CS-80 vst emulation on budget recommendation

[zzz00m]

Of course, 100 % accuracy is not possible, but, some emulations are really far away from the sound of the original.

I think that pretty much nails it right there.

But then, you don't really need an oscilloscope to confirm what your ears can obviously hear!

[wwjd]

I think most people care to a point. If it's close (subjective term) that's good enough. I think the minority of the population is to the point where every envelope has to be 100% spot on and the osc waveform has to look identical to the hardware unit, not that that's even possible in some cases where the hardware is notorious for fluctuations in its sound from one instrument to another and even from one day to another.

I'm not that anal. But yes, I expect the "Gary Numan Cars Patch" on my Xils PolyM to sound close enough to where I'm saying to myself, "Yep, that's the sound."

The only emulations I've ever heard that were 100% identical were the Korg synths in the legacy collection such as the Wavestation, because it's literally the same software. I owned a Wavestation and can honestly say there is no difference in the sound.

But that's where it ends. Every other emulation I've ever purchased is not 100% identical to the hardware.

I don't care.

YMMV

Bravo here!! This. All the way. I enjoy more of life NOT chasing perfectionism.

[zerocrossing]

I think most people care to a point. If it's close (subjective term) that's good enough. I think the minority of the population is to the point where every envelope has to be 100% spot on and the osc waveform has to look identical to the hardware unit, not that that's even possible in some cases where the hardware is notorious for fluctuations in its sound from one instrument to another and even from one day to another.

I'm not that anal. But yes, I expect the "Gary Numan Cars Patch" on my Xils PolyM to sound close enough to where I'm saying to myself, "Yep, that's the sound."

The only emulations I've ever heard that were 100% identical were the Korg synths in the legacy collection such as the Wavestation, because it's literally the same software. I owned a Wavestation and can honestly say there is no difference in the sound.

But that's where it ends. Every other emulation I've ever purchased is not 100% identical to the hardware.

I don't care.

YMMV

Bravo here!! This. All the way. I enjoy more of life NOT chasing perfectionism.

There’s a tendency here with people who conflate the quest for quality with the quest for perfectionism. Of course there’s no such thing as a perfect emulation, especially when we’re talking about electronics made at a time when tolerances were not great and and definitely not improving over decades. That said, computers can process a lot more than they did a few decades ago. I was away from analog for a long time, but when I got back into it, I quickly saw what the fuss was about. A good analog synth has a character that can be really special. Similar in a way to how a good acoustic instruments feels and sounds. This was around 2005, and analog emulations weren’t that great, so I picked up a Studio Electronics ATC-1. (2 oscillator synth based on cloned Minimoog circuits) So good. If you couldn’t hear the difference between it and Minimoog V, you probably suffer from hearing damage.

But I still enjoyed plugins. Lot’s of great stuff. Zebra 2, Dimension Pro, etc. Then Diva came out. Not as good as the ATC, but it was a leap forward. There’s a reason we still talk about it, even though it’s still on version one. It really wasn’t until RePro that I thought, “ah, we’re so close now.” Perfect? No, but as good, just different. I’m fine with that, but if you think that RePro wasn’t a step up in quality from Prophet V, again, you probably suffer from hearing damage. But now we have Prophet 5 V. As good as RePro, but closer. I can get it to sound identical to my Prophet 6 (which of course isn’t quite a vintage Prophet 5). If it wasn’t for the extra filter and other features, I’d ditch the Prophet 6. It’s that good.

Anyway, if you want to cheap out and think that your developer of choice that spits out a new emulation like I shave, have at it. Cool sounds definitely can be made, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s not that much more money for something that’s noticeably better, if you have the ability to notice things.

[wagtunes]

I think most people care to a point. If it's close (subjective term) that's good enough. I think the minority of the population is to the point where every envelope has to be 100% spot on and the osc waveform has to look identical to the hardware unit, not that that's even possible in some cases where the hardware is notorious for fluctuations in its sound from one instrument to another and even from one day to another.

I'm not that anal. But yes, I expect the "Gary Numan Cars Patch" on my Xils PolyM to sound close enough to where I'm saying to myself, "Yep, that's the sound."

The only emulations I've ever heard that were 100% identical were the Korg synths in the legacy collection such as the Wavestation, because it's literally the same software. I owned a Wavestation and can honestly say there is no difference in the sound.

But that's where it ends. Every other emulation I've ever purchased is not 100% identical to the hardware.

I don't care.

YMMV

Bravo here!! This. All the way. I enjoy more of life NOT chasing perfectionism.

There’s a tendency here with people who conflate the quest for quality with the quest for perfectionism. Of course there’s no such thing as a perfect emulation, especially when we’re talking about electronics made at a time when tolerances were not great and and definitely not improving over decades. That said, computers can process a lot more than they did a few decades ago. I was away from analog for a long time, but when I got back into it, I quickly saw what the fuss was about. A good analog synth has a character that can be really special. Similar in a way to how a good acoustic instruments feels and sounds. This was around 2005, and analog emulations weren’t that great, so I picked up a Studio Electronics ATC-1. (2 oscillator synth based on cloned Minimoog circuits) So good. If you couldn’t hear the difference between it and Minimoog V, you probably suffer from hearing damage.

But I still enjoyed plugins. Lot’s of great stuff. Zebra 2, Dimension Pro, etc. Then Diva came out. Not as good as the ATC, but it was a leap forward. There’s a reason we still talk about it, even though it’s still on version one. It really wasn’t until RePro that I thought, “ah, we’re so close now.” Perfect? No, but as good, just different. I’m fine with that, but if you think that RePro wasn’t a step up in quality from Prophet V, again, you probably suffer from hearing damage. But now we have Prophet 5 V. As good as RePro, but closer. I can get it to sound identical to my Prophet 6 (which of course isn’t quite a vintage Prophet 5). If it wasn’t for the extra filter and other features, I’d ditch the Prophet 6. It’s that good.

Anyway, if you want to cheap out and think that your developer of choice that spits out a new emulation like I shave, have at it. Cool sounds definitely can be made, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s not that much more money for something that’s noticeably better, if you have the ability to notice things.

There's another way to look at it. Let's say you're right, that some synths just don't sound as good as others, which I absolutely feel is true. Those "inferior" synths still have a character to them. Some, uniquely so. I have a ton of "bad sounding" synths that I still use because they have something I like about them. Korg Wavestation is a perfect example of this. In actuality, the samples in that thing sound horrible compared to what you can get today. But they have a unique character that you just know it's a Wavestation.

Are there synths that sound better? Sure, infinitely so. But if you want THAT sound, good lucky getting it from another synth. As a former Wavestation hardware owner, I can tell you right now, you won't get it unless you either buy a Wavestation or get the emulation that Korg makes.

As for Cherry Audio, I like the way their stuff sounds. Always have. In fact, I have just about everything they've made and not because I'm looking for cheap stuff. I own plenty of expensive synths such as Omnisphere, Falcon, Zebra 2 and so many others, including sample libraries costing thousands of dollars. In fact, I've spent close to $30,000 since 2014 on this stuff. And with all the top level sounding stuff that I own, I still reach for something like Scroo, which has such a unique sound and is actually free.

Point is, just because something is cheap doesn't mean it's not usable.

At least not for me.

[zerocrossing]

I think most people care to a point. If it's close (subjective term) that's good enough. I think the minority of the population is to the point where every envelope has to be 100% spot on and the osc waveform has to look identical to the hardware unit, not that that's even possible in some cases where the hardware is notorious for fluctuations in its sound from one instrument to another and even from one day to another.

I'm not that anal. But yes, I expect the "Gary Numan Cars Patch" on my Xils PolyM to sound close enough to where I'm saying to myself, "Yep, that's the sound."

The only emulations I've ever heard that were 100% identical were the Korg synths in the legacy collection such as the Wavestation, because it's literally the same software. I owned a Wavestation and can honestly say there is no difference in the sound.

But that's where it ends. Every other emulation I've ever purchased is not 100% identical to the hardware.

I don't care.

YMMV

Bravo here!! This. All the way. I enjoy more of life NOT chasing perfectionism.

There’s a tendency here with people who conflate the quest for quality with the quest for perfectionism. Of course there’s no such thing as a perfect emulation, especially when we’re talking about electronics made at a time when tolerances were not great and and definitely not improving over decades. That said, computers can process a lot more than they did a few decades ago. I was away from analog for a long time, but when I got back into it, I quickly saw what the fuss was about. A good analog synth has a character that can be really special. Similar in a way to how a good acoustic instruments feels and sounds. This was around 2005, and analog emulations weren’t that great, so I picked up a Studio Electronics ATC-1. (2 oscillator synth based on cloned Minimoog circuits) So good. If you couldn’t hear the difference between it and Minimoog V, you probably suffer from hearing damage.

But I still enjoyed plugins. Lot’s of great stuff. Zebra 2, Dimension Pro, etc. Then Diva came out. Not as good as the ATC, but it was a leap forward. There’s a reason we still talk about it, even though it’s still on version one. It really wasn’t until RePro that I thought, “ah, we’re so close now.” Perfect? No, but as good, just different. I’m fine with that, but if you think that RePro wasn’t a step up in quality from Prophet V, again, you probably suffer from hearing damage. But now we have Prophet 5 V. As good as RePro, but closer. I can get it to sound identical to my Prophet 6 (which of course isn’t quite a vintage Prophet 5). If it wasn’t for the extra filter and other features, I’d ditch the Prophet 6. It’s that good.

Anyway, if you want to cheap out and think that your developer of choice that spits out a new emulation like I shave, have at it. Cool sounds definitely can be made, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s not that much more money for something that’s noticeably better, if you have the ability to notice things.

There's another way to look at it. Let's say you're right, that some synths just don't sound as good as others, which I absolutely feel is true. Those "inferior" synths still have a character to them. Some, uniquely so. I have a ton of "bad sounding" synths that I still use because they have something I like about them. Korg Wavestation is a perfect example of this. In actuality, the samples in that thing sound horrible compared to what you can get today. But they have a unique character that you just know it's a Wavestation.

Are there synths that sound better? Sure, infinitely so. But if you want THAT sound, good lucky getting it from another synth. As a former Wavestation hardware owner, I can tell you right now, you won't get it unless you either buy a Wavestation or get the emulation that Korg makes.

As for Cherry Audio, I like the way their stuff sounds. Always have. In fact, I have just about everything they've made and not because I'm looking for cheap stuff. I own plenty of expensive synths such as Omnisphere, Falcon, Zebra 2 and so many others, including sample libraries costing thousands of dollars. In fact, I've spent close to $30,000 since 2014 on this stuff. And with all the top level sounding stuff that I own, I still reach for something like Scroo, which has such a unique sound and is actually free.

Point is, just because something is cheap doesn't mean it's not usable.

At least not for me.

Sure, I agree with all that, but with the caveat that in the end, we are talking about an emulation of an analog synthesizer. Of course that means a lot different things to different people, but I expect some characteristics to be there (no aliasing, a full spectrum if the original had a filter that opened up all the way without modulation. (some didn't, like the Prophet 5) So you could say the OG Wavestation (I had one too, the SR) is "better" than the plugin because the plugin uses full 16 bit waveforms, and the original hardware had them truncated to 12 bit, but in that case, I actually preferred the cleaner sound of the software. Same holds true for the Synclavier. I'm glad the Arturia version is cleaner than the original. It makes it a better synth, though a "worse" emulation.

Those things are digital, though, and that's not what we're talking about.

But, all that is moot, because I booted them both up and noticed there was an update for GX-80, so I applied it (nice you don't have to reload or anything). I didn't change a thing in my initialized patch, but the high frequencies were no longer muted. I checked the release notes, and nothing was mentioned, but there it was. (I'd been running the initial release version) Maybe there was an issue where something wasn't traveling to its full range? It actually sounded good, as I'd expect from a modern analog emulation.

I still have an issue with the resonance being very muted (not sure if that's true to the OG or not), but when you put it in GX filter mode, it sounds great, so that's fine with me. I also noticed oversampling, which is a nice addition and that also made a big difference, even though it was too taxing to use for performance, at least in the project I had it loaded in.

So I take it all back. I actually bought it. It's definitely different than CS-80 V, but now I'll say not worse, just different. I'd still suggest going to with CS-80 V because it has a superior modulation engine and effects, but if you're in a pinch for cash, the Cherry Audio one is great.

[kraster]

I think most people care to a point. If it's close (subjective term) that's good enough. I think the minority of the population is to the point where every envelope has to be 100% spot on and the osc waveform has to look identical to the hardware unit, not that that's even possible in some cases where the hardware is notorious for fluctuations in its sound from one instrument to another and even from one day to another.

I'm not that anal. But yes, I expect the "Gary Numan Cars Patch" on my Xils PolyM to sound close enough to where I'm saying to myself, "Yep, that's the sound."

The only emulations I've ever heard that were 100% identical were the Korg synths in the legacy collection such as the Wavestation, because it's literally the same software. I owned a Wavestation and can honestly say there is no difference in the sound.

But that's where it ends. Every other emulation I've ever purchased is not 100% identical to the hardware.

I don't care.

YMMV

Bravo here!! This. All the way. I enjoy more of life NOT chasing perfectionism.

There’s a tendency here with people who conflate the quest for quality with the quest for perfectionism. Of course there’s no such thing as a perfect emulation, especially when we’re talking about electronics made at a time when tolerances were not great and and definitely not improving over decades. That said, computers can process a lot more than they did a few decades ago. I was away from analog for a long time, but when I got back into it, I quickly saw what the fuss was about. A good analog synth has a character that can be really special. Similar in a way to how a good acoustic instruments feels and sounds. This was around 2005, and analog emulations weren’t that great, so I picked up a Studio Electronics ATC-1. (2 oscillator synth based on cloned Minimoog circuits) So good. If you couldn’t hear the difference between it and Minimoog V, you probably suffer from hearing damage.

But I still enjoyed plugins. Lot’s of great stuff. Zebra 2, Dimension Pro, etc. Then Diva came out. Not as good as the ATC, but it was a leap forward. There’s a reason we still talk about it, even though it’s still on version one. It really wasn’t until RePro that I thought, “ah, we’re so close now.” Perfect? No, but as good, just different. I’m fine with that, but if you think that RePro wasn’t a step up in quality from Prophet V, again, you probably suffer from hearing damage. But now we have Prophet 5 V. As good as RePro, but closer. I can get it to sound identical to my Prophet 6 (which of course isn’t quite a vintage Prophet 5). If it wasn’t for the extra filter and other features, I’d ditch the Prophet 6. It’s that good.

Anyway, if you want to cheap out and think that your developer of choice that spits out a new emulation like I shave, have at it. Cool sounds definitely can be made, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s not that much more money for something that’s noticeably better, if you have the ability to notice things.

There's another way to look at it. Let's say you're right, that some synths just don't sound as good as others, which I absolutely feel is true. Those "inferior" synths still have a character to them. Some, uniquely so. I have a ton of "bad sounding" synths that I still use because they have something I like about them. Korg Wavestation is a perfect example of this. In actuality, the samples in that thing sound horrible compared to what you can get today. But they have a unique character that you just know it's a Wavestation.

Are there synths that sound better? Sure, infinitely so. But if you want THAT sound, good lucky getting it from another synth. As a former Wavestation hardware owner, I can tell you right now, you won't get it unless you either buy a Wavestation or get the emulation that Korg makes.

As for Cherry Audio, I like the way their stuff sounds. Always have. In fact, I have just about everything they've made and not because I'm looking for cheap stuff. I own plenty of expensive synths such as Omnisphere, Falcon, Zebra 2 and so many others, including sample libraries costing thousands of dollars. In fact, I've spent close to $30,000 since 2014 on this stuff. And with all the top level sounding stuff that I own, I still reach for something like Scroo, which has such a unique sound and is actually free.

Point is, just because something is cheap doesn't mean it's not usable.

At least not for me.

The real test is whether people could do a blind test and tell them apart. I'd say very few if any could get it right every time which tells us that the differences on sound that people sweat over are really tiny in reality.

I think a lot of the mojo of a synth comes from the hands on nature of it so there will definitely be differences in the experience of playing an instrument. I have an OG Arp Odyssey from the 70s and it's incredibly snappy to play but sonically I'd struggle to tell the difference between the sound and the plugin versions.

I also find that there is a lot of Luddism with new gear. The one thing that pioneers of the early synths were is progressive. I'm sure they faced lots of "that's not a real instrument" style criticisms.

Plugins are a progression from that era. We think maintenance for something like the CS-80 is some quaint endeavour but it must have been a total PITA to have to adjust the thing constantly.

If you could have given Vangelis a near identical instrument on a laptop (with all the modern benefits of VSTs) he would have said, thank f**k.

[tapper mike]

https://youtu.be/WvLHm0HFwyk

[zzz00m]

A quick thought experiment...

Arturia V Collection 9 is $599 full retail for 33 instruments = $18.15 per instrument. Cheap?

Cherry Audio Synth Stack 3 is $399 full retail for 16 instruments = $24.94 per instrument. Expensive?

The biggest difference I see is the sales and marketing. Cherry will sell you an individual instrument for a typical $39 intro price, then give you full retail credit for each towards their synth stack bundle later.

Arturia wants to charge you a typical $149-$199 full retail for each individual instrument, with no cumulative credit towards the V Collection, other than an occasional crossgrade bundle "discount".

I have the V Collection 9, and am making good progress towards the Cherry synth stack. I see value in both, but Cherry has a definite edge in making singles "affordable.

[Tj Shredder]

If you could have given Vangelis a near identical instrument on a laptop (with all the modern benefits of VSTs) he would have said, thank f**k.

I‘d suspect the opposite. He would need an adequate controller though. He would simply get an Osmose and create new sounds for its internal synth, play a CS-80 V (as he would be consulted as expert anyway) and rock on… I have seen him to wiggle his CS-80 keys, though they are not capable of creating a real vibrato… Its about how you control the sound. That is more important than anything else… MPE controllers change the world, not more accurate emulations of old gear…