Emu XL-7 & MP-7 User's Group

Nice piece of text altough I'm not sure what you want the reader to 
learn. 

The difference is small? If still think otherwise. 

There is no VA that can emulate rawness of my Waldorf Pulse just 
with the oscs.

Even if you would say: if the 777 didn't have that analogue filter I 
would be able to recreate its sound on the supernova...the filter is 
an essential part of every synth. 

In my opninion the oscs of the supernova 2 are pretty thin (some 
believe it uses sampled waves for sound generation). But it is 
extremely flexible. Does this mean that the difference between 
analogue and VA is small? I say no. 

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "Alien" <23rdsigil@...> wrote:
>
> The following is a reprint of a write I recently made to an 
associate
> of mine with minor edits.  There's a section of the letter that 
deals
> with TB-303 emulation via the JV synth engine and as the principles
> described can be applied to a rather large variety of 
sampler/sample
> based synths (in cluding the P2X), I thought others may find the
> technique covered relevant as well.  I will note that the given
> technique assumes the user is starting from a fairly blank base and
> not with parameter values thrown all over the place; further, the
> foundation of the technique can be taken farther to squeeze out 
other
> "analouge" type sounds from sample based synths.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>      Al
> 
>  
> 
> Synth BS
> 
> In regard to your analouge comments, I've always been a big lover 
of
> analouge (probably largely due to me getting my start in sythesis 
with
> analouge pieces), and in many ways, I do think it carries some
> qualities that Rompler/sampler based affairs and VA's can't
> touch.....but in many regards, I think those qualities are 
misunderstood.
> 
> For one, most analouge synths were based on subtractive synthesis; 
but
> to that same end, most Rompler/sample based synths were/are also
> subtractive synthesizers. In essence, in the analouge/digital 
switch,
> the main synthesis method employed NEVER got touched. 
Oscillator/Sound
> sources and filters (voltage controled to digital) were all that 
got
> affected. In this regard, I think it would make sense for one to 
want
> to expand on the amount of waveshapes available for an oscillator 
to
> employ, and in this regard, the progression to a sample based 
approach
> was a logical and sensical move as it allowed for the general
> waveshapes generated by VCOs to still be employed while also 
allowing
> for an entire entourage of waveforms difficult to achive via VCO to
> also be brought into the fray. In this regard, the "Oscillator" of 
a
> typical rompler synth BLOWS away VCOs/DCOs in the area of overall
> flexibility. I truly can understand why you have a primarily sample
> based basis in this regard.
> 
> If you are getting into a lot of waveshaping, I don't feel that 
VA's
> quite match the quality of TRUE oscillator sync at this juncture.
> Also, the sound of analouge filters and plain digital (or physical
> modelling analouge/VA) still sound different; I would not say 
either
> sounds BETTER or WORST than the other, simply different.
> To this end, I actually ran an experiment recently, testing out the
> qualities of sound between different Oscillator/Sound Source types;
> filters etc. To begin the experiment, I made a simple acid line on 
the
> 777 and gave note to it's timbraic qualities. I then did
> individual/seperate routings of a sqaure wave and saw wave from my 
777
> into the SuperNova II and utilized the 18db filter on the SNII (had
> been using the same type of filter on the 777). I set up a filter
> envelope on the SNII to act like the filter on the 777, ran the 
same
> sequence information into the SNII, and then proceeded to attempt 
to
> get the same sound out of the SNII with it utilizing a 777 
oscillator.
> Aside from the SNII's filter having a wider range, issues still 
came
> up and ultimately it was not possible to replicate the 777 sound
> despite filter poles and filters EG setups that mirrored each 
other. I
> then reversed the scheme, utilizing SNII oscillators through the 
777
> filter. I ended up having to utilize 2 SNII pulses to replicate the
> 777 square oscillator sound but after that, no noticable difference
> could be made out (the SNII saw took some fiddling, but two
> oscillators did not need to be used to replicate a 777 saw). In
> essence, the major difference between the two proved to be the 
filter.
> (I will further note that it was not possible to get the 777
> oscillators to replicate the sound of SNII oscillators AT ALL).
> 
> I then replicated the experiment once more, this time utilizing the
> 777 and the XL-7. There proved to be saw and square waveforms 
within
> the XL that matched the sound of the 777 oscillators pretty much 
dead
> on, and from here on, once again the notable difference came in the
> form of the sound of filters.
> 
> I actually plan on taking this experiment a bit further, but 
swapping
> out the 777 with the MFB Synth II (which uses a 24db filter), I'm
> fairly confident that the sound of filters will prove to be the
> difference once more.
> 
> There was another aspect of my experimentation that I went through
> which was simply replicating patches on different synths. To 
begin, I
> developed a patch on the SNII and simply made sure to ignore 
aspects
> of it's architecture that differed from Roland's JV synth engine 
and
> then sought out to replicate it on the 505 (which has a JV base).
> Timbres of STRIKINGLY similar quality were able to be developed in
> this regard. So similar that ultimately, unless one had each synth
> side by side, I highly doubt one would have been able to 
differentiate
> between which synth had actually produced the timbre (espically 
within
> a mix of things).
> 
> I'll note that in the area of patch replication, I had carried out 
a
> similar experiment years ago with Native Instruments Generator
> (precursor to Reaktor) and my Juno 106 where Generator proved to
> capable of matching the 106 pretty much dead on.  I later would put
> Reaktor to a MS20 test where Reaktor would prove capable of not 
exact,
> but pretty darn close to perfect emulations.
> 
> I further plan to extend this aspect of my experimentation some 
time
> in the future.
> 
> In any regard, if my current hypothesis proves correct, analouge 
would
> seem to have a big edge simply in regard to waveshaping methods,
> oscillator sync and continously variable wave shapes, in 
particular.
> Outside of this, filter sound difference would be the divide (on 
that
> note, just about all filters tend to have small degrees of sound
> difference IMO though). Further, in regard to waveshaping, in the 
area
> of oscillator sync, it's also worthy of note that the amount of
> analouge synths out there with OSC sync capabilites is not really 
all
> that high (the amount of analouge's OR VA's for that matter with
> continously variable wave selection is another area of low 
selection).
> The Supernova series arguably becomes unique in it's OSC sync
> implementation due to it's Virutal slave implementation, which 
really
> allows it to dive into areas actual analouge could only hope to
> achieve.....one considers the amount of polyphony VAs offer WITH
> oscillator sync, the fact that a small line of VAs have a virtual 
sync
> feature, and well, it can be argued that despite the sound quality 
of
> the sync feature, there is something VAs have to offer in sync 
areas
> that analouge does not.....in this regard, I'd fall just short of
> saying actual analouge based sync is BETTER and say again, it's 
simply
> different.
> 
> Ultimately, the analouge/VA/Sample Based differences I think are 
much
> smaller than many people make them out to be and ultimately reside
> more in people not truly understanding synthesis theories or 
having a
> lack of synth programming knowledge than in a giant difference in
> sound. I'm not sure if you've carried out experiments similar to 
the
> ones I've recently dove into, but if you havent', I'd highly 
suggest
> carrying out at least a patch replication test utilizing your 
romplers
> against VA softsynths you may have.
> 
> Finally, something Romplers/Samplers have over analouge's and VA's
> lies in the fact their architectures typically allow for a synth 
stack
> to be created immediately. That is to say, allowing 4 (or MORE,
> sometimes MUCH MORE) waveforms, each with their own given synth
> architecture, to be utilized in one patch. Thus, even when limited 
to
> waveforms common to analouge synths, a patch created on a
> Rompler/Sampler could necessitate multiple synths, a high amount of
> voice eat up, or a fair amount of timbral eat up, to accomplish on 
an
> actual analouge or VA synths.
> 
> I am by no means out to knock analouge synths, as I love them,
> currently own my own share of them (with even more I've owned in 
the
> past), and don't ever forsee myself ridding myself of them (the 
777 is
> my favorite synth bar none). BUT, I equally love Romplers/sample 
based
> modules and my sampler use is pretty frequent. I've found both to 
have
> their own unique brand of strengths and weaknesses.....and in 
general,
> actually give a lot more credit to sample based approaches in 
regard
> to overall flexibility than to analouge.
> 
> For example, one may be shooting for the classic "acid" sound. 
Someone
> may say the JV engine (or 505 to be specific) is horrible for acid,
> but I couldn't disagree more. The acid sound simply necessitates a
> basic saw or square wave, ONLY zero or positive EG effects on the
> filter, that the EGs have zero placed settings on the attack, 
sustain,
> and release (decay can be varied), and finally, some possible 
playing
> around with portamento values, after all of this, the option is 
left
> open for whether or note polyphonic voices are allowed (unlike on 
the
> 303), if detuned oscillators/waveforms will be implemented (unlike 
on
> the 303), and ultimately, figuring out ways to compensate for the 
JVs
> lack of a 7pole/18db filter.....the filter problem often being 
able to
> be compensated for simply through keeping EG filter placement a 
fair
> deal above 0 as standard and modifying the sustain level to be kept
> somewhere above 0 as a standard rather than at 0. The 505/JV now
> becomes an acid device with all the same 303 controls (minus 
accent)
> at hand AND MORE (just need to sequence in 303 stylings from here 
on).....
> concerning the shortcoming in the accent area, I'll note that even
> here there are ways for approximation though. If Velocity controll 
of
> the amp is nulled (as is the case with the 303) and velocity 
levels of
> resonance are given reasonable values, though it would still not 
be a
> total emulation of a 303 accent, it would in fact allow for a 
partial
> emulation of the 303 accent....so long as all "unaccented" values 
were
> of the same velocity, "accented" values were of all the same 
velocity,
> and that velocity levels of "unaccented" notes was a fair amount 
below
> planned "accented" values, any time an accent velocity value was
> placed a resonance spike would occur and thus emulate some of the 
303
> accent properties.
> 
> There is a lot of good to analouge, VCOs and VCFs in particular 
(I'm
> not a particularly big fan of DCOs outside of their stability). 
There
> are definately some annoyances that come along with it as well 
(though
> most newer VCOs tend to be fairly stable, be prepared to dig out 
your
> voltage gun every now and then for some of the older ones). BUT, 
the
> amount of sound quality difference between analouge and sample 
based
> synths generally falls far short of what many make it out to be 
(IMO).
> My 505 is a JV synth base (predcessor to your Fantoms XV base), 
and of
> course the CS is a P2500....if you'd like, I'd be willing to make 
some
> quick recordings of the JV and or Pseries being put to test against
> Analouge and/or VA for you in regard to patch replication just to 
sort
> of demonstrate how slight the differences can be at times. If you
> think you might find such usefull, let me know and I'll make some 
up.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Al
>