[LAU] Off-topic: "A look at how the Behringer Model D compares with the Minimoog"

Post by Felix Homann
No matter how close the Behringer Model D actually gets to the Minimoog -
and it seems to get very close - it is a great mono synth. Even more so for
the price. I've been having quite some fun with it for some months now :-)

Post by Ralf Mardorf
http://youtu.be/pYxc8R_Qys0
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

I have the reissue D from Moog, and in general lots of Moog products and
zero from Behringer so from that perspective ...

I find the idea of comparing a digitally recorded analog synth to another
digitally recorded analog synth to be a flawed way of looking at things. I
couldn't tell a digital piano recording, from a real Steinway recording
neither though piano is my main instrument.

However imho, the magic of analog synths, compressors, eq, effects, and
real piano comes alive before hitting the converters. After the converters
so much is lost.

IOW a double blind test of two of these synths in the same room before the
converters, is the only way I would try to compare these things. Like in a
music shop back in the day.

I may be snowflake, but after many years of collecting gear and moving it
across continents a few times as a former expat I find build quality to be
of utmost importance. I bought a $600 road case for the D, and since the
originals from the 70's still are in high demand I expect the same from the
Moog reissue. The new Behringer longevity is TBD. Life is too short for me
to go down the Behringer path ymmv.

That being said, I have no doubt the Behringer D is a huge step up from the
plugins - best I can tell that is good enough reason to buy things for most
people.

Robert

Brent Busby

2018-06-18 14:13:21 UTC

robertlazarski <***@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

Post by robertlazarski
However imho, the magic of analog synths, compressors, eq, effects, and
real piano comes alive before hitting the converters. After the converters
so much is lost.
IOW a double blind test of two of these synths in the same room before the
converters, is the only way I would try to compare these things. Like in a
music shop back in the day.

I think you're not giving converters these days enough credit. I have
an RME card, but really these days even the cheap ones are sounding
pretty accurate now. And I'm pretty hard to please when it comes to
analog tone, but even I can't complain much. (Now, get me on the
subject of how everybody seems to be ditching high performance
dependable PCI-E cards for USB stuff, now that's another story. At
least that has nothing to do with converter quality.)

I think the reason you get more of an impression of what an instrument
sounds like when it's you playing it in your studio, rather than on
someone's recorded music, is because you can play it by itself, with no
effects, and completely control what you're wanting to hear it do. When
you listen to someone's song or demo, you've got their mix, their
effects, their playing, their patch settings, maybe even other
instrument tracks in the same mix crowding it out. You never really get
to hear the instrument. It's different when it's you driving. You can
hear every little nuance, and you even expect to hear it, because you
played every note yourself.

So you can come away with the impression that the recording lost that
experience, possibly because the converters weren't good enough, but
really, you were never going to get that experience from listening to
someone else's track.

Post by robertlazarski
That being said, I have no doubt the Behringer D is a huge step up from the
plugins - best I can tell that is good enough reason to buy things for most
people.

I have the Behringer D, and I have found it to be pretty good at
Minimoog bass. On the highs, it really doesn't sing like the real
thing. I've found that Synthesizers.com modular gear actually does have
a very Minimoog quality to it (oscillators and filters both), so if you
want that sound, it may be worth considering that for about $4000 or so
(just a little more than a real Mini costs), you could have something
with a nearly indistinguishable sound that's way more patchable and
expandable than a Mini, and also not forty years old.

--
- Brent Busby + ===============================================
+ "The introduction of a new kind of music must
-- Studio -- + be shunned as imperiling the whole state, for
-- Amadeus/ -- + styles of music are never disturbed without
-- Keycorner -- + without affecting the most important political
-- Recording -- + institutions." --Plato, "Republic"
----------------+ ===============================================

Paul Davis

2018-06-18 14:46:06 UTC

this is more audiophile-level woo.

virtually nobody alive can tell the difference between a good digital
recording and an analog one. those who think they can will rarely (if ever)
agree to double blind testing.

there can certainly be things about analog equipment that are hard or
impossible to capture with a digital equivalent.

but to claim that the recording process is the source of audible
differences? even if this might have been true of the earliest days of
commercial digital recording, it isn't true anymore.

Post by Felix Homann
No matter how close the Behringer Model D actually gets to the Minimoog
- and it seems to get very close - it is a great mono synth. Even more so
for the price. I've been having quite some fun with it for some months now
:-)

Post by Ralf Mardorf
http://youtu.be/pYxc8R_Qys0
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

I have the reissue D from Moog, and in general lots of Moog products and
zero from Behringer so from that perspective ...
I find the idea of comparing a digitally recorded analog synth to another
digitally recorded analog synth to be a flawed way of looking at things. I
couldn't tell a digital piano recording, from a real Steinway recording
neither though piano is my main instrument.
However imho, the magic of analog synths, compressors, eq, effects, and
real piano comes alive before hitting the converters. After the converters
so much is lost.
IOW a double blind test of two of these synths in the same room before the
converters, is the only way I would try to compare these things. Like in a
music shop back in the day.
I may be snowflake, but after many years of collecting gear and moving it
across continents a few times as a former expat I find build quality to be
of utmost importance. I bought a $600 road case for the D, and since the
originals from the 70's still are in high demand I expect the same from the
Moog reissue. The new Behringer longevity is TBD. Life is too short for me
to go down the Behringer path ymmv.
That being said, I have no doubt the Behringer D is a huge step up from
the plugins - best I can tell that is good enough reason to buy things for
most people.
Robert
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

David Kastrup

2018-06-18 15:23:58 UTC

Post by Paul Davis
this is more audiophile-level woo.
virtually nobody alive can tell the difference between a good digital
recording and an analog one. those who think they can will rarely (if ever)
agree to double blind testing.
there can certainly be things about analog equipment that are hard or
impossible to capture with a digital equivalent.
but to claim that the recording process is the source of audible
differences? even if this might have been true of the earliest days of
commercial digital recording, it isn't true anymore.

I think one thing hard to keep track of is nonlinear processing. If you
take a triangular signal and lowpass-filter at 20kHz and reproduce
digitally in the proper manner, you will not hear a difference in the
audible frequencies.

If you square that signal or limit it or distort it, the results in the
audible domain will be different depending on whether you do that
operation on the original signal, on the low-pass filtered signal, or on
the digitally sampled low-pass signal.

You can compensate for that if you _synthesize_ your original signal and
take good care of what you do. If what you start with is a _sampled_
signal in the first place (maybe in order to better reflect the
imperfections of the analog implementation) you don't have the high
frequency content/information anymore in order to determine how it folds
back into the audible domain when doing non-linear processing.

I'd expect this kind of effect to be probably audible with 48kHz
samples. Probably a quite less so with 96kHz.

Of course it isn't relevant for mere recording and replay: it's only
non-linear processing that has a direct effect. Well,
actually... Simple low-order _linear_ filter devices usually are
transformed into the digital domain using the bilinear transform, and
the bilinear transform has less linear phase and frequency relations the
closer you come to the sampling frequency. So again, for modelling
simple analog circuits, you are better off using sampling rates that may
seem silly for mere reproduction.

So it's my expectation that reimplementing simple analog synthesizers
(that have waveforms reasonably close to what they are supposed to be in
theory) in a convincing manner will likely warrant investing higher
sample rates than you'd usually consider sensible bargaining for, either
when synthesizing or when working from sampled versions of the original
oscillators.

So there are some reasons that the "pure snake oil" realm is a bit
further with regard to analog synths than one would like to think. Of
course it's still out there somewhere.

--
David Kastrup

robertlazarski

2018-06-18 15:27:02 UTC

I guess I didn't clearly indicate that I am not talking about recording at
all.

Put a Nord stage in the same room as a Steinway - as I have seen first hand
- and the difference is huge. I seen Keith Emersons Moog Modular live and
felt it in the balcony.

Record the same Nord and Steinway and the difference is largely lost. If
you record that modular and compare it the Moog plugin you won't really
know what the big deal about the Modular is. A live performance of a good
horn section like Chicago is largely lost in the recordings.

Analog synths cannot be sampled for all possibilities, which is why CV
controlled analog synth and effect modulation separate its digital
counterparts in sound sculpting.

Something like analog compressors shine even after converters, which is why
an LA2A is still used on a lot of pop vocals. And while +12DB sounds great
on an API eq, its brittle in the digital realm ymmv.

Post by Paul Davis

Post by Felix Homann
No matter how close the Behringer Model D actually gets to the Minimoog
- and it seems to get very close - it is a great mono synth. Even more so
for the price. I've been having quite some fun with it for some months now
:-)

Post by Ralf Mardorf
http://youtu.be/pYxc8R_Qys0
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

I have the reissue D from Moog, and in general lots of Moog products and
zero from Behringer so from that perspective ...
I find the idea of comparing a digitally recorded analog synth to another
digitally recorded analog synth to be a flawed way of looking at things. I
couldn't tell a digital piano recording, from a real Steinway recording
neither though piano is my main instrument.
However imho, the magic of analog synths, compressors, eq, effects, and
real piano comes alive before hitting the converters. After the converters
so much is lost.
IOW a double blind test of two of these synths in the same room before
the converters, is the only way I would try to compare these things. Like
in a music shop back in the day.
I may be snowflake, but after many years of collecting gear and moving it
across continents a few times as a former expat I find build quality to be
of utmost importance. I bought a $600 road case for the D, and since the
originals from the 70's still are in high demand I expect the same from the
Moog reissue. The new Behringer longevity is TBD. Life is too short for me
to go down the Behringer path ymmv.
That being said, I have no doubt the Behringer D is a huge step up from
the plugins - best I can tell that is good enough reason to buy things for
most people.
Robert
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

David Kastrup

2018-06-18 15:39:14 UTC

Post by Paul Davis
this is more audiophile-level woo.
virtually nobody alive can tell the difference between a good digital
recording and an analog one. those who think they can will rarely (if
ever) agree to double blind testing.
there can certainly be things about analog equipment that are hard or
impossible to capture with a digital equivalent.
but to claim that the recording process is the source of audible
differences? even if this might have been true of the earliest days
of commercial digital recording, it isn't true anymore.

I don't know enough of the setup to say anything definite here but I am
skeptical when we are talking about something that is represented by a
few lines running to static speakers/amps.

A symphony orchestra tends to be quite more transparent in a reasonable
price range of seats than a really good recording of it. Even a bunch
of instrument amps is more transparent than a good recording since the
amps all have their own "throwing" characteristics you can make use of
when moving your head.

This is extremely so with Leslie (rotary) speakers, of course.

Microphone and mix it, whether for creating a recording or for
retransmission through a PA, and the magic is gone. What is left is
reproducible perfectly.

That's one reason that concerts with ten thousands of visitors make
little acoustic sense: the necessity of PA use makes the acoustics
indistinguishable from recordings blasted over a humongous speaker
system. If you want to really enjoy some Hammond/Leslie sound, the
sound reaching you has to come from the Leslie cabinet, not a PA.

--
David Kastrup

Paul Davis

2018-06-18 15:40:28 UTC

Post by robertlazarski
I guess I didn't clearly indicate that I am not talking about recording at
all.
Put a Nord stage in the same room as a Steinway - as I have seen first
hand - and the difference is huge. I seen Keith Emersons Moog Modular live
and felt it in the balcony.
Record the same Nord and Steinway and the difference is largely lost. If
you record that modular and compare it the Moog plugin you won't really
know what the big deal about the Modular is. A live performance of a good
horn section like Chicago is largely lost in the recordings.
Analog synths cannot be sampled for all possibilities, which is why CV
controlled analog synth and effect modulation separate its digital
counterparts in sound sculpting.

âWell, now the discussion is somewhat different.

An acoustic instrument interacts with the space you hear it in in ways that
no stereo playback with common point sources is ever going to capture. It
isn't easy to capture it even using ambisonics. âEven if you did an analog
recording and played it back via a very good speaker system in the same
space, there will be things missing unless you do some really unusual
things with the recording and playback systems.

An electrical instrument, whether analog like the Moog Model D or digital
like Pianoteq can't do this: it never generates ANY sound at all except via
some amplified speaker system. So it is entirely reasonable to think that
you will always hear the same thing when you play a recording (analog or
digital) of the instrument over the same playback system that you first
heard it on. There is absolutely no difference ... electrical signal
encounters speakers, is transformed into a pressure wave, reaches your
ears. Recording or original sound ... no difference.

The inability to "sample for all possibilities" certainly has an impact,
but it isn't relevant to physically modelled synthesizers, and it also has
more impact on performance possibilities than actual acoustic tone.

â

Fons Adriaensen

2018-06-18 19:13:00 UTC

Post by Paul Davis
An acoustic instrument interacts with the space you hear it in in ways that
no stereo playback with common point sources is ever going to capture.

Indeed. And where that matters, it is the sound engineeer's job
to try and capture at least some of that magic, even if can't be
reproduced correctly.

Post by Paul Davis
An electrical instrument, whether analog like the Moog Model D or digital
like Pianoteq can't do this: it never generates ANY sound at all except via
some amplified speaker system. So it is entirely reasonable to think that
you will always hear the same thing when you play a recording (analog or
digital) of the instrument over the same playback system that you first
heard it on.

There is even no way to tell how it should sound, except when the
original amp / speaker system is considered part of the instrument.

Ciao,

--
FA

Paul Davis

2018-06-18 19:59:36 UTC

Post by robertlazarski
â

Post by Paul Davis
An electrical instrument, whether analog like the Moog Model D or

digital

Post by Paul Davis
like Pianoteq can't do this: it never generates ANY sound at all except

via

Post by Paul Davis
some amplified speaker system. So it is entirely reasonable to think that
you will always hear the same thing when you play a recording (analog or
digital) of the instrument over the same playback system that you first
heard it on.

There is even no way to tell how it should sound, except when the
original amp / speaker system is considered part of the instrument.

âRight, that's a better way to think of it. It also has the important
corollary that since you have typically more freedom to place the speakers
in a space than you do many instrumental setups (e.g. orchestra!), the
physical speaker arrangement within the room is inherently a part of the
instrument for that performance too.â
â
Obviously, that's true to a more limited extent for some acoustic
instruments too - "let's try the piano over there" - but the degrees of
freedom are generally reduced.

robertlazarski

2018-06-19 18:53:28 UTC

Post by Paul Davis

Post by robertlazarski
I guess I didn't clearly indicate that I am not talking about recording
at all.
Put a Nord stage in the same room as a Steinway - as I have seen first
hand - and the difference is huge. I seen Keith Emersons Moog Modular live
and felt it in the balcony.
Record the same Nord and Steinway and the difference is largely lost. If
you record that modular and compare it the Moog plugin you won't really
know what the big deal about the Modular is. A live performance of a good
horn section like Chicago is largely lost in the recordings.
Analog synths cannot be sampled for all possibilities, which is why CV
controlled analog synth and effect modulation separate its digital
counterparts in sound sculpting.

âWell, now the discussion is somewhat different.
An acoustic instrument interacts with the space you hear it in in ways
that no stereo playback with common point sources is ever going to capture.
It isn't easy to capture it even using ambisonics. âEven if you did an
analog recording and played it back via a very good speaker system in the
same space, there will be things missing unless you do some really unusual
things with the recording and playback systems.
An electrical instrument, whether analog like the Moog Model D or digital
like Pianoteq can't do this: it never generates ANY sound at all except via
some amplified speaker system. So it is entirely reasonable to think that
you will always hear the same thing when you play a recording (analog or
digital) of the instrument over the same playback system that you first
heard it on. There is absolutely no difference ... electrical signal
encounters speakers, is transformed into a pressure wave, reaches your
ears. Recording or original sound ... no difference.
The inability to "sample for all possibilities" certainly has an impact,
but it isn't relevant to physically modelled synthesizers, and it also has
more impact on performance possibilities than actual acoustic tone.
â

Had to delay my response due to internet issues ...

I look at digital audio capture and digital audio production of sounds
differently, the former I don't really have a problem with besides its not
a good way to compare analog signals.

Here's some API lunchboxes, ARP 2600 TTSH clone, Moog D and Oberheim TVS
together:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1x3XFCfv91_IacdqdiyAndnmxjBXro1BH

I see a lot of pop shows with my family and I can definitely tell when a
synth is sampled, especially analog synths with some of the hipper artists.
Sounds like a "Virtual analog" synth. I believe these analog synths and
effects are best heard live.

For synth audio production , modulation and LFO's with CV just sounds
different and is more flexible as I see it. Not everyone agrees which is
why most people use midi. CV sources can modulate each other, and CV
sources can be combined. CV can be easily adjusted, inverted, and stretched
in any which way. Very fast. Not stepped. I use midi for some things as it
can be easily stored, but only with a stand alone step sequencer.

Here's a quick example of what I am talking about.

Some analog oscillators of VCO style can self oscillate. The Vermona
Retroverb is a spring reverb / multi mode Filter / LFO that supports CV, so
I use a Moog drum machine (DFAM) to trigger the Retroverb 'sample and hold'
thru its self oscillating band pass filter. The DFAM is going thru a Moog
500 series delay and Moog Ladder HPF with the resonance on max, creating a
low end rumble and some high end to the beat ... however a lot of that was
lost in the recording - you had to be there in the same room at least this
in this example.

The synth is a Studio Electronics CODE 8 analog poly synth, which in this
case is using CS80 inspired filters as a strings instrument. The effect is
an analog stereo chorus ensemble, the Elkorus.

All gear going thru its own API compressor and EQ channel, the API 2500,
525, 550a and 5500 if you are in to that sort of thing. The sample and hold
is going thru a LA3A compressor with no eq. The synth also goes thru an
Elysia Karacter 500 series distortion / saturation module.

Trying to be relevant to LAU .... while the sounds and video were recorded
on a couple Zoom Q8 cameras and a F8, the final video was auto edited via a
Bash script using FFMPEG and ltcdump on my OpenSuse leap 42 Zareason
notebook ... some of the FFMPEG commands were inspired by the debug output
of Ardour.

I like using LTC audio to sync multi cam video and this is an example,
created by this script. This video was put together in a few spare minutes
I had yesterday so no post production, the camera angles need some work,
mix isn't perfect but anyways ... a 1 minute video and smaller wav.

script:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6lkxftwjk1vhkqy/parseLTC.sh?dl=0

Video (200 mb)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wzsfu5q2adws878/output.mov?dl=0

wav

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sgh8v50c6scd9vv/f8t.wav?dl=0

Best regards,
Robert

robertlazarski

2018-06-19 20:42:15 UTC

Post by robertlazarski
Some analog oscillators of VCO style can self oscillate.

Correction, don't want to misinform:

s/Some analog oscillators of VCO style can self oscillate. /Some analog
filters of VCF style can self oscillate.

Ralf Mardorf

2018-06-20 06:21:37 UTC

PS: There are discussions regarding fairness. Is it fair that
Behringer provides a Model D clone? Is it fair that Moog's reissued
Model D is that expensive? Is it fair that companies get money for
providing clones of discontinued synth? Is it fair that companies
discontinue iconic synth? There are more or less no discussions
regarding possible differences of the sound quality. Those discussions
are not about weak FLOSS emulations. Again! Important parts sometimes
are real analog parts, no software at all. CV often is provided.
Btw. my Roland GR-55 not only provides samples, but also modeling. A
real sitar or a real resonator guitar sounds different to using my
electric guitars with the modeling of a sitar or resonator guitar, but
it is an option, less expensive than buying a sitar and resonator
guitar and very important to me, it requires less floor space. Some of
my music gear is unused in my kitchen, unused in my bedroom and used by
a friend a few streets away. Floor space in my music room is limited.
While I agree that virtual synth often can't compare to original synth,
they sometimes could or are they are at least good enough and sometimes
they are simply a less expensive alternative, even if they should sound
less good.

david

2018-06-20 07:56:26 UTC

Post by Ralf Mardorf
PS: There are discussions regarding fairness. Is it fair that
Behringer provides a Model D clone? Is it fair that Moog's reissued
Model D is that expensive? Is it fair that companies get money for
providing clones of discontinued synth? Is it fair that companies
discontinue iconic synth? There are more or less no discussions
regarding possible differences of the sound quality. Those discussions
are not about weak FLOSS emulations. Again! Important parts sometimes
are real analog parts, no software at all. CV often is provided.
Btw. my Roland GR-55 not only provides samples, but also modeling. A
real sitar or a real resonator guitar sounds different to using my
electric guitars with the modeling of a sitar or resonator guitar, but
it is an option, less expensive than buying a sitar and resonator
guitar and very important to me, it requires less floor space. Some of
my music gear is unused in my kitchen, unused in my bedroom and used by
a friend a few streets away. Floor space in my music room is limited.
While I agree that virtual synth often can't compare to original synth,
they sometimes could or are they are at least good enough and sometimes
they are simply a less expensive alternative, even if they should sound
less good.

Sometimes I think the whole purpose of DAWs and VSTs and synths is to
make it possible for someone sitting at home with no budget to write for
whole symphony orchestras *and hear something like it* without spending
the large amount of money needed to have an orchestra actually perform a
piece.

Being such a person, I'm not complaining. ;)

--
David W. Jones
***@hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://dancingtreefrog.com

Ralf Mardorf

2018-06-20 18:14:23 UTC

Post by david
Sometimes I think the whole purpose of DAWs and VSTs and synths is to
make it possible for someone sitting at home with no budget to write
for whole symphony orchestras *and hear something like it* without
spending the large amount of money needed to have an orchestra
actually perform a piece.
Being such a person, I'm not complaining. ;)

You also could be e.g. a keyboard who owns a house, a real Hammond
with Leslie, a real grand piano, a real Rhodes, a real D6, 20 Moogs,
Oberheims and Co. in flight cases and a Mellotron. If you need all
those sounds for a gig, would you like to transport all those real
things, excepted of the house?

Btw. I'm a disgusting bad keyboarder, while there are some instruments
unsuitable to be played by even the latest Roland guitar synth, playing
a rock organ works quite good and this in two different ways, it's
possible to play it by guitar in an organist's way or to play the organ
sound in a guitarist's kind of style.

Keep in mind, I'm a fan of real Curtis CEM based analog synth as well
as I like real non-analog iconic synth, such as the real old DX7 or
the TG33 with it's vector control. With modern emulations you can't get
all those original sounds, it at least does feel different when playing
those beasts live, compared to virtual synth, OTOH emulations become
better and better. Arturia and Nord are amazing PC/tablet PC synth
and/or stand alone hardware synth. At the moment I usually prefer
latest emulations over original synth. Not all oldish analog synth
provide the nice controls mentioned by robertlazarski. I own an Oberheim
Matrix-1000, it only provides MIDI IOs and an audio output and the only
potentiometer is to control the volume. A lot of people replaced a lot
of analog synth with a few Oberheim Matrix-1000 in the end of the 80s,
just using the factory presets, without a MIDI controller. Nowadays a
lot of those sounds are provided by soft synth, too. It's just not true
that even experimental music requires all kinds of controls. Most
important is to get a lot of basic sounds. For one or the other speical
experimental sound, it could be enough to use one or two real old
synth, but the 20 other synth could be replaced by something like the
Oberheim Matrix-1000 in the past and today a lot of those sounds could
be replaced by e.g. a Nord, not all of those sounds, but OTOH a Nord
provides sounds a Matrix-1000 doesn't provide.

David Kastrup

2018-06-20 18:17:52 UTC

You also could be e.g. a keyboard who owns a house, a real Hammond
with Leslie, [...]

I've never previously heard the definition of a real Hammond with Leslie
being a keyboard who owns a house, but there is something to be said for
it.

--
David Kastrup

Ralf Mardorf

2018-06-20 18:32:35 UTC

You also could be e.g. a keyboard who owns a house, a real Hammond
with Leslie, [...]

I've never previously heard the definition of a real Hammond with Leslie
being a keyboard who owns a house, but there is something to be said for
it.

A real Hammond without a Leslie:

Loading Image...

Depending on the size of your screen, the picture might not display the
original size of the organ.

A Roland GR-55, is just a small guitar floorboard, in addition to the
floor board you need a guitar, it provides the Hammond and a Leslie:

Loading Image...

There are keyboard based Hammond replacements available, too.

If you want something close to e.g. a Bernie Worrell alike organ sound,
a modern keyboard or guitar synth with emulations, is easier to
transport than a Hammond. Isn't it?

Ralf Mardorf

2018-06-20 18:42:49 UTC

PS:

Loading Image...

I doubt that Bernie Worrell needs to carry this gear, most likely some
roadie are doing it for him. The original Moog and the original Hammond
are nice, but I bet more important is his style and replacements for
this gear most likely would produce a sound close to the original
instruments, if you know how to play them.

robertlazarski

2018-06-20 19:13:45 UTC

Post by Ralf Mardorf
https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/vulture/2016/06/25/25-
bernie-worrell.w1200.h630.jpg
I doubt that Bernie Worrell needs to carry this gear, most likely some
roadie are doing it for him. The original Moog and the original Hammond
are nice, but I bet more important is his style and replacements for
this gear most likely would produce a sound close to the original
instruments, if you know how to play them.

We are really getting off topic now, but can't help but mention that is Leo
Nocentelli from the Meters next to him in the photo. Seen the Meters last
year. I didn't know these guys collaborated, thanks for the link.

When I last seen Deep Purple a few years ago, their current keyboard player
Don Airey had the expected Hammond, I would have asked for my money back if
he used a VA :-) .

Best regards,
Robert

Ralf Mardorf

2018-06-24 12:58:56 UTC

Post by robertlazarski
We are really getting off topic now, but can't help but mention that
is Leo Nocentelli from the Meters next to him in the photo. Seen the
Meters last year. I didn't know these guys collaborated, thanks for
the link.
When I last seen Deep Purple a few years ago, their current keyboard
player Don Airey had the expected Hammond, I would have asked for my
money back if he used a VA :-) .

This weekend I purchased an iPolysix, it wasn't my first choice, but
unfortunately neither the ARP ODYSSEi, nor the iMono/Poly is compatible
to my iPad 2. Sure, the original Polysix, let alone the original ARP and
the original Korg Mono/Poly, are playing in a different league, than at
least the Polysix emulation does. However, I'm happy with this
emulation. Always keep in mind, due to missing spare parts, as well as
it could be completely being impossible to get one of several iconic
synths, emulations are the only options we have got. Regarding what you
and I expect from listening, we aren't much different, if different at
all ;).

David Kastrup

2018-06-24 13:36:20 UTC

This weekend I purchased an iPolysix, it wasn't my first choice, but
unfortunately neither the ARP ODYSSEi, nor the iMono/Poly is
compatible to my iPad 2.

Huh. My violin was built before Bismarck went to school, in reckless
disregard of iPad 2 compatibility. Probably some sort of Saxonian
boycott of Apple. My accordion was completed in 1960. As opposed to
its predecessor (from the late 30s I think) in the Harmonikamuseum in
Trossingen, its free bass section is compatible with modern players,
being a 3-row C system (as opposed to a 2-row upside down system like
its predecessors). While it still sports a few incompatibilities to
modern instruments, they are reasonably worked around with some
practice.

I have a Solton MS40 from the 90s. Its Midi is pretty configurable and
the QIC connections pretty common. The main worry for incompatibility
is its 3½" disk drive (which is actually already HD, namely 1440kiB)
because media and drive are getting unreliable. I swapped it for a USB
drive which is sort of a hassle to deal with (and, using the raw floppy
interface, not actually faster) but keeps 1000 disks on it.

It cooperates nicely with various controllers, not having a keyboard of
its own. Including present-day ones.

Post by Ralf Mardorf
However, I'm happy with this emulation. Always keep in mind, due to
missing spare parts, as well as it could be completely being
impossible to get one of several iconic synths, emulations are the
only options we have got.

You sound as if nothing but emulations of any instrument existed at all.
Where do you think the emulations are even coming from? Emulations are
an affordable option to get, well, an emulation.

Nobody states "due to missing spare parts as well as it could be
completely being impossible [sic] to get one of several iconic moon
landers", "emulation are the only options we have got" to get to the
moon. I mean, that sounds like moon landing hoax conspiracy level
stuff.

--
David Kastrup

robertlazarski

2018-06-24 18:30:18 UTC

This weekend I purchased an iPolysix, it wasn't my first choice, but
unfortunately neither the ARP ODYSSEi, nor the iMono/Poly is
compatible to my iPad 2.

In the right hands I have no doubt the iPolysix can be a lot of fun and a
good tune can translate to just about any instrument.

Since Korg showed they consider value in the Polysix line by releasing
plugins, I expect them to do a Polysix reissue at some point though my
preferences would be the Trident and the Mono/Poly, the latter can have 4
independent oscillators with a shared filter aka "paraphonic" synth.

I have the Polysix emulation as part of the Oasys however I use the MS20
more since I have the MS20M reissue (no keyboard, a few innovations + the
sq10 analog CV sequencer). The Oasys 10" screen has some drum patches
(virtual patch chords lol) that I eyeball over to the MS20M as its a great
machine for that sort of thing.

You sound as if nothing but emulations of any instrument existed at all.
Where do you think the emulations are even coming from? Emulations are
an affordable option to get, well, an emulation.
Nobody states "due to missing spare parts as well as it could be
completely being impossible [sic] to get one of several iconic moon
landers", "emulation are the only options we have got" to get to the
moon. I mean, that sounds like moon landing hoax conspiracy level
stuff.

Before I got all messed up in the software world, I was all messed up in
electronics so I fix my own synths etc. IMHO A vintage synth requires time
like a vintage car does, with the 80's being particularly an era of cheap
and cheesy electronics as I remember it. The Polysix resembles that remark.
Most of them still around have been at least re-capped (new capacitors).

Lack of parts is a real concern in my experience. As mentioned about the
Curtis chips, its been out of stock for decades and ebay is full of scams
for such things. For my TTSH arp 2600 clone I was on the Mouser waiting
list for over a year on a couple parts they had problems with, and beyond
that I had to order a special "rare parts" kit from Thonk in the UK.
Actually I ordered 2 kits so I would have spares.

ymmv.

Regards,
Robert

Post by David Kastrup
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

David Kastrup

2018-06-24 18:36:03 UTC

Post by robertlazarski
Before I got all messed up in the software world, I was all messed up
in electronics so I fix my own synths etc. IMHO A vintage synth
requires time like a vintage car does, with the 80's being
particularly an era of cheap and cheesy electronics as I remember
it. The Polysix resembles that remark. Most of them still around have
been at least re-capped (new capacitors).
Lack of parts is a real concern in my experience. As mentioned about
the Curtis chips, its been out of stock for decades and ebay is full
of scams for such things.

The Polysix emulator dies with its host. Something like an iPad 2 is
less longlived than a hardware synth.

--
David Kastrup

Will Godfrey

2018-06-24 19:03:59 UTC

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 20:36:03 +0200

The Polysix emulator dies with its host. Something like an iPad 2 is
less longlived than a hardware synth.

That is a very good point indeed. I have a hardware synth in regular use, bought
in 1995.

--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.

robertlazarski

2018-06-20 18:44:26 UTC

That is what midi and digital audio is good at. For me I am on computers
too much already so for that I use an Access Virus and a Korg workstation
sequencer.

Post by Ralf Mardorf
Keep in mind, I'm a fan of real Curtis CEM based analog synth as well
as I like real non-analog iconic synth, such as the real old DX7 or
the TG33 with it's vector control. With modern emulations you can't get
all those original sounds, it at least does feel different when playing
those beasts live, compared to virtual synth, OTOH emulations become
better and better. Arturia and Nord are amazing PC/tablet PC synth
and/or stand alone hardware synth. At the moment I usually prefer
latest emulations over original synth. Not all oldish analog synth
provide the nice controls mentioned by robertlazarski. I own an Oberheim
Matrix-1000, it only provides MIDI IOs and an audio output and the only
potentiometer is to control the volume. A lot of people replaced a lot
of analog synth with a few Oberheim Matrix-1000 in the end of the 80s,
just using the factory presets, without a MIDI controller.

That's cool you have a Matrix-1000. About those Curtis Chips ...

This is where I have hope for Behringer as a few years ago they bought a
big chip company. The sweet and short poly analogs of the 80's - Oberheim
Xpander and Matrix 12, Roland Jupiter 4 and 8 etc - to varying degrees were
analog chip based. I have a hard time seeing how a chip based clone could
come up short.

For example. this is the Xpander. This is the one I want to see come back:

*Xpander <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberheim_Xpander>*: 6x CEM3374 Dual
VCO, 6x CEM3372 Filter/Mix/VCA

Best regards,
Robert

david

2018-06-22 06:24:13 UTC

That is what midi and digital audio is good at. For me I am on computers
too much already so for that I use an Access Virus and a Korg
workstation sequencer.

I find keyboard workstations too cumbersome. Point and click and such on
a full-sized screen has spoiled me.

--
David W. Jones
***@hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://dancingtreefrog.com

robertlazarski

2018-06-22 13:15:55 UTC

Post by david
Sometimes I think the whole purpose of DAWs and VSTs and synths is

to >make it possible for someone sitting at home with no budget to write

Post by david
for whole symphony orchestras *and hear something like it* without
spending the large amount of money needed to have an orchestra
actually perform a piece.
Being such a person, I'm not complaining. ;)

That is what midi and digital audio is good at. For me I am on computers
too much already so for that I use an Access Virus and a Korg workstation
sequencer.

I find keyboard workstations too cumbersome. Point and click and such on a
full-sized screen has spoiled me.
--
David W. Jones
authenticity, honesty, community
http://dancingtreefrog.com
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

Ah but the Korg Oasys shown in the video I posted as a MIDI controller to
the SE CODE 8, has a 10 inch touch screen.

And as someone who spent 15 hours in VI yesterday and recently wrote a
script to auto edit multicam videos so I don't need a UI, a mouse never
really jelled with me. As a piano / keyboard player its more of a natural
environment for me. Definitely ymmv.

Regards,
Robert

robertlazarski

2018-06-22 13:24:46 UTC

Post by robertlazarski
Ah but the Korg Oasys shown in the video I posted as a MIDI controller to
the SE CODE 8, has a 10 inch touch screen.

And the Oasys runs Linux! Lots of hacks out there but like I say often
music is my only escape from computers so that is not my thing.

Ralf Mardorf

2018-06-20 05:49:38 UTC

Post by robertlazarski
For synth audio production , modulation and LFO's with CV just sounds
different and is more flexible as I see it. Not everyone agrees which
is why most people use midi. CV sources can modulate each other, and CV
sources can be combined. CV can be easily adjusted, inverted, and
stretched in any which way. Very fast. Not stepped. I use midi for
some things as it can be easily stored, but only with a stand alone
step sequencer.

This is utter nonsense!

Likely most people neither use MIDI nor CV/gate, but more likely they
are using Inter-App Audio and similar approaches. What "most" people
are actually using depends on the "market". The "market" is a blackbox,
the output of this blackbox depends on interaction between companies
and customers. Even a lot of iconic analog synth don't provide the
versatility you describe, let alone that very often such versatility
isn't needed at all. Instead for example Inter-App Audio allows to
simply sync LFOs to BPM, something that is impossible to do with
several iconic analog synth and much more often wanted, than
experimental stuff, that could be only heard when listening to the synth
live and that anyway gets lost, when you record those synth.

"A look at how the Behringer Model D compares with the Minimoog"
provides exactly the information it should provide. This video isn't
about pros and cons of different approaches.

_Everybody_ talented or not talented, making music for 40 decades and
more, is aware about the advantages and drawbacks of different
approaches. Old musicians sometimes could have different opinions, but
they all made more or less equal experiences.

You claims are at best half of the full story, but I even doubt this.

Seemingly the Behringer Model D could provide a lot of sounds, a lot of
people need for recordings, while no touch screen or mouse is required
to use the knobs. Even while I didn't watch the whole video, I've seen
a part where the Behringer Model D did not produce the same sound as
the original Minimoog does. The only important information this video
is missing are experiences related to durability. Sure, the Behringer
Model D can't be used with Inter-App Audio and similar approachers, but
IIUC it is at least partial a real analog synth, even using
structurally identical semiconductors as used for the original Minimoog.

I read reviews, one musician owns 2 original Minimoogs from the 70s and
1 Behringer Model D. All three synth do sound different, but all sound
like real Minimoog, not surprising for the real Minimoogs from the 70s,
but it's surprising that it's also seems to be true for the Behringer
Model D. Even the miniature knobs seems to be usable without causing
problems. The Behringer Model D seemingly provides CV IOs.

robertlazarski

2018-06-20 12:55:00 UTC

This is utter nonsense!

It's my opinion after owning around 15 vco based analog synths and I stand
by it. CV in some ways is faster and more flexible than midi, latency by
design is impossible for example. Though midi has advantages too like
storage. I use both.

Post by Ralf Mardorf
Likely most people neither use MIDI nor CV/gate, but more likely they
are using Inter-App Audio and similar approaches. What "most" people
are actually using depends on the "market". The "market" is a blackbox,
the output of this blackbox depends on interaction between companies
and customers. Even a lot of iconic analog synth don't provide the
versatility you describe, let alone that very often such versatility
isn't needed at all. Instead for example Inter-App Audio allows to
simply sync LFOs to BPM, something that is impossible to do with
several iconic analog synth and much more often wanted, than
experimental stuff, that could be only heard when listening to the synth
live and that anyway gets lost, when you record those synth.
"A look at how the Behringer Model D compares with the Minimoog"
provides exactly the information it should provide. This video isn't
about pros and cons of different approaches.

Depends on what you consider an iconic synth.

The arp 2600 has all that flexibility and over the decades it's been pushed
to it's limits. The star wars r2d2 voice and Edgar Winters Frakenstein are
2 famous examples.

That synth was designed to teach synthesis and is very good at that.

As mentioned a double blind test in the same room is the only real way to
do that. The D reissues have both cv and midi, sometimes I use the D as a
midi controller.

Post by Ralf Mardorf
_Everybody_ talented or not talented, making music for 40 decades and
more, is aware about the advantages and drawbacks of different
approaches. Old musicians sometimes could have different opinions, but
they all made more or less equal experiences.
You claims are at best half of the full story, but I even doubt this.

I never said what's best for everyone, only what works for me. Some people
only use samples for their music. Whatever floats your boat.

Post by Ralf Mardorf
Seemingly the Behringer Model D could provide a lot of sounds, a lot of
people need for recordings, while no touch screen or mouse is required
to use the knobs. Even while I didn't watch the whole video, I've seen
a part where the Behringer Model D did not produce the same sound as
the original Minimoog does. The only important information this video
is missing are experiences related to durability. Sure, the Behringer
Model D can't be used with Inter-App Audio and similar approachers, but
IIUC it is at least partial a real analog synth, even using
structurally identical semiconductors as used for the original Minimoog.

It's like 85% bananas for 1/3 the price. Some people would buy them if they
existed. I seen both Replicant movies, that's how I see this but make no
mistake, freedom to choose what works for some people is a good thing.

I prefer 100% of the signal path to be original components. The Moog D
comes close, the arp 2600 clone from the ttsh project is pretty much part
by part the original, though mine also has a midi kit.

It costs more so ymmv.

Post by Ralf Mardorf
I read reviews, one musician owns 2 original Minimoogs from the 70s and
1 Behringer Model D. All three synth do sound different, but all sound
like real Minimoog, not surprising for the real Minimoogs from the 70s,
but it's surprising that it's also seems to be true for the Behringer
Model D. Even the miniature knobs seems to be usable without causing
problems. The Behringer Model D seemingly provides CV IO.

The behringer as stated is better than the plugins for some people and I
like the project because it fits my vision of SMT becoming cheaper than
software development for the reissues.

Ralf Mardorf

2018-06-18 18:57:19 UTC