software emulations of vintage synths

EMS Synthi 100

I'd honestly be happiest with just a software version of the modular g2.

  On 6/30/2011 at 4:50 PM, TechDiff said:

  On 6/29/2011 at 10:13 PM, Awepittance said:

my dream emulations (some of the less vintage ones would be amazing)

 

Arp2500

 

 

Definately this, kinda funny just how many 2600 emulations there ate, apparently no one has tried this though..

 

What I would LOVE would be some type of modular environment, similar to reaktor or whatever, with accurate emulations of classic synth modules. Not just one particular manufacturer, but many different ones, all available to drop into a virtual case and patch, without the worries of format etc..

didn't the Tassman do this to some extent?

besides the 2500 sounds like a tarted up Odyssey

tassman has not done this properly. Funny you mention this concept Techdiff i was talking to Xanopticon/Ryan at a show a couple of months back and we were musing on the idea that in a few years some money hungry software company like Aturia (might be them eventually) will make a Guitar rig style program with a 'make your own modular synth' type of interface where you have a giant library of all the ancient and newer vintage synthesizer modules. Like you have a list of buchla modules for the new series and old, list of every serge module, moog modular, roland modular, etc. IT can be setup with a similar gui to Reason and the Aturia stuff where you just fill an empty synth cabinet with custom modules. It would have to be done correctly though but i feel we are really close. Reaktor itself has a wonderful EMS synth emulation.

  On 6/26/2011 at 9:23 PM, Braintree said:

NI's FM8 can emulate the DX line perfectly. I love that softsynth so much.

the DX line yes, but no software synth reached the FS1R yet with its inclusion of formant synthesis. This was yamaha's last and most powerful manufactured fm synth, backwards compatible with all previous DX synths

I don't really care about the accuracy of an emulation, but if they can translate some nice aspects and add some computery goodness to it then I'm all for it..

  On 7/3/2011 at 10:22 AM, Awepittance said:

tassman has not done this properly. Funny you mention this concept Techdiff i was talking to Xanopticon/Ryan at a show a couple of months back and we were musing on the idea that in a few years some money hungry software company like Aturia (might be them eventually) will make a Guitar rig style program with a 'make your own modular synth' type of interface where you have a giant library of all the ancient and newer vintage synthesizer modules. Like you have a list of buchla modules for the new series and old, list of every serge module, moog modular, roland modular, etc. IT can be setup with a similar gui to Reason and the Aturia stuff where you just fill an empty synth cabinet with custom modules. It would have to be done correctly though but i feel we are really close. Reaktor itself has a wonderful EMS synth emulation.

 

Yeah I know the ems emulation you mean, and it does sound brilliant! I'm sure that some campanies have considered this idea before, I think it's probably too obvious to have not been considered. however I expect the issues arise when you have to start thinking about liscencing etc. I don't know the ins and outs of it, but I'd imagine that any software company has to seek permission from the hardware company that they are hoping to emulate. Wouldn't be too bad if it was just one company. But when you factor in just how many manufacturers you'd have to ask in order to make such a program worth while, it would be a legal nightmare!

Also, for a company like Roland, i don't imagine they would have many issues with being emulated, but for small boutique module manufacturers (the ones I'd most like to see emulated) I think they'd be really hesitant to get envolved. For starters I suppose many of them would have a pretty dismissive opinion of software, not to mention how such a programme could affect their profits. For a small company it could be financially very damaging.

I suppose it could all be done with non copyright infringing names, moob filters and hervestmong oscillators or whatever, but I dunno, wouldn't be quite the same :(

anyways, an interface like guitar rig is exactl what I had in mind as well, somewhere between that and the flash modular designers you see online. Similar things could be possible in Reaktor, but the interface doesn't really lend itself to patching. Spoils the illusion if you're having to switch between panel and structure view all the time.

Wish I had the programming skills to do it myself... I honestly think that such a programme would be both amazing and commercially viable. /dreams....

  On 7/3/2011 at 10:22 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 6/26/2011 at 9:23 PM, Braintree said:

NI's FM8 can emulate the DX line perfectly. I love that softsynth so much.

 

the DX line yes, but no software synth reached the FS1R yet with its inclusion of formant synthesis. This was yamaha's last and most powerful manufactured fm synth, backwards compatible with all previous DX synths

I'd agree. As much as I enjoy FM8, it really isn't a patch on the FS1r. I'd love to see a proper software emulation of it - especially if you could dump your patches onto the hardware device if you own one - something that Korg should do their Wavestation softsynth.

What would be especially smart would be if Yamaha did a "legacy" edition of some of their synths. Korg have obviously done theirs and I don't think Roland is short of emulations. But there are a number of synths that Yamaha have created through the years that have never been emulated.

I doubt that would happen as would be the case for most of the cooler options discussed in this thread (K5000 especially) because I think the fashion in the mainstream softsynth world remains strictly obsessed on analogue emulations or creating more wobbles. It just seems a shame that the big players that could really throw development cycles at this have followed the mainstream hardware manufacturers.

D16's Phoscyon is pretty killer.

my favorite

  On 7/3/2011 at 10:22 AM, Awepittance said:

Like you have a list of buchla modules for the new series and old, list of every serge module, moog modular, roland modular, etc.

How faithful do you want it to be?

It's difficult to capture the non-linearities of a set signal path as found in a stand-alone synth or EFX processor. Check out the methodology of one of the leaders in analog emulation.

This becomes a huge problem if you introduce the ability to mix and match modules. Not only must you model each module, but in fact the end result of a chain of modules.

The word on the street is that plugs such as the UAD compressors and EQs sound very convincing until pushed to the limits. These are very straightforward systems compared to a modular synthesizer.

It depends on how "close" is close enough for you.

on the other hand, it all gets stuffed down to a 128kbit soundcloud stream, and most people wouldn't know the difference even if you gave them a FLAC. i think the feel/mindset of using a physical piece of gear is really the hard thing to emulate!

  On 7/12/2011 at 6:55 PM, hahathhat said:

on the other hand, it all gets stuffed down to a 128kbit soundcloud stream, and most people wouldn't know the difference even if you gave them a FLAC. i think the feel/mindset of using a physical piece of gear is really the hard thing to emulate!

Also that :)

  On 7/12/2011 at 6:42 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 7/3/2011 at 10:22 AM, Awepittance said:

Like you have a list of buchla modules for the new series and old, list of every serge module, moog modular, roland modular, etc.

 

 

How faithful do you want it to be?

 

 

It's difficult to capture the non-linearities of a set signal path as found in a stand-alone synth or EFX processor. Check out the methodology of one of the leaders in analog emulation.

 

This becomes a huge problem if you introduce the ability to mix and match modules. Not only must you model each module, but in fact the end result of a chain of modules.

 

The word on the street is that plugs such as the UAD compressors and EQs sound very convincing until pushed to the limits. These are very straightforward systems compared to a modular synthesizer.

 

It depends on how "close" is close enough for you.

i'm much more concerned about just recreating the concepts from these old modulars rather than a 100% accurate analog emulation of them. If i wanted to get 100% accurate recreation of a Serge modular, id get a serge modular

  On 7/4/2011 at 12:37 AM, jeyemusik said:

 

I doubt that would happen as would be the case for most of the cooler options discussed in this thread (K5000 especially) because I think the fashion in the mainstream softsynth world remains strictly obsessed on analogue emulations or creating more wobbles. It just seems a shame that the big players that could really throw development cycles at this have followed the mainstream hardware manufacturers.

it is really a huge shame, echoed by Mike Dred in a new interview he did. People are obsessed with recreating the sounds of the past, and i think it stems from a fear of the unknown. People don't focus on making crazyily powerful additive or physical modelling synths because a large percentage of electronic musicians worship a monophonic subtractive synth (whos name will go unmentioned) that makes cool squelches that we've heard thousands of times.

  On 7/13/2011 at 9:10 PM, Awepittance said:

 

it is really a huge shame, echoed by Mike Dred in a new interview he did. People are obsessed with recreating the sounds of the past, and i think it stems from a fear of the unknown. People don't focus on making crazyily powerful additive or physical modelling synths because a large percentage of electronic musicians worship a monophonic subtractive synth (whos name will go unmentioned) that makes cool squelches that we've heard thousands of times.

I read that interview and, if I had to paraphrase it, it goes like this: "How dare companies make money by recreating classic synthesizers and compressors and EQs that normal people cannot afford? Analog music is a rich boys club and should remain as such! The music industry is suffering because (some uninvented synth) doesn't exist because companies are so busy refining emulations. Oh, and I just went and made another album of acid..."

What's wrong with being obsessed with recreating sounds from the past? The characteristics of the classics are (to many) extremely pleasing and have stood the test of time. Furthermore, it's human nature to prefer that with which we are familiar: throwing some Roland Dimension D chorus or Fairchild on source material imparts something known on something novel with typically favorable outcome.

Clearly it's what consumers demand because the companies involved are thriving (look at Waves and Universal Audio, two of the leaders in analog emulation). Where is this immense call for these powerful uber synths of tomorrow? Richard Devine is, in my opinion, one of the masters of otherworldly sounds and he is doing just fine with the current tools available...

Blaming it on fear of the unknown is silly, and remember that just because you've heard something a million times doesn't mean it isn't good.

  On 7/13/2011 at 9:08 PM, Awepittance said:

 

i'm much more concerned about just recreating the concepts from these old modulars rather than a 100% accurate analog emulation of them. If i wanted to get 100% accurate recreation of a Serge modular, id get a serge modular

The concepts aren't mind-bending. Sit down with Reaktor and I'm sure you could rig up a Serge in a couple of days, conceptually.

I don't think the reason that people are drawn to old technology has anything to do with a lack of innovation. To me, it's exactly the opposite. Now that everyone is on computers, stuck inside a DAW environment using the same cracked plugins that everyone has, things start to sound boring and samey. It's not that there isn't plenty of good music being produced in the box, but I feel like it all has a certain sheen and rigidity to it that is characteristic of software in a computer environment. When you listen to old analog synths, and even old digital technology, that stuff has a certain character that you just can't get in the box (at this point in time at least). When you put a bunch of those rich elements together, it can create something fresh sounding, in a way that you can't on a computer. It's using a bunch of old, familiar pieces, to create something new.

The companies making analog emulations are catering to this desire, although, IMO their products usually fall a little short of that goal of creating a real living instrument with character. On the other hand, there is plenty of innovative technology if you want it. I think you guys are just bitter, grumpy, curmudgeons. Even dubstep, love it or hate it, is a product of modern technology and a lot of it wouldn't even be possible without softsynths and DAW automation. And as much as people hate autotune, it's also a good example of people using new technology in creative ways (then everyone jumped on the bandwagon). The point is, there are people using new technology in innovative ways, but I know you will find a reason to hate it and bitch about it regardless.

  On 7/14/2011 at 1:08 AM, MrSparkle666 said:

 

On the other hand, there is plenty of innovative technology if you want it. I think you guys are just bitter, grumpy, curmudgeons. Even dubstep, love it or hate it, is a product of modern technology and a lot of it wouldn't even be possible without softsynths and DAW automation. And as much as people hate autotune, it's also a good example of people using new technology in creative ways (then everyone jumped on the bandwagon). The point is, there are people using new technology in innovative ways, but I know you will find a reason to hate it and bitch about it regardless.

there are always people by definition 'using technology in innovative ways' we're talking about what the prevailing mindset is in the software world. All one has to do is open up an issue of Sound on Sound and Electronic Musician to know that you don't have to be a 'bitter old man' to get a little sick and tired of analog emulation retro fetishism. It's funny to me consistently though that the people who defend things like this always have to characterize people who are critical of it as having some kind of mental deficiency. I can play the same card and point out that it shows almost a sense of desperate insecurity to exclaim that things like dubstep and autotune are notable technology innovations in audio.

  On 7/14/2011 at 1:08 AM, MrSparkle666 said:

I don't think the reason that people are drawn to old technology has anything to do with a lack of innovation. To me, it's exactly the opposite. Now that everyone is on computers, stuck inside a DAW environment using the same cracked plugins that everyone has, things start to sound boring and samey. It's not that there isn't plenty of good music being produced in the box, but I feel like it all has a certain sheen and rigidity to it that is characteristic of software in a computer environment. When you listen to old analog synths, and even old digital technology, that stuff has a certain character that you just can't get in the box (at this point in time at least). When you put a bunch of those rich elements together, it can create something fresh sounding, in a way that you can't on a computer. It's using a bunch of old, familiar pieces, to create something new.

you actually have somewhat of a point... if that's what i was referring to as analog fetishim. What you are referring to is the old school workflow that went into making music previous to DAW computers, i am absolutely not referring to that at all. I'm referring to software companies that want to emulate every single feitshized subtractive synth under the sun and incorporate it into a modern DAW workflow, before actually coming up with an interesting plugin. To me it's putting the cart before the horse. IF you don't agree with that, i can accept that. It's just so bizarre to characterize this opinion the way you have. It's almost as useless in a discussion as calling someone a 'hater'

  On 7/13/2011 at 10:06 PM, acidphakist said:

 

Clearly it's what consumers demand because the companies involved are thriving (look at Waves and Universal Audio, two of the leaders in analog emulation). Where is this immense call for these powerful uber synths of tomorrow? Richard Devine is, in my opinion, one of the masters of otherworldly sounds and he is doing just fine with the current tools available...

i didn't say i was a big fan of Mike's music, but what he says in the interview still stands true. I honestly don't see how anyone could not agree with what he says. Why would anyone in their right mind want less aural exploration being done on behalf of the human race? To me it's more exciting than space travel personally. IF DSP being pushed to it's limits does not give you a mini erection, i could understand not having a skin in this 'game' so to speak.

but to directly address what you say here: so because capitalism creates products based on the most vocal demands of it's customers, should we also accept the state of generic mainstream media because they clearly put up whatever news they think will sell best (in their mind consumers demand 24/7 coverage of Casey Anthony, so thats what they get). Making a convincing argument for why the mainstream media is actually doing a disservice to the public is not hard, and while i agree that software companies and their motivations are much more nuanced than what i just described, i don't think it's a very good argument to say they must be doing things right because that's what the prevailing customer demand is.

With regards to your comment about dsp being pushed to its limits, that's a matter of taste. I prefer the sound pallette of eod and Sint over that of Autechre and devine. I personally love music made with some vintage classics and don't mind if they are emulations. Sometimes I can't even tell. Since you agree innovative music can be made with old technology, then it's hard to argue innovation is stifled.

The counter situation to companies following capitalism is dire: the companies don't focus on what's commercially viable (i.e. what the majority of consumers are asking for) and, most likely, go under.

Unlike the news telling you what's news, high end consumers typically know what they want. I don't think you can argue that universal audio has manufactured desire for analog emulations. Remember when rebirth came out? The 303, 808 and 909 made it popular, not the other way around.

I read that you've purchased an arp 2600. They are very expensive, so I assume you really desire that sound in your studio. Let's say you couldn't afford the real deal: would you want an affordable software emulation? Furthermore, would you want that emulation to be nearly indistinguishable from the real deal?

I had the pleasure of using a manley massive passive for several months. I fell in love and am grateful universal audio put resources towards emulating it. Silky, professional grade eq is now within my reach.

I understand that mike works as a sound designer. I take his comments in that interview as coming from that side and not the raw acid producer. I expect the raw acid producer would applaud emulations indistinguishable from the originals, especially as the vintage prices rocket and the machines grow extinct. If the complaint is that they aren't close enough, doesn't that justify working to close the gap? What happens when the last 808 stops working? Do perfect emulations seem wasteful then?

For what it's worth, I figured I'd chip on on this discussion as well.

I'm pretty partial to both vintage analogue equipment as well as modern innovative software, and I think the appeal for me is for the same reson with both things. something such as an ARP 2600 or a buchla system even is not only an awesome sound source but also an impressive feat of engineering. They are beautifully made machines and represent an incredible ammount of knowledge, passion, and dedication.

similarly, something modern such as Reaktor, max/msp, Alchemy etc posses the same characteristics. Incredibly well conceived, designed, and built pieces of technology. The idea as to whether they are software or hardware is of no consequence.

I guess a similar comparison could be found in architecture. I'm always bowled over when I see huge old buildings like Wells Cathedral, York Minster, Salisbury Cathedral and so forth. at the time they where built they represented mammoth developments of technology, an enormous undertaking to build, and cutting edge design. exactly the same as can be said for much more modern developments. Just because something is old, does not mean that you cannot appreciate quite how important it was for it's time.

This probably explains why I don't get overly excited by a lot of the 'classics' like 303s, 101s and so forth. they're not anything particularly special in terms of design or function and don't represent any significant development in technology. They are not especially unique in any way.

going back to the arp 2600 example. The original hardware synth was quite an impressive thing for it's time. Incredibly versatile yet relatively easy to use, a great sound and very flexible. The result of a careful and well thought out design process which intended to produce something new and different. The various emulations you see about do maintain some of the same attributes, but don't really represent the same forward thinking attitude as the original did.

On the other hand, something like the buchla modulars are again fantastically well designed and built pieces of equipment, amazing sound quality and a different approach to modular synthesis. The closest software emulation is probably Aalto, and it does a pretty good job. a brilliant engine, very well thought out design and implementation, and a lot of new ideas. Not only does it emulate the function, but it continues the tradition. It is "in the spirit of" if that makes sense.....

The trouble with all of this is, to be blunt, fashion. what is cool right now. the correlation between what trends are happening in popular music and what is being developed by software companies are pretty plain to see.

In one camp you have the resurgence of retro stylings. 80s style synth stabs, arpeggio sequencing and looping bass lines. All things that have a root in a time when analogue synths where the only way to make music, hence many developers putting their efforts into recreating such instruments.

Another camp would probably be the dubstep/brostep baseline crowd. The main focus is on making "sick" bass patches and "awesome" wobbulz!!! It's pretty funny to see the evolution in instrument design in attempt to completely cater for this aspect of production. Going from stuff like Z3ta a few years back, through albino, Rob Papens Sub Boom Bass, NI Razor etc. while I don't mean to criticise any of these instruments, they are as versatile as anything else, I can't help but feel that they they where created with a particular niche in mind.

the brilliant irony of the whole situation is that most popular trends in electronic music did not come directly from the instruments used, but from the people using them. It's not as though acid appeared because Roland purposefully made a synth to make THAT bass sound. wobble wobble dubstep did not appear because a soft synth company intentionally made an instrument perfectly suited to creating those timbres.

I genuinely think that software developers trying to keep up with trends is doing nothing worth while what so ever. and I guess this goes back to my original point. The classics, like the Arp, like moog modulars, like buchla, like reaktor, Absynth and so on, are not designed with a desired final output in mind, but rather the absence of one. instruments that provided as much creative potential as possible, tools to enable musicians to create whatever sounds they wanted. This is something that does not fade over time. A well featured modular synth still provides as much of a sonic playground now as it did 30 years ago. Reaktor is just as capable of making any sound imaginable as it always has been.

Deary deary me, I should stop going off on tangents. I think I might have made my point somewhere in the incoherent waffling above. ah well, sorry for the undiluted brain fart again!

Is it just me, or did this entire thread get tl;dr?

hi guys. i like both hardware and software, but i like writing songs more !