May 12, 2021, 03:22:10 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email
News:

Arturia Forums



Author Topic: Comparison to the real ARP 2600  (Read 4187 times)

zer0cool

  • Apprentice
  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: 0
Comparison to the real ARP 2600
« on: December 24, 2016, 03:09:59 am »
Hey guys!

I am just interested if anyone had the chance to compare the sound of the plugin to the real arp 2600. I really love the sound of the plugin but never had the chance to hear a real one or test it live.

So if anyone could tell me something about this or knows any good comparisons on the web, pls let me know :P

thanks to the community and thank you very much Arturia for doing such a great job!

corum_beasley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: 3
Re: Comparison to the real ARP 2600
« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2016, 12:27:50 pm »
HI. I came across this article the over the past few weeks by Gordon Reid. The article is from 2005 and the synth as gone through a few revisions since then. http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/arturia-2600v

Hope this helps a little.

zer0cool

  • Apprentice
  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: 0
Re: Comparison to the real ARP 2600
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2016, 05:39:08 pm »
hey thank you very much for the reply!

I read this already and yea it really helps.

To the sound they say: "Does it sound like the original? The answer to the (...) question is no, unless your patches are quite simple."

Like I said, I never touched the real ARP 2600. I just can say that I love the sounds of the V3 version.

well, it doesn't matter anyway as long as it's fun. If anyone is interested in getting closer to the real sound, you should check out the timewarp 2600 plugin.

Both are great plugins in their own ways, imo  :)

LBH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.762
  • Karma: 38
Re: Comparison to the real ARP 2600
« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2016, 09:27:18 pm »
Many tests i find they just make the synth as noisy and bad sounding as possible, and allways the same no matter the synth, instead of trying out the unique sound and sounds of a synth. Sometimes it's okay.

There are videos on youtube of origanl ARP 2600's. Some of the videos have some sounds you can compare. I found this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i17qVrq3V6A that actually have quite a few sounds where it might be possible to compare - no matter the music.

Perhaps you can use this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGA86VkFL4Y
At 12:15 there is a recorded piece of music.

There are many other videos.

I don't find the Timewarp to be that close, if this is the sound of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVeis9ZoebU
But i guess it can do some good things.
How do you think Arturia 2600 V3 do compared to the originals?

zer0cool

  • Apprentice
  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: 0
Re: Comparison to the real ARP 2600
« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2016, 02:37:33 am »
hey, also thanks for the vids :) I had to laugh hard at the frogs :D :D

well, after all I think this discussion about 'sound' and the comparison between the sound of plugins and analog is so overrated.

I mean you could easily create almost exact the same sound with a plugin if you invest time in the patch. Yea sure, analog sounds grittier and rougher but you can get this with other plugins that emulate analog effects.

Some people write that the ARP 2600V3 is sounding nothing like the original (lol) but from what I hear in the videos it sounds really good.

I bought also the timewarp 2600 and it is really different to the arp 2600v3. It is closer to the original in sound and in handling.

What is better with the arp2600 v3 is that there is a sequencer which gives you another million possibilities.

So if you're interested in 'realisticness' then you can try the timewarp but if its about the creativity then arturia is just fine.

In general I love the sound from arturia synths, and I'm not only impressed by the design of the plugins :D

LBH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.762
  • Karma: 38
Re: Comparison to the real ARP 2600
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2016, 05:12:14 am »
Thanks for your respons ZerOcool.
Yes the frogs are funny - lol.  :)

Based on the sounds of the original that i can come across, then i'd say Arturias ARP 2600 can come quite close in sound in many aspects. Perhaps one need to tweak, use the possibilities and work on the sound. But even some grit can be achived.

I don't understand your statement that Timewarp is more realistic if the Timewarp sound like in the video.
Why do you think Timewarp is more realistic than Arturias version?
What in the sound do you find more realistic?
What in the handling is more realistic? I'm curious.

I can tell that i don't care if a synth is analog or digital, if i like the sound. To me analog in it self don't sound better than digital. I have favorite sounds from both digiital and analog hardware synths. And also favotite sounds from softsynth.
Also i will state that a analog emulation can never be true analog. Digital and analog is two different things. Digital can't be analog and reverse. So a digital plug-in or synth can never be analog, and a analog synth can never be digital. There excist hybrids.  Behaviors can be emulated, but that for example don't make a digital application analog, but only simulated analog as the closest. But that don't mean it's not possible to get a digital plug-in to sounds like a analog hardware synths, or very close, as that's after all is what  a emulation try to do. So no need to emulate synths if not trying to get the sound right. If so then one can just create a new plug-in without trying to emulate a specific hardware synth.

Happy new year.



corum_beasley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: 3
Re: Comparison to the real ARP 2600
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2016, 12:07:22 pm »
This is an interesting and important discussion. Ever since i heard of the Human Comparator TTSH Arp2600 clone i have wrestled with the prices and justifications for getting one / or attempting to get one as they go out of stock as soon as the are up for sale as a kit. I would love one but i have to be realistic as my funds would be stretched too far.

Now this would seem an aside from the original question but it is still about how does the original compare to the clone. It can be very difficult to compare the two based on youtube videos as they are recorded differently played differently etc. Also small changes in slider position have a huge effect on the sound.  This is were the arp2600 patch books come in handy , this is the best copy i have found yet http://www.matrixsynth.com/2012/07/arp-2600-patch-book-full-scan-in-pdf.html . They provide great places to start from and learn more about our synth but they also allow us to create the patch and compare it with this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_nhNd20ABI to see how they sound. I have been struggling to get the 2600V to sound like these examples the past few days. I haven't given up yet as you learn so much along the way and is the real value of the patches anyway. Also what we find might better fit the sound of a primeval forest than others, for example, to our ear / imagination?

There are some questions and thoughts though about the differences and some have been mentioned before, like the behaviour of the electronic switch, the sound / behaviour of the ring modulator, the sample and hold seems to behave differently, to my ears anyway. Perhaps there are others? The lack of multiples makes it hard to do some of the patches but at other times this isn't a big issue as many sockets allow multiple connections and the voltage processor can be used in a similar way. This synth more than others rewards determination / experimentation and many an happy accident to fully impress.

So having said all this what have we actually got compared to the original? I don't play keyboard but i love all sorts of genres from music concrete to Berlin school, from Éliane Radigue to Edgar Froese etc. What is important to me is this synth more than others i have played with so far can take me to so many weird and wonderful places and is the best thing i have bought in years and when you compare it to the clone or original prices represents great value for money, thanks Arturia and especial thanks to Edouard who was an enormous help to me recently with a problem i was having with the plugin, great customer service.


LBH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.762
  • Karma: 38
Re: Comparison to the real ARP 2600
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2017, 04:55:37 pm »
I could'nt find a Timewarp VS real ARP video!
But i found this article serching for a comparison video. The tester find Arturias version to be a better emulation of the real Arp than Timewarp is: http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/way-out-ware-timewarp-2600

And i can only find this VS video where the clone sound quite far from a original. The original is for example "softer" more "pleasant" sounding - not harsh:
Arp 2600 vs TTSH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AXej_cXVfQ

Videos like this can perhaps also be used. Again notice the sounds is'nt harsh.
ARP 2600 part1: Sound FX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr9K1QDLs1o
ARP 2600 pt2 : classic Lead and Bass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_vvWiA1WdU
ARP 2600 part3: Improvisation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0acxSD_Qk-U


zer0cool

  • Apprentice
  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: 0
Re: Comparison to the real ARP 2600
« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2017, 01:48:30 am »
it really suprises me that WOW seems not to be able to live up to their marketing claims.

There are so many opinions on the web about both plugins. Right now I'm not sure which plugins sounds better to my ear.

I would like to make my own comparison as a Youtube video between the both plugins. I will post it then here in this forum.

but it's astonishing that arturia's version is preferred by SOS even though the WOW plugin was approved by the creator Alan R. Pearlman. You gotta be careful with any marketing claims from plugins these days :D

LBH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.762
  • Karma: 38
Re: Comparison to the real ARP 2600
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2017, 06:36:09 pm »
Yes it would be nice if marketing was more honest and more informative about reality.

Also better and more honest reviews would ne nice. Mostlt i canĝ use them for much. The testing could be much better.

Both marketing and other testing for reviews for products like this could use the Patchbooks and compare the hardware to the software on all pathches.
Also audio showing how different parameters act in the whole parameter range for both the hardware and the software would be nice.
And showing famous sounds could be useful.
Also it can be needed to take in account that even if a parameter may not give the correct output at a certain position or some things might not work like in the hardware, then it might be possible to tweak the software to reproduce then sound very well anyway.

Any testing that don't include the hardware i can't use in telling how well the software emulate. That kind of test will not be a test showing what software that sound closest to the hardware, but only a test where you can say if you like the sound or not. just like any other synth.( But i'll be happy to see your test, if you post one. Just be fair and cover boths strengths etc... I also still would like to know what make you think Timewarp is better that Arturias ARP 2600. You hav'nt mentioned anything about the sound.)
We see this plug-in vs plug-in for different Minimoog emulations test that don't really show the character of the hardware synth or the full range of parameters and sounds.

A thing to remember about ARP 2600 is it like some other vintage synths was made in different versions like you can see here: http://www.vintagesynth.com/arp/arp.php

BTW. A endorsement don't have to mean it sound just like the original hardware. Wish it did.

« Last Edit: January 03, 2017, 11:51:46 pm by LBH »

gregwalton42

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
  • Karma: 6
Re: Comparison to the real ARP 2600
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2017, 11:44:54 pm »
Alan Perlman endorsed the Timewarp 2600 quite a few years ago, when utter accuracy wasn't really expected from plugins, so it's hard to infer how the current version is likely to stand up against either the Arturia version or a real 2600.

Also, even with ARPs of the same version, there were variations in the sound between individual synthetic. Joe Zawinul had two which he used for different sounds because of these variations

LBH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.762
  • Karma: 38
Re: Comparison to the real ARP 2600
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2017, 04:36:47 am »
Alan Perlman endorsed the Timewarp 2600 quite a few years ago, when utter accuracy wasn't really expected from plugins, so it's hard to infer how the current version is likely to stand up against either the Arturia version or a real 2600.

Also, even with ARPs of the same version, there were variations in the sound between individual synthetic. Joe Zawinul had two which he used for different sounds because of these variations

Yes vintage synths did'nt sound excactly the same, even if it was the same model. Also in many cases different models was made. (ARP 2800 has quite a history.) Some artist also made personal changes to the instrument.
That's a reason why i believe the characteristic sound from a synth is the most important thing, when we talk about emulation.
Even if the sound can be a little different, then there still is some characteristica that they share.
Also i believe sounds that made a synth famous is a thing to emulate. Most people only know the sounds from music.
If a emulation can emulate the characteristica and the sounds that made it famous (prefereble using the original parameter settings) excactly or very close, then i would say it's a good emulation.
Among the characteristica can also be playmodes like the speciel way the filter envelope in a minimoog work, and that Arturias version i think is the only emulation that try to emulate this behavior. Other things can be important for the characteristica, including how modules in a synth work.

But yes it's hard to compare without having the model for the emulation. Even though you could compare with all the models. Arturias V3 have only the 2601 GUI that's the last, and the filter in that model is different. The black models with the Moog filter they had to stop using, i think has the most valued sound.
I think Arturia perhaps try to emulate all the models from the blue model to the black/ orange, as the filter has many possibilities. A emulation can try to emulate both, and be compared with all original models. But yes it's perhaps not fair to compare with something it don't try to emulate.

How would you compare? You don't think it's possible?

 

Carbonate design by Bloc
SMF 2.0.17 | SMF © 2019, Simple Machines