minimax VS arturia modular: 1-0

bosone · Post by **bosone** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 9:21 am

some time ago i downloaded the minimax demo and i also had the possibility to try it in a recording studio. from the first notes i struck i was totally blown out: i do not know the real minimoog sound, but i was totally stunned by the sounds and by the filter: the minimax is a real beast to play and to hear...

some week ago instead, i installed the arturia moog modular V demo. well... i admit i only dealt with presets (like with the minimax) but arturia didnt tell me anything... actually, it resemples my our "miniscope"...

arturia is NOTHING compared to minimax for me, after my little test... i dont know how they acclaim it so much...

any other report?

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:52 am

I once found Arturia Modular audio examples together with some of the Minimoog Voyager on a magazine CD. Ouch...

One could interpret it as 'we're way ahead...' from the analog side or as 'but we're slowly approaching...' from the digital

my 2 cents, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2003-10-02 11:53 ]</font>

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 11:37 am

Does the phrase "Apples and Oranges" ring a bell?

Minimax is fabulous, yes, but I don't think it sounds like the Minimoog that much.

The Arturia Modular V is SO CLOSE to the original Moog Modular V system it's scary! But, in my opinion, it's more of a trip down memory lane than anything. Using the Arturia, I would think that a lot of comments would sound like "...sounds are cheesy... retro-synth... buy some filters..."; you get my drift?

dehuszar · Post by **dehuszar** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 5:28 pm

After doing a demonstration for a friend of mine who was looking to beef up his Pulsar I with some plugs, he decided he might sell his Voyager and put the $2000 towards something else and just use the MiniMax.

This is quite a testament.

Sam

p.s. I also agree that the Arturia modular 'sounds' like the Moog, but it doesn't really 'feel' like one if you are thinking in terms of how the sound impacts you. Highly subjective so disagree if you wish, but I felt like there was an element of analog that you feel when the sound hits you and resonates in your chest that none of the VSTs have really been able to breach.

interloper · Post by **interloper** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 6:21 pm

Moog Modular sounds like a VSTi, Minimax sounds like a hardware synth. For one thing, Compare the low end frequency response of the two, and you'll notice a clear difference in terms of presence.

According to SOS, the VCO's in the Moog Modular reset each time a note is played. This manifests itself when you are listening to two or more oscillators that are detuned. As soon as you hit a note, the phase differential between the two returns back to the same position. They said, "the detune cycle is discontinuous."

There are a couple of other authenticity issues as well, resetting envelopes, lack of filter self-oscillation, which might be addressed with further releases. However, if I wanted to make a splash with a product like the Moog Modular, I'd have sorted out those problems prior to a first release.

I vote for the Minimax, hands down. If you already have a CW card, invest in the Minimax with confidence.

Faybs · Post by **Faybs** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 7:23 am

Where can we download real minimoog sounds ?
Thanks

bosone · Post by **bosone** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 7:57 am

Moog Modular sounds like a VSTi, Minimax sounds like a hardware synth. For one thing, Compare the low end frequency response of the two, and you'll notice a clear difference in terms of presence.

i think you hit what i was try to say.
i had to focus also to the "feeling" that you have when you play minimax or arturia.

when i tried minimax demo and began to play, the sound came deep into my soul... i HAD to play, that synth were tring to "communicate" something to me... there were an indescribable feeling between me and the minimax. i had the same sensation when i played the KORG MS-20 of a friend of mine.
Arturia didnt give me the same feeling: its sound are good, but it lacks "something" that minimax has...
it's difficult to explain...

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 8:16 am

In retrospect, I tend to agree with interloper.

petal · Post by **petal** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 9:27 am

On 2003-10-03 08:57, bosone wrote:
Moog Modular sounds like a VSTi, Minimax sounds like a hardware synth. For one thing, Compare the low end frequency response of the two, and you'll notice a clear difference in terms of presence.
i think you hit what i was try to say.
i had to focus also to the "feeling" that you have when you play minimax or arturia.

when i tried minimax demo and began to play, the sound came deep into my soul... i HAD to play, that synth were tring to "communicate" something to me... there were an indescribable feeling between me and the minimax. i had the same sensation when i played the KORG MS-20 of a friend of mine.
Arturia didnt give me the same feeling: its sound are good, but it lacks "something" that minimax has...
it's difficult to explain...

It's a bit like religion - You have to want to believe, in order to hear it.... I guess.

Now, I do believe that Minimax is a better synth than a lot of VSTi's out there, but I find it hard to believe that these so called tests a completely objective. When you have invested a lot of money in your CW-daw then it is very likely taht you also have a tendency to want it to be better than the rest out there.

I am a happy CW-owner myself, and I feel the warm inner joy, when I read stuff along the lines of "CW is better than (put in any VSTi)" - But actually this sensation and constant reassurance among all of us CW-owners seem a bit desperate to me at times...

But i guess that "if I/you/he/she" is a happy CW-believer why try to change this?" aply in this situation as well.

Just a grumpy thought...
Thomas

interloper · Post by **interloper** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 2:03 pm

Well, first of all these comparisons are essentially apples and oranges. There were no full fledged side by side tests between these two. But if there had been, the Moog Modular would have been smoked by the Minimax.

If you were to compare the Vinco to a VST compressor, then the post would have read in a similar fashion.

There should not really be any doubt that the DSP realm lends itself to better sounding synths, effects, mixes, etc. If that were not the case, no company, CreamWare, UAD, TC Electronics would pursue DSP development.

It's true that we all have a stake in this, and that opinions may not always be objective from everyone. But SFP and all the devices have come such a long way since I first worked with the system in 2000. I'm sure there are a lot of old duffers here that have seen the evolution as well.

In short, trust your ears. But at the same time, don't be bashful to plug something that you believe in and sounds great to boot.

EarlyFirst · Post by **EarlyFirst** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 3:20 pm

On 2003-10-03 10:27, petal wrote:
On 2003-10-03 08:57, bosone wrote:
Moog Modular sounds like a VSTi, Minimax sounds like a hardware synth. For one thing, Compare the low end frequency response of the two, and you'll notice a clear difference in terms of presence.
i think you hit what i was try to say.
i had to focus also to the "feeling" that you have when you play minimax or arturia.

when i tried minimax demo and began to play, the sound came deep into my soul... i HAD to play, that synth were tring to "communicate" something to me... there were an indescribable feeling between me and the minimax. i had the same sensation when i played the KORG MS-20 of a friend of mine.
Arturia didnt give me the same feeling: its sound are good, but it lacks "something" that minimax has...
it's difficult to explain...
It's a bit like religion - You have to want to believe, in order to hear it.... I guess.

Now, I do believe that Minimax is a better synth than a lot of VSTi's out there, but I find it hard to believe that these so called tests a completely objective. When you have invested a lot of money in your CW-daw then it is very likely taht you also have a tendency to want it to be better than the rest out there.

I am a happy CW-owner myself, and I feel the warm inner joy, when I read stuff along the lines of "CW is better than (put in any VSTi)" - But actually this sensation and constant reassurance among all of us CW-owners seem a bit desperate to me at times...

But i guess that "if I/you/he/she" is a happy CW-believer why try to change this?" aply in this situation as well.

Just a grumpy thought...
Thomas

For me the difference is when you add voices..
I know you guys were talking about MiniMax, but let's face it, your not going to find any softsynth that even comes close...

One thing I don't understand is how come the Creamware synths are always compared to software when 99% of every hardware analog synth uses some sort of DSP these days...

interloper · Post by **interloper** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 3:31 pm

That's a great point and a distinction worth mentioning. I guess since people hear about CW devices running within their PC's or Mac's, they are somehow likened to software. I'm assuming that this is probably more the case for new or prospective users...

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 6:07 pm

One thing I don't understand is how come the Creamware synths are always compared to software when 99% of every hardware analog synth uses some sort of DSP these days...

Yes indeed. I've had this discussion recently on another forum about differences between soft-/DSP/and hardware VA synths. Someone posted that he was sure there was something else about hardware VA synths that gave them their sound apart from the software running on DSP's. Of course DA convertors have some influence on the sound but of course, a VA synth doesn't really differ at all from a pulsar synth like Minimax. A VA (hardware synth) is just a DSP "plugin" with a dedicated hardware interface. Still some people still wanted to argue just to prove that because it was "hardware" it was somehow superior to a "software" DSP plugin.
DSP's doe indeed seem to lend themselves better to audio stuff, that's why a Nord Lead doesn't run on Windows on an Intel processor.
That's not to say VST synths can't sound very good of course (I'm pretty much in love with Linplug's Albino synth).

petal · Post by **petal** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 6:29 pm

On 2003-10-03 19:07, King of Snake wrote:

That's not to say VST synths can't sound very good of course (I'm pretty much in love with Linplug's Albino synth).

As i said - like religion ......

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 7:51 pm

I'm sure VST or DX synths can be made to sound every bit as good as CW's, it's just that nobody's programmers are very good...

Shayne

petal · Post by **petal** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 10:48 pm

Actually I think people are, but we are too full of our sellfs to recognize the effort.

Thomas

interloper · Post by **interloper** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 5:47 pm

I don't think that's the case at all. What purpose would it serve any of us to trash native devices in this forum? None. I use DSP and native synths & effects in my productions, each serves their purpose.

But to compare the Minimax with a VST synth built with today's technology, seems to be bordering on the verge of ridiculous, don't you think?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: interloper on 2003-10-04 18:50 ]</font>

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 5:52 pm

I agree with Shayne - in theory there's no limit to achieve the same sound quality with native processing as we experience with DSPs.
But since everyone seems to use mid class libraries and the majority of programmers could best be called mid class, well, what would one expect ?

A small background story from a current product (Virsyn Cube) :
The programmer said he made his first experiences in the 80s, programmed quite a lot, but wasn't exactly satisfied with the results.
Then came out all that Fairlight and Synclavier stuff and he abandoned his ideas.
Remember those were the days when a megabyte sold for 1000 bucks and 25 megahertz was considered 'workstation' clockrate

You HAD to be a good programmer to succeed in those years.
About 15 years later suddenly pure processing power became really affordable.
'Why not revitalize those ideas...' must have been the thought of that programmer.
To make the story short he released a couple of products like Tera and Cube - not bad at all, but imho far from what they are promoted as.

Those programs do only exist due to raw processing power of a CPU - NOT because they are written in a smart way. Exactly what Shayne assumed...

Btw: I honestly try to be safe and do some one to one comparisons to be shure not to write complete bs.
I compared Cube with some Casio, DX7 and Vectron on 'similiar' patches.
Well, I left the system and next day started playing with the last Cube demo patch.
'Oh, not that bad - did I overlook something ?'
Then I wanted to tweak something on the surface, but no reaction - sh*t, seems to be the demo stopped someway.
But it did sound good - I just wanted to remember the patch to verify...

When I clicked the SFP surface to front again I noticed my error: the Cube channel was muted - it was Vectron playing

Seriously, I swear it happened that way - I have tried my best to be objective...

cheers, Tom

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 5:24 am

I agree with Shayne - in theory there's no limit to achieve the same sound quality with native processing as we experience with DSPs.

this is not strictly true. The fact that VSTi's have to run on general purpose CPU's which have to take into account all other processes going on in your computer and suddenly there are limits everywhere to what you can do as a programmer. So they have to cut corners here and there to make it all work, whereas the Creamware programmers can milk the DSP's for all they're worth and just make the best possible algorythms for their devices.
If there really was no limit then there would be no difference because I'm sure there are programmers in the native world that are on par with CW's programmers.

sinix · Post by **sinix** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:04 am

On 2003-10-05 06:24, King of Snake wrote:
If there really was no limit then there would be no difference because I'm sure there are programmers in the native world that are on par with CW's programmers.

This is no bash on Creamware programmers at all, they are obviously very talented, but I dare to say many of the native programmers (Linn, Gmedia, NI, etc) are better then the DSP programmers to get the quality they have now natively.

It must be extremely difficult to put out a highly regarded native vsti that must compete with synths like Minimax, Pro-One, etc.