Arturia V Collection 6

[Ingonator]

Have not checked if this was already posted but here are two official tutorial videos about the "Time Synth" and "Spectral Synth" synthesis modes in CMI V:

[fmr]

Arturia, a piece of advice: find some people who can program DSP properly, ASAP!

Wow, we got a hater I was wondering where were they...

[wagtunes]

Arturia, a piece of advice: find some people who can program DSP properly, ASAP!

Wow, we got a hater I was wondering where were they...

There are haters all over this place. You can't walk 2 feet without tripping over one.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Considering that I went through most of the Repro-5 presets, these last few days, I'm surprised that this is where I'm finding the most inspiration

Why? One could maybe argue that U-He's engines have more finesse, but Arturia's presets are excellent and always were! Very musical and usable.

I guess because I always heard the Arturia synths spoken about in an unfavourable light. That's why I've never even bothered to demo them.

The Repro synths sound very lush, and I've managed to compile a lovely set of favourite patches (really glad to own them); with U-he, it's kind of a given. But I'm definitely enjoying the presets from the Arturia's. Like you said - "Very musical and usable". I guess I agree

I'd been eyeing up the Minilab mkII for quite a while, and more-so since my MPK Mini dies. The immediacy of the controls in Analog Lab makes me want it even more. Apparently, not a bad price to upgrade Lab Lite to 'full'. They even do an upgrade the the collection, though I don't know what the price is. Not that I can afford it for a long while, but I'm definitely thinking about a CS-80/Analog Lab combo

[jme-audio]

Again, that doesn't make it NOT OBJECTIVE. The old Arturia models are objectively less accurate than the newer models and the models of some other vendors with respect to the analog circuits that they purport to be emulating. Whether a user knows this has fuckall to do with objectivity.

There's no wrapper that you can dress this up in that will make bad models of analog subjectively bad. They are bad because the models fail to capture important aspects of circuit behavior.

I am not arguing that Arturias replications would be perfect. I am only criticizing your claim about objectivity.

How can people objectively rate accuracy when they never had the original synth? And even if they had one, very audible deviations can be possible. Take f.e. ABL3 and Phoscyon. Their sound is pretty different, but you can find a real TB-303 for each that matches their sound. Still people argue which one is more authentic...

Surely one can objectively say ZD filters are technological better. But having a ZD filter doesn't automatically imply authenticity in relation to the original hardware.

You talk as if objectivity would be a natural property that can be easily applied when judging an emulation. It isn't.

[Caine123]

i couldnt find an option to reverse the sample playback? :/
even if it's not on the hardware it would be cool for enhanced stuff..



and is it possible to drag and drop samples within eg. fl studio? in demo it's not possible

[waltercruz]

I never owned a real DX7 but AFAIK the velocity range and/or the maximum velocity value of the keyboard seemed to be limited with the real DX7, at least with the first version.

It was max 100 in velocity.

[ghettosynth]

How can people objectively rate accuracy when they never had the original synth?

You're missing the point completely. Because person A cannot verify an objective claim does not make the claim subjective.

That some emulations are more accurate than others is not subjective, period. Because you can't measure it objectively is insufficient to make that a false statement.

[braj]

I just am ignoring jme's posts at this point.

[jme-audio]

That some emulations are more accurate than others is not subjective, period. Because you can't measure it objectively is insufficient to make that a false statement.

It is the opposite, only by measuring (of more than one original machine; which is of course possible) you can really prove superiority of an emulation over another in an objective way.

I am not interested in discussing this any longer.

[ghettosynth]

That some emulations are more accurate than others is not subjective, period. Because you can't measure it objectively is insufficient to make that a false statement.

It is the opposite, only using measuring (of more than one original machine) you can really prove superiority of an emulation over another in an objective way.

Actually, this isn't true either. It can be mathematically shown that some emulations are more accurate than others. However, you still completely fail to grok the idea that objectivity doesn't depend on any particular person making the measurement. Given a specific frame of reference the measurement can be made by someone qualified and the objective superiority is supported by evidence. Any particular perception of that is insufficient to refute objectivity. The end user's subjective experience of the quality of an emulation does not refute the objectivity of such.

This is how science works. Neither you or I are capable of measuring gravitational waves directly, yet, others are able to and are able to repeat that experiment sufficiently to objectively support their existence. Any subjective experience that you have of gravitational waves will not change that objective fact. Any conclusions that you draw that disagree with that objectivity are most likely false and the result of specific biases.

I am not interested in discussing this any longer.

That's a great idea because it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about and everyone else is ignoring your nonsense.

[beely]

I'm kinda surprised how many MAHOOSIVE loop clicks there are in CMI. Presumably that's period accurate, but sheesh.

Yep. Really working with the library and realising how "bad" it was* made me much more appreciative of the people that actually managed to make (relatively) good-sounding records with the early Fairlights.

At the same time, given that I re-looped a significant portion (almost all) of Fairlight samples here (from Series 1 to Series III and some other stuff), it is *hard* to get usable loops out of some of the early stuff - there is just not a lot of audio content to work with, and some sounds vary so significantly over their very short duration that sustain loops are very hard to get seamless (I don't mean without clicks, which is easy, I mean *useably*/*musically* seamless).

I had Keymap Pro working damn hard for me, but looping, even with great tool, is very much an art...

* When I say bad - this doesn't mean the library uninteresting, far from it, but it does make it challenging to work with to do anything other than retro-Fairlight pastiches...

[jme-audio]

It can be mathematically shown that some emulations are more accurate than others

Aha, by what? Reverse Engineering Diva and solving some physics equations based on its code?
Please do that and meditate about gravitational waves...

[murnau]

It can be mathematically shown that some emulations are more accurate than others

Aha, by what? Reverse Engineering Diva and solving some physics equations based on its code?
Please do that and meditate about gravitational waves...

[Ingonator]

I never owned a real DX7 but AFAIK the velocity range and/or the maximum velocity value of the keyboard seemed to be limited with the real DX7, at least with the first version.

It was max 100 in velocity.

Yes, the "DX7" velocity mode in Arturia DX7 V (at the bottom of the GUI) corresponds to a maximum velocity of 100 while the "Full mode" corresponds to the full 128 velocity (like was later also found with DX7 II D and DX7 II FD).
That'S why using the "Full" velocity mode in DX7 V could sound quite different and/or more properly than tzhe "DX7" mode.
For my own patches i would prefer using the "Full" mode.