Korg Forums

Morshu wrote:no VA synths contain bits and bytes of data

VST synths are bits and bytes, nothing else.

on a second reading, I'm not sure if he means:

Morshu wrote:no, VA synths contain bits and bytes of data

VST synths are bits and bytes, nothing else.

which means something quite different with the comma there!

X-Trade, I'm not sure "I just prefer hardware" really is his point - he actually seems to be saying there's something inherently and objectively better about hardware, not just expressing a personal preference

Pastor-of-Muppets wrote:

Morshu wrote:no VA synths contain bits and bytes of data

VST synths are bits and bytes, nothing else.

on a second reading, I'm not sure if he means:

Morshu wrote:no, VA synths contain bits and bytes of data

VST synths are bits and bytes, nothing else.

I'm pretty sure this is what he meant. This is what I based my post upon.

Pastor-of-Muppets wrote:X-Trade, I'm not sure "I just prefer hardware" really is his point - he actually seems to be saying there's something inherently and objectively better about hardware, not just expressing a personal preference

It seems to be quite common these days to confuse opinion and preference with 'fact' and 'necessity'...
No offence to anyone intended.
Taking into account all of the points that Morshu has maid - and ignoring his summary, conclusive, and repeated points, and sometimes confusing structure, it appears that he 'fiercely prefers' hardware to software.

For someone who prefers hardware controls, the R3 is a rather poor choice compared to the Radias and other synths that have lots more hardware controls for editing. I like my R3, but one of the primary reasons why I bought it was because I prefer editing using the software. The R3 would be even better with a VST editor, like the X-50/MicroX have.

i agree with you on that, however so far i've found the r3 to be preferrable to the original microkorg(aside from when it comes to certain vintage sounds that i can't get to sound right out of the R3, such as that jarre lazer harp and the bass from popcorn, oh and of course my microkorgs piano fits better in a mix than the one on the r3 and i've never understood why that is either)

but yea i agree with x-trade

i personally thought maschine was cool, but i also thought it was crap at the same time. Its like you need a computer for it, but its cool... they need to make something like the novation launchpad but more dedicated to hardware synths and workstations.

I'm glad someone finally understands what i mean.

It should be the definitive reason to get hardware more often than software.

and as for arturia, arturia just puts plugin forms of all oldschool vintage instruments in their synths, then they allow you to use all of those togethor as one instrument or as multiple sequences, but what arturia doesnt understand, is that people f-ing hate them, and that arturia sounds very very plastic compared to the real synths themselves. just look at the ratings that arturia synths and midi controllers get, they get really bad ratings (compared the the real thing at least). the problem with arturia is that they give you more power than you could want to screw with. And they dont have something that makes them have style, they dont have the "ARTURIA" sound like a MOOG has a MOOG SOUND. They throw so much crap at you that you dont know where to start, and when they try to copy the vintage synths sounds, they hardly sound anything like the real thing, they sound like an access virus trying to sound like a cs-80, it doesn't quite work, and usually doesnt get that close. and that is probably the reason why everyone hates arturia vsts and synths.

so yea, dont use arturia it is horrible.

but i'll give it to them; it made for a interesting idea, hopefully people like Native instruments will try to do something like them, but then again, they will probably fail too(although omnisphere might be awesome in synth form(if it was analog).

...?
You know those spam mails that you get, that seem to be full of regular English but when reading it you can't make sense of it?

Yeah.

[/list]

For the record, I really want an Origin. It's the only modular digital hardware synth on the market that you don't have to program with a computer (compared to for example the Nord Modular).

Either that or I get a bigger touchscreen and go put Reaktor on my custom built rig.

i personally think the origin is horrible, but the fact its so full of features makes me expect that the next arturia might be awesome. wait- be patient better things will come from arturia(hopefully)

"and as for arturia, arturia just puts plugin forms of all oldschool vintage instruments in their synths, then they allow you to use all of those togethor as one instrument or as multiple sequences"

This is exactly what the Origin is marketed as and exactly what you said didn't exist with your previous statement, "The day your VSTs can play themselves and have minds of their own tell me". Unlike most VST and VA instruments, Arturia actually has subtle inconsistencies operating within the oscillators, filters, envelopes, etc. to make them sound very lively. The Korg R3's "Analog Tune" is a total joke compared to what Arturia does because it only drifts the pitch of the entire timbre, not the individual oscillators.

"but what arturia doesnt understand, is that people f-ing hate them, and that arturia sounds very very plastic compared to the real synths themselves."

The contents of the Origin started out as VST instruments. If people truly "f-ing hated" them in their VST forms, Arturia would never have bothered making the Origin. And if the Origin was so terrible, why would they have even made a follow-up keyboard version?

"just look at the ratings that arturia synths and midi controllers get, they get really bad ratings (compared the the real thing at least)."

Compared to the real thing... yes, people are going to knock them because there's a lot of analog purists out there who will slam anything digital trying to replicate analog. Like xmlguy pointed out earlier, these are the kind of people who are completely ignorant as to what the word "virtual" means.

"the problem with arturia is that they give you more power than you could want to screw with."

And this is a bad thing?

"And they dont have something that makes them have style, they dont have the "ARTURIA" sound like a MOOG has a MOOG SOUND."

They don't have an "ARTURIA" sound because they specialize in virtual emulations of other instruments. Again, you're showing your ignorance here.

"They throw so much crap at you that you dont know where to start,"

Keyword here: you. Not us, but you.

"and when they try to copy the vintage synths sounds, they hardly sound anything like the real thing, they sound like an access virus trying to sound like a cs-80, it doesn't quite work, and usually doesnt get that close. and that is probably the reason why everyone hates arturia vsts and synths."

So now you're saying the Access Virus is terrible at analog emulation as well? Gary Numan would beg to differ:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w151nzUhDK4

"so yea, dont use arturia it is horrible."

You still haven't given any rational proof as to why Arturia is horrible. All you've proven here is that you don't have the knowledge to validate even a fraction of what you're rambling about.

Morshu wrote:they dont have something that makes them have style, they dont have the "ARTURIA" sound like a MOOG has a MOOG SOUND.

I'd say Arturia's "sound" is sort of a melding of synthesis types. Their Prophet VS for instance has a whole vector synthesis module added and combined with their Pro 5 emulation. Their Moog Modular emulation has all sorts of modules that were never available on an actual Moog Modular etc. These extra add-ons to classic synths are what create Arturia's exclusive sound.
In fact the combining of different synthesis types with classic emulation reminds me of the motto behind another synthesizer.
"Past, present, and future come together in one thrilling instrument that is every synthesist’s dream." <-- Korg in regards to the RADIAS. Do you know what MMT stands for? Or is it that you've never used an Arturia plug-in?

Morshu wrote:and when they try to copy the vintage synths sounds, they hardly sound anything like the real thing.

Bob Moog himself aided in the development of the Arturia Moog Modular V and fully endorsed it as an accurate representation of the real thing.

"Arturia, in partnership with Bob Moog, has made a faithful reproduction of one of the most famous series of synthesizers: Moog Modular." -Arturia

"VST software manufacturer Arturia has released Moog Modular V, a PC software version of the Moog modular system. It is currently the only software version of the instrument, and the first of Arturia's two Moog simulations to be approved by Moog himself." -Moog Modular Wiki

Guys, you are beating a dead horse here with Morshu. He has his prefference no matter how ridiculous it is and it will not change his mind on the subject, even if he knows not of what he speaks. I know some are just trying to educate him but now it just a pointless arguement.

Just wanted to add I started a thread awhile ago about this.

http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/ ... hp?t=65403

maybe we can move the comments there, away from the R3/Radias section.

DaniH wrote:Guys, you are beating a dead horse here with Morshu. He has his prefference no matter how ridiculous it is and it will not change his mind on the subject, even if he knows not of what he speaks. I know some are just trying to educate him but now it just a pointless arguement.

The thing is, he's not really stating a preference, that entire paragraph about Arturia was filled with a bunch of irrational statements written as if it were fact. This is a forum that many people come to for help and information. If someone is filling the forum with blatantly wrong information and slander, it should be corrected, removed or reported to a moderator. I think there's enough of us here annoyed with the fact that even when he correct him, he still trolls out statements which are completely ignorant. That right there is seriously worth contacting the forum owner to get him removed permanently.

I know but it is ridiculous to argue with a wall. He does not like software no matter what he thinks about it, right or wrong as he may be. He has shown his ignorence many times over and over. He will never understand any of it.

The moog modular was more accurate than the other crappy attempts arturia did, so i'll give it to you that that is possible.

However, Arturia pays money to the developers of these synthesizers so that they will say that "It sounds just like a jupiter 8!" or "It sounds exactly like the original moog modular" even when it obviously doesn't. They are trying to make money. Do you think that lebron james really drinks vitamin water on a regular basis? Probably not, he just advertises it and says its the drink he drinks to win.
Its not really truth at all, if you were told "Hey say that my crappy vst sounds just like your jupiter 80 in my advertisement/video/ at NAMM 2012 and i'll pay you 1 mil" would you do it? Obviously you would unless your a dumb-***.

I do agree that their analog tuning is better than previous synths(and superior to that of the r3 for that matter) But the thing is, it still sounds extrordinarily digital and fake sounding. Its nothing like the Alesis Andromeda or Access Virus when it comes to producing rich soundscapes. But then again, the alesis andromeda is too high of an expectancy for any synth... so maybe i'm being too harsh on arturia. I'll post the videos of the jupiter 8 so you can see how terrible it sounds compared to a real jupiter 8.

here:
REAL JUPITER 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XxnPH5qahY

FAKE JUPITER 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaaPTnlw0OE