Odyssey is way better then Tube synth

ace_of_dub wrote:

jpeg wrote:
Tubesynth is very deserving of the critique as its very lackluster and generic; it sounds like every dime a dozen vst synth no unique tone or color to its sound; its jut sub par in so many categories.

Compared to what? As I said, A Microkorg or even a Nord Lead doesn't sound better than Tube Synth. What are people expecting here? Serum or something? There is absolutely no problem with what Tubesynth does, it just require the proper knowledge for patch design, nothing more.

Well, Nord lead and Microkorg sound way better then Tubesynth.
Ok you can find a good way to use a tubesynth, you go deep in editing, whatever, but Nord lead is another planet, let's be serious.
I also don't like Microkorg but if you go deep into editing, you get much better results then the deep editing on tubesynth.
I never said Tubesynth is bad.
But come on, you are going a bit too far.
Mininova is also very good as it was good Xstation and supernova.

Well, Nord lead and Microkorg sound way better then Tubesynth.
Ok you can find a good way to use a tubesynth, you go deep in editing, whatever, but Nord lead is another planet, let's be serious.
I also don't like Microkorg but if you go deep into editing, you get much better results then the deep editing on tubesynth.
I never said Tubesynth is bad.
But come on, you are going a bit too far.
Mininova is also very good as it was good Xstation and supernova.

I have a Supernova, and while I like it, it aliases like hell (let's not even start with the cracking DAC problems...). The sound quality of the synthesizers you listed isn't better at all. None of them work at 32 bit Tubesynth. All of them are muffled because of the anti-aliasing filters, or is it why you think they are more pleasant?

ace_of_dub wrote:

Well, Nord lead and Microkorg sound way better then Tubesynth.
Ok you can find a good way to use a tubesynth, you go deep in editing, whatever, but Nord lead is another planet, let's be serious.
I also don't like Microkorg but if you go deep into editing, you get much better results then the deep editing on tubesynth.
I never said Tubesynth is bad.
But come on, you are going a bit too far.
Mininova is also very good as it was good Xstation and supernova.

I have a Supernova, and while I like it, it aliases like hell (let's not even start with the cracking DAC problems...). The sound quality of the synthesizers you listed isn't better at all. None of them work at 32 bit Tubesynth. All of them are muffled because of the anti-aliasing filters, or is it why you think they are more pleasant?

It's not 32 bit or whatever, and anyway Mpc outputs at 16/24.
It's just nord lead and microkorg and mininova or even better supernova are dedicated syntheziers, that's it. All is optimized and the output stage is optimized.
Tube synth is a plugin.
But anyway I don't care to be right or not, if you are happy to be right, you are right.
Fine.
What do you think about Hype?

ace_of_dub wrote:
Obviously this is false, let's start with the aliasing, while Tubesynth produces very little aliasing, the obviously, due to inferior convertors and inferior internal oversampling rate, produces an excessive amount of aliasing, which is a fact you can't deny. Let us be reminded what aliasing is:

"Aliasing is an audible side effect arising in digital systems as soon as a signal contains harmonics
higher than half the sampling frequency. "

As for the effects on the Microkorg they are just pathetic. Tubesynth has a superior VA engine, objectively.

While there are obviously better plugins out there, let's not pretend devices like the Microkorg or the Mininova( and the Circuit) sound better than Tubesynth. That's false.

But ultimately it's far easier to blame the quality of the synth engine instead of someone's lack of programming skills.

the Aliaising on the Microkorg is partly what makes its sound better then the average vst. I have owned both the Mininova and Microkorg and they both sound better then the average vst and they sound better then Tubesynth.

I may not be the best programmer but the sound I program on the Microkorg the sounds come out better then on the Tubesynth.

U assume that higher resolution is better but you should know that people still cherish the 12 bit sounds on MPC 60 or SP1200; so you are incorrect to assume higher resolutions equals a better quality or better sounding synth.

jpeg wrote:
the Aliaising on the Microkorg is partly what makes its sound better then the average vst. I have owned both the Mininova and Microkorg and they both sound better then the average vst and they sound better then Tubesynth.

I may not be the best programmer but the sound I program on the Microkorg the sounds come out better then on the Tubesynth.

U assume that higher resolution is better but you should know that people still cherish the 12 bit sounds on MPC 60 or SP1200; so you are incorrect to assume higher resolutions equals a better quality or better sounding synth.

> the Aliaising on the Microkorg is partly what makes its sound better then the average vst.

No it doesn't, aliasing makes it impossible for the Microkorg to accurately generate notes in the high register, that's what aliasing does, it prevents a C5 or a C6 for instance from sounding in tune and results in a metallic, dissonant and unpleasant artifacts.

Aliasing doesn't make VA sound better. True analogue synthesizers don't have a shred of aliasing to begin with. Now you might have gotten too familiar with the sound of the Microkorg, which biased your judgement, nothing more.


> U assume that higher resolution is better but you should know that people still cherish the 12 bit sounds on MPC 60 or SP1200; so you are incorrect to assume higher resolutions equals a better quality or better sounding synth.[/quote]


There are completely different things.

You are mixing up sampling frequency (related to aliasing) and bit depth. In a sampler, there is no oscillator generating a wave, it uses PCM as a base for sound generation. Completely different process, a sample playback doesn't generate harmonics, a VA has to generate harmonics. The Microkorg doesn't have 12 bit converters by the way.

> so you are incorrect to assume higher resolutions equals a better quality or better sounding synth.

In the case of a virtual analogue synthesizer I am 100% correct. Higher resolution of the DSP directly results in a better sounding synthesizer, since less aliasing artifacts, you can go very high in the trebles with Tubesynth with zero audible aliasing.

Furthermore, due to anti aliasing filters in the DAC, the Microkorg sound is muffled. This is clearly audible in that video for instance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_nPBt74lSA

Generally, the closer you want to operate to the "Nyquist" frequency, i.e. half of your sampling rate, the more difficult it is to write DSP code that doesn't have unwanted artifacts in the audible range. With a higher sampling rate, the frequency limit of where your DSP code starts to do bad things is moved higher, while the top of the audible range stays fixed at 20kHz. That's one of the reasons why plugin and instrument makers sometimes use internal oversampling, for example 2x or 4x. Processing load is multiplied, but it's a relatively straightforward thing to do, and the benefits are automagically applied everywhere. Or at least that's my opinion, with some hobby coding and one DSP course in the university.

jpeg wrote:

ace_of_dub wrote:
Obviously this is false, let's start with the aliasing, while Tubesynth produces very little aliasing, the obviously, due to inferior convertors and inferior internal oversampling rate, produces an excessive amount of aliasing, which is a fact you can't deny. Let us be reminded what aliasing is:

"Aliasing is an audible side effect arising in digital systems as soon as a signal contains harmonics
higher than half the sampling frequency. "

As for the effects on the Microkorg they are just pathetic. Tubesynth has a superior VA engine, objectively.

While there are obviously better plugins out there, let's not pretend devices like the Microkorg or the Mininova( and the Circuit) sound better than Tubesynth. That's false.

But ultimately it's far easier to blame the quality of the synth engine instead of someone's lack of programming skills.

the Aliaising on the Microkorg is partly what makes its sound better then the average vst. I have owned both the Mininova and Microkorg and they both sound better then the average vst and they sound better then Tubesynth.

I may not be the best programmer but the sound I program on the Microkorg the sounds come out better then on the Tubesynth.

U assume that higher resolution is better but you should know that people still cherish the 12 bit sounds on MPC 60 or SP1200; so you are incorrect to assume higher resolutions equals a better quality or better sounding synth.

Obviously microkorg and mininova sound are way better then Tubesynth plugin, come on.
Not to mention a Nord Lead, which is even better.
And even a supernova of 1999 sounds much better then tubesynth.
Aliasing or not.
Resolution or not.
Just play with them and that's it.
Then someone can say I prefer to work with tubesynth rather then buying synths and pay more money and have too many devices on a table.
That's ok, everyone has its own preferences.
But to say that tubesynth sounds better then mininova or microkorg or nord lead, well, that's really too much.

Straker wrote:But to say that tubesynth sounds better then mininova or microkorg or nord lead, well, that's really too much.

exactly dude is reaching nobody else agrees with Tubesynth being better then hardware synths

Straker wrote:Obviously microkorg and mininova sound are way better then Tubesynth plugin, come on.

No, they absolutely don't. This isn't an assertion backed by any sort of fact, thus purely an opinion.

exactly dude is reaching nobody else agrees with Tubesynth being better then hardware synths

Mob rules? LOL. I gave you cold hard facts and that's your rebuttal?

Watch the Starsky Carr video which again demonstrates my point. Tubesynth sounds closer to a real analogue synth than the Microkorg or the Mininova ever will. Let's not even get started about the Supernova series.

ace_of_dub wrote:

Straker wrote:Obviously microkorg and mininova sound are way better then Tubesynth plugin, come on.

No, they absolutely don't. This isn't an assertion backed by any sort of fact, thus purely an opinion.

exactly dude is reaching nobody else agrees with Tubesynth being better then hardware synths

Mob rule? LOL. I gave you cold hard facts and that's your rebuttal?

Watch the Starsky Carr video which again demonstrates my point. Tubesynth sounds closer to a real analogue synth than the Microkorg or the Mininova ever will. Let's not even get started about the Supernova series.

Ok mister, you happy, we happy.
I think Tubesynth is the best digital plugin ever made, Korg and Novation are going to bankrupt, they don't make the beautiful synths of the good old days.
It's a difficult period.
What can we do.