Tone2 I2 vs Trueno Analog

[Highvoltage]

Trueno also does not offer all the advantages of native plugins so like with monophonic hardware synths you have to render audio tracks for each instance in a track where you use it.

Except you can leave the plugin isntance on the track with the exact preset, and re-record, or add new parts with the same sound in a second, which you can't do with HW.

[Ingonator]

Trueno also does not offer all the advantages of native plugins so like with monophonic hardware synths you have to render audio tracks for each instance in a track where you use it.

Except you can leave the plugin isntance on the track with the exact preset, and re-record, or add new parts with the same sound in a second, which you can't do with HW.

First when i record hardware synths (actually i own and use many more plugins than hardware...) i also record the midi data so i could re-send that to the synth if needed and maybe also replace this with a plugin instrument later if needed.

If you know how to handle sysex data properly this is not a big issue and besides that for many hardware synths a VST2 plugin editor is available. My Novation UltraNova includes a nice VST editor and for both the Blofeld and Pulse 2 i got those from Monstrum Media.
I also got Midi Quest XL which could create a VST2 plugin editor for all compatible/included hardware synths. For example i got one for my Korg DW-8000 that way and also one for the Wavestation EX and Ensoniq ESQ-1.

Besides that i could store the patches within the hardware which is not possible with Trueno and i could just load that patch from the hardware without the need for a plugin editor. I could also do backups of single patches, banks of patches or even all patches in my hardware synths using Sysex dumps and/or an editor/librarian software.

Single patches sysex data sent to a hardware synth is usually stored in the edit buffer without the need to actually save the patch in the hardware to use it. Many hardware synths, even quite old ones, could send the content of the edit buffer as a sysex dump and you could save the patch as a file this way. If you load the single patch back to the hardware it is sent to the edit buffer and you could then decide where and/or to which memory location it should be saved in the hardware.


BTW my Novation UltraNova when used as an audio interface in the DAW could be powered by USB, send/receive MIDI via USB and even send audio via the USB. I have not figured out yet how to use a second audio interface for receiving the audio via USB. Besides that it is deliverd with a nice VST plugin editor. Last but not least it also includes a librarian software for patch managment.


The 4 hardware synths i use most (those in my KVR signature) and also my main midi controller (a NI Komplete Kontrol S61) all have an USB connection and they are mostly hooked up to an USB hub.
Devices hooked up via USB in the DAW software usually appear with their name.
For other older hardware synths that i use more rarely (and that i might sell mostly soon...) i either got a USB to MIDI connection from E-Mu (for a single MIDI device) or the MIDI ports in my audio interface.
I do not have enough space to have also all all of my older hardware always connected for direct use. Opposing to e.g. the Blofeld desktop and Pulse 2 desktop those older ones are all bigger keyboards.

[aciddose]

Trueno looks quite interesting indeed but for me it would need to have at least 4 voices of polyphony

So you need 4 of these, plus the Xhip Notelogic plug-in.

You can then send the MIDI to the 4 instances and use automation (or MIDI CCs) to control all parameters at once. (Or bug them to implement a universal controller plug-in that can interface with multiple voices.)

This is also possible with 4, 8, 12 or however many of any analog monosynth, all in real-time.

The hard part is with typical analogs you have potentiometers and control panels without any presets or parameter automation capability. With digitally controlled synthesizers you lose the fine-tuning capability of analogs which in my opinion makes it not at all analog anymore, although that's a performance issue and for sequencing the "sound" is still 100% analog even if you only have 6-bit accuracy for parameters or so on. With such a synthesizer (Juno, etc) you can suddenly use presets, automation and handle polyphony in a very reliable way.

That said you can still manage with 4 sh-101s or whatever as long as you have the patience and intelligence to accurately adjust all of the instances manually. Automation is then limited to whatever you can patch in to: it's easy to do cutoff modulation using MIDI CCs on a sh-101 for example or something like a ms-20.

I'd also like to say in my opinion that polyphonic synthesizers are shite. One of the most amazing things about using a monosynth to produce something ala "switched on bach" or similar is that by multi-tracking a complex piece bit-by-bit and adjusting each instance/voice manually you end up with small variations between voices much like multiple instruments and performers in an orchestra. This isn't possible where you use presets that are perfectly sent to every voice which is exactly identical, and so the sound of presets and accurate hardware is then very sterile in comparison.

[braj]

Any more people here get this yet?

[Ingonator]

Trueno looks quite interesting indeed but for me it would need to have at least 4 voices of polyphony

So you need 4 of these, plus the Xhip Notelogic plug-in.

You can then send the MIDI to the 4 instances and use automation (or MIDI CCs) to control all parameters at once. (Or bug them to implement a universal controller plug-in that can interface with multiple voices.)

This is also possible with 4, 8, 12 or however many of any analog monosynth, all in real-time.

The hard part is with typical analogs you have potentiometers and control panels without any presets or parameter automation capability. With digitally controlled synthesizers you lose the fine-tuning capability of analogs which in my opinion makes it not at all analog anymore, although that's a performance issue and for sequencing the "sound" is still 100% analog even if you only have 6-bit accuracy for parameters or so on. With such a synthesizer (Juno, etc) you can suddenly use presets, automation and handle polyphony in a very reliable way.

That said you can still manage with 4 sh-101s or whatever as long as you have the patience and intelligence to accurately adjust all of the instances manually. Automation is then limited to whatever you can patch in to: it's easy to do cutoff modulation using MIDI CCs on a sh-101 for example or something like a ms-20.

I'd also like to say in my opinion that polyphonic synthesizers are shite. One of the most amazing things about using a monosynth to produce something ala "switched on bach" or similar is that by multi-tracking a complex piece bit-by-bit and adjusting each instance/voice manually you end up with small variations between voices much like multiple instruments and performers in an orchestra. This isn't possible where you use presets that are perfectly sent to every voice which is exactly identical, and so the sound of presets and accurate hardware is then very sterile in comparison.

Does using 4 Trueno instances at once (using 4 USB sticks and plugin instances) even work and could they be combined to a poylphonic synth?

FWIW when U-He Repro-1 was used i used the free Polymind Max 4 Live device in Live 9 to get a polyphonic synth from multiple instances of Repro-1 which worked quite nicely including voice cycling. Same with The Legend weh switched to Unison mode (which makes it monophonic).
I even added Max4Live LFO devices to add a little random voice detuning (using random waveshape in the LFO).

Now that Repro-5 is out i do not really need that workaround for Repro-1 any longer. At the tweaks page besides the Prophet 5 filter you could also select modes closer to the Pro One (or Repro-1) which indeed sound differently.

Personally i do not get the hate towards polyphonoc analog synths while as mentioned above i currently also own two analpg monosynths myself. Anyway with both i would be happy having the option to use them polyphoni0.

Concerning using Trueno as a wavetable synth the qurestion is if using multiple instances and a workaround to make it polyphonic would be worth the hassle also compared to my wavetable synths i alraedy own (both software and hardware).

[AnX]

Why is everyone of your posts a list of what you own? We get it, you've got some cheap synths with analog filters.

[VariKusBrainZ]

Any more people here get this yet?

I don't get it

[braj]

Any more people here get this yet?

I don't get it

[Ingonator]

(this post was edited and AnX added to my foe list again...)

[braj]

Not to anyone in particular, I just like the quote and think it applies to the internet in general:

A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer. - Bruce Lee

And then my version that I tell my son all the time: a wise man can learn from a fool, but a fool can't learn from anyone.

If you feel like you are being trolled, just add someone as a foe and try to have the self-control not to click 'show this post.' And if you get the same critique from many people, even if you think they are fools, try and learn from it, it could be helpful. Someone that laughs at the mud on your face is still helping you know it is there.

[AnX]

For now i am just tired doing any "discussions" (which they are not really) with you...

You dont "discuss" anything, you list things.

[afta8]

Well said braj!

Anyway keeping it on topic, I'm getting some really nice sounds using just the wavetable side of things, you essentially have 3 additive oscillators and you can automate all 64 partials of each osc using Host VST automation.

If you start pairing this with the modulators available in the host software (Renoise and Bitwig are really good at this) you can do things like have multiple LFO's/Envelopes/Sequencers etc. controlling different partial levels for each osc which results in some very dynamic sounding sources.

I think being able to make extensive use of VST Host automation is where this thing really shines and has an advantage over traditional analogue synths. Having 2 wavetable osc's modulated in this way and then layered with an analogue square wave to fatten it up and then fed through the polivoks filter... this thing sounds lush!

[braj]

this thing sounds lush!

More lush than LuSH-101? (sorry, I couldn't resist).

[Ingonator]

If you feel like you are being trolled, just add someone as a foe and try to have the self-control not to click 'show this post.' And if you get the same critique from many people, even if you think they are fools, try and learn from it, it could be helpful. Someone that laughs at the mud on your face is still helping you know it is there.

Just added him to my foe list agin and will do my best not trying to read his posts again...
I just wish that AnX would be finally able to just ignore my posts too.

[afta8]

this thing sounds lush!

More lush than LuSH-101? (sorry, I couldn't resist).

lol.. I should have chosen a better verb.. how about 'fat as f***'