Arturia V Collection 9 - Official Thread

[EnGee]

Is this worth getting if I use Diva? Diva seems to be good enough for me for classic sounds, but would the v collection add anything for that you a think is a must?

Buchla and the digital emulations at least?

I should preface this to say that I'm a beginner at synths and don't know much about old school synths, but I like some of the sounds of them. So, I'm not sure what Buchla and the digital emulations is all about.

Well, Diva is a collection of analog oscillators, filter and envelopes from different famous vintage synths. Arturia collection is of whole analog and digital synths emulations (which means recreation with digital code?). Anyway, there are also pianos and special synths or instruments like Augmented Voices and Strings.

You can visit Arturia website and read the required info. You can also download manuals or watch videos in Arturia's YouTube channel.

If you are comfortable with Diva and you don't think you need any vintage analog sound then you might need just to learn Diva. However, if you want something completely different, you might complement it with another synth like Bazille, Pigments, Massive X or Serum for example. I have the first three and they are all awesome though, Pigments is the easiest to use while Massive X has a massive sound! IMO of course.

[_leras]

Is this worth getting if I use Diva? Diva seems to be good enough for me for classic sounds, but would the v collection add anything for that you a think is a must?

Buchla and the digital emulations at least?

The Buchla is pretty amazing. To my mind it's one of the more genuinely analog sounding vsts.

I haven't really got a clue how to program it very well yet.

I think a real one would be very inspiring.

[EnGee]

Is this worth getting if I use Diva? Diva seems to be good enough for me for classic sounds, but would the v collection add anything for that you a think is a must?

Buchla and the digital emulations at least?

The Buchla is pretty amazing. To my mind it's one of the more genuinely analog sounding vsts.

I haven't really got a clue how to program it very well yet.

I think a real one would be very inspiring.

I read a little then watched the fantastic videos by Arturia (by the guy that did the Hydrasynth, who is a very knowledgeable):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1CbVMcYUT0&t=4s

However, it is not easy at all and I'm struggling to produce any meaningful sound Anyway, it sounds amazing

[-FFX-]

@noiseboyuk, it seems to me that you did not get my points. So let me explain:

NOT BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE. If you are going to change how a synth sounds, how can it be backwards compatible? That said, the legacy versions and presets do still exist, you can access them in Analog Lab.

Let's take Jupiter 8. Arturia now already published FOUR not exchangable versions of it. It is a total waste of resources and leads to backwards compatibility issues. Instead, they should always have only one single version of each plugin type, and then switch the engine versions within it, e.g. like U-He and other vendors do, too. Then you would benefit with each engine version you want to use from a refreshed gui and system compatibility updates. It might be that the very last jup8-v4 or whatever is the most accurate one when it comes to comparison with the hardware, still I prefer the oldschool v2 engine, which might alias and sound a bit digital, yet I like exactly that.

But due the plugin container switching all the time, v1, v2, and v3 won't get any new updates now. Pretty sure in 5 years, Apple published once again a system update making those old versions inusable.

Also from developer standpoint AND project management standpoint, switching engines usually is the better way to handle these problems. Especially if the plugin summa summarum keeps the same automation parameters. Plus the enduser would have a huge benefit here, too. But now, the enduser only has disadvantages.

SLOWER. They are not slower. I know a few people say their load times have increased, but not the case here in W10 - definitely more snappy.

Well, it is ok that you claim these refurbished plugins now almost have normal loading times... Yet the loading is hell slow in comparison to the standard/average, due the loading of tons of pngs. Also the cpu usage does not seem normal at all, it is quite high.

If they wouldn't waste their time with rebuilding the plugins all the time, they had more time to program a better auto-scaling GUI system instead and more time for actual algorithimcal optimizations. But Arturia prefers to put out new versions each year, purely for marketing reasons only. If a synth vendor prioritizes marketing over quality, something seems to be wrong.

OVER AND OVER AGAIN. You mean they are improving their whole range ultimately? How terrible of them.

You took the "over and over again" out of the context. Over and over again a new abberation of the same synth! What are you supposed now to do with jup8-v1, jup8v2, jup8v3 plugins?

THE NEW THROW AWAY SYNTHS. If they'd left it at their version 1s, there might be an argument for that. The dedication to improving the output is the exact opposite.

Exactly what I wrote above. You will throw the old versions away, sooner or later, due lacking of maintainance. Which is pretty sad.

TAKE 50% OF YOUR HARD DRIVE. Total install size for the entire range is about 30gb. For 33 instruments. Can I suggest you invest in a new hard drive that is bigger than 60gb?

It was an "overstatement". Still recent Arturia plugins take tons of space (and loading time) due messy space/data/memory management.

QUESTIONABLE AUDITIVE IMPROVEMENTS. Look up forum posts from a decade ago, even less. People here thought Arturia were junk. Now they're one of the most beloved developers, in no small measure due to the increased authenticity.

Not everybody is hunting for the most accurate emulation of a maybe not perfect sounding hardware. Instead I like to use synths/engines which easily fit into the mix. So I like esp. the v2 versions, due the shiny aliasing and digital sound of it.

THE NEW THROW AWAY SYNTHS. If they'd left it at their version 1s, there might be an argument for that. The dedication to improving the output is the exact opposite.

Like I wrote above, you will throw away all the old versions in the end, because you can't use it anymore. Actually, it is even worse. You might have to keep the old versions to be able to load older projects. Because of this, you then won't pdate your system, because of those dead plugins.


As I see it, Arturia missed the opportunity to learn how to properly (re-)organize plugins. Instead the throw out new versions all the time, often with minimal audible differences. They might think that building a completely new version is more easy, but I think this is totally wrong. This also might indicate that Arturia made themselves slaves of misunderstood agile project management. In that perspective, you will completely loose the birds view onto your projects and instead prefer tiny manageable chunks of work, which do not know each other. In the end, this leads into a lower product quality.

[D-Fusion]

@noiseboyuk, it seems to me that you did not get my points. So let me explain:

NOT BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE. If you are going to change how a synth sounds, how can it be backwards compatible? That said, the legacy versions and presets do still exist, you can access them in Analog Lab.

Let's take Jupiter 8. Arturia now already published FOUR not exchangable versions of it. It is a total waste of resources and leads to backwards compatibility issues. Instead, they should always have only one single version of each plugin type, and then switch the engine versions within it, e.g. like U-He and other vendors do, too. Then you would benefit with each engine version you want to use from a refreshed gui and system compatibility updates. It might be that the very last jup8-v4 or whatever is the most accurate one when it comes to comparison with the hardware, still I prefer the oldschool v2 engine, which might alias and sound a bit digital, yet I like exactly that.

But due the plugin container switching all the time, v1, v2, and v3 won't get any new updates now. Pretty sure in 5 years, Apple published once again a system update making those old versions inusable.

Also from developer standpoint AND project management standpoint, switching engines usually are the better way to handle these problems. Especially if the plugin summa summarum keeps the same automation parameters. Plus the enduser would have a huge benefit here, too. But now, the enduser only has disadvantages.

SLOWER. They are not slower. I know a few people say their load times have increased, but not the case here in W10 - definitely more snappy.

Well, it is ok that you claim these refurbished plugins now almost have normal loading times... Yet the loading is hell slow in comparison to the standard/average, due the loading of tons of pngs. Also the cpu usage does not seem normal at all, it is quite high.

If they wouldn't waste their time with rebuilding the plugins all the time, they had more time to program a better auto-scaling GUI system instead and more time for actual algorithimcal optimizations. But Arturia prefers to put out new versions each year, purely for marketing reasons only. If a synth vendor prioritizes marketing over quality, something seems to be wrong.

OVER AND OVER AGAIN. You mean they are improving their whole range ultimately? How terrible of them.

You took the "over and over again" out of the context. Over and over again a new abberation of the same synth! What are you supposed now to do with jup8-v1, jup8v2, jup8v3 plugins?

THE NEW THROW AWAY SYNTHS. If they'd left it at their version 1s, there might be an argument for that. The dedication to improving the output is the exact opposite.

Exactly what I wrote above. You will throw the old versions away, sooner or later, due lacking of maintainance. Which is pretty sad.

TAKE 50% OF YOUR HARD DRIVE. Total install size for the entire range is about 30gb. For 33 instruments. Can I suggest you invest in a new hard drive that is bigger than 60gb?

It was an "overstatement". Still recent Arturia plugins take tons of space (and loading time) due messy space/data/memory management.

QUESTIONABLE AUDITIVE IMPROVEMENTS. Look up forum posts from a decade ago, even less. People here thought Arturia were junk. Now they're one of the most beloved developers, in no small measure due to the increased authenticity.

Not everybody is hunting for the most accurate emulation of a maybe not perfect sounding hardware. Instead I like to use synths/engines which easily fit into the mix. So I like esp. the v2 versions, due the shiny aliasing and digital sound of it.

THE NEW THROW AWAY SYNTHS. If they'd left it at their version 1s, there might be an argument for that. The dedication to improving the output is the exact opposite.

Like I wrote above, you will throw away all the old versions in the end, because you can't use it anymore. Actually, it is even worse. You might have to keep the old versions to be able to load older projects. Because of this, you then won't pdate your system, because of those dead plugins.


As I see it, Arturia missed the opportunity to learn how to properly (re-)organize plugins. Instead the throw out new versions all the time, often with minimal audible differences. They might think that building a completely new version is more easy, but I think this is totally wrong. This also might indicate that Arturia made themselves slaves of misunderstood agile project management. In that perspective, you will completely loose the birds view onto your projects and instead prefer tiny manageable chunks of work, which do not know each other. In the end, this leads into a lower product quality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcXMhwF ... l=MejaVEVO

[PAK]

I do like the obxa vst, but I'm unsure how good the sound compares to other obxa vsts and the real thing.

That depends on how many hairs you want to split. EG Right now there's debate over the new hardware Oberheim OB-X8 and how well it copies the old sound. A big part of the Oberheim's sound is voice variance. Apparently some people think this is possible to properly represent with a single knob..

If you can spot differences, in hardware attempts, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the same is true of software. But, luckily, it's minus the associated large 4 figure cash sum. Software emulations might not fully copy everything, but this doesn't stop them getting close (to the point where they're going to be better than some hardware reissue attempts - this already happened with the Roland Juno chorus)

Beyond that they all do different things. Synapse's OBXA attempt gives a lot of voice variance options, though it can't do some variance stuff the simpler OP-X Pro II can. Arturia's attempt is criminally lacking in this area, but partly saved by the advanced options. However, since few people seem to use the advanced options, most are unaware of its full sound shaping capabilities. I prefer it to Synapse btw. Diva can represent well too, but (outside of pitch) its single dedicated voice variance setting isn't ideal, though you can try modifier tricks to maybe make it seem like there's more. It'd benefit from extra distortion / saturation options, for certain vintage sounds in this area, too. There's also Oberhausen and GForce O-BE. I haven't spent much time with either, but both sound good and I don't know if they're still giving Oberhausen away for free - can't argue much for that price

Long way of saying to get OP-XA to distinguish itself (BTW I hope you cleared that name with Sonic Projects, Arturia, otherwise that's rather poor form.. ) it helps to figure out the advanced settings. For the other instruments I'd say Arturia's improvements mean they're having an easier time distinguishing themselves than might've been true for earlier versions. How much any of it matters is personal taste, so the only effective answer is to try the demos..

[_leras]

I read a little then watched the fantastic videos by Arturia (by the guy that did the Hydrasynth, who is a very knowledgeable):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1CbVMcYUT0&t=4s

However, it is not easy at all and I'm struggling to produce any meaningful sound Anyway, it sounds amazing

Yes, exactly this.

I guess it's this west coast synthesis thing and produces totally different results. I think, less predictable.

But yes it sounds great and can conjure up some magical sounds. If they fit, it can be pretty Epic!

I believe Vitalic uses one, though I haven't tried to pick out exactly which sounds come from this. (Try not to over analyse, or over listen to, music that I really like)

[Vortifex]

Edited

[gentleclockdivider]

Yes it’s called side env chain input , but the block diagram above clearly shows it’s a vca gain block and that’s exactly what it is .

Except that it isn't, is it?
It's an "EG Sidechain" input.
It seems to modulate the voltage generated by the EG, as evident in your tests.
I wish it were a CV input to the VCA, but it isn't.

There is a cv input to the vca , it's called the sidechain input , all you have to do is turn up the amplifier modulation knob above eg1.
Example: - route output lfo to the sidechain input and turn up the amp.mod.knob above eg 1
Result will be amp.modulation .
But yes , eg 2 still multiplies this signal , iow it will decay to zero when sustain of eg2 is zero
When you do this on the ms20 it will not , eg 2 will fade to zero but the amp modulation will still go on
Bottom line , you can't replicate ms20 patches when using this feature

[EnGee]

I guess it's this west coast synthesis thing and produces totally different results. I think, less predictable.

But yes it sounds great and can conjure up some magical sounds. If they fit, it can be pretty Epic!

I believe Vitalic uses one, though I haven't tried to pick out exactly which sounds come from this. (Try not to over analyse, or over listen to, music that I really like)

This is a good use case (Vitalic)! It suits his music very well

[kevingham]

Thanks for the detailed response. I've briefly tried some of the arturia vsts, but haven't really dug deep enough to know how the vsts are. I do like the obxa vst, but I'm unsure how good the sound compares to other obxa vsts and the real thing. I do like Diva though because it has a fat sound and it has the most analog sound out of all vst's I've heard (though I could be biased lol).

If you want an introduction to the Arturia V Collection a good place to start is with Analog Lab, which basically acts like a big preset browser and preview player for all of the individual synths. They have a cut down "Lite/Intro" version which let's you preview several hundred presets. It gives you a nice idea of what the full collection can do. I have a spare licence for Lite/Intro you can have, if you want it just PM me. You can upgrade to full Analog Lab using that key licence, or upgrade to the full V Collection too.

[arcadia1984]

Any opinions on how the new Prophet stacks against Repro?

I've got a hardware Prophet-10 (Rev4), RePro, and the new Arturia. It's still early days but I'll add my thoughts...

RePro and the Rev. 4 can get pretty damn close, except RePro-5 can't get quite as sloppy as the hardware. More "trimmers" for envelope, filter, PWM slop, would probably make it a perfect clone of the Rev. 3 mode in the hardware.

Today I spent more time comparing the Arturia version against the hardware so I'll focus on that versus RePro-5. The OSC's sound spot on in solo. The filter resonance is very different than the hardware running the Rev. 1/2 filter mode. On the Arturia, the resonance is way more pronounced (loud) and chunky (wider). It also oscillates in a more pronounced way. So the two sound very different there. You may even prefer the Arturia. The Arturia's tuning is way tighter by default, so go ahead and throw that pitch trimmer a hair above noon - that's around where the hardware Rev 4 sounds like at it's tightest. But when you're doing pads and brass sounds on the hardware, regardless of which Rev you're using, it sounds almost like there's still some extra chorusing or modulation happening. This is something you can approximate by messing with the pitch trimmers again, but neither RePro or Arturia quite do this the same way. If the hardware sounds magical, that's why. No chorus pedal needed (unless you want more!). The Envelope Depth on the Arturia is much deeper than the Rev4, which I actually prefer; around 7.5 on the Arturia is in the ballpark of the max on the hardware. Another area where I hear a large difference is when using the Polymod section to do FM on OSC A or the filter from OSC B. The hardware sounds less harsh (less going on in the high frequencies) and more controlled, whereas the Arturia sounds more aggressive. Again, some might prefer this but it's definitely not sounding like the hardware there. I might even be hearing some aliasing on the Arturia there.

Overall, for most patches, I'm sure I could dial them in with enough to get them pretty close. This is definitely a nice upgrade over the prior version. If I didn't have RePro-5 already, this would definitely cut into the gas for it. RePro is definitely close to the hardware in Rev 3 mode and has a better sounding FX compliment IMO.

Things I wish the Arturia version had that the hardware does:

1. Amp Level as a modulation destination
2. Polyphonic Unison
3. Round Robin voice allocation
4. 10 voices (seems conspicuously absent that it goes from 8 to 12 voices with no 10)

Thank you so much for the indepth reply, I had some hands on time with the Arturia Prophet and it's nice, maybe not quite as nice as Repro in some aspects, but it is a hair lighter on my CPU so I'll just roll with that for when I'm after some Prophet sounds. Always good to hear feedback from someone with actual hands on time with the real deal to sort of gauge where things sit.

[Cuauhtli]

Does that side chain input on the ms-20 (Arturia's version) work at all? The only thing I got it to respond to was the sequencer (set to pitch and also set to CV) and the result was not as expected.

[Stefken]

Does that side chain input on the ms-20 (Arturia's version) work at all? The only thing I got it to respond to was the sequencer (set to pitch and also set to CV) and the result was not as expected.

This might help ( text + video).
https://support.arturia.com/hc/en-us/ar ... -Sidechain

[machinesworking]

I should preface this to say that I'm a beginner at synths and don't know much about old school synths, but I like some of the sounds of them. So, I'm not sure what Buchla and the digital emulations is all about.

I would say stick with Diva for a while, it's arguably more complex than most Arturiua synths, and will give you a solid foundation on which to build when or if you want to get into more synths etc.

Arturia is pretty cool too, but 33 instruments all at once when you're figuring this stuff out is a bit overwhelming.