The most important part of music is your vision and you use whatever tools you have at your disposal to bring it to life. It can be software or hardware, you just need to get it down. Hardware synths are beautiful but they do come at a cost and with continual upkeep!

I think his friends go to his place to jam 😉

@@alistairfletcher6187 Sadly, no. I had less to move than the drummer, by a lot, so i had to take the hit for the team. Now, many years and several bands later, my kit consists of a laptop and a controller and fits in a backpack.I ask for a stereo pair to give to the house sound guy at soundcheck, and that's it for when we play out. Its vastly less hassle this way, and sounds 99.9% as good as my hardware setup back in the late80s/early 90s, especially if i make sure to include the little things like channel strip models and amp simulation etc for getting all the nuances right.

i own quite a few of Arturia products and they all sound amazing especially when you get them on sale😅😅

Agree 100% - if the software instrument emulations can get you to 99% of the original sound, saving tens of thousands of dollars and lots of physical space in your music studio is totally worth it. I have been very happy with the Arturia software instrument emulations, as well as those from Cherry Audio, Native Instruments, Rhodes, Uhe, UA, etc. Music producers are extremely lucky with what we have at our disposal these days, and for a very reasonable price.

I think the Rhodes fell through, but the others are so close.

Agreed. Always wondered how close they were. There are better Rhodes plugins though.

Generally agree. There is probably a real psychological lift if (say) one was performing live and you had a whole setup of classic keyboards to switch between. And maybe a feel thing. On the other hand, it is a lot to lug around! So even live it may be better just to have a solid laptop and run the emulator(s) like this Arturia software…

True, but I think that will change. There's no point in an emulation that's 4% better but costs twice the resources, especially if the userbase is likely to misperceive that as poor optimisation, so companies have to wait until research shows the userbase's computers having significantly jumped in power. We already see that in how much better emulations become every 5 years or so.

@@joechapman8208we have been waiting the last 20 years for that to change and the wait goes on. Its like waiting for fusion reactor. We’re always almost there… but we will never get there😅

@@legeartis78 We are getting there, though! Softube take the step up every few years. The Liquidsonics reverbs. With a good computer by today's standards, you can run as many instances of their effects as you would have expected to run of much less complex equivalents in the past on a machine of the day. Zynaptiq's Orange Vocoder IV is a great example of this: it was clearly working and ready to release years ago, with hints dropped every time it was live-demo'ed at trade shows that you'd need a good computer for it, but they didn't put it out until this year.

I think we should remember that there are 4% (I'm not sure how we're quantifying that, but for the sake if argument we'll go with it) or greater differences between *hardware* instances of these synths. We're also not talking about EQ and environment and the effects of time or monitors vs onboard speakers or... ad infinitum. It's not like there is some Platonic ideal of these analog synths with which to compare Arturia's emulations at the 100% metric. 😃

I believe emulations got there years ago and that one can't pick out which is which in a properly conducted blind comparison.

Pour le Rhodes, chaque Rhodes est différents donc c'est difficile de juger, mais c'est vrai que les instruments de ce genre on encore des progrès à faire dans l'émulation.

Bro they are not going to be identical to any real model chosen for comparison except the exact piece of kit Arturia used to make the plugin. All hardware synths have slight variances in sonic output

I was thinking about doing a video showing how specific processing can make the software sound more like their hardware counterparts. You can definitely get them closer. The sounds in this video are completely dry.

I think you can improve that with clever processing on the software counterparts. Sometimes I actually find the hardware synths too big in sound to fit in a mix and find myself doing drastic EQ cuts to make them sit in.

@@lukemillionmusic No, if you play the highest possible note on an analog synth, and then play the same note on the emulation, you will hear what I mean. It's not something you can fix with EQ, it's a limitation of the digital technology. For the most part, you can use emulations if you don't need those super high tones, but it's good to have some analog on hand when you want a really bright chrip or bleep.

@@user82938Bullshit. You just don't know how to do it.

@@user82938 That's easily solved by just using a sample player. Period.

​@@RogerBrenonno "period " about it. Samples are lifeless and unresponsive.

I heard the same for a long time. However also saw quite some comments that the latest Arturia Prophet V version seems to be even better than Repro 5.

Yeah The Software Sounds Better 😂

If you had two of the hardware units they wouldn’t sound exactly the same either. Plus you have to factor in the aging of the components as well.

Ehhhhh.... Almost all of them lack a certain magic across the whole scale. For example, the Rhodes. The real one is obviously more balanced, the high notes sound like the same stuff being hit but just smaller - whereas Arturia's version's highs are clearly resampled and extraordinarily bright. The same kind of effect in the lows, with Arturia's version being too low.. the real one is mostly loud and peaky in the human musicality range mids, rather than deep bass and airy highs. I think this is because when you try to copy things, unless you do it EXACTLY, it's super hard to recapture all the subtleties of the intent of the designer; you lose all the experience and nuance that goes into the original masterpiece. I'm not saying Arturia's stuff won't make you go "Oh, that's a Rhodes" and will get the job done to convey social correlation (hear rhodes, think (i dunno...) *"mister Rogers" * and feel nostalgia). But, if all you want is checking a box, rather than deep complexity, you lean very heavily on the famous artworks that have used those things, rather than making NEW works using a fully nuanced and well rounded instrument, known to stand on its own. I think when it comes down to it, they're two different things. Arturia is the remake, and everything along with that connotation; and the original is the original, and everything that comes with *that* connotation.

Rhodes sounded really different

Software is the future

Thank you 🙏 Next video will be up soon!

that preset is on the original and arturia version.

Thanks Davide. I put the Rhodes difference down to the inconsistency in my Hardware version. Every key has its own variation with pickup distance and action which adds to the magic. I think with processing of the Arturia plugin you could get more vibe if you run it through saturation etc. but the rest weee very impressive 😊

The rhodes in arturia has always been kinda lackluster. I would instead grab scarbee keys or keyscape, much more authentic sampled sounds compared to the physical modelling stuff with arturia.

The Arturia Rhodes has a lot of presets, I agree it isn't quite as good as the real thing but handy to have.

@@lukemillionmusic I think it did quite well. Anytime you do a comparison you will get people who hyperbolically say the VST is so far away as to be irritating. Not the case at all. 😃

I agree about the Juno and Solina. Just listening on a phone but both sound spot on

Spot on, bro. Anyone who can't hear the difference are probably suffering from loss of high freqs in their hearing.

Chaque Rhodes est différent, pour en avoir possédés plusieurs du même model je peut vous dire que la différence était flagrante d'un Rhodes à l'autre. Mais il est vrai que pour les piano et autre instruments acoustiques/electro acoustique les emulations sonnent en grande partie moins bien que l'original.

There’s no getting around the fact that the emulation is inferior. For some reason people in KZfaq comment sections love to deny it though. Trust your ears.

Don't have a MiniMoog at the moment, but I will have another video in a few days 😀

I did consider that haha

To me it seems that VST just needs a bit of EQ and it's identical. Also we should take into account, that even two different Emulator units doesn't sound same!

Keep an eye out for sales! 😊

I agree. The way sounds were/are recorded have a huge impact on the final result you hear.

Probably would be closer to $300-400k if you were to buy all 34 vintage units! So definitely is more affordable haha

I programmed that sound. I might actually pop all the sounds I made for these videos in a download link.

I made it to emulate my Juno 6.

I will be doing that soon 😊

@@lukemillionmusic thx

My Emulator II actually used to belong to INXS! Got it when they were clearing out a storage unit of old gear :)

That won't helpthe missing high frequencies, though.

The essence has definitely been captured and in the absence of owning the real thing, the software can be quite inspiring when looking for a certain flavour.