indistinguishable from hardware ??

[b7uzer]

This discussion reminds me digital photography forums where people are adding grain and scratches to digital images so that they look "just like in the good old days". New generation who've never used film actually does not give a shyte. Software is more convenient, cheaper and flexible - where are typewriters, arythmometers etc?

P.S. I'm not talking real acoustic instruments here - that is a completely different story

An interesting point, but I respectfully disagree. imo there are analog synths with sound that is so sweet as to rival acoustic instruments. The problem has always been controlling the nuances.

Yes, actually my analogy was not the best. Thinking about it I agree with a point you make. But i guess everyone would agree that what counts is what is on the picture rather then what tool was used (wow that sounds cool doesn't it ).

Peace

[Lotuzia]

Here is my quick test using Tal-uno-62 vs a real juno 60 Filter decay sample:

Tal-uno:
http://soundcloud.com/sergiofrias/juno- ... lter-decay

Juno 60:
http://soundcloud.com/sergiofrias/juno-filter-decay

I'ved perfectly matched the frequency sweep using a frequency spectrum analyser,by controlling the cutoff and envelope mod in tal uno (start freq:9.69 khz and end freq: 454 Hz)

Somehow,i couldnt match the resonance of the real juno,also theres a little bit of noise in the original sample,i've could add a little bit of white noise,but its ok.

see... now, this is everything. Those two sounds are oh so close enough to each other, that the differnece is non-importance in any mix. Even as a SOLO song, it's close enough to depend on so many other things for it to be good, NOT the tone of the sound. If you are playing notes, and writing music, it is the NOTES and MUSIC that would suck, NOT the sound. If the free software doesn't "fit in the mix", I suggest someone better needs to be sitting at the mixing board. I can make anything fit anywhere.... a 5% (or even 25%) sound difference isn't going to change much when *I* am mixing anyway.

Well the resonnance is however vastly different, and it becomes very obvious in the sustain stage of the sound ( and Sergio himself very honnestly pointed this out ) Play a sustained chord instead of a single note and it will very probably become even more obvious that the sound will be very different, and this diofference will be very noticeable in a mix ( Different doesnt mean unusable though ). The attack stage is not the same too, the filter "burst" is slightly different, ( a bit more harsh in the Tal) but its probably close enough to fool a lot of people in a mix, especially if tamed a bit in the high freqs. Chorus is also a big part of the J60. The very well done part is the enveloppe, Sergio really nailed it, as well as the cutt off value.

The J60 was my 2nd analog little monster. A bit limited, mais I still like its sound a lot.

The A/B comparison is really well done. It shows a lot about the differences as well as the similarities between the two instruments.

[b7uzer]

A guitar remains a guitar.

Until you give it to my 11 month daughter, it then becomes a drum, err, I mean a heap of scrap: bang, bang, bang...crash! She is a great musician, no Berklee training and all...but such ferocity!

[Aiynzahev]

Sonic Projects OP-X sounds very good. Also you should try Wave Arts Tube Saturator.

It calculates the distortion at each sample point, if you don't drive it too hard you can use it simply to further emulate a real synth. If you drive it hard it sounds lush. I think it adds a certain randomness to the sound that really makes it sound "alive". I highly recommend it anyway. It really makes a big difference and I found it much more realistic and pleasant distortion than built in drive controls on Largo for example.

[hakey]

please tell me which is the original and which OP-X?

I'll bite (looks like the experts are worried about being caught out):

1B, 2B and 3A are the original OBX.

Not at all confident that I'm right - if I had to bet on just one, it would be 2B.

The last examples - I'm not sure A is a little flat and lifeless, but the snappy decay at the end sounds like an analog envelope. B is sweeter but has that booming at the low end that doesn't sound quite right. Hmm, I'll plump for 4A on that.

I couldn't say which I prefer, A or B, in each case - I'd settle for either.

[ryandfl]

Here is my quick test using Tal-uno-62 vs a real juno 60 Filter decay sample:

Tal-uno:
http://soundcloud.com/sergiofrias/juno- ... lter-decay

Juno 60:
http://soundcloud.com/sergiofrias/juno-filter-decay

I'ved perfectly matched the frequency sweep using a frequency spectrum analyser,by controlling the cutoff and envelope mod in tal uno (start freq:9.69 khz and end freq: 454 Hz)

Somehow,i couldnt match the resonance of the real juno,also theres a little bit of noise in the original sample,i've could add a little bit of white noise,but its ok.

see... now, this is everything. Those two sounds are oh so close enough to each other, that the differnece is non-importance in any mix. Even as a SOLO song, it's close enough to depend on so many other things for it to be good, NOT the tone of the sound. If you are playing notes, and writing music, it is the NOTES and MUSIC that would suck, NOT the sound. If the free software doesn't "fit in the mix", I suggest someone better needs to be sitting at the mixing board. I can make anything fit anywhere.... a 5% (or even 25%) sound difference isn't going to change much when *I* am mixing anyway.

I agree with this in theory...but the real Juno still sounds a good bit better to me. The Tal version sounds good too, but the Juno is juicier and 'realer' sounding. Whether or not it matters really depends on the kind of mix/song. If it's something with a lot of layers and that is just one sound in many, then it probably does not matter. If it something like heavy electro house where the bass is the main sound, then real deal is bound to give the song a better vibe. Assuming nothing ridiculous happens during mixdown/mastering.

[mclane]

@izonin

It's not inconsistent. I pointed out, that it's the poor filters that cripple the sound of this emulation (OP-X Pro).

So you please tell me which is the original and which OP-X?

File 1 ...
File 2

Yes, they are not identical, but is one of both poor?

I clearly admit that OB-X and OP-X PRO-II don't sound 100% identical, as probably most emulation don't compared to their godfathers, but this also wasn't the primary goal. The main goal was to capture the general character and feel as well as to be able to reproduce the typical sounds. But this only was the very early base. OP-X PRO-II isn't an emulation of anything existing anymore. It rather tries to be able to cover a wide area of typical beloved analog sounds.

The question is - as already said somewhere in the thread - if hardware really always sounds better than software. I don't think so. And what is "better"? If "better" is closer to the original then of course the original wins everytime. If I however had to choose between OP-X PRO-II and the real OB-X (I own one), then I would choose OP-X PRO-II in a heartbeat, since it simply offers me much much more without all the hassles, and it gives me the typical sounds, even if not 100% identical in the extreme details. But who cares about that.

If you however want 100% original sound in every detail, then there's no way around buying the original hardware, and spend a lot of time and money again to keep it up and running.

Some more examples:
Which is a real synth, which a VSTi?

File 1 ...
File 2

File 1 ...
File 2

File 1 ...
File 2

File 1 ...
File 2

Again, they are not identical, sure, and probably can be told apart by someone who knows real analog synths and their behaviour very well.

But is one soo much much worse than the other?



--

1B, 2B and 3A are the original OBX.

Not at all confident that I'm right - if I had to bet on just one, it would be 2B.

The last examples - I'm not sure A is a little flat and lifeless, but the snappy decay at the end sounds like an analog envelope. B is sweeter but has that booming at the low end that doesn't sound quite right. Hmm, I'll plump for 4A on that.

I couldn't say which I prefer, A or B, in each case - I'd settle for either.

ditto

[Examigan]

Before I bought OP-X Pro II (and OP-X Pro) I must have listened to the comparisons on the SonicProjects site and videos on YouTube a million times.

I also tried the demo version, and thought it sounded very much like the real thing, and I am very satified that I made the right choice in getting it.

[Peter999]

I couldn't say which I prefer, A or B, in each case - I'd settle for either.

Thank you I just had to react to to the "poor" statement of izonin; worse, different, all ok, but poor is a strong word

Anyone else? As said I think it should be easy for someone who knows real analog synths well; again I never said they sound identical

[hakey]

Anyone else? As said I think it should be easy for someone who knows real analog synths well

Yep, let's here from the pros!

[Peter999]

Here are the files once more. Which of each two is the original and which the VSTi? Should be easy for experts imho.

File 1
File 2

File 1
File 2

File 1
File 2

File 1
File 2

File 1
File 2

[izonin]

I couldn't say which I prefer, A or B, in each case - I'd settle for either.

Thank you I just had to react to to the "poor" statement of izonin; worse, different, all ok, but poor is a strong word

Anyone else? As said I think it should be easy for someone who knows real analog synths well; again I never said they sound identical

I find all emulations poor. The Arturia ones being the poorest. So this isn't aimed at OP-X Pro. I had seen that video on Youtube several months ago and didn't like the sound.
I don't believe that hiding the synth in the mix is my idea of using a musical instrument. In a live situation, each performer should be able to take the lead role, and electric, acoustic, and electronic instruments should share the same high level of sonic quality.

[PAK]

Anyone else? As said I think it should be easy for someone who knows real analog synths well; again I never said they sound identical

Not easy at all And cue everyone knowing the answers once the results are revealed These are based on the original post order.

1, The start of each is very different. File 2 starts much more closed, but the resonance seems to bite a bit more. File 1's sound sits a bit more forward and slightly veiled. I would guess file 2 is the hw based on that but have no strong preference for either.

2, File 1's sound is a bit more veiled/muffled. File 2 - Again the resonance bites a bit more. This is the one example where I have a strong preference, which is for File 2. My guess is that's the HW.

3, You have the file names reversed, but File 2 (pulseperc_file1) has a more defined envelope. I have no preference for either but if pushed I would say that it is the hardware.

4, File 1 is brighter. File 2 is a bit softer and mellow. I have no preference for either and think they're both good, but the file names may or may not give something away

5, This is the sort of sound where I don't have any preference either, and difficult to listen to more than once The stronger resonance would have me inclined to guess File 2 is the hardware.

All well matched and not obvious at all! Only Example 2 file 2 gave me any real preference either way

[Peter999]

Thank you
What about you, izonin, now? At least I posted these because of you...

[hakey]

4, [...] the file names may or may not give something away

Well spotted! - I guess we'll just have to discount number 4.