October 24, 2014, 10:37:52 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email
News: Arturia's webmaster is glad to offer you these brand new forums ! Have fun using it and feel free to email any encountered problem at webmaster@arturia.com.

Arturia Forums



Author Topic: Bugs, Bugs, and more Bugs...Massive MMV2 Bug List  (Read 26693 times)

overState2007

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: 0
Bugs, Bugs, and more Bugs...Massive MMV2 Bug List
« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2007, 03:58:45 pm »
I've said it before and I'll say it again.  If it works perfectly, it ain't analog!

Clearly Arturia doesn't have the same customer service standards as, say, Starbuck's.  While alot of the bugs listed here fall under the category of "you get what you pay for" (my grandfather bought me some crappy CASIO phase modulation synth for well over $1000 back in '87), that fellow Vincent could at least placate you guys.

Keep in mind---Bob Moog, rest his soul, was probably more passionate about his instruments than any of us are.  If he threw his lot in with the MMV, it's because it does everything he designed his original to be able to do.  For under $500, we should be glad the thing makes any sound at all!
[/I]

Sweep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • Karma: 7
Bugs, Bugs, and more Bugs...Massive MMV2 Bug List
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2007, 02:19:19 am »
Quote from: "overState2007"
I've said it before and I'll say it again.  If it works perfectly, it ain't analog!!


Well, that's true in many ways. :D   I suppose there are people who'd argue whether problems with the Arturia accurately replicate problems with the original hardware Moog modular.

I agree with your point about what might be expected for the price - and I've made a similar point myself in the past.

The main issue with Elhardt's complaints seems to me to be one of relevance - just how seriously they affect useability. He tends to exaggerate and to amplify problems far beyond the point of reason.

It's also the case, as I pointed out in another thread on this site, that he came off pretty badly when he went on the Moog forums and attacked a very well-respected person there. Amongst other things, it was confirmed that he has absolutely no experience with the hardware Moog modular.

I've often wondered what would happen if Elhardt was let loose on a hardware modular. All his very conspicuous frustration and anger would most likely erupt into fury at the many problems that modular users from Wendy Carlos to Keith Emerson struggled with.

Yes, there are things that Arturia could do with sorting out with the Modular V. But that's generally true of instruments of any level of sophistication. Good musicians work with the defects of an instrument, work round them, or even make a virtue of them. That's what hardware modular owners did. That's what those of us who are using the Modular V do as well. I've got things with the Modular V that I didn't expect were really practical with the instrument. It's full of surprises when you really dig into it and explore what it can do - which is far more constructive than moaning about it.

It's true there are some slightly more significant differences between the Modular V and the Moog original amongst Elhardt's complaints. He raised a question about the sequencer which proved to be accurate when I discussed the matter with someone with a Moog modular. What he was trying to do was a bit odd, but it has to be conceded that he could have done it with the Moog and the relevant section wasn't reproduced with the Arturia. A little experimentation, though, and I was able to find an alternative patching that did the same job. I posted that on this site in reply to Elhardt's post about the problem.

In such cases the Arturia may not be identical to the Moog, but the principle of modular synthesis is similar: you need to experiment, dig deep, and discover the real nature of the instrument. Not only is the Arturia a lot cheaper than the Moog (as well as smaller and generally more manageable), but it also has some appreciable advantages to offset any remaining bugs. Stable tuning is probably the biggest one. Talk with anyone who used the original 901 series oscillators (the first and the least stable of the Moog modular system oscillators) and they'll very readily agree about that advantage. Patch memories are another big plus. Those of us who are old enough to have used complex synths with no patch memories can definitely appreciate the difference. :D

In short, the Modular V isn't perfect, but no instrument really is (including the Moog modular). And it's brilliant, defects or not, so long as you take a pinch or two of the patience and perseverence that Moog modular owners seem to have needed in bucketloads.

overState2007

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: 0
Bugs, Bugs, and more Bugs...Massive MMV2 Bug List
« Reply #17 on: August 06, 2007, 03:09:58 pm »
Exactly!  My best work comes when I put myself in a place where it's just me and the instrument.  It was that old "it ought to be this other way..." mentality that rock music, especially prog rock set out against.  

I don't pop open the MMV to have complete control over my sound.  I tend to throw ideas at it and see what they come out as.  The marks Arturia hit are most crucial.  The ones they probably missed (and I'm not talking about stability issues, cpu, preset management, etc---that just goes with the territory) matter very little to me as none of the freeware VSTi's I've been using for years do what the MMV does, and surely none of the industry standard keyboards do what it does either!

Who knows, maybe that's how Mr. Elhardt expresses affection for an instrument?
[/I]

Hugues

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: 0
Bugs, Bugs, and more Bugs...Massive MMV2 Bug List
« Reply #18 on: September 24, 2007, 11:14:23 pm »
I don't even care to run MMV again to check out those bugs, but I am sure Elhardt is right. If you feel good at setting a few patch cords and randomly tweaking knobs until your musical inspiration comes, MMV might do the job. But if you expect this software to behave like the real thing, you are in for a big deception.

I am a programmer and the price argument won't satisfy me. I hardly never buy software. There is no cost to duplicating software, you pay the amount the marketing guys think they can suck up from the users. Having been ripped off for another softsynth costing more doesn't mean it's ok for the cheaper one to be barely usable. Arturia should just stop marketing their software as Moog Modular, it isn't and will never be.

And I think pointing out Elhardt has never used a real Moog Modular is irrelevant. This guy surely knows how a modular synth should behave and clearly see that MMV as strange behaviour. Just check out his orchestral MMV demo and you'll understand he knows what he is speaking about. And it's not because the original Moog Modular has flaws that the only alternative is software. I am building a Synthesizers.com modular (moog clone) because the sound and user interface really can't compare to software, and the original design flaws and limitation of technology at that time has been corrected.

I admit I have been deceived by most softsynth and Arturia's product has better sound quality than most of the softsynth I have tried. But still, what really amaze me is how DSP coders think a 5-15 lines of code algorithm is a faithfull emulation of a moog filter. Even worse, Arturia admitted reusing the same routines in many of their V synths. You would really need to be a newb to believe the same source code will produce accurate emulation of the synth of different manufacturers.

Sweep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • Karma: 7
Bugs, Bugs, and more Bugs...Massive MMV2 Bug List
« Reply #19 on: September 25, 2007, 12:04:36 am »
Just to pick a couple of salient points and not waste my time and the time of other people reading this:

Quote from: "Hugues"
I don't even care to run MMV again to check out those bugs, but I am sure Elhardt is right..


You can't be bothered checking out this synth properly but you've decided this guy is right. :D  Enough said, really.

However:
Quote from: "Hugues"
If you feel good at setting a few patch cords and randomly tweaking knobs until your musical inspiration comes, MMV might do the job. But if you expect this software to behave like the real thing, you are in for a big deception.


How do you know what other people do with this synth?  You have the cheek to belittle users of this instrument by claiming we program at random.  You don't have a clue what other people are doing with the instrument, or what other experience people may have.

And BTW, Bob Moog endorsed the MMV.  So have several other people with Moog modular experience.

I won't tell you what people with Moog modular experience have said about Kenneth Elhardt, because it wouldn't be fair.  Suffice to say your confidence in him isn't shared.  The fact that you have this confidence without properly checking out the MMV says it all.

By all means go ahead with your .com modular.  Incidentally if you want to check out the Moog forums you'll find some discussions about how to make it sound more Moog-like.  You'd be much better sticking to an instrument you want to spend time learning to play, instead of making ill-informed comments about one you have no interest in learning to play.

And nor is the MMV unplayable, as Elhardt claimed and as you've also said.

All these Arturia products are instruments, based on more familiar hardware instruments, but nevertheless instruments in their own right. I've said this before and I shouldn't need to keep saying it (but unfortunately it seems I do need to keep saying it) - I keep a so-called `real' Moog Voyager alongside my PC, and yet I use Arturia's MiniMoogV because the Arturia synth is musically very useful and isn't replaced by a `real' Moog.  Chris Franke has a `real' Moog modular and also uses the MMV.  If I had a `real' ARP 2600 I'd still make a lot of use of my Arturia 2600V because of the special qualities it has.  I much prefer it to the Timewarp 2600 emulation despite the latter being generally agreed to be closer to the original, simply because the Arturia is so musically useful.

At the end of the day these are instruments, to make music with.  And they work excellently, despite claims to the contrary by people who'd rather moan and also belittle people they know nothing about, instead of making music.

Hugues

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: 0
Bugs, Bugs, and more Bugs...Massive MMV2 Bug List
« Reply #20 on: September 25, 2007, 03:38:29 pm »
What I have said is I don't bother running it AGAIN. I did try it out but concluded it has strange behaviour and didn't sound the way I have come to expect with good synthesizers. My comments about random tweaking was a bit unclear. What I mean is that it can create good sounds but I feel the process of creating them is a bit random because the controls doesn't respond in the way I am used to.

I knew bob moog endorsed this product, and flame me all you want for my next comment. I am not basing my opinions on those of bob moog. How many moog modular emulations are on the market? It's hard to deny Arturia is the best at the moment. And I feel it's also hard to deny that the emulation bears resemblance to the original.

I was impressed by elhardt work with MMV, I came around this forum to check out what he thought of the softsynth. And I was surprised that he had some disappointment using the program. I feel the same way about it last time I used it. In no way I was willing to give a musician advice as to how useful the program was. Just wanted to let know potential users of the awkward feel I had using the software compared to using the real thing. And how the program might not appeal to synthesists.

Furthermore, I think it should be known how the lousy coding at Arturia affect the quality of the program. Not only bugs, but also how code reuse reduce the credibility of their emulations.

Sweep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • Karma: 7
Bugs, Bugs, and more Bugs...Massive MMV2 Bug List
« Reply #21 on: September 25, 2007, 05:41:56 pm »
Ok. Anybody who can read can check what you said the first time round.

And I'm not interested in flaming anybody. I'm just interested in some basic common sense and some basic musicianship.

I'm inclined to trust Bob Moog more than someone who's never played his modular synth. And I'm inclined to trust people who own Moog modulars or who've used them, more than someone who hasn't.

But at the end of the day it's the responsiveness of the instrument that matters most. While some people have been moaning about the MMV, others have been making music with it - and sometimes in conjunction with so-called `real' Moog synths.

That's why I put an MMV demo piece on my download page. I also put a 2600V demo piece on there. You can hear the 2600V sounds nothing like the MMV, in answer to the people who claim they're the same synth in different guise (bollocks!), and you can also hear things you'd find very difficult to do with a so-called `real' 2600, showing something of what the Arturia synth is capable of with a bit of work.

I think if I was a site moderator I'd close this topic, because it's at a dead end.

Hugues

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: 0
Bugs, Bugs, and more Bugs...Massive MMV2 Bug List
« Reply #22 on: September 25, 2007, 09:34:07 pm »
> But at the end of the day it's the responsiveness of the instrument that matters most.

I have to totally agree with that. You seem to have quite a lot of experience with softsynth. Something I couldn't solve with VST is the issue of latency and responsiveness. It seems some people get around these problems but I can't make it work.

Now, I have a 3ghz intel pc, 2 gb ram and use a maudio audiophile sound card with asio drivers. Not the best setup but clearly not the worse. I tried a few sequencers and trackers and had a lot of latency, clicking and popping noise from almost all softsynth except the most basic one. Sometimes the latency is quite workable, but now and then, the software hangs and goes into nasty clicking and poping noise.

I wonder if those were problems a lot of people have. Because currently I can't get decent performance running 1 good softsynth in a sequencer. And I don't see what's wrong in my hardware and software setup.

Sweep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • Karma: 7
Bugs, Bugs, and more Bugs...Massive MMV2 Bug List
« Reply #23 on: September 25, 2007, 11:23:53 pm »
Yes and no.  I'd like to be able to help with this, but unfortunately I don't usually use the MMV as a VST program (in fact I don't think I've ever done that), and never with a sequencer program. I use stand-alone mode and play everything by hand from a keyboard.

I do have a few VST programs, but they're relatively small scale things and again I play by hand.

You could try changing the sample rate if you haven't already tried that, but beyond that I don't have the relevant experience to help you with that setup. Hopefully someone else here has the relevant experience.

If no-one responds to this topic, try opening a new one to ask about this. It may be there's someone here who'd help if they saw your question, but they wouldn't be reading this topic. Good luck. Someone must be able to advise you.

jcotner

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: 0
Looks like no help in sight for MMV bugs....
« Reply #24 on: October 17, 2007, 09:19:57 pm »
Sorry to say folks that after I questioned Arturia about when they would fix the current bugs, I got the following answer:

"We are currently working on some updates for the Prophet V and Jupiter-8V.
I must admit that the MMV2 updates are not planned at the moment."

I'm not going to get in any sort of duel with anybody else here about this. I've used a Moog 3-C and I'm just not happy with the current state of the MMV. Some of these bugs should have been fixed by now.
How can I justify spending hours of my time trying to work around things that should have been fixed a long time ago. Absynth sure doesn't have bugs to this extent. I just expect it to work the way the manual describes it, this includes the GUI and data values. Arturia is cleaning up other products, why is MMV the stepchild?

shoji

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: 0
Bugs, Bugs, and more Bugs...Massive MMV2 Bug List
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2007, 03:59:27 pm »
Elhart - I agree with you entirely. I have been trying to get the MMV working a battery of various machines since 2004, and each time I have thought, well, maybe its the machine, maybe needs more CPU, or maybe its me, but clearly the glitches are enough to make you want to stop making music altogether!

Have you had any response from Arturia?

When it works, it sounds awesome, but with all the bugs, its basically impossible to use as intended. A crying shame and a total waste of money.

FIX IT ARTURIA - please...

Stadanko

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Karma: 0
GUI failure in Cuase 4.1 PC
« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2007, 02:29:56 am »
The Gui has totally failed and will not work with either MMV or the ARP2600 when used as a plugin inside the new cubase 4.1 update. I have no idea what it could be. I updated my video driver. I un-installed and reinstalled. The standalone versions works fine and they work fine in the kore 1 stand alone version but not cubase!

Every time I have contacted arturia they always give me a friendly brush like, "maybe later, we're busy."

Sorry to say it folks but they could care less about these products or you. They've got all their eggs in the hybrid hardware basket!

I've stopped using their products since I can't use them whether I want to or not.

You tell me how that's worth even $1

Sweep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • Karma: 7
Re: GUI failure in Cuase 4.1 PC
« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2007, 03:22:29 am »
Well I stopped posting here because of this endless moaning.

But let's have a look at this:

Quote from: "Stadanko"
The standalone versions works fine and they work fine in the kore 1 stand alone version but not cubase!


Well, think about it for a moment. Could it possibly be your new version of Cubase?

The Arturia stuff works fine in standalone mode. Great, it works then. It also works in your Kore software. Great, it works.

But it doesn't work now you've got a new version of Cubase.

And yet you insist the problem must be with Arturia, despite the fact that you agree their software works outside Cubase.

Doesn't this strike you as rather illogical?

It'd make sense, at least, to have a word with the Cubase people.

But assuming the thing that needs to be adjusted is something with the Arturia synths, let's consider that:

Ok, you expect the Arturia stuff to work with Cubase, and presumably you've got other software that is compatible with it. It'd be much better if Arturia and Cubase were compatible. But basically a separate company, Cubase, has come out with a new version of their software, completely outside Arturia's control, and you expect them to just drop everything they're doing and jump to it just because you happen to want to use these two bits of software together. And in addition to you, there's a collection of other people who want Arturia to drop everything else and jump to it to sort out compatibility issues with software that isn't made by Arturia and is outside their control, just because that's the setup they happen to want.

It's the same on other software forums as well. I recently bought FM8. It's excellent, though NI fall short a bit with their support. But their forum is just like here - complaints and cries of `I've stopped using it because they won't make it do what I want.'

For God's sake, if everyone behaved like that there wouldn't be any electronic music. What if Wendy Carlos had just complained about the problems with the early Moog modular and said `I've stopped using it because it dioesn't do this and that'? What if Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, Kraftwerk and so on wouldn't use the early analogue synths because they had tuning problems? What if Peter Gabriel and a host of others hadn't used the Fairlight because of its shortcomings?

Or what if Depeche Mode had stopped using the PPG Wave 2.2 because PPG had said it would work with the Waveterm, and then when the Waveterm came out they'd made technical improvements and you needed a Wave 2.3 instead? No doubt that was annoying, and quite equivalent to finding something in software doesn't have a compatibility you'd maybe been led to believe it would have. Yes, it's annoying, but they got on with making music with what they had. They didn't stop using something that worked perfectly well on its own just because they were miffed that they couldn't do other stuff with it that they'd expected to be able to do.

Nothing is perfect, and you just make yourself miserable and achieve nothing if you focus on that. Today's software certainly isn't perfect, but it's quite amazing what's available to us now. The Arturia software isn't perfect. It may not always be playable in the way you want it to be, but it's definitely playable. And if you sit at a keyboard and hook up to a recording device like most people have always done in electronic music you can do quite amazing things with an Arturia synth. There will always be things you need to get round, problems that get in the way till you find a musical way to deal with them, and there will always be thoughts of `wouldn't it be nice if it did this....'

Arturia don't have unlimited resources. No company has that. Nor do they have any control over other other companies, whether they're Steinberg or Microsoft or whoever. It's the same for NI, or any other company. And so long as we use software we're going to have compatibility issues between what different companies make.

Now I'm going to leave this forum again and concentrate on making music, because that's far more valuable than reading complaints. I'll be using several instruments that allegedly don't work. But they do.

Stadanko

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Karma: 0
reply
« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2007, 04:51:04 am »
first of all, I doubt anybody would try to make music if they couldn't see the controls you pretentious snob! If I can't see it, I can't control it now can I?


So what if it works on its own, does that help with sequencing or working with it inside of a DAW? Am I supposed to change DAWs because of Arturia? Sorry if I don't feel like spending that kind of time or money... I'm not having problems with any other plugins in this fashion.  

And for the record NI does updates far more often that Arturia does. NI is not stretching themselves so thin that they can't support their products properly.

I need fundamental functionality in order to use it I'm not just whining about bugs..I can tolerate a few those.I contacted Arturia awhile back to report that the mouse wheel scroll was not working in MMV and they replied that they'd get to it on the next update. I was a little bummed but left it at that.  

This is entirely different, so shove it!

Stadanko

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Karma: 0
more testing
« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2007, 08:54:23 pm »
After rolling back the versions to the older ones the problem is less pronounced but still happening if you switch between Arturia plugins. Also, this problem is occurring in Ableton live.

You see, as the world of computers continues to evolve so must even the grandest of plugins like your precious Arturia....

Most of the big music software companies do updates every several months. Its kind of a standard, but I'm sure a tough as nails prick like you wouldn't understand that......ayyy sweep!

 

Carbonate design by Bloc
SMF 2.0.8 | SMF © 2014, Simple Machines