Arturia V Collection 6

[braj]

I'm not on board with calling it a "scam", but that's not true. Whether or not you can experience the difference between different emus is certainly a function of your individual familiarity, but it's not just "subjective" that some emus are better than others.

+1 to that.

You have to define better. If you mean more authentic, then it is still a tough thing, because analog hardware does not always sound the same. So to be really objective you need to measure multiple machines and compare the average results with the emulation.

There are emulations where the filters just break at high resonance, that is not a subjective thing, you can scope out oscillators and see if a waveform is majorly flawed, besides hearing it, it can be measured.

[jme-audio]

I'm not on board with calling it a "scam", but that's not true. Whether or not you can experience the difference between different emus is certainly a function of your individual familiarity, but it's not just "subjective" that some emus are better than others.

+1 to that.

You have to define better. If you mean more authentic, then it is still a tough thing, because analog hardware does not always sound the same. So to be really objective you need to measure multiple machines and compare the average results with the emulation.

There are emulations where the filters just break at high resonance, that is not a subjective thing, you can scope out oscillators and see if a waveform is majorly flawed, besides hearing it, it can be measured.

I never disagreed with this. It is just that many emulations today use more advanced methods and are technologically better emulations. But a very important aspect in replication is measuring too. So there are different aspects that can be objectively evaluated, but it is not always that easy.

[braj]

I never disagreed with this. It is just that many emulations today use more advanced methods and are technologically better emulations. But a very important aspect in replication is measuring too. So there are different aspects that can be objectively evaluated, but it is not always that easy.

It is still not subjective though. You measure to get an objective range and objective behavior to model. If it is not right within that range of variation, it is wrong, simple as that. Now, whether you like it or not is subjective, you may like aliasing filters, you may like a waveform that is not accurate better than the original, but it's not a matter of subjective opinion if it is accurate or not.

[braj]

Personally I hated the DX7 when it came out, it pissed me off, it killed off the classic analog synth for a generation really. If Arturia makes it likable to me, then I can care less if it is authentic. I haven't tried it yet though.

[Ingonator]

I just tried programming a patch with both DX7 V and Dexed. While with DX7 V this is fun and the interface is really nice doing the same with Dexed is just a nightmare IMO.
Especially the graphical enveleps in DX7 V are 10 times better than having 8 knobs to tweak for each of them in Dexed. The interface in Dexed might work for an analog/VA synth but for an FM synth it is almost unusable IMO. It is just overloaded with too many knobs and other stuff to actually see what you are doing there.
Programming FM is alraed dificult enough for me and with such interface as in Dexed it is no fun at all.

While i love a lot of the sounds from FM8 the interface there is far from being perfect too IMO once you try to do your own patches from scratch.

Besides that if you start using the advanced features in DX7 V comparing this with Dexed and also FM8 makes no real sense anyway.

Sound wise i do not care much if DX7 V sounds 100% like a DX7 or just 80%. The sounds you could get from it seem to be really nice.
If i load the same Sysex file with both DX7 V and Dexed the patches sound really better to me in DX7 V, independent of how close this is to the real thing or not. This especially true if i use the "Modern" DAC in DX7 V instead of the noisy "Vintage" one.
In Dexed the sounds could get so much noisy that it is sometimes just ridiculous IMO and the patches become mostly unusable for me. In that respect both DX7 V and FM8 do sound much better to my ears.

How anyone that is actually interested in using the synth for tracks or that wants to do sound design with it could prefer Dexed for that task really is beyond me...

The DX7 seems to be one of the hardware synths where a more modern approach like in DX7 V or FM8 actually makes sense instead of doing a 100% proper emulation.
Now i am happy i never bought a DX7 myself, at least not the first original version (DX7 II might be better). FWIW the only hardware FM synth i had owned is a SY77 which was indeed sounding great and so far no plugin seems to be able to replace it, also not DX7 V or FM8.

[Scotty]

+1 Great comments. Nice to read an informed opinion from someone who loaded and compared sounds and editing approaches instead of jumping on the tired Arturia hate band wagon.

I just tried programming a patch with both DX7 V and Dexed. While with DX7 V this is fun and the interface is really nice doing the same with Dexed is justb a nightmare IMO.
Especially the graphical enveleps in DX7 V are 10 times better than having 8 knobs to tweak for each of them in Dexed. The interface in Dexed might work for an analog/VA synth but for an FM synth it is almost unusable IMO. It is just overloaded with too many knobs and other stuff to actually see what you are doing there.
Programming FM is alraed dificult enough for me and with such interface as in Dexed it is no fun at all.

While i love a lot of the sounds from FM8 the interface there is far from being perfect too IMO once you try to do your own patches from scratch.

Besides that if you start using the advanced features in DX7 V comparing this with Dexed and also FM8 makes no real sense anyway.

Sound wise i do not much if DX7 V sounds 100% like a DX7 or just 80%. The sounds you could get get from it seem to be really nice.
If i load the same Sysex file with both DX7 V and Dexed the patches sound really better to me in DX7 V, independent of how close this is to the real thing or not. This especially true if i use the "Modern" DAC in DX7 V instead of the noisy "Vintage" one.
In Dexed the sounds could get so much noisy that it is sometimes just ridiculous IMO and the patches become mostly unusable for me. In that respect both DX7 V and FM8 do sound much better to my ears.

How anyone that is actually interested in using the synth for tracks or that wants to do sound design with it could prefer Dexed for that task really is beyond me...

The DX7 seems to be one of the hardware synths where a more modern approach like in DX7 V or FM8 actually makes sense instead of doing a 100% proper emulation.
Now i am happy i never bought a DX7 myself. FWIW the only hardware FM synth i had owned is a SY77 which was indeed sounding great and so far no plugin seems to be able to replace it, also not DX7 V or FM8.

[jme-audio]

I never disagreed with this. It is just that many emulations today use more advanced methods and are technologically better emulations. But a very important aspect in replication is measuring too. So there are different aspects that can be objectively evaluated, but it is not always that easy.

It is still not subjective though. You measure to get an objective range and objective behavior to model. If it is not right within that range of variation, it is wrong, simple as that. Now, whether you like it or not is subjective, you may like aliasing filters, you may like a waveform that is not accurate better than the original, but it's not a matter of subjective opinion if it is accurate or not.

I have had hardware of the same type with different sound. I am not talking about broken chips. When one emulation sounds different than another it does not have to be wrong. Objectiveness isn't that easy achievable as stated. You can have 10 analog chips and all sound different.

[braj]

I never disagreed with this. It is just that many emulations today use more advanced methods and are technologically better emulations. But a very important aspect in replication is measuring too. So there are different aspects that can be objectively evaluated, but it is not always that easy.

It is still not subjective though. You measure to get an objective range and objective behavior to model. If it is not right within that range of variation, it is wrong, simple as that. Now, whether you like it or not is subjective, you may like aliasing filters, you may like a waveform that is not accurate better than the original, but it's not a matter of subjective opinion if it is accurate or not.

I have had hardware of the same type with different sound. I am not talking about broken chips. When one emulation sounds different than another it does not have to be wrong. Objectiveness isn't that easy achievable as stated. You can have 10 analog chips and all sound different.

You did not understand what I said. That difference between those 10 different synths is the range, it still has to be within that range. I'm not going to argue this any more though, it's getting silly.

[jme-audio]

I never disagreed with this. It is just that many emulations today use more advanced methods and are technologically better emulations. But a very important aspect in replication is measuring too. So there are different aspects that can be objectively evaluated, but it is not always that easy.

It is still not subjective though. You measure to get an objective range and objective behavior to model. If it is not right within that range of variation, it is wrong, simple as that. Now, whether you like it or not is subjective, you may like aliasing filters, you may like a waveform that is not accurate better than the original, but it's not a matter of subjective opinion if it is accurate or not.

I have had hardware of the same type with different sound. I am not talking about broken chips. When one emulation sounds different than another it does not have to be wrong. Objectiveness isn't that easy achievable as stated. You can have 10 analog chips and all sound different.

You did not understand what I said. That difference between those 10 different synths is the range, it still has to be within that range. I'm not going to argue this any more though, it's getting silly.

Yes, it is silly. This is the developer perspective, the user at home does not measure this and so it isn't easy for him to judge objectively. Or would you get three TB-303 before you decide which emulation you want to purchase? (which does not mean it would be easy for the developer either).
That is also the problem with some comparisons on YouTube. When emulations are compared to one original hardware there, that does not necessarily mean one of those emulations is more authentic.

[braj]

Yes, it is silly. This is the developer perspective, the user at home does not measure this and so it isn't easy for him to judge objectively. Or would you get three TB-303 before you decide which emulation you want to purchase? (which does not mean it would be easy for the developer either)

The average user is probably happy with Arturia's synths unless someone convinced them not to be I recently got Syntronic, sort of on accident, but it is kind of like the V Collection to me: it has the spirit of a bunch of different synths, it sounds good, and is easy to deal with. It is definitely less an emulation than the V series since it is a rompler, but it is pretty fun to make tracks with. That's what should matter. I like the emulations from other developers that are maybe more technically accurate than Syntronic or Arturia's synths, but the bottom line is do Arturia's synths sound good? I say yes, I think they embody the spirit of what they emulate well enough, pushing them beyond the originals like the Prophet V, and if I could afford to get the upgrade now @ $250 I definitely would. I think it comes to something like $16 a piece including the money I spent on the two Arturia synths I already own. That's value, and close enough to the originals for me. That's a subjective assessment, but I'ma subjective being, so... I'm happy with that.

[Ingonator]

If i load the same patch from the same Sysex file with both DX7 V and Dexed the overall tone is very close or almost identical (also depending on the patch) but still in direct comparison DX7 V sounds really better for my taste (especially when using the "Modern" DAC in DX7 V) and in some cases even MUCH better. It's almost like comparing an old emulation of an analog synth to a new one. For example like Arturia Prophet 5 vs Repro-5 or Arturia Mini V vs The Legend where i now prefer the newer ones sound wise.

As alraedy mentioned due to the better interface programming your own patches in DX7 V seems to be much more fun too than in Dexed, at least for my taste.

I do not really want to waste more time with this specific comparison and will soon deinstall Dexed. For those who need a free DX7 emulation with Sysex import it might be great.

Even if Dexed would sound closer to the real thing in this specific case i would prefer using the "wrong" plugin then...

[braj]

Even if Dexed would sound closer to the real thing in this specific case i would prefer using the "wrong" plugin then...

+1 to that. It should be about sound and enjoyment.

[jme-audio]

much more fun too than in Dexed

Well, Dexed UI is very accessible, I think it is really good too altough I never got warm with the classic Yamaha Rate-Envelopes.

But there is a strong reason against Dexed: When you automate Operator Levels sometimes NoteOn is skipped. This is just not acceptable.

[braj]

I got a VIP based keyboard this year to try and get good controller mapping with my plugins, but now I wish I would have gotten an Arturia one with Analog Lab, that is a big attraction to me, being able to have a coherent controller environment, VIP is very flexible but Arturia's setup seems more complete if you own the V collection too. I wonder, if you buy an Arturia KB now, even if the box comes with a previous version of Analog Lab, would you get the most current version when registering it with Arturia?

[jme-audio]

if you buy an Arturia KB now, even if the box comes with a previous version of Analog Lab, would you get the most current version when registering it with Arturia?

That would be pretty unlogical. If you register a product, this product will be registered in your account and not another one.

Don't know what a VIP keyboard is, but don't you just need to setup the same CC numbers to imitate the arturia keyboard? Most keyboards look quite similar with their knobs and faders (I have an Oxygen61 f.e. but I don't use Analog Lab).