

Of course it does! It's an inanimate object, the hardware it emulates lacks soul also as it's also an inanimate object

As a musician it's my job to put "soul" into my music, if I have to rely on spending thousands more for hardware to put "soul" into my music I should just quit now and take up golf

If you think the hardware is better awesome just buy the hardware, no one is preventing you from doing so

For me the Korg plugin sounds pretty much identical to the 2600's I hear on records at a tiny fraction of the cost. So much of that tone on the records was the result of tube preamps, amazing consoles, actual plate reverbs, quality tape machines, and a ton of other tools that colored the sound on the 1970s and early 1980s

In isolation can I make the hardware and software sound different? Sure but that's not the way I create music so I don't care

[sovietpop]

I do own the 2600M and the plugin version and i was able to make a "direct" comparaison. Its not always easy to compare since even a slight change on those faders can change the sound significantly but , the plugin version is very close, i think its a superbe emulation IMO.

My 2600M oscs are not calibrated very well i think (its fine along 2 octaves only) and i think thats the biggest difference. Maybe the hardware is a little warmer, alive ? Thats the impression i have with Uhe Pro 5 emu too and other emulation as well but it could be in my head.

Btw i had the Behringer 2600 in the past with the Korg 2600M, i sold the Behringer 2600 since 2 2600 was overkill for me and i preferred the sound of the Korg version anyway. The Behringer version sounds very different than the Korg version so if you compare the B2600 to the plugin of course there will be difference. The B version is very nice IMO just different.

Plugin vs analog : I dont know, i do own several analog hardwares so i guess i like the "real thing" but honestly in a mix nobody will be able to tell the difference, its a luxury to have the hardware version imo if all you want is to make music. The 2600 vst from Korg is truly amazing imo.

[Genetic_Junk]

I just posted a couple examples of FM patches on both the 2600 M hardware and the 2600 software. With patches that are so dependent on minute differences in pitch, it's hard to be exact, but I think I got pretty close. See what you think!

Thanks for the sound examples! I agree, sounds pretty close. Could you upload your fm patches?