Virtual Vintage Analog

[CyberGene]

Straight to the point: why are the VA engines in most digital keyboards so silly? They don’t sound like a Moog or a Prophet or a OB, etc. Or in other words they are not Virtual Vintage Analog but rather literally just Virtual Analog: razor-sharp, clean and clear mathematically perfect saw or pulse waves, through an ideal  filter and an envelope and a LFO. It’s just so boring and lifeless.

 

Is it because they lack processing power and resources? For instance the U-He Diva and Re-Pro plugins are the real deal but they’re taxing on the CPU. But then a dedicated keyboard DSP chip should be able to emulate vintage analog peculiarities. For instance I can make my Hydrasynth to sound vintage and I don’t believe it has a really powerful CPU. Which makes me think most manufacturers just don’t bother creating proper VA implementations that emulate vintage synths. Might be wrong though.

[Anderton]

Most of the time, I add "vintage" characters with editing. For example, free-running oscillators instead of synched. When sampling my Minimoog, I didn't just sample one wave for an oscillator, but about 30 seconds. Not sure if it made a big improvement, but it definitely didn't detract.

 

I also assign aftertouch to pitch sometimes, with the smallest variation possible. The tiny random variations (I don't "calibrate" the amount of pressure, I just hit the keys) remind me of analog oscillators trying their best to stay in tune. Although TBH, in most cases I want the "perfect" sound.

[AnotherScott]

28 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

why are the VA engines in most digital keyboards so silly?...razor-sharp, clean and clear mathematically perfect saw or pulse waves, through an ideal  filter and an envelope and a LFO. It’s just so boring and lifeless.

 

Can you give an example of such a VA synth?

[ElmerJFudd]

Hmmm. 
 

You’ll have to be more specific about which hardware synths with VA engines you are suggesting fail to simulate which  vintage analogue originals.  
 

Each generation of digital synths takes advantage of what is reasonably marketable at the target price point.  So simplified version - small looped samples at low bit  depth and sample rate eventually became larger samples at higher sample rate and bit depth with increasing layers, seamless layers, higher polyphony, etc.  
 

Modeling technology has  advanced a lot from the 90s.   DSP processors became more capable, then off the shelf CPUs became more capable and affordable.  So, yeah - software developers have taken advantage of this.  As have workstation builders like Korg Kronos.  
 

Either way, yes, you’re on the right path.  Realism, especially in the higher frequencies relies a lot on dedicated processing power when it comes to modeled circuitry.  
 

 

[CyberGene]

4 minutes ago, AnotherScott said:

Can you give an example of such a VA synth?

With the disclaimer I haven’t owned any of those and only listened to Internet demos, those are the Kurzweil VA, Roland Zen-core, the one in the Vox Continental, Modal Argon off the top of my mind.

 

I’m not sure what exactly the Zen-core encompass but some of those are good like the Jupiter/Juno but not the RD88. 

[ElmerJFudd]

Which Kurzweil, they’ve had a lot of generations of PC, for example.  And on which sounds?   Keep in mind they are running an entire workstation on the chosen processors.  Not just a specific VA model.  
 

Arguably, in A/B comparisons with Juno 106 and Jupiter-8, Zencore does a pretty decent job.   But Roland made the decision to offer higher polyphony in their engine, a sacrifice in the greater accuracy they were getting on the System-8, for example which has limited polyphony.  
 

I don’t know where Roland cut corners on RD88 to make their price point.  I would say probably on processing power and AD conversion when compared to say, the Juno-X.  
 

Some interesting back and forth banter on what people like and don’t like about the RD88.  

 

[Stokely]

I've kind of been wrestling with this across a few different keyboards and my ipad.  Usually when I read about people going after "analog" they tend to mean the wobbly, warm lush slow sounds--the type I just don't have a use for live other than a very few songs.  Think the soundtrack of Apocalypse Now.  I'm more after the Prophet/Obie simpler patches for classic rock, and I've had a decent amount of success on even my Modx getting decent sounds for a band setting.  Where I have issues:  getting "punch".  My Virus had it, it could hit you in a gut with an angry unison mono patch.  

Just for kicks I found and tweaked a poly sound on what I consider the best synth I have on ipad (Zeeon) and then A/Bed to a similar patch on my Modx.  The quality difference was zero to tiny, and that kind of convinced me to keep it simple and continue using the ipad only for organ (there, the difference is night and day!).   The Modx really has a nice sound to it, it's just that the default patches are horrible.    Same goes for the majority of them on my Summit--if I hadn't known what it could do and just played it first to hear it, I wouldn't have bought it.  Half the damn default presets are atonal, maybe great for some indie movie soundtrack but not good for me!   The other half are soundscape type things that I simply don't need.    the Modx patches trend toward one-finger motion sequency stuff, with the sound being very thin and modern.  Again, not something I need in the slightest so I've needed to roll my own patches for the most part.

FX always have a lot to do with synth sounds too.  I think that's one reason Repro instantly sounded so good.   Excellent raw sound with excellent fx, and really nice default presets.   Repro continues impress every time I use it.

I'm mindful that too much detuning in a band sound, and you sound out of tune   We have enough issues with guitars!   With that in mind, I don't mind more clear sounds in a band setting.   By themselves they might not be world-beaters.    

I was pretty shocked with how nice my Forte's synth sounds were.   I now believe my PC3 has a sound issue (it has some noise after each note you play) and someone else pointed out that the Forte has newer and better converters.   Unfortunately as I posted on a recent thread I am not sure I can gig with it as it refused to boot the other day.  

[CyberGene]

^ You made a lot of good points, thanks 👍🏻
 

I have almost found my ideal pair: the CP88 and a Hydrasynth but I thought it would be great if there was a single keyboard that can do both. There’s the Nord Stage but I’m not super convinced by its VA and besides it’s too expensive. Then keyboards like Fantom, Montage/MODX, PC4 would be the answer (although I don’t like complicated interfaces). But the synth sounds in the PC4 are not to my taste judging from the demos, although it has a VA engine. Mind you, I’m exactly after those wobbly and lush synth sounds since my idea is for a small duo with a bassist where the entire soundscape will be coming from me, hence the need for super warm and vintage sound. I had the MODX and sold it, analog synths were not its strength. Vox Continental looks like a lot on paper but its VA is actually just a bunch of non-modifiable patches that I don’t even like. Fantom actually sounds good but I’m afraid of its interface. 
 

Seems I may resort to using U-He stuff on a laptop along with the CP88 after all. 

[Al Coda]

18 minutes ago, Stokely said:

FX always have a lot to do with synth sounds too.  I think that's one reason Repro instantly sounded so good.   Excellent raw sound with excellent fx, and really nice default presets.   Repro continues impress every time I use it.

 

In vintage hardware synths, there are no FX at all.

FX have nothing to do with that pure sound,- except you´re talkin´ about the processing done in a mix in the past.

But the pure tone was already better w/o FX !

Any great tone w/ FX is better than a poor tone w/ FX,- no ?

 

In virtual instruments, FX laminate differences.

Free run OSCs, LFOs and ENVs (when a loop function is implemented) cost CPU cycles and zero latency resonant filters do too.

Because digital gear is based on binary calculations,- it will never be exactly the same than analog gear.

That´s the price for affordability, in depth editiing of way more parameters, sample accuracy when recorded,- and total recall.

But that doesn´t mean the resulting sound of virtual instruments is so bad you won´t get a production done.

It´s just only different.

 

Repro is very CPU hungry and TAL JP-8 is too,- just to mention 2 of the good sounding virtual analogues.

 

B.t.w., for PC3, I progammed my own VA patches and they became really usable compared to my vintage Minimoog D and Oberheim Xpander, while the possibility to use some DSP programming and internal FX in addition, was pretty welcome.

I won´t say they are identical, but I got ´em close to nad work for me.

The Kurzweil factory patches aren´t the limit of the VAST engine.

Just don´t be a preset jockey and you´ll get more out of it.

 

Anyway,- when trying to get the best out of everything available, the combo of lots of virtual gear and a carefully selected collection of true analog gear seems to be the best you can use for the time being.

 

☺️

 

A.C.

 

[AnotherScott]

My main thought about the OP is that Virtual Analog does not necessarily mean Virtual Vintage Analog, implying emulation of specific 70s/80s synths,

 

Virtual Analog means duplicating analog behaviors... e.g. using algorithmically generated oscillators rather than samples, in order to achieve things that could not be correctly done with samples, like proper portamento and large interval pitch bends, pulse width modulation, the effects of free running oscillators, etc., along with filter and envelope curves that respond in a way that could have been done with analog circuits. It does not mean sounding like a vintage synth... after all, even the vintage synths all sounded different. A Minikorg didn't sound like a Minimoog which didn't sound like an ARP Odyssey which didn't sound like an Oberheim SEM which didn't sound like a Prophet... Virtual Analog should behave the way some real or theoretical analog synth would behave, but doesn't necessarily have to be able to sound like any particular analog synth, or any combination of them. Some VA synths do specifically try to emulate particular vintage synths, but that is not a requirement for something to be VA (and now I feel obligated to say it: Nord Lead.)

 

21 hours ago, CyberGene said:

With the disclaimer I haven’t owned any of those and only listened to Internet demos, those are the Kurzweil VA, Roland Zen-core, the one in the Vox Continental, Modal Argon off the top of my mind.

I don't think Kurzweil's VA has been changed since it came to the PC3 in 2008. Which is not to say anything good or bad about it, except that that could be a reason you find it lagging beyond today's state of the art, especially in VSTs. Similarly, I think the one in the Vox is derived from the AL1 VA synth that dates to 2005 (OASYS, and then brought to Kronos). I don't agree that these don't sound good, BTW, but my standards may not be the highest, and I'm not comparing them to the top-of-line VSTs as you are. But I think it's interesting that you mention Hydrasynth as a counter example, of something that sounds more analog, when the most frequent knock I've seen on it is that it sounds digital.

 

20 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

Vox Continental looks like a lot on paper but its VA is actually just a bunch of non-modifiable patches that I don’t even like. Fantom actually sounds good but I’m afraid of its interface. 

The Vox patches are somewhat modifiable, though not very much. On the synth sounds, the 9 touchstrip sliders double as filter cutoff/resonance, amp attack/decay/release, and some other things, and your changes can be saved as user presets for subsequent recall.

 

Fantom interface is the best I've seen on a board of its type. For synth, it has a bunch of "Nord-like" dedicated controls, and the touchscreen for other parameters is nicely usable. You can manipulate envelopes by tapping-and-dragging the curve on the screen. The endless encoders beneath the screen change their functions as needed, and their current function is labeled at the bottom of the display directly above.

 

28 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

I may resort to using U-He stuff on a laptop along with the CP88 after all. 

If you're trying to stay with one board and want to avoid a laptop or even an iPad, you could consider putting a Roland Boutique on the CP88. Aynsley Green posted about doing something similar, putting a JX-08 on his YC88.

[Al Coda]

6 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

the synth sounds in the PC4 are not to my taste

 

you´re talking about the presets,- not the possibilities.

 

On my Kurz PC3, I don´t use most factory presets at all.

Too much is derived from early K2000, 2500 and 2600 series instruments,- using sampled waveforms in different cascaded layers together w/ filters in each layer.

That´s not the signal flow of an analog synth at all.

Lots of patches in Kurz Forte and PC4 as also K2700 follow the same route just only because these are imported,- and then,- "somewhat optimized" because there´s a bit more DSP power now.

But the better deal is using the VA and tweaking available algorthims to achive the architecture of a vintage synth AFAP,- and some users did in the past for PC3 already.

You´ll find somewhere @Mastering VAST forums.

Nonetheless, that wasn´t perfect and there was room for individual programming,- and yes,- you can tweak envelope curves beyond linear and add all kind of "distortion" already in a algorithm by DSP processing and such,- but you cannot change the technology itself,- which is DIGITAL.

Distortion of OTAs and other (formerly cheap) components sound different from precise digital algorithms which aren´t temperature sensitive and won´t age.

When you want the benefits of digital, you´ll have to sacrifice something analogue,- period.

 

And when you really want good synth sounds from Kurz VAST engine, you´ll have to progam and finding out "how to" yourself !

I bought the PC3 because of that challenge when I really wanted to find out what VAST is and had no knowledge at that time.

 

I get a lot out of it and it does a lot analog synths from the past cannot do at all.

Just saying as one old aged user of vintage synths for decades.

 

😉

 

A.C.

[CyberGene]

18 minutes ago, AnotherScott said:

But I think it's interesting that you mention Hydrasynth as a counter example, of something that sounds more analog, when the most frequent knock I've seen on it is that it sounds digital.

Well, people are quite right, it sounds digital and a lot of that 😀 I can make it sound very analog though, through clever programming (filter drive, warm mode, analog feel, tweaked envelope curves, free running OSC, etc) but my point was rather it’s a rather inexpensive digital synth that (most probably?) doesn’t have a very powerful DSP chip yet can sound warm, so it shouldn’t be difficult to create VA engines in digital synths that are closer to vintage synths. But as you noted, VA means VA: an idealized (generic) analog synth behavior. The notion of a Virtual Vintage Analog engine is more of a niche concept. Although in the software plugin world it’s heavily exploited and I even think those plugins that emulate real vintage synths from the past might be more than the generic VA synths. 

[GovernorSilver]

ASM uses the word "vintage" once on the Hydrasynth official page, and they kept it the normal font, no bolding or other highlighting.  And the context which uses that word promotes the poly aftertouch found in "certain vintage synths", not vintage emulation.  😉

 

I think it's a great sounding synth.  

 

 

[CyberGene]

6 minutes ago, GovernorSilver said:

ASM uses the word "vintage" once on the Hydrasynth official page, and they kept it the normal font, no bolding or other highlighting.  And the context which uses that word promotes the poly aftertouch found in "certain vintage synths", not vintage emulation.

Well, there’s the “Analog Feel” which does what I mean by vintage in this thread 😉 The manual mentions a few things about what Analog Feel is but basically it’s what the vintage knob on the newest Sequential synths does: numerous deliberate offsets, randomized octave stretches, pitch drifting, etc to make it sounding more imperfect. That’s been discussed a lot on the ASM Facebook page and Glen Darcey himself confirmed it’s not a simple gimmick but is a rather complex function with the sole purpose of emulating vintage synths imperfections. 

[Al Coda]

1 hour ago, CyberGene said:

it’s a rather inexpensive digital synth that (most probably?) doesn’t have a very powerful DSP chip yet can sound warm, so it shouldn’t be difficult to create VA engines in digital synths that are closer to vintage synths

 

I don´t understand what "expensive" has to do w/ sonic quality of synths.

Every synth or whatever goods manufacture in the past and today tries to maximize income by reducing parts and production costs.

That´s good because you haven´t seen any of these products otherwise up to now.

It´s evident most idealistic manufacturers went bancrupt in the past while we enjoyed the return of Dave Smith´s "Sequential" and Tom Oberheim´s "Oberheim" trademarks more or less recently.

 

Analog Devices SHARC DSPs are able to nail the sound very good and depending on the skills of DSP programmers, but not at high polyphony rates.

Ressoures are limited always and designers have to deal with that,- analogue or digital.

Both technologies have advantages.

 

You want lots of modifiers, flexibility and total recall,- digital is your friend.

See what Access got out from a more or less "poor" Motorola processor for the Virus TI 2.

 

You want pure tone w/ just only a portion of the above,- analog rules.

It´s a balancing act and instruments like Oberheim Xpander, Matrix-12 and Alesis Andromeda were examples of that balancing act already.

 

I remember Oberheim Xpander being reported as a "thin sounding" synth w/ "lame envelopes, ramps, VCAs and LFOs" because a lot of these were created by software.

So far and so good,-

 

but that Oberheim Xpander I own, sounds snappier and fatter than every VST2 / 3 plugin synth I own,- no kidding !

 

Now what does that mean for today ?

The answer is,- it´s all relative and matter of taste.

Don´t think because you own the "in the eyes of the majority" best gear,- your music is better.

 

In fact, your music is "good enough" and regardless which gear you use,- when it makes your livin´ (for a long time!) !

When it doesn´t,- it´s all amateur´s babbling synth comparison BS boosted by social media.

 

☺️

 

A.C.

 

[GovernorSilver]

14 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

Well, there’s the “Analog Feel” which does what I mean by vintage in this thread 😉 The manual mentions a few things about what Analog Feel is but basically it’s what the vintage knob on the newest Sequential synths does: numerous deliberate offsets, randomized octave stretches, pitch drifting, etc to make it sounding more imperfect. That’s been discussed a lot on the ASM Facebook page and Glen Darcey himself confirmed it’s not a simple gimmick but is a rather complex function with the sole purpose of emulating vintage synths imperfections. 

 

Oh yeah, you're right.  They actually do use "analog feel" in the last sentence of the Master Controls section.

[The Real MC]

I own many vintage synths, and the virtual analog synths I have played do a better job looking like the vintage deal than sounding like them.

 

The guitar amp modelers of today are very authentic, but the analog synth modelers aren't there yet.

Virtual is a great "gateway drug" into analog synthesis without the maintenance headaches, but don't expect authentic.

[ElmerJFudd]

Keeping in mind that as far as music making goes, ideas are everything and finding an interesting timbre, maybe a new sound, is a joy.  A lot of people like the sound of the Virus, AN1x, JP8000, Z1, Super Nova, Nord Lead, etc. It’s a sound of the 90s and a lot of those patches don’t sound like the analogues that inspired their development at all.  

[Al Coda]

2 hours ago, The Real MC said:

I own many vintage synths, and the virtual analog synths I have played do a better job looking like the vintage deal than sounding like them.

 

The guitar amp modelers of today are very authentic, but the analog synth modelers aren't there yet.

Virtual is a great "gateway drug" into analog synthesis without the maintenance headaches, but don't expect authentic.

 

QFT !

 

but is it really neccessary ?

 

Today´s consumers of music have accepted that sound of music production since a long time.

We can babble about sonic differences for ages and it won´t change anything.

Have tons of hardware (like me), adapt "new technology" or do both,- it won´t change anything.

You´ll have to accept consumers listen to mp3 on earbuds !

 

Our investments weren´t obsolete in the past,- but today they are !

As a purist, you´re free investing as much as you can for idealism,- and as long as you´re able to afford.

But for the given perspective, you better avoid big investments, except you´re rich (enough) and you do all to your personal satisfaction.

 

Music biz is what now ?

Very important, important, so-so or un-important ?

You say,- for peanuts, we need the best sounding hardware ?

 

let me know please ...

IMO,- the music biz I knew became obso.lete.

 

Have fun !

 

A.C.

[timwat]

While certainly there's an aspect for many of us that is business. And to the degree I'm making music for the sake of self-expression - creating a meager piece of art - there's a real distinction here that's Sucralose vs. real sugar.

 

Agreed, many average listeners in a "consuming market" could care less. They listen with their eyes anyway, and have for several decades.

 

And for those of us who can hear the difference, it's a lot like the difference between playing a Steinway vs. a VST. 

 

Anecdotally, I grew up programming subtractive analog...it's all we had when I came up. I now have an OB6 that sounds creamy, alive, wonderful. And I don't gig it. I gig a Nord Wave, and have for many years. Tools for a job.

[ElmerJFudd]

Nostalgia - it seems to drive our use of discretionary funds in every way. Whatever inspired us when we were most impressionable - cars, gaming, synths, etc. are now vintage. The stuff we lusted for in our youth (when our pockets were bare) now comes within reach after a lifetime of labor.  

[David Emm]

55 minutes ago, ElmerJFudd said:

Nostalgia - it seems to drive our use of discretionary funds in every way. Whatever inspired us when we were most impressionable - cars, gaming, synths, etc. are now vintage. The stuff we lusted for in our youth (when our pockets were bare) now comes within reach after a lifetime of labor.  

 

I have a different personal take on "vintage." It defines that earlier period in technology where half of the dream instruments I acquired ended up spitting springs in my face and/or emitting smoke the third time I fired them up. I prefer my modern tools, which hold up sensibly for a while.

 

Frank Zappa once said (I quote with +/- 74% accuracy), "The world will end through either paperwork or nostalgia. We'll be unable to take the next step because we're too busy pining away for the previous ones." Sounds familiar.

 

I'd be quasi-ashamed to list the synth trends that have bored me onto very different tracks in the last few years. Get a bleeping Moog Voyager XL, a copy of Diva on a computer it won't choke and get on with it. Not being a dolphin, I can't hear that much difference and neither can you. We're the Grandpas of Synth. Accept your dotage gratefully. Hey sonny, did I ever tell you about the time I saw Nektar or when the Residents almost made me go deaf?

[ElmerJFudd]

20 minutes ago, David Emm said:

 

I have a different personal take on "vintage." It defines that earlier period in technology where half of the dream instruments I acquired ended up spitting springs in my face and/or emitting smoke the third time I fired them up. I prefer my modern tools, which hold up sensibly for a while.

 

Frank Zappa once said (I quote with +/- 74% accuracy), "The world will end through either paperwork or nostalgia. We'll be unable to take the next step because we're too busy pining away for the previous ones." Sounds familiar.

 

I'd be quasi-ashamed to list the synth trends that have bored me onto very different tracks in the last few years. Get a bleeping Moog Voyager XL, a copy of Diva on a computer it won't choke and get on with it. Not being a dolphin, I can't hear that much difference and neither can you. We're the Grandpas of Synth. Accept your dotage gratefully. Hey sonny, did I ever tell you about the time I saw Nektar or when the Residents almost made me go deaf?

Nostalgia drives the VA market as well.  The new software tools replacing analogue hardware are predominantly modeled on vintage synths and marketed as a convenient, affordable, simple,  and/or reliable way to experience the classics.  IK Syntronik 2 or B3X, Arturia V Collection 9, Roland Boutique, Roland Cloud, System-8, Jupiter-X, Juno-X, Korg Collection 3, TAL, Cherry Audio,  etc. etc.   All packed with models  of Moogs, Prophets, Oberheims and more.  Heck, the market is even ripe for Behringer to build analogue clones of vintage synths.  Nostalgia.  🤷‍♂️ 

[Stokely]

I've watched some blind tests with Diva, Repro and others with the real thing, and with such recordings, there is very little difference (and many people guessing were picking the wrong one as the "analog" one.)  There is such as thing as confirmation bias and experiencing hardware under your hands feels, looks (and maybe smells!) different from using a mouse and keyboard.  In any case, software sounds good enough for me.  I still haven't brought a laptop out just due to the logistics of it (getting it knocked over), possibly latency and having to map controls instead of having them just be there.

I do use an ipad though, and with the MODX and a few others they allow you to use it very easily as they have an audio interface.  With that in mind, you might want to check out Model D and Model 15 from Moog.   Model 15 in particular sounds fantastic, though editing patches looks quite difficult (for me at least).

For some reason I took pretty well to the MODX interface despite not liking touchscreens and the fact that it's pretty complex.  

Speaking of the MODX, someone supposedly in the know on the yamaha forums thinks they'll be coming out with something new to replace it.  This may be an analog engine, they did trademark "AN-X" recently ("FM-X" is the FM engine on the Montage and MODX.)   More supposition, but some think that the MODX may need new hardware to run it, having only half the dsp of the Montage.   If indeed AN-X is added to both Montage and MODX, I'll probably pick up a Montage as I feel Yamaha has a real winner with these two keyboards.  I do agree analog is not a strength (currently) though again some of that is the atrocious choices in patch design for someone looking for vintage oomph.

[ElmerJFudd]

I really liked the AN1x and still keep its PLG-150 around.  I’m curious to see what their AN-X engine is capable of.  Especially the modulation matrix!  
 

I have the DX PLG as well.  But for convenience I picked up Plogue’s FM synth.  Yes, it sounds very much like a DX and more capable.  Plus it has a useful sysex manager/librarian. 
 

 

 

 

[ProfD]

As I wrote in another thread, IMO, the ASM Hydrasynth (HS) is the best hardware synth on the market right now. 

 

The HS can can provide the flavor of any synth and still maintain its own vibe too.  Modern classic.😎

[CyberGene]

22 minutes ago, Stokely said:

With that in mind, you might want to check out Model D and Model 15 from Moog.

As odd as it may sound, my very first encounter with an “analog” synth was the Model 15 on my iPad a few years ago (I’m relatively young, so never owned or even seen any vintage synth besides hearing countless of records with vintage synths and I never knew how analog synthesis worked). I’m glad I started with a modular synth emulation since I have a masters degree in Physics and it all clicked to me when I followed the tutorial. I think if I had started with a “pre-wired” synth emulation such as the Minimoog I would’ve struggled a bit because one doesn’t immediately see the signal path. From there on I had no problems with various VA plugins or hardware synths. I owned a Roland SE-02, Behringer Poly D, Begringer Model D, Novation Peak, reface CS and a Hydrasynth. I kept the Model D and the Hydrasynth only. And I own the Diva, Re-Pro and the Arturia V-Collection.

 

So, back to topic, all these synths and plugins I have or had were having a particular vintage soul, more or less. However the VA engines in some keyboards are not at the same “vintage” level hence this very thread 😀

[ElmerJFudd]

21 minutes ago, ProfD said:

As I wrote in another thread, IMO, the ASM Hydrasynth (HS) is the best hardware synth on the market right now. 

 

The HS can can provide the flavor of any synth and still maintain its own vibe too.  Modern classic.😎

 

Several ICs. One is a Medeli A5, another handles the codec.  There’s also  Burr-Brown PCM5101. 

[CyberGene]

28 minutes ago, ProfD said:

As I wrote in another thread, IMO, the ASM Hydrasynth (HS) is the best hardware synth on the market right now. 

 

The HS can can provide the flavor of any synth and still maintain its own vibe too.  Modern classic.😎

Well, you know my opinion already but yeah, totally 👍🏻
 

In the following video I play a Moog-ish lead I created for the Hydrasynth on top of the CP88 Rhodes:

Sorry about the mindless noodling 😳

[allan_evett]

I've owned a few analog polysynths along with a handful of hardware VAs, though the most authentic recreations I've heard - right out of the 'box' - are from u-he Diva. That one is my go-to when working within Logic Pro. 

 

I agree with the opinions of several of you that hardware VAs shine the most when tweaked. I did some of that on a PC3, but have dug in more with the Nord Lead A1 engine in my Stage 3, 76. I've gotten that VA to sound quite oily when needed. The resonant sweeps on my Head East lead patch won't best a Mini, but they're drippy and can easily rattle windows.