Why do people here hate on cherry audio?

[tony10000]

They are a great company...great support and they listen to their customers. Some emulations are better than others...I believe their standalone synths are based on the the DSP of Cherry Modular, hence the lower cost and less-optimized CPU performance.

[AdvancedFollower]

R&D adds cost, there's no way around that beyond cutting corners or taking a loss.

For physical goods and products, sure low cost might mean low quality materials, poor workmanship etc. Or just a an efficient production line, economies of scale and slim profit margin per unit which is made up for by selling a large quantity of product.

When it comes to digital downloads, this doesn't really apply. You make almost the same profit selling 1000 copies at $20 each as you do selling 100 copies at $200 each because there's no overhead once the product is developed. It's just a digital download, and bandwidth is ridiculously cheap (unless you're IK Multimedia, they must have gotten a really bad deal on their hosting service). This is why companies like Waves and PA started with these insane semi-permanent "sales". They found that with good marketing and discounting their products to $29, they make more money overall than by trying to convince a smaller number of people to buy them for $299.

[pekbro]

R&D adds cost, there's no way around that beyond cutting corners or taking a loss.

For physical goods and products, sure low cost might mean low quality materials, poor workmanship etc. Or just a an efficient production line, economies of scale and slim profit margin per unit which is made up for by selling a large quantity of product.

When it comes to digital downloads, this doesn't really apply. You make almost the same profit selling 1000 copies at $20 each as you do selling 100 copies at $200 each because there's no overhead once the product is developed. It's just a digital download, and bandwidth is ridiculously cheap (unless you're IK Multimedia, they must have gotten a really bad deal on their hosting service). This is why companies like Waves and PA started with these insane semi-permanent "sales". They found that with good marketing and discounting their products to $29, they make more money overall than by trying to convince a smaller number of people to buy them for $299.

I meant the loss you take in man hours, suppose Urs were to say exactly how many man hours
have gone into Zebra so far? If you take all the money they have made off of Zebra and divided
that by each legitimate hour, how much do suppose that would be?

*They are taking a loss there, I assure you. When you consider industry rates for the jobs they
are performing. I suspect the amount of project-time they have had to pay for out of pocket
is quite a lot.

[BONES]

For physical goods and products, sure low cost might mean low quality materials, poor workmanship etc. Or just a an efficient production line, economies of scale and slim profit margin per unit which is made up for by selling a large quantity of product.

I think you misunderstand. R&D is research and development, the time/effort/expense it takes to create the product, and it can be just as big a cost for a software product as for a physical product. Bigger, even. Look at the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, for example, all the problems they had when they started deploying those were around the software, not the hardware. Given how quickly Cherry release new products, it's quite likely they put less effort in than, say, U-He.

[Dirk Diggler]

I would wager most of the poo pooers have never had the chance to try the real hardware.

Having owned an original set of Moog Taurus pedals, the new low down has it no problem.
Also had a Minimoog, the Source, and a Prodigy.

I've actually played an Oberheim 4 voice many times in the 70's (couldn't afford it), and their 8 voice captures the essence with no problem.

Just try the demos, if you don't like them, don't buy them. The world is full of shills and haters, use your own ears rather than using someone else's ears.

[briefcasemanx]

Most people (and the vast majority don't own the hardware) seemed to think the Roland Cloud Juno-106 is a near perfect emulation or something, and it's...just not. I'm guessing they just heard the chorus sound. Meanwhile the Arturia Jun-6, which actually sounds more Juno-like minus the chorus (I've owned both 6 and 106) gets ignored by many simply because it's Arturia who "make bad emulations". Maybe also because there is a large swath of firum-goers (who don't actually make music) that do a 30-second demo of a synths filter at high resonance values and use that as the main determination of a synths worth. There are soother folks that think sampling a waveform from an analog synth is all you need to perfectly recreate the sound of an analog oscillator.

Point is, what sometimes feels like general consensus on some forums or in some threads, is sometimes absolute bullcrap.

[bmanic]

Let's be honest, oscillator sync doesn't sound good on any synth. It's for playing that one Cars song and nothing else. (I'm kidding, but only kinda.)

You take that back now!!!

Somewhat seriously, oscillator sync can be absolutely awesome.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W2nSNj ... sp=sharing

[blatanville]

They are a great company...great support and they listen to their customers. Some emulations are better than others...I believe their standalone synths are based on the the DSP of Cherry Modular, hence the lower cost and less-optimized CPU performance.

Re: listening to their customers

If you like the addition of the "" in the preset title field on Voltage Modular, Dreamsynth, Lowdown, (and I assume the Miniverse [I don't have that one]) that lets you favourite a preset without having to open the preset browser and right-click on the preset name, well, "you're welcome*."
That kind of responsiveness is nice to see in a company.
Reading this thread, I gather a lot of people have beef with this company, and likely some of their complaints are valid and should ALSO be addressed. At this point, I would have expected, if they were working on improvements to the older products, to see the "" in the preset browser for them, too. Someone suggested they may have changed software devs at some point, and there are just some changes they can't/won't make to the older code.

Anyway, I haven't been as active on KVR as I was back in the day, but it's kind of nice to see the same old grumps are still GRRRRRRRumpy ; people still raise subjective observations like they're describing fundamental laws of the universe, while dismissing other people's subjective observations like they're as meaningful as a duck's fart; disagreements over the interpretation of another poster's intent/character/experience/intelligence/etc: you know, usual internet forum stuff

* I can't claim SOLE responsibility for the change - seems likely they would have had to get more than one suggestion to actually take the time and effort to re-work a standard module of their interfaces like that - but mine was at least one of the "votes" that got that change made.

[zerocrossing]

I downloaded their newest wave table synth and think it sounds fine?

Is there something wrong with the plug-ins?

They're OK, and cheap, but when you take a moment to compare something like Mercury 4 to Roland's Jupiter 4, it's clear they're a joke. None of their emulations really sound anything like the originals. They plain and simply just don't sound very good to me. I used them when I had an older computer, but since upgrading, I sold everything off. If you need a cheap plugin to run on your 2013 iMac, they're your best bet, but if you have a decent computer and some cash, there are way better alternatives.

[Rahodees]

I downloaded their newest wave table synth and think it sounds fine?

Is there something wrong with the plug-ins?

Aside: when you mention a wavetable synth from cherry audio, which synth is that?

[zerocrossing]

Most people (and the vast majority don't own the hardware) seemed to think the Roland Cloud Juno-106 is a near perfect emulation or something, and it's...just not. I'm guessing they just heard the chorus sound. Meanwhile the Arturia Jun-6, which actually sounds more Juno-like minus the chorus (I've owned both 6 and 106) gets ignored by many simply because it's Arturia who "make bad emulations". Maybe also because there is a large swath of firum-goers (who don't actually make music) that do a 30-second demo of a synths filter at high resonance values and use that as the main determination of a synths worth. There are soother folks that think sampling a waveform from an analog synth is all you need to perfectly recreate the sound of an analog oscillator.

Point is, what sometimes feels like general consensus on some forums or in some threads, is sometimes absolute bullcrap.

The Juno 106 was my first synth, so while I can say I'm familiar with it, that was in the 80s, and I haven't touched one since... maybe 88 or so. So, I'm not going to say anything about accuracy, nor do I really care. When I buy any instrument, I assess it on its own merits and sound, not how close it is to something else.

I've assessed that the Cherry Audio synths don't sound very good. You bring up the Arturia stuff being crap, and that's what they sort of remind me of. The old Arturia stuff before they got they started doing good work. So, 2005 Arturia. That's what Cherry Audio sounds like to me.

[zerocrossing]

I downloaded their newest wave table synth and think it sounds fine?

Is there something wrong with the plug-ins?

Aside: when you mention a wavetable synth from cherry audio, which synth is that?

Dreamsynth.

https://cherryaudio.com/products/dreamsynth

[briefcasemanx]

Most people (and the vast majority don't own the hardware) seemed to think the Roland Cloud Juno-106 is a near perfect emulation or something, and it's...just not. I'm guessing they just heard the chorus sound. Meanwhile the Arturia Jun-6, which actually sounds more Juno-like minus the chorus (I've owned both 6 and 106) gets ignored by many simply because it's Arturia who "make bad emulations". Maybe also because there is a large swath of firum-goers (who don't actually make music) that do a 30-second demo of a synths filter at high resonance values and use that as the main determination of a synths worth. There are soother folks that think sampling a waveform from an analog synth is all you need to perfectly recreate the sound of an analog oscillator.

Point is, what sometimes feels like general consensus on some forums or in some threads, is sometimes absolute bullcrap.

The Juno 106 was my first synth, so while I can say I'm familiar with it, that was in the 80s, and I haven't touched one since... maybe 88 or so. So, I'm not going to say anything about accuracy, nor do I really care. When I buy any instrument, I assess it on its own merits and sound, not how close it is to something else.

I've assessed that the Cherry Audio synths don't sound very good. You bring up the Arturia stuff being crap, and that's what they sort of remind me of. The old Arturia stuff before they got they started doing good work. So, 2005 Arturia. That's what Cherry Audio sounds like to me.

Some of the old Arturia stuff sounds awesome IMO. If I could still access the V2 Jupiter I might use it more than the newest version. I would 100% take V2 (which I'm not even sure sounded much like a Jupiter) over V3.

Home - Resonance was made with a single old Arturia synth IIRC (I think it might have been the Minimoog emulation everyone complains about?) and that's been streamed well over 100 million times and has some awesome sounding patches in it. I liked the sounds in that song before I knew how it was made.

[v1o]

For every emulation plugin instrument they make you'll find something more accurate to the original from Roland, Arturia, Tal, U-he, G-force, Synapse Audio and Softube. The plugins are just not close enough emulations, so they have to sell them cheap to be competitive in this market. Companies like Tal and U-he take many years to make their emulations, which is why their price points are higher. The most interesting stuff that Cherry Audio do is the Voltage Modular.

[plexuss]

The way I approach Cherry's synths (other than Voltage) is not based on how accurate they are, instead I look at them as a soundset and associated synth. I take them for what they are vs what I hope they will be. If they seem to be of musical value to be, I buy. I've bought them all so far. They aren't much more than a soundset and the whole synth comes with it. They sound different enough with enough different features to make them well worth the money, to me. I totally undersand anyone who thinks otherwise.