On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:53:28 -0600, robertlazarski wrote:
>For synth audio production , modulation and LFO's with CV just sounds
>different and is more flexible as I see it. Not everyone agrees which
>is why most people use midi. CV sources can modulate each other, and CV
>sources can be combined. CV can be easily adjusted, inverted, and
>stretched in any which way. Very fast. Not stepped. I use midi for
>some things as it can be easily stored, but only with a stand alone
>step sequencer.
This is utter nonsense!
It's my opinion after owning around 15 vco based analog synths and I stand by it. CV in some ways is faster and more flexible than midi, latency by design is impossible for example. Though midi has advantages too like storage. I use both.
Likely most people neither use MIDI nor CV/gate, but more likely they
are using Inter-App Audio and similar approaches. What "most" people
are actually using depends on the "market". The "market" is a blackbox,
the output of this blackbox depends on interaction between companies
and customers. Even a lot of iconic analog synth don't provide the
versatility you describe, let alone that very often such versatility
isn't needed at all. Instead for example Inter-App Audio allows to
simply sync LFOs to BPM, something that is impossible to do with
several iconic analog synth and much more often wanted, than
experimental stuff, that could be only heard when listening to the synth
live and that anyway gets lost, when you record those synth.
"A look at how the Behringer Model D compares with the Minimoog"
provides exactly the information it should provide. This video isn't
about pros and cons of different approaches.
Depends on what you consider an iconic synth.
The arp 2600 has all that flexibility and over the decades it's been pushed to it's limits. The star wars r2d2 voice and Edgar Winters Frakenstein are 2 famous examples.
That synth was designed to teach synthesis and is very good at that.
As mentioned a double blind test in the same room is the only real way to do that. The D reissues have both cv and midi, sometimes I use the D as a midi controller.
_Everybody_ talented or not talented, making music for 40 decades and
more, is aware about the advantages and drawbacks of different
approaches. Old musicians sometimes could have different opinions, but
they all made more or less equal experiences.
You claims are at best half of the full story, but I even doubt this.
I never said what's best for everyone, only what works for me. Some people only use samples for their music. Whatever floats your boat.
Seemingly the Behringer Model D could provide a lot of sounds, a lot of
people need for recordings, while no touch screen or mouse is required
to use the knobs. Even while I didn't watch the whole video, I've seen
a part where the Behringer Model D did not produce the same sound as
the original Minimoog does. The only important information this video
is missing are experiences related to durability. Sure, the Behringer
Model D can't be used with Inter-App Audio and similar approachers, but
IIUC it is at least partial a real analog synth, even using
structurally identical semiconductors as used for the original Minimoog.
It's like 85% bananas for 1/3 the price. Some people would buy them if they existed. I seen both Replicant movies, that's how I see this but make no mistake, freedom to choose what works for some people is a good thing.
I prefer 100% of the signal path to be original components. The Moog D comes close, the arp 2600 clone from the ttsh project is pretty much part by part the original, though mine also has a midi kit.
It costs more so ymmv.
I read reviews, one musician owns 2 original Minimoogs from the 70s and
1 Behringer Model D. All three synth do sound different, but all sound
like real Minimoog, not surprising for the real Minimoogs from the 70s,
but it's surprising that it's also seems to be true for the Behringer
Model D. Even the miniature knobs seems to be usable without causing
problems. The Behringer Model D seemingly provides CV IO.
The behringer as stated is better than the plugins for some people and I like the project because it fits my vision of SMT becoming cheaper than software development for the reissues.