Why do people here hate on cherry audio?

[AdvancedFollower]

Use other plugins from other vendors to develop their own plugins , wtf does that even mean ? Lol
Martinic developer (dutch) used to develop for arturia ,true to that , not sure about pulsar audio .
Is that what you were trying to say ?

I think you need to go back to read what I wrote again. It is very clear.

Pulsar Audio worked on some of the plugins in the Arturia FX suite (they also did some work for Slate Audio). And Martinic did some work on the Arturia synths.

In case you still don't understand my original post after re-reading it again, what I mean is these days Arturia do a lot of external sub-contracting, as opposed to doing all development in-house.

No , you literally wrote
quote

They use the Pulsar Audio and Martinic Plugins to develop some of their plugins for example.

unquote

Now read that again , that sentence doesn’t make sense .
It’s like saying , volvo is using audi and ford cars to develop their own cars .

He's not saying they're using plguins to develop plugins. "Martinic Plugins" is referring to the company, hence the capital P in "Plugins".
If he meant they actually use plugins to develop plugins he would have said "They use the Pulsar Audio and Martinic Plugins plugins to develop some of their plugins for example."

[BigSneezy]

I'm new here, but honestly didn't realize Cherry Audio had an abnormal number of haters. I'm also not primarily a synth player - so I'm coming from a more casual user experience as home studio hobbyist - but I appreciate what they do at their price point.

[ATS]

I'm new here, but honestly didn't realize Cherry Audio had an abnormal number of haters. I'm also not primarily a synth player - so I'm coming from a more casual user experience as home studio hobbyist - but I appreciate what they do at their price point.

honestly they probably don't have any more haters than anyone else.

[ATS]

Sharing opinions is what forums like KVR are all about and it can be very useful as Cherry’s director of marketing pointed out several posts ago. It only gets painful when posters adopt a tone that implies that their opinion is the right one and everyone with a different opinion is intellectually inferior.

someone instantly came to mind.

[DCrown]

One will find out that some devs get some hate over the years, it's not just cherry audio.
Acustica Audio - many releases instead of improvements, partly quality is disputable (i. E. Compressors, cpu consumption)

Waves - price dumping and wup and enviousness because they have plugins older than 10 years and still one of the best

Plugin Alliance - arrogancy and mindset of of one guy are not liked by everyone. Price dumping and how many of their more than 100 hundred plugins are really good?!
If you subscribe to newsletter you will receive an email every day!!! pretty blatant

IK Multimedia - plugin policy, quality. Less could be more...

Slate Digital - his hair cut? Maybe too excessive self confidence. Virtual mix rack instead of more user-friendly single plugins

Melda - gui

AIR TE - no updates / upgrades

Did I forget a dev?

Cherry is not the only fruit, there are also rotten apples, pears and...

[Uncle E]

Cherry is not the only fruit, there are also rotten apples

Is this about to turn into a Mac vs PC debate?

[ATS]

Cherry is not the only fruit, there are also rotten apples

Is this about to turn into a Mac vs PC debate?

I didn't know it was a debate. I assumed PC won long ago.

[Uncle E]

[bassc]

I think brands can get pigeon-holed/type cast quickly. For me I see Cherry as a low cost lower quality brand that played a marketing game overhyping. This could be totally wrong these days, but DCO106 and the free Presonus bundle plugin (entries into their world) made me form that opinion early on. Softube is the opposite, higher cost but best quality modelling, so I pick them including modular. This isn’t hate, it’s just how perhaps some view Cherry when trying to separate the good and go for quality over abundance. Ultimately if you claim to emulate, you’ve either got to do it well these days and compete directly with hardware, or you have to position yourself in that lower budget market, which isn’t wrong either and has its place too. Tastes differ.

[LeVzi]

Every brand i've seen gets hate from one place or another, nothing new there.

Can't please everyone

For the record, I like Cherry Audio, I did get a emu off them I wasnt best impressed with but thats life.

[ATS]

I think brands can get pigeon-holed/type cast quickly. For me I see Cherry as a low cost lower quality brand that played a marketing game overhyping. This could be totally wrong these days, but DCO106 and the free Presonus bundle plugin (entries into their world) made me form that opinion early on. Softube is the opposite, higher cost but best quality modelling, so I pick them including modular. This isn’t hate, it’s just how perhaps some view Cherry when trying to separate the good and go for quality over abundance. Ultimately if you claim to emulate, you’ve either got to do it well these days and compete directly with hardware, or you have to position yourself in that lower budget market, which isn’t wrong either and has its place too. Tastes differ.

I remember someone from FL Studio said they were pricing the synth they were releasing at the time high because if you price it too low people won't think it is very good. Just goes to show how people will think sometimes. Honestly if I was trying to sell a synth I would probably do the same thing to avoid looking like a lower quality product.

[Vortifex]

Edited

[anttimaatteri]

if you are really convinced that a software synth which has a higher pricetag than another one is for sure the better one no matter what, you are already a braindead victim of capitalism. not that that i would be surprised nowadays in the age of ruling numbnuts

[whyterabbyt]

He's not saying they're using plguins to develop plugins. "Martinic Plugins" is referring to the company, hence the capital P in "Plugins".

Yes, but the confusion was caused by the 'the' in 'he used the Pulsar Plugins and Martinic Plugins' and the fact that neither of those companies have 'plugins' in their company name. 'Plugins' is not part of the correct proper name, and if someone knew that, they could reasonably assume that the capitalisation was a mistake.

You dont typically refer to the car company Ford as 'the Ford Cars' but you might refer to cars made by Ford as 'the Ford cars.'

If he meant they actually use plugins to develop plugins he would have said "They use the Pulsar Audio and Martinic Plugins plugins to develop some of their plugins for example."

Or he could have said

"They use the Pulsar plugins and Martinic plugins to develop some of their plugins for example."

which is almost exactly what was written, except for the capitalision.

So if he actually meant that they subcontracted Martinic and Pulsar Audio to develop their plugins, he should have something like said "They hired Pulsar Audio and Martinic to develop some of their plugins for example."

So the upshot is, there was ambiguity because of the flawed construction of the statement, so its not surprising there was confusion, and the flaws actually lean the meaning far more towards the interpretation you're rebutting . Asserting that any misinterpretation is solely the fault of the reader is incorrect, Im afraid.

[PatCJrMusic]

I also demo'd the Elka-X and I thought the sounds were awesome. But I am afraid it would only be a matter of time before I click the buy button... because I honestly do not need another synth.... but I have an addiction!!!!! There I said it!!!!