May 31, 2016, 12:12:40 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email
News: Feel free to email any encountered problem at webmaster@arturia.com.

Arturia Forums



Author Topic: Workaround for lack of LFO Retrigger?  (Read 597 times)

LBH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 320
  • Karma: 3
Re: Workaround for lack of LFO Retrigger?
« Reply #30 on: May 23, 2016, 06:32:32 pm »
Hi Tausenberg,

Great for you. I can suggest you post about the VC5 applcations in the VC5 forums regarding VC5 stuff. Perhaps you'll get more respons there from Arturia.

I have bought VC5, even if i'm not happy with it. I'm still skeptical. Not sure about the new soundengine. Need to test more. Sounds like the sound is thiner and brighter and not so soft. More toy like. Lack of  body. Not sure about the way sound respond to my playing yet. But as said i need to test more.

Tausendberg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Karma: 0
Re: Workaround for lack of LFO Retrigger?
« Reply #31 on: May 24, 2016, 12:18:09 am »
Well, when you get around to it, let me know what you think after you have some time with it. I'm fairly happy with the new Prophet.

LBH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 320
  • Karma: 3
Re: Workaround for lack of LFO Retrigger?
« Reply #32 on: May 24, 2016, 08:18:03 pm »
I meant i was not happy with we is forced to pay for updates for known bugs in VC4. Apparantly VC4 is discontinued without a warning.
Spark 2 is even out of VC5, and therfore also taken out of VC4 as you apparantly won't get fixes and updates for it. That's very sudden this happens.
I'm aware that products get discontinuet. But not that fast and this way.

About the sound.
After spending some time i am alittle more positive about some things, but not to sure about others.
I like classic vintage sounds to be done on Classic vintage synths.
In Mini V3 it looks like when you get used to the Emphasis is working very different, then i can produce sounds like before. The brightness in sound etc. also seems to have a positive side. Looks like the sound is more defined in the low notes too.

The SEM is hard to tell as the filter has bugs.

Overall it looks like the new sound engines is more defined in the sound. I hope that will turn out to be a improvement. Can very well be so.

The new Digital Classic Synclavier i find very well sounding. But i don't have enough knowleadge right now about this, to tell how good the emulation of the original is. It do contribute with new sounds to the collection.
Also there seems to be quite a learning phase in Synclavier.

I like B3. It sound different from other organs i have to complement my organ sound arsenal.
Piano V i actually find having something real even if it also can sound very plastic like. In a production that might turn out to be good.
In general the new sound engines might turn out to be easier to place the sounds in a production.
I would like more punch and body sometimes, and emulations of certain soft characteristic vintage sounds don't seem to be easier to create. Time will tell. But i'm more positive about the sound now.

There are still applications i hav'nt checked, and i hav'nt checked the above that much either.
Unfortunately Prophet V3 crashes my DAW. Hav'nt tried it much. But perhaps you'r right. At first glance it seems it might benefit from the new sound engines.
Not to sure about CS80 V3. We'll see.
Not been much around Modular V3 and others. Takes time to check and experiment. Need to create sounds to tell for sure.

How do you decide if the sounding is good? Just that you like the sounding or if it's a precise emulation of the original?
How do you describe the sounding of the new engines?

Cheers.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 09:22:28 pm by LBH »

Tausendberg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Karma: 0
Re: Workaround for lack of LFO Retrigger?
« Reply #33 on: May 24, 2016, 09:26:06 pm »
"Overall it looks like the new sound engines is more defined in the sound."

I have more to say about the rest of your comment but I'll just say really quickly right now that I can see why they did that. One of the, in my opinion unfair, criticisms of Arturia is that many of the different subtractive synthesizers are all basically just different guis using the same oscillators and filters. I haven't played around with it too much but the ARP2600 V especially gets A LOT of criticism in that regard.

So, maybe they were trying to make the instruments more distinct so as to head off that criticism.

I know it's a tall order but something that would be cool would be if the Modular V could basically just use all of the oscillators from the rest of the v collection... although I guess you kind of can if you just have a clean oscillator output and just use the modular V as a VST insert.

Which reminds me, it hasn't really affected my workflow yet but do I understand correctly that they got rid of the Modular V as an effects plugin? Maybe I made a mistake in my installation or something...

LBH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 320
  • Karma: 3
Re: Workaround for lack of LFO Retrigger?
« Reply #34 on: May 25, 2016, 01:51:44 am »
When i say "defined" i mean the tone in the low end keep the timbre better in lower octaves. I still thing for instance Mini V can sound more like a moog, than it does. It do a fine job. But some sounds in could do better. That sayd, then i still think Mini V sound more like a moog than any other emulations even if other emulations also can have their good sides.
I wan't Mini V to supply certain sounds, that other synths can't do.

I'm not sure why you are right about why Arturia have done the defined sound as your understand it.
Yes Arturia has been giving much unfair criticisme. Some more factory presets that really showed the unique character of the synths, and some recreations of famous sounds could meet that criticisme.

And yes there is no FX versions of any synth in VC5. I have allready requested those, as i andd many others need FX versions to be able to route audio into them in their DAWs.

I hav'nt used ARP 2600 V3 yet. Also i hav'nt played a real one. I have played a real hardware minimoog (and also especially a Moog Prodigy), a real Jupiter 8, a real Solina, a real Hammond, a real Rhodes and wurli, real pianos and heard the Oberheims, Prophet and CS80 for real in private. But never a Moog Modular or a ARP 2600 in private.
I don't know what ARPs 2600 characteristic unique sound is. That's why i think it's important such sounds are in the presets for all synths. Off coarse we know some effects that was made on ARP 2600. And apparantly Depeche Mode has used it, but i don't know for what sounds. For now i only have the few sound examples i can find. But soundexamples is often not the sounds that is characteristic or unique for the synths. Often it's just a waveform or getting the synth to be as noisy or far out as possible instead of showing it's true unique sound character that really make it different from other synths.
That's also why i ask if you compare VC5 synths sounds with the original hardware synths?

Have tried Prophet V3 a little more in standalone mode. As said then i don't know it as much as other synths, but to me it sounds like it benefit from the new sound engines.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 01:53:32 am by LBH »

Tausendberg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Karma: 0
Re: Workaround for lack of LFO Retrigger?
« Reply #35 on: May 25, 2016, 11:52:14 pm »
"How do you decide if the sounding is good? Just that you like the sounding or if it's a precise emulation of the original?
How do you describe the sounding of the new engines?"

Well, first off, it would be cool if, you know, the Prophet V sounds like having an actual Prophet 5, I mean, I do like the thought that patches I put together for the Prophet V could be dialed in on the Prophet 5 and sound perfectly alike.

But I'm not particularly a purist in that I am trying to get it to sound alike, that's not my priority. I mean, I never owned any of these instruments so it's not a big deal to me and I don't know if I ever will.

I do like the Prophet V though just because it's like the opposite of the Modular V in terms of complexity. Modular V is so many possibilities while a Prophet V is simple enough that I can fit all of the controls on my keylab 88. Sometimes I just want to play with something simple.

I don't really have a 'scientific' way of describing what makes me think it sounds better. I would say both the Prophet V and the Modular V3 sound 'fuller' and 'bigger'. Especially the Prophet V, when I first played it just now I was blown away by it, it sounded really "big" in the sense that it's almost like the reverb or a slight delay was on but it wasn't, it's just a very 'rich' harmonic tone that's both complex and nuanced.

I haven't tried out any of the other V Collection 5 but I'll definitely look at Synclavier and B3 if you think they're interesting. I'm lead to understand Synclavier is an additive synthesizer which is something that interest me. I mean, I recently rigged up six instances of Modular V2 as essentially an additive synthesizer because I really wanted to explore that concept.

Sorry to hear about Spark 2, I hope they just decouple it from V Collection because that would probably make more sense. I never touched Spark personally, at least not yet so I don't personally miss it but it causes a lot of misery, I've seen it over and over again, when a developer just drops a product line. They should at least patch any remaining bugs...

"And yes there is no FX versions of any synth in VC5. I have allready requested those, as i andd many others need FX versions to be able to route audio into them in their DAWs."

Ok, thank you for verifying that for me, I have to imagine that's a huge bug because, I mean, the Modular V3 still has the connections for external signals but, correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way in Studio One at least that a VSTi can have an audio signal sent into it is if the VSTi is placed as an effects insert.

Seems like Arturia's got some bugs on their hands, I really hope they don't take their usual six months to release a patch because being able to use a Modular V as an effects insert is supposed to be one of the main selling points. I mean, one of the first things I did when I found out the Modular V could be used to process external signals was I hooked up an electric guitar to it, which was nice, I liked that (although I didn't get very far back then because I didn't know at all what I was doing).
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 11:59:30 pm by Tausendberg »

LBH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 320
  • Karma: 3
Re: Workaround for lack of LFO Retrigger?
« Reply #36 on: May 26, 2016, 01:13:32 am »
but the only way in Studio One at least that a VSTi can have an audio signal sent into it is if the VSTi is placed as an effects insert.

Yes. You can send some control signals from one instrument to another. For instance a synth can recieve a sequencer trigger. But you need a FX VST in Studio One other DAWs to be able to use the external audio input features,

----

To me a emulation should be able to sound like the real thing. As close as possible. Beside that i also just wan't sounds i like. But that don't have to be emulations then.  But it's okay with other sounds in emulations too, as long as they can emulate the sounds it's supposed to. Else no need to create a emelation, then it could just be a new synth.

-----

Yes i like the Synclavier sounds.  It should use additive synthsis too. It uses partials.
It's a good thing if you know about FM synthesis and Harmonics.
About harmonics then perhaps you find this a help down the road: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music)
NB! you need to add the last ) after music to the link. for some reason it will not be a part of the link.

About the B3. I like i's a different sound. I think many will argue that it's not a B3. But i seem to have been hearing Hammonds sound in this direction too. And i have NI Kontakt Vintage Organs and other organs and rotors too.  Studio One also have some organs and a rotor.

.----

Yes Arturia has got some bugs on their hands. It's a question if they will be fixed for free with the politic they have used actually not care about owners of VC4 product bugs.  This is in my world wrong.
I have got a mail saying future updates will cost. Will they continue calling bugfixes for updates and trying to charge us for the same product once again?
ANd how many products will they take out next time? Will they charge for better readable GUI's for CS80 andsome other synths,  even if that's what we have paid for in VC5, and/ or will they take those out? It's in some cases half done work in my opinion. I work with multimedia. This should have been stop in testing and made better.
Will Arturia charge us for the FX versions needed to use the features we allready have paid for?
I'm concerned about this.
There is something very wrong.

------

I actually like simple synths.
I have allways wondered why nearly all factory presets in for instance Modular V are quite simple in a way they could just as well have been done on a simple synths.
It has 9 OSC's a lot of filters etc... To me a Modular is for very complex sounds. Especially if it don't have a very characteristic sound i wan't.
I'm so tired of "Lucky" presets and presets simulating sounds made on other synths - often simpler synths.
I believe the new presets use the Modular system better, but i have not spend the needed time to say for sure.

.....

Cheers

« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 01:23:41 am by LBH »

Tausendberg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Karma: 0
Re: Workaround for lack of LFO Retrigger?
« Reply #37 on: May 28, 2016, 06:08:34 am »
I still need to read the article you linked me to and I have things to say to the rest of your comment but...

What do you think of the Synclavier V?

I've played around with it a bit and I am so blown away by it. You know, I can just pick up by ear that there is just so much going on and I look forward to learning about all the things that make it tick over the coming months.

LBH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 320
  • Karma: 3
Re: Workaround for lack of LFO Retrigger?
« Reply #38 on: May 28, 2016, 06:17:36 pm »

Still same opinion as in my other threads. Like this:

The new Digital Classic Synclavier i find very well sounding. But i don't have enough knowleadge right now about this, to tell how good the emulation of the original is. It do contribute with new sounds to the collection.
Also there seems to be quite a learning phase in Synclavier.

Tausendberg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Karma: 0
Re: Workaround for lack of LFO Retrigger?
« Reply #39 on: May 28, 2016, 10:55:02 pm »
Oh yeah, the synclavier looks to have a crazy learning curve but it seems worth it.

Compared to even a very complex Modular patch, some of the patches for the Synclavier are so much more complex. I feel like some of the patches for the synclavier, each note seems to tell a short story while a note out of a really complex Modular V patch is maybe like a sentence.

I looked around for how much it sounds like the original but because the Synclavier was so incredibly expensive (they spared no expense when making it) there don't appear to be a lot of people who played it. It seems like Arturia put a lot into making this, it might be the most developed VST in V Collection 5, so I'm gonna trust that they got close.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2016, 11:00:07 pm by Tausendberg »

LBH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 320
  • Karma: 3
Re: Workaround for lack of LFO Retrigger?
« Reply #40 on: May 28, 2016, 11:46:12 pm »
Yes.

This is a video demonstrating Synclavier 2.
jon appleton demonstrates the synclavier ii (1984): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikHtUq48rWE

Also i think for instance Michael Jackson, Tangerine Dream and Pet Shop Boys, Depeche Mode and many others did use Synclavier, even if most perhaps used the versions that you could put audio samples into.
But most perhaps rented it or used one a studio had.

There are other softsynths out there that are using FM synthesis, additive synthesis and or other forms of synthesis  that's not substractive. And also synths where you can put your samples into.

You said you have thought about going into additive synthesis. NI  Reaktor Razor for instance is a additive synth. Also NI Reaktor Prism uses additive synthesis.

In Synclavier you edit the individual partials it looks like. The above mentioned synth  do it another way.


Tausendberg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Karma: 0
Re: Workaround for lack of LFO Retrigger?
« Reply #41 on: May 29, 2016, 09:46:42 pm »
What do they do differently if I may ask?

LBH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 320
  • Karma: 3
Re: Workaround for lack of LFO Retrigger?
« Reply #42 on: May 29, 2016, 10:47:03 pm »
I actually don't know. As said then i don't know much about synclavier.
However, then i understand it's about have many voice channels they had and also if they could use samples or not.
If voice channels is the same as partials as i also thought i had understood as differences, then the Arturia version perhaps is a late synclavier 1 or a synclavier 2 - but without the possibility of using samples as they should.
There is a thread in the VC5 section about this somewhere.

Just googled this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synclavier
This article say Frank Zappa actually used it extensively. I did'nt now that, but i have allways admired Frank Zappa especially for his instrumentation.

I you find out more, then please share.

EDIT: If you meant about Razor and Prism then you don't edit partials the same way and there are more partials You have to read about that and try it out.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2016, 11:36:44 pm by LBH »

 

Carbonate design by Bloc
SMF 2.0.11 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines