Should I buy Noah EX or Scope or Arturia synths?

Jupiter4 · Post by **Jupiter4** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 11:50 pm

Hi, I am pleased that I found this forum as this is the only place that there appears to have Noah owners. I am considering buying a Noah but have a few questions I was hoping that you might be able to help with.

I grew up on vintage synths (well, they were new back then in 1984) and have stuck with them for years. I have only just started using MIDI, I have a Roland master keyboard with 4 MIDI out ports and play three modules from this (I also have some vintage gear as well). I record audio only to a Yamaha MD8 (8 track recorder) and sometimes use my MC909 sequencer. I do have a proper music computer (4 year old Carillon P3 - a bit slow now - will not run any Arturia synths) but do not use it because I find a computer (mouse) interface uninspiring - maybe I am set in my ways.

I have slimmed down my synth collection considerably and am now looking to have a few 'modelled' vintage synths as they take up less space and do not have noise issues etc. The Noah EX seems an attractive option, especially as the price is £539 new. I like the idea of a hardware box but I have read various complaints about the Noah and lack of support. I bought Roland and Yamaha gear new 6 years ago and they have not missed a beat, I wonder if the Noah will be the same with the latest software?

I would like to know if these complaints were to do with the Noah itself - rather than ground hum or user error. If your unit was faulty did creamware get it sorted out? Are there software bugs in the latest version? Are there poliphony issues or does it work exactly like it says on the website? If I want to use my MC909 sequencer, or if I go back to using Cubase SX, is it easy to get the Noah set up and working properly in multi-timbral mode? Does it work in the same way as any hardware unit or is it comparatively more difficult or easy to use? How easy is it to programme directly from the unit - I have read here that this is the only way to get your sounds saved afterwards but it is not straight forward to use (I am ok with programming through a letterbox - I do this on my EX5R with no probelm) - have I got this right or can you eddit sounds on a PC then save to the Noah.

Or is the Noah a bad idea because Scope or using Cubase SX with some Arturia synths will be far less of a headache? If I do go this route, will Scope work with a 4 year old P3 1Ghz engine with 1 Gig RAM? If I go Arturia then I am into serious money because I will need to change my computer (budget at least £1800-2200) inc the software and as I spent £2500 on my existing computer would rather get more out of it than scrapping it and getting a new one. FYI my soundcard is Soundscape Mixtreme so any new computer will need to be PC not Mac.

I know that this is a long first post but hopefully you guys can help me out as I have to make a purchasing decision tomorrow.

Many, many thanks.

alfonso · Post by **alfonso** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:51 am

The main reason I would get Scope (professional) is because of the Modular that really rocks. If you need it in the studio and not live get Scope. It has also a lot of more interesting features and better for studio work.

Noah kicks ass, but it's basically a fantastic sound module, Scope is that and much more.

Jupiter4 · Post by **Jupiter4** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:55 am

Hi thanks for the reply. I am not really into modular synths - had a System 100M and it was very slow and frustrating to work with compared to the pre-wired jobs like my minimoog. I am not sure whether extras are worthwhile for me - I like to keep things simple - unless you are talking about more synths! I am looking to expand my sound palette without complicating things - hence the decision not to go down the Logic/SX route because they are very sophisticated and as a result complicated with a steep and long learning curve that I am not interested in going on. It took me one day to learn my current setup. If you are saying that Scope is as easy to use as Noah, (maybe because Noah is a little complicated?) and it has extra features, that is a different matter and of course I would be interested. If so, do you think that I could run scope on my existing PC?

Lima · Post by **Lima** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:35 am

Hi, I run scope on my PIII 800 with chipset intel 815 and 512 MB of ram, without any problem.

Another nice thing is that I usually work with a lot of impressive effects, without charging the processor, so working (expecially sequencig and mixing) is very "fluid" in my opinion.

R.D. Olivaw · Post by **R.D. Olivaw** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:19 am

Arturia's Synths sound as a joke compared to CreamWare's.
The Noah sounds fantastic and is easy to use, especially with the host software. BTW I'm saving my presets via this software without any problem - no need to control it directly from the unit.
I do not understand any of the complaints about the Noah. It's really super easy to use and works flawlessly. Those complaints are just rumours.
If you're a keyboard player that wants to set up everything quickly just to perform synths, get a Noah. If you'd like to produce some songs but don't have the mixing tools to, get a Scope. With Scope you have really good AD/DA and mixing environnment, but with a Noah EX you have a far better price per DSP ratio.
The lack of support is not specific to Noah: if you buy a Scope, the support will vanish when the next creamware DSP gen will arrive.
If you keep a computer with windows XP for the Noah remote software, I bet it will work great for years.

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:18 am

I've downloaded Arturia's demos, and I think there is no comparison between them and the Noah in terms of quality. If you are used to playing on geniune vintage keyboards, you will find the Noah to be so close as to be hardly distinguishable. In my opinion, its synthesis engines beat the hell out of the current workstation 'ROMplers' by Roland, Korg, Yamaha, etc - it doesn't do sample playback, but all the other sounds - synth sounds - are so clear and detailed, it's a joy to play. I do not recommend programming the unit through its LCD interface - the computer software is much easier to use, and once you have the presets created, you just use it like any other hardware synth. I've never had any problems with presets not working, polyphony not working, etc. If you are going to use it live, you will probably need to get at the parameters *on occasion* through the LCD because sometimes some global parameters will need to be adjusted. But in the home studio that sort of thing isn't really a problem. I've used it live a lot and it hasn't ever let me down. According to some people who watched our shows, compared to the Korg Trinity/Triton rotary organ effect, the Noah's leslie slowdown / speedup is much more pronounced and clear, and the vocoder is clear and not mushy like the Korg MS2000. The synth sounds (Minimax, Pro-One) sound clear and smooth - no trouble hearing them above them mix, even at reduced volumes (that's the mark of a good quality sound as far as I'm concerned).

If you are planning to use this in a studio, the Scope cards might be the way to go (might be more expensive, check what synths and effects are bundled with them). You get an incredible amount of flexibility in how the Scope card platform interacts with your sequencer - with the Noah, it's a simpler setup, you can treat it as just another hardware synth. I run the Noah's configuration software on a separate computer, to keep things simple - it doesn't take a powerful processor, and all you're really doing is tweaking patches anyways. Plenty of usable presets, so you don't necessarily have to create everything from scratch. I haven't had any major problems with support from Creamware but I have rarely needed it - the products work fine as far as I can see. I was using the Noah live a few days after buying it, so the learning curve isn't that steep. If I was going to buy more Creamware gear, I think I'd get a Noah - as pointed out, the price per DSP (the amount of software you can run depends on the DSP chips present, and the Noah comes with a lot more, at least in terms of their standard synths). There's some very cool 3rd party applications but you need the card for that.

[ This Message was edited by: Liquid Len on 2005-09-25 09:59 ]

wayne · Post by **wayne** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:16 am

Alfonso is right - Noah is a live box (for me at least) - and Scope is the studio hub.

If you want to expand your sound palette, and you're into vintage sound, then Scope with 3rd party plugs from Zarg (John Bowen), Spacef, Celmo, Warp69 (through STW) to name a few will be a sure way to go.

The p3 will be fine - you may not need the mixtreme either.

Modular is very usable, also - hundreds of great patches around, and Adern Flexor is very cool

Jupiter4 · Post by **Jupiter4** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:13 pm

Hi guys thanks for the replies. Some interesting comments. I will only be using my synths at home but like to keep everything simple to go 'live' whenever the mood takes me. Financially the Noah is seeming to make more sense although the Scope is gaining in attraction.

I appreciate that the Creamware stuff is meant to sound a little better than the Arturia, but as I know poeple who own Arturia and the originals, and there is not that much difference between them, it makes me wonder why more poeple have not bought into Creamware. I suppose that it is this fact that has put me off a little and that maybe there is more to it than meets the eye. Maybe they just did not get their marketing right, maybe there are issues with the company or product?

I am 95% going for the Noah but will sleep on it, thanks again for the help, especially like the bit about using Noah as an interface should I ever sell my Carillon PC with Soundscape. Cheers. JP4

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:38 pm

I appreciate that the Creamware stuff is meant to sound a little better than the Arturia, but as I know poeple who own Arturia and the originals, and there is not that much difference between them, it makes me wonder why more poeple have not bought into Creamware. I suppose that it is this fact

This is just an opinion.

Do you really think there is not much difference between Arturia and a corresponding real analog synth? The analog synth doesn't have a little more 'grit'? Possibly if you listen to it all by itself, you might not notice some details. When I start creating mixes with VST virtual instruments, I find the sound tends to get lost and blurry, as compared to mixes of real analog instruments, which often maintain more character. Can you hear all the instruments distinctly? If you took them down in volume, would you still hear them, just quieter, or would they get lost in noise? (The same applies to using 32-bit tracks versus 16-bit tracks, you can't hear much difference until you start combining them.) Of course, depending on how you mix and what is important to your ears, it might not make as much difference to you. I find it nice not to have to compress, equalize, etc, a track, because it already sounds good! I can replace a heavily processed track with an equivalent from the Noah and suddenly the instrument stands out in a mix, I can turn it down, and I can still hear it. The problem with poor synthesis methods is you can't really fix the result with EQ, you can't boost frequencies that just aren't there.

One benefit the Creamware stuff has going for it is the very much reduced latency! Some, including me, think it is difficult to play an instrument with emotion and style when there is a disconnect between what you play and what you hear - even the short delays you get from VST instruments is often enough to lose the touch. When I first played on the Minimax I was staggered. After hearing a number of emulations that sounded a bit minimoog-like, suddenly I was playing the real instrument! The bottom end IN PARTICULAR is very convincing, you feel like there is some real electricity when you hit a key. A real minimoog would sound a tiny bit better, a tiny bit more alive - but costs SO much more that the Noah is more practical. But I do find a big difference between creamware synths and vst synths, I downloaded the ARP 2600 demo from Arturia the other day, and while it sounds nice, the Creamware synths still have more 'bite'.

Jupiter4 · Post by **Jupiter4** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:41 am

Len thanks for the comments. Of course no virtual instrument is going to sound like the real thing, particularly in the grit and grunt stakes. I have found that some Arturia software can get close to the real thing much better than my Kurzweil and Roland romplers do. Having lived with the real thing for a while and taken a strategic move to remove clutter and complication I accept that there will be compromises in my new approach. The Noah has much going for it in the quality of sound stakes, but having just spent a few hours on the Muse website looking at Receptor, it has some very strong competition!

The differnce in support seems huge - Receptor seems much more user friendly - and is still being made and supported; it is also an open system. Is the Noah really so much better than the Receptor? Noah has 6 (great) synths that can never be changed and the Receptor has any number of synths and when newer versions of these synths come out I can upgrade and maybe quickly surpass anything that Noah can do in the quality stakes. As I have not heard the Noah and am having to use research to make my decision you can probably see why it might not be the 'no-brainer' to buy the Noah now that I have found the Receptor.

R.D. Olivaw · Post by **R.D. Olivaw** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:08 am

The Receptor is a great tool but isn't in the same price range as the Noah. With Receptor you'll need to buy plugs, for almost only freewares are bundled with it. And it has to be Receptor versions of the plugs, because Receptor is Linux based. Ok, Receptor is more "future proof". But does a hardware synth really need to be future proof?
If u plan to buy Receptor to put Arturia "synths" in it, I think it's a bad move. If you want virtual analogs, VST is the wrong direction. The only VST emulation that is better than its Creamware counterpart is GForce Oddity (better than the Prodissey). IMO Noah strengthes over VST are MiniMax, Pro-One, B2003 (the Hammond emulation) and Vocodizer (best vocoder I ever heard).
I prefer those 4 fantastic sounding plugs over all the VST counterparts u can find.

But of course, if your ears tell you Arturia's synths are good enough, go Receptor.

kybernaut_01 · Post by **kybernaut_01** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:15 am

On 2005-09-26 07:08, R.D. Olivaw wrote:
The only VST emulation that is better than its Creamware counterpart is GForce Oddity (better than the Prodissey).

They sound different, that's true. In what regard do you you think the oddity sounds better?

Post by **garyb** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:34 am

it's true that more people should pay attention to cwa products. i can vouch for scope and noah. unless you want a strictly live rig, scope's a better deal. with scope you get a REAL virtual studio and a dynamite soundcard as well......

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:56 pm

In what regard do you you think the oddity sounds better?

Hee, let's not get into the old Duo-mode argument again :rolleyes:

Hey, Jupiter4 - i just bought a Jupiter 4 last month (sadly no emulations of this great but ugly synth). Have you considered the ASB boxes? i am seriously considering getting the Profit 5 when it comes out (for live work) and having my SCOPE for studio. Of course you get more synths in the Noah (but not all those lovely knobs).

As to sound quality - i tried the Arturia demos and didn't like them at all. i have no platform allegiance - i prefer GFOrce's Oddity to CWA's Prodyssey, but Minimax and Profit5 are much better than Minimoog V and NI's Pro-53.

So many options - take your time, but if you prefer vintage equipment i think you'll be more than happy with whichever CW product you go for (not to say that it's old-fashioned or anything).

Keep asking questions,

Mr A

[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2005-09-26 13:58 ]

R.D. Olivaw · Post by **R.D. Olivaw** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:39 pm

agree 200% with M.Arkadin

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:38 am

On 2005-09-26 13:56, Mr Arkadin wrote:
As to sound quality - i tried the Arturia demos and didn't like them at all. i have no platform allegiance - i prefer GFOrce's Oddity to CWA's Prodyssey.

Mr A I may be wrong, but i think that's like saying you prefer a MkI or MkII Odyssey to a MkIII Odyssey. Interesting to note that not all revisions of real minimoog sound the same. The same also applies to the Prophet-5 revisions. Kinda makes comparisons on all the different sounds an anorack event.

BTW, my vote would be to buy a PulsarII with Mix'n'Master pack, a sync plate & a NoahEX. I'd skimp slightly on computer components to be able to have Noah & Scope

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:23 pm

Mr A I may be wrong, but i think that's like saying you prefer a MkI or MkII Odyssey to a MkIII Odyssey

Sorry, it's not. A search on here will show a (sometimes heated) discussion between myself and Matthias when Prodyssey was first announced. He actually states that to achieve polyphony duo mode was lost, the
repeat trigger and the way the S&H works, plus some other bits 'n' bobs were changed, resulting in something that sounds different to an Odyssey. Whether this is important to you or not depends on the individual, but it's not the difference between models - it's like a new model that ARP never made. As you may gather i like duo mode so for me this omission meant Oddity won hands down.

Sorry to go off topic. Back to our sponsor...

R.D. Olivaw · Post by **R.D. Olivaw** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:56 pm

An Odyssey without duo-mode is not an Odyssey.

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Wed Sep 28, 2005 2:45 am

I wasn't starting some stupid argumaent about what one is best or more like the original, merely pointing out that you can't compare the 'sound' of Prodyssey to Oddity (Duo or not) when Prodysey is based on the MkIII & Oddity is not !!

Prodyssey, unless we've been misinformed, has accurately modelled OSCs, Filter & modulation & guess what?? They're NOT modelled on the same Odyssey revision as Oddity. So if Oddity is more of an Odyssey to you, that's fine. It's filter, OSCs etc however, are not based on that which Prodyssey's are & as such comparing them is about as usefull as your average chocolate teapot.

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Wed Sep 28, 2005 3:46 am

Sorry schroomz, you're just not getting it. The Odyssey version modelled in this case is irrelevant as the architecture of Prodyssey is different to an Odyssey - which means that no matter what you do it will not sound quite like an Odyssey. As i said earlier whether you're bothered by this is personal taste. Prodyssey is a great synth - i tried the demo. But as soon as i found i couldn't do duo mode i was put off it, that's all.

Imagine if CW said, well Minimax doesn't really need three Oscs, let's just give it two - would you then say it was like a Minimoog? No.

Anyway i don't want to hijack this thread any further so i'll not comment on this aspect of the thread again here as it feels like it's turning into a KvR thread

[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2005-09-28 04:48 ]