Vote-Which Vintage Oscs and Filters should be modelled next

webbunny · Post by **webbunny** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 3:49 pm

OK, at the moment, the Scope platform has, in the standard atoms, these 'vintage' parts:

The Prophet 5 Rev 3 and OB-X parts from Curtis - CEM3340 osc and CEM3320 filter

The Roland 'Roman' Synth parts - IR3109 filter, and MC5534A osc (which is an attempt at a Juno 6 Voice Circuit on a chip).

Now, I can't find out if the Voice Circuit on the early Junos is the same as the ones in a Jupiter 8 - but I'm sure Stephen Hummel found out while he was putting together Europa

These 2 groups together can be used to build Jup6 and SH101 simulations too.

And then last but not least, the Waldorf/PPG wavetable osc, and the Prophet VS osc, and the first attempt at the Moog Ladder filter from MiniScope.

In all, they cover a lot of bases.

There's also the oscs and filters from MiniMax and Prodyssey, but I'm sure these aren't in the 'standard' atoms (and I dont begrudge Creamware for keeping these reserved to these synths - they need pay back on the R&D).

The question being put to the vote is - What other vintage osc and filter models would you like to see as part of the standard atoms, and therefore possibly as a ModII/III module?

Here are some suggestions:

SSM2030 & SSM2044 - The osc from the Prophet 5 Rev 1&2, and the filter from the Korg Poly Six, the PPG 2.2/2.3, and the Fairlight IIx.

High Order Morphing filters - while I wouldn't suggest treading on anyones patents (!), something along the lines of EMU's Z-Plane filter may be cool.

Korg Customer Analog - From the Poly 61, DSS-1, DW8000 and Poly-800. The filter on these machines seems to be held in high regard by owners of these 'boards.

Waldorf Pulse Osc & Filter - For all you Pulse/Q+ fanatics! It might be a good time to talk to the receivers and get a good deal on a license for the design :¬)

Yamaha CS series Osc & Filter - Say no more, as per usual I've yapped on!

Andy

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:29 pm

well... the thing with the Juno/Jupiter stuff is that even individual Jupiter-8s were famous for having their own distinct timbral characters apart from other Jupiter-8s that were supposed to be the same! and the Jup-8 is notoriously different from the rack-'Super'-Jupiter version... such is the world of 'real' analogue.

as for the Poly-800s (i have two EX-800s), they really are brittle, 'plasticy' and cheesy-sounding (to me)... but that is, of course, why they are sooo great! i wouldn't say they have *spectacular* filters/ oscillators, but they are distinctive which makes them desirable. i guess that is what is important with any given synth's parameters... its own level of distinction, right? a sort of personality that sets it apart.

[ This Message was edited by: wavelength on 2004-04-04 17:34 ]

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:40 pm

#1 - Yamaha CS/GX series Osc & Filter
Absolutely a good idea, the CS Series were some of the best sounding keyboards ever IMO. Very full and atmospheric sounding. There were prototypes before it as well, the GX-1 and EX-1, it would be interesting to hear a GX-1 oscillator.

#2 Morphing filters

High Order Morphing filters - while I wouldn't suggest treading on anyones patents (!), something along the lines of EMU's Z-Plane filter may be cool.

Very good idea, I've been waiting for someone to develop something like that for a while. I miss my Morpheus. It's not an effect for every occasion but it does have its place.

#3 Jupiter-8 arpeggiator, oscillators and / or filters.

#4 Minimoog filter and oscillator

There's also the oscs and filters from MiniMax and Prodyssey, but I'm sure these aren't in the 'standard' atoms (and I dont begrudge Creamware for keeping these reserved to these synths - they need pay back on the R&D).

That may be so, but they could also think about just making such atoms a bit more expensive, to cover development costs and all. I can pipe signal out of the MIII and into Interpole, and back into the MIII, but an integrated moog filter (or oscillator) would be really neat.

webbunny · Post by **webbunny** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 7:12 pm

Answered my own question about the oscs in the Jup8 vs the Junos - one has VCOs, the other has DCO, so there's no way they can be the same!
But the filter is definitely the same, Roland used the same filter chip in a load of synths. And I'd read that one of the things people liked about the Jup8 in the early 80's was that you could program your sound onto someone elses (from a patch sheet!), and it would sound the same - something the american synths would never do.

As for the Poly-800, well it was an 'El-Cheapo' keyboard when it was released, with some real dodgy design decisions (I mean, 1 filter for all 8 voices of a polyphonic synth-madness!), its likely to have had corners cut just about everywhere else.
The DW8000 and DSS-1 Retro pages on the Sound On Sound website are pretty positive about the filter they have though, I'm pretty sure its the same circuit as the one in the Poly-800.

Andy

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 8:59 pm

What about the Ensoniq ESQ-1? Those were supposed to have digital wavetables paired with analog filters, but I don't know anything else other than that.

What I'd *really* like to see is a modeled analog delay with smooth time variation, as well as a vintage 4/6/12-stage phaser a la Equinoxe/Oxygene.

Shayne

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:11 am

http://www.synthtech.com/cem/cemsynth.html

<<< might be of interest?

http://www.johnbuckner.com/mks80/mks80.html

<<< there are some interesting comments on this page regarding some of the subtle and not-so-subtle issues that exist when comparing analogue synths, even when they are *apparently* quite similar (ie: the Jup-8 and the MKS-80). even different revs of the MKS-80 sound different from eachother. my point is that it is difficult to say "copy this or that vintage synth's filter" when these things are very relative in nature, once the synth as a whole is considered (circuit cross-talk, gain-staging, A/D-conversion rates...)

it makes more sense to me to design new types of filters, etc, that might have a certain vintage filter's basic character but that still retains a quality of its own.

trying to scientifically reproduce old filters is kinda like chasing your tail around... you never get anywhere. for instance, as amazing as the Minimax is, there are certainly people out there who are going to say "that doesn't sound like *MY* MiniMoog", even though it is hands-down the best emulation you can find (in the virtual-realm, at any rate). how it succeeds is by sounding great on its own ground... how many Minimax users out there have bothered A/Bing it with a real vintage Mini? how many have actually played a real Mini?

[ This Message was edited by: wavelength on 2004-04-05 04:07 ]

bosone · Post by **bosone** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 3:41 am

please... don't model another analog synth....we have plaenty of them!
do something different... something like sixstring for example! or a wavetable synth, perhaps signing a deal with a sample producer (imagine an athmosphere with STS atoms and minimax filter - that would have also a perfect copy protection!)... just ideas...
or an improved FM synth... but stop that analog!!

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:15 am

On 2004-04-05 04:41, bosone wrote:
please... don't model another analog synth....we have plaenty of them!
do something different... something like sixstring for example! or a wavetable synth, perhaps signing a deal with a sample producer (imagine an athmosphere with STS atoms and minimax filter - that would have also a perfect copy protection!)... just ideas...
or an improved FM synth... but stop that analog!!

there is always going to be a market for new and great-sounding subtractive style synths, all that tweaking and filtering is what modern electronic music was founded on (unless you count the avant-guard)... the style of synthesis has actually created the style of music. people are attracted by the relative simplicity of the synthesis and seem to crave new takes on the old standards.

after finishing my OP-8, i do feel, however, like i now have the instrument that i have wanted in this style and I am ready to move onto other things.

i agree that there is much to be done in physical modelling, FM and other emerging realms of synthesizing sound...

wsippel · Post by **wsippel** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 11:10 am

I think I would love to see the Waldorf Pulse stuff, the Q really sounds great...

decimator · Post by **decimator** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 12:17 pm

Let's do it in a screaming boss manner : " I want them all in 5 minutes "

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 1:16 pm

Resynthesis would be cool to see on SFP

proximo · Post by **proximo** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 9:05 am

I think VA 'research' should go further.
It is still to my ears anyway not yet the perfect copy of real analog...
Well what is the point ?
The point is that , atm, VA and analog can complement each other as they can acheive different kind of sounds, some are similar (thank God), but some are very different.
The problem is that nobody is really manufacturing analog anymore, cause I guess it is a pain and expensive.
VA is only coding a DSP regardless of how complicated that may be..
But there is still a big room for real analog sounds.
When I bought Minimax, I was totally blown away, I had never heard something like this before.. having grown up with sample players ..
I thought that if analog is supposed to sound like that, then I want analog !
Since Minimax, I bought an MKS-80, 2 Oberheim Matrix-1000, and Waldorf Pulse.
I really don't regret anything.
Using a old synth like an MKS-80 (with curtis chip) is almost like using an acoustic intrument, that synth is so alive !
Listen to this :
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mks-80/analog%20dream.mp3

The lead is the MKS-80, the PADs are made with the Matrix1000, and the bass with the Pulse.
I tried to program such patches with VA but
I could not get something like that.
I have the feeling that there is more than just modelling VCOs, VCFs, VCAs ...

Just a thought...

danseq · Post by **danseq** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 4:58 am

Buchla, Buchla, Buchla

Nobody else has done it and they sound incredible.

-Dan

valis · Post by **valis** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 6:50 am

You ultimately can't model a thing without making the thing itself. At least I believe so. That doesn't mean that you can't come 'close enough' and it also doesn't mean that you don't learn interesting things in the process. But it is a bit restrictive if that's all you focus on.

Incidentally I don't think it is true at all that there are no longer analogs, tho most modern machines have a lot of digital control and are made in very small quantities (ie, they're likely not going to show up on your local discount guitar shop).

scary808 · Post by **scary808** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:03 pm

Anyone see Focurite's Liquid Channel? I vote for something like that for SFP!

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 2:41 pm

rather unlikely as they claim it's a joint venture between a special analog design AND software

Faybs · Post by **Faybs** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:48 am

I'm studying the tr909 bass drum schematics and I discovered that the main sound is produced by a triangle waveform through a diode clipper waveshaper.
This clipper is made with two diodes (two different types I think) which transforms the triangle to an approximate sinus wave full of harmonics.
This week end I will try to include this circuit through an external insert effect instead of using a DSP waveshapper, it looks so simple.

And so do you think it is possible to emulate that kind of circuit with value charts from real measures, and with different types of diodes (silicone, germanium) ?

webbunny · Post by **webbunny** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:06 pm

Stephan,

So are you saying when you've built devices in the past that were meant to ape or mimic a real synth, like Europa or SparC, you've done it all by ear, just to try and get the 'character' of what you are mimicing, without going into some detailed analysis, like impulse responses and the like?

Andy

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:32 am

On 2004-04-16 20:06, webbunny wrote:
Stephan,

So are you saying when you've built devices in the past that were meant to ape or mimic a real synth, like Europa or SparC, you've done it all by ear, just to try and get the 'character' of what you are mimicing, without going into some detailed analysis, like impulse responses and the like?

Andy

Actually what I have done in the past (and always will do) is take what I like about a certain synth -- or even just a particular feature of the synth -- and make it into something new. I believe that strict emulation is rather silly, especially when certain soft-synth emus are even emulating the weak points of the originals (inflexible envelopes/ weak routing possibilities/ no aftertouch, etc, etc...)

If one does want to go about emulating old gear then all the old features should be there + a whole lot more that the new technology will allow.

Btw, I have never set out to "ape" or "mimic" anything. What I create are unique and performance-oriented synthesizers that stand on the shoulders of older synths, while retaining their own unique qualities. I mention old synths with similar capabilities in my spec-sheets to give a potential user some idea of what sorts of timbres are possible.

Synthesis is like a language, once you get your head around the basic grammar you can start making your own sentences, instead of being a parrot. With enough time spent you can get to the point where you will hear a timbre and know (pretty specifically) what it would take to generate that sound... you don't need oscilloscopes and the like, just good ears and a feel for synthesis technology.

It's even very much like music itself -- the way to become an excellent performer is to practice and listen to artists you love for clues, not to break out the "analysing machines" and crunch the numbers... you have to 'feel' it!

Stephen

PS: Obviously, to make the synths that I do, I have to have a strong grasp of synth concepts and technology (as well as graphic and sound-design)... I don't just pull this stuff out of my ass. I have studied many a vintage circuit-design and learned from as much writing on the subject-matter as I can find. An artist needs to be fluent in the 'language' to converse and aware of the history to move forward.

[ This Message was edited by: wavelength on 2004-04-17 05:19 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:27 am

...and obviously you succeeded - with what's compressed in the PS.
for me your synths aren't just plugins, but true instruments

cheers, Tom