Being a Drum & Bass artist I'm a huge fan of Subfocus who is very big on the ME80 emulation by Memory Moon. In one of his UA-cam videos he explains that he used to have a studio next door to the band Nero who purchased and original CS80 like yourself. They spent some time comparing the various VST emulations to the real thing and decided that the ME80 was much closer to the original than any other emulation. Personally I like using both the ME80 and the CS80V-3 and CS80V-4. Cheers!
A comparison that I'm sure many, many people will greatly appreciate. As a CS80 fanboy and CS80V owner, I've been wanting this for a long time. Would love to see more.
If you mean the free CS80 patch set from Yamaha, I have to disagree. For me this set was a huge disappointment. The Montage CS80 patches are samples of "new and creative" sounds form the CS80. For everyone looking for characteristic CS80 sounds this patch set is more or less garbage and the underlying samples are of limited use if you want to make typical CS80 patches yourself.
3:48 Example 1 No Fx 4:19 Example 1 With Fx 5:57 Example 2 With Fx 6:56 Example 2 No FX 8:23 Example 3 With Fx 9:02 Example 3 No Fx 10:24 Example 4 With Fx 11:20 Example 4 No Fx 12:51 Example 5 With Fx
The original CS80 was well known for having unstable tuning. Apparently there was uneven heating between the voice cards. This alone will make quite a difference between the two- difference, not necessarily better mind you!
Great video thanks. I’m sure we’ll get “I knew it” from people who didn’t vote. Starsky done one, analog vs digital and nobody got them all right. Comment section did though 😅
Last evening I listened to the 20 mn Arturia, had a good time, amazing being able to explore such an Instrument. So I was able to have in mind it's print, little behind and some confusion using the two layers with exact same settings. The Arturia have a color, perhaps depending of the driver, or inherent of a numeric transition. I can compare only analog to what I Have, an original Juno 6, and a Deepmind 12 (to use first without effects!). So I've this little signature I can compare , the direct analog is more rich, powerful, with subtile resonances. That's why I stand to analog rebuilts of those instruments I was not able to play years ago, but, pluggins are very important too, because that's time you can spend to understand the instrument, listen results and think about to buy a replica, then use the two wich are complementary as the plugging is useful to memorize settings things you can't do with old instruments without presets. As for my Juno 6, I have a vsti, useful to save presets (not a Juno 60 !) I use also a web cam, this is more subtile. So the last example remind that with effects, and in an ensemble, Hat you hear is the resulting stereo wave your daw registered and leveled and decoded in your computer by YT, the sound is an average of sometimes opposed frequencies, it's like a landscape an artist is painting.
Patricia!!!! welcome. YT stats show that 99.99% of my viewers are male - and I am pretty sure that there are lots of female synth lovers as well.. which your are one of. As to your point; embrace yout Juno - a great instrument. The Juno 60 eas my first real synth - its a gem!
I have the Cherry Audio GX-80 and its pretty decent. It cant replace hardware though as everyone knows deep inside, the emulation is not the same as the tangible product.
Great videos on the CS80, thank you! There was one in my local music shop when I was in high school, and the owner was cool about letting us hang out and play it. It became a weekly thing, everyone loved it! They told us that Stevie Wonder had been using the one we were playing. I'm going with A B A A A, or all the ones with the low/low-mid warmth. Curious to see how my memory serves me.
I have both the Arturia and the Cherry Audio CS80 emulations and, whilst a real CS80 would be pretty cool to own (and I am deep into electronics repair, so would be a dream to work on it), there is no way I could fit it in my current studio. Both VSTs are pretty good IMO
Being a Drum & Bass artist I'm a huge fan of Subfocus who is very big on the ME80 emulation by Memory Moon. In one of his UA-cam videos he explains that he used to have a studio next door to the band Nero who purchased and original CS80 like yourself. They spent some time comparing the various VST emulations to the real thing and decided that the ME80 was much closer to the original than any other
Would love to see you do the same with the Jupiter 8 and Jup-8 V plugin! Especially that Jupiter patch from your previous CS80 video - comparing basic tones
Looking at the results, it looks like there is around 1/3rd or at least 1/4th of people who think the answer is the other way round than the majority.. in one of the answers is was almost 50% even.. this tells me that people really can't tell the difference and liking either one or the other is just a matter of taste
the google thong was an experiment; but do i understand correctly that you are ablecto see what the score is? (fine obviously - its not the presidential electios :-)
The differences between the two could likely be made much smaller with a bit of additional processing on the VST. Analog signal paths have natural eq, saturation that you can most definitely add in. Arturia also makes some great vsts for this!
Emulating the sound of analog synths in plugins has reached a point of maturity where the differences are slight if not imperceptible most of the time. However, the thing that really sets analog synths apart… and this is especially true of the CS80… is the interface. The immediacy of controls and knobs and sliders, etc is what makes analog synths so expressive and fun to play.
That's not true in my experience. Granted it depends on the synthesizer, a lot of them even with added days of tweaking for natural EQ, saturation and clarity at higher notes sound noticeably distinct.
It would be a unique comparison that many people would want to see! The ultimate comparison should also include the Memorymoon ME80, which many people prefer.
Both sound great, but the real hardware has some raw unruly power to it that CS80V (and very few plugins at all) does not provide. Great times for synthesiser enthusiast. And it will only get better ;-) Even polyphonic aftertouch are becoming more usual. Thanks for the videos!
Yeah, the point is that near cs 80 is more than so many virtual instruments. If you tweak the Arturia to it's strenghts and get the expression brill and so on right and play a good enough midi keyboard, you can express yourself on it so well and have so much fun. My custom presets are better than these presets, in my opinion. (Arturia should hire me lol). It's much harder to tweak virtual synths because hardware gives you great sounds everywhere while the virtual ones have very sensitive sweetspots.
Great stuff! ANOTHER VIDEO IDEA: It would be great if you could compare the 3 iconic Vangelis sounds programmed on the CS80 (that you did on another video) with the CS80V letting us see the settings as you do on this. (I thought I had already made this comment but I don't see it here).
The benefit of the software over the hardware is that when the software goes wrong you don't have to ship it off half-way across the world for a year, only to get a five-figure repair bill when it finally comes back. PS I think your subs have almost doubled in the last 2 weeks, so congrats. I found you though your vid with Doctor Mix BTW.
For me the software has finally become quite close to the original, but the most important thing is not there. Indeed, the CS80 has a very expressive keyboard, what could be more frustrating than using the software with a KEYSTEP for example. The KURZWEIL midiboard then seems ideal. Finally, the important thing will always be what we do with it.
I have an ASM Hydrasynth deluxe which I haven't yet tried as a midi trigger for my Arturia CS80, but I suspect is would work exceptionally well. Thing is, the Hydrasynth by itself does a pretty darn good copy of the CS80 sounds and keyboard response.
Somehow it seems like the curve how the filter responds to different control signals seems different. In the first example I actually thought that the difference came from using aftertouch (which would be tough to replicate exactly on a different keyboard). This makes me wonder if the two could be made sound closet to eachother by just tweaking some settings. This reminds me of a lot of guitar effect pedal comparisons where some expensive original is compared to a clone... They tend to match the settings by turning the knobs so they match visually. In real life the potentiometers (be it rotary or slider) have horrible tolerances and even if the compared pedals were exactly the same circuit with all other components matched exactly, they could sound different when the knobs are matched visually. Better match can usually be achieved by tweakin the settings just a bit.
Especially in mixdowns its extremely difficult (or impossible) to distinguish difference, but within music. Its easy. Aftertouch, dynamics and response, all hands controls (pedals, gliss switches, ribbon, ringmod) are not simply approachable with software and hence you cannot use software as real CS-80. Deckard's Dream have same issues, tiny faders ok for sound design but not performing...
I started up a little home-studio for less than $1500 and Arturias Lab V X is a real treasure, that u can rent-to-own it is just insane. I shouldve done this sooner!
Actually kinda insane how they sound so alike, I really hear a difference, but I would never ever be able too tell in a song I think which one is which
I’d be curious to know the signal path for each. B sounded noticeably brighter, which is often the case with software emulations. When I route VST audio through my mixer and my UA Volt interface, it always softens the edges of that brightness and the overall tone sounds much more like my analog hardware.
I didn't keep a copy of my responses, and neither they nor the correct answers are indicated on the results page, so I don't know how well I did. I'm guessing about 50%, though, since there doesn't seem to be a consensus in the results. I'm not surprised. In each case the two options sounded a little different, but I (like most people) can't tell whether those differences are the results of actual circuits doing what they do or emulations of that.
I honestly don't know which is which. I do know that I consistnty and strongly preferred the "A" version. It sounded much fatter and better mixed, especially on Alaska, where the high note just screamed in a nice way. B sounded kind of thin and uninteresting by comparison. The only one that was very close was Stranger Things. I still preferred A, but the B version was also pretty nice. Like some others, I recommend trying the Cheery Audio GS-80. It's not expensive and regardless of whether it's more or less autentic, I find that I prefer the sound of it to the Arturia one.
This kind of comparison is very difficult to make, as the choice of sounds has a major influence on the result. For example, I regret that the Ring Modulator was not used, as the CS80's is incomparable. I also regret that the ribbon was not used, because it's a strong point of the CS80, or I regret the string comparison, because any synth is capable of making "vintage strings" and whether it's a prophet, an oberhaim or anything else, they almost all sound the same when set to do so. In short, when it comes to producing traditional synth sounds, the CS80 doesn't necessarily shine any brighter than any other good synth. But if you use it at its best, as Vangelis did, no VST or even hardware synthesizer can compare. On trivial sounds, comparisons are almost impossible (trivial not in the sense that they're badly programmed, but in the sense that they can be remade with any decent synth). Thanks for the video!
@@josesvintagekeysA wider choice of sounds will certainly help to recognize certain synths, but when comparing a machine and its copy/clone (digital or software), all comparisons tend to highlight similar sounds. This is usually an honest and unconscious choice. But what will be great is the opposite: trying to make them sound very different with roughly the same settings... So build the test with the question "what makes these synths different" and not "what makes them the same". A more fun challenge, don't you think? ;-) And thanks again for this video and the work that went into it (those who don't have a YT channel don't know how much work goes into any video)!
Great video. I had the opportunity to play a cs80 in Austria this summer. Amazing machine. I filled in the form. I am curious how I have done. When will you reveal the answers? Groeten uit Emmen 😊
I wonder how a couple of other alternatives hold up to the real thing. 1) The free Arminator vst. & 2) The Hydrasynth deluxe. While not a CS80 clone or emulation the latter gets recommended as a CS80 alternative, because it has a CS80 like touch strip and poly aftertouch. Any chance for a comparison of either?
Not sure - but expasmples show hardware operational panel photo's and screendumps of software - when the hardware and when the software produces sounds - can you re-work the video with a flashing brand name Y (hardware) - vs A (software)? etc.? TH X in advance.
from my understanding listening on headphones, vst has that uneven sizzle and shallow sound, it would be this 1: A CS80 B VST 2: A VST B CS80 3: A VST B CS80 4: A VST B CS80 5: A VST B CS80
While I think there are differences to be heard I also think much of that comes from EQ and some dynamics differences which can be addressed. For me it does not matter since the real thing is made of unobtanium.
Its not EQ, its a matter of a physical oscillators "voice" producing a different note quality. Along with the strange blending different analog voices have when they interact upon each other.
Cool comparison. Examples 3 and 4 are somewhat difficult to compare because noise levels are pretty differing in example 3 and the filter cutoff does not seem to be at the same position in example 4. Otherwise nice work and CS80 showoff. My guess for 'the real thing' CS80 are: 1B, 2B, 3B, 4A, 5A The software sounds way more shallow without effects, digital precision. ^^
Always an interesting exercise but for me I like the physical interaction of hardware synths - even menu diving on my DX rather than using Dexed. Because I don't want to make my influences too obvious, I'm not hung up on particular gear - I use what I have rather than what I wish I had.
Even if software achieves exact replication i have no interest in it. I prefer a physical book instead of reading on a tablet. I prefer listening to a band live vs a recording and an album vs an mp3. We are more than our ears, we are tactile, and the smell of wood and feel of keys. Its all a part of an experience, its not just what it sounds like. But i really love this video so much ❤ and love your channel
I was wondering, were the patches created using identical settings between the two? Generally speaking, it is often possible to closer match the sounds of hardware synths, but often the settings need to be tweaked a bit to come closer, so they settings used generally won't identically match to make the closest possible sound to the hardware. As I was hearing these examples and listening to what I felt was the weaker of the examples, I couldn't help but think, it is certainly possible to closer match that in software wither with the Arturia CS80 or some other VST synth. For example, the low end of the Alaska patch is much weaker in one of the examples. Yet, I've heard patches a lot closer to that in software. Or..maybe the better sounding one was the software??
I got 0 lol. Apparently im sort of able to tell them apart, but the idea of analogue boeing warm/darker sounding blinds my ear and vision. Seems like arturia knew exactly what one would be looking for in the vst abd made sure it’s properly exposed :)
So we have real CS80 owner in the Netherland! OMG. I represent two fans (me and my son). would't it be great to visit your studio actually listen and look at it ;-)
I have a bunch of hardware synths and software. I like my hardware synths to explore, but when producing I use software, period. There is nothing the hardware can give me that the software can't. For example, I have a Waldorf Q, a XP, Pulse, Alesis QRS, Emu Morpheus, ASR-10, JD-800/990, two JP-8080, two Virus Ti2 Whiteout in rack and keyboard, Quasimidi Polymorph and Raven. To name a few and just to think that I have to patch the midi and the audio to use the "Vahala effect" on them... forget it! The time you waste routing stuff. Is better to have the VST, is just a few mouse clicks. With a good vst workflow you are releasing songs every day.
I use software more and more - especially Omnisphere and Pigments - but I always use it together with hardware - all instruments have midi and are connected to the UA Apollo’s. Why do you keep the hardware synths if you don’t use them..?
What version of CS-80V are you using in this video? It sounds like a older version, the latest is V4 wich is greatly improved and quite nails the sound. Earlier versions were crap to be honest.
There must be a difference : I got 0 (zero) match in the quiz. So I am proud to have consistently heard something. Or to have won (lose) a game with a probability of 1/32th
Respectfully, every time somebody puts out a blind comparison like this for people to participate in, whether it's on the usual forums or on UA-cam, there's always some reason that hinders someone's ability to pick out the hardware even though they insist they can tell the difference easily in person. :)
I see what you mean, its actually more difficult to record. But believe me: nothing beats the real thing. YT compression doesnt help. Listen to some of my music video’s - you will hear the beauty of the instrument
I find it's not so much the internal sound of the cs80 but the interface that defines the sound. Most people for example would be using a generic USB keyboard but the cs80 is meant to be played with aftertouch and the keys wobble for vibrato. Add the ring mod sliders and pitch ribbon and you have a great performance synth. Someone should make the interface for the VST.
Hi Jose, I'm new to your channel but really enjoying the content. this was a great comparison. I have filled out the form and I think I am either completely right or completely wrong as I feel like I heard similar timbre differences in each test and I'm familiar with the Arturia synths. Either way I'm looking forward to the correct answers!
I think the difference is clear. It is surprising that the arturia on some sounds seems to have some tuning issues and it's digital rather than analogue
What seems to be missing from the comments is that everyone else who is not a devotee of the hardware or has had a lot of experience living with the hardware will certainly not know the difference and the emulations will sound more than adequate to everyone else at 1/100 - 1/1000th of the cost. It's just where we are.
i see what you mean; at the same time: you dont know what you are missing if you havent ‘felt’ the power, directness and rawness of hardware. That’s maybe the point I want to bring across: just njoy the plugins, they do bring the sound, but not the experience
Yes, I agree. I've been at it 40 years too and have owned Juno 106, Matrix 6, Poly Six, Prophet, etc. so I know exactly what you mean. It is far more inspirational for sure because as you are dialing in and experimenting on the fly you get what I call "Happy Surprises"@@josesvintagekeys
I have lots of both. I tend to assume the hardware synths are superior, i.e., a more robust sound. But I've been surprised more than a few times. And sometimes for recording sake, you can get a better sound faster with a soft synth. Iissues with warming up (if analog), or unreliable power where the voltage fluctuates, that can affect the hardware, not so much soft synths. And other times, you don't always want a robust sound because they don't always fit into the mix as well. And lastly, if you don't have everything you own set up all the time, just setting up a hardware synth can limit how often you use it. But the definite diminished returns should make anyone think twice about paying for somthing that most people can't tell the difference with.
AND, with a hardware synth (older), you have to be able to really play or you use a controller that captures midi data and try to setup the hardware synth as an external instrument. I'm not exaggerating I think over 90% on you tube cannot play their keyboards in any meaningful way. That's why the most popular and bought synths for 2022 were 37 keys. I think the truth lies is all those people are doing loops, beats, rap, trance, synthpop stuff. No Billy Joel or Vangelis there. @@commodoor6549
This is exactly true. As a musician and designer I can’t tell you how many people thought we are crazy about insistence in preference for lots of original analog synths - UNTIL they come over to the office and actually play them… even just one note and their eyes go wide an they say holy cow.. ok now I get it.
The hardare is A B A A A. You can hear one tends to be brighter sounding, the portamento acted more singular, and is not as warm sounding That would be the Arturia. It is B A B B B. My guesses, for what it's worth. 😊
to be fair . The settings on the comparisons by far NOT equal. some envelopes and detunes are way off. So, it's hard to compare if you can't match the settings. They will always sound different. And the one you like more might just be that small difference in settings.
Cool comparison. I filled out the form and I won't lie, I was basically guessing. As much as a real CS80 is a holy grail, and analog is obviously superior, Arturia have really managed to capture the essence of this synth. I could tell there was a difference, but was struggling to sonicly identify what it was. Very curious to see the results
The form is down, dont open for me. Id say Instrument A is hardware purely based on the warmth and depth. I don't know the characteristics of this particular synth, but I prefer Instrument A.
first like and comment 😄🤗 i just recently got the GX-80 VST from Cherry Audio and it's insane...well worth it and perhaps you might compare it as well 👍🏻...edit: the Arturia version was released in 2003 (?)
I have both Arturia, the Cherry GX-80 and the ME-80 which is a sort of CS80 created by Mixcraft. I must say the GX-80 is very handy in getting patches to sound good in one instance without tweaking hours and hours. It has the obvious effects you assumably like. Some sounds from the CS80 are only recognized/familiar after putting some reverb or delay in them so I think Cherry did a good job there. But versatility is better with the Arturia version in terms of combining it in the "Analogue Lab" and adding other soundbanks from developers or users.
The Cherry Audio GS80 pretty much is spot on in a final mix. Thats what i found when comparing Vangelis blade runner tears in rain and intro from the film. I spent days comparing them on all sorts of speakers. And they were so close(i added Valhalla vintage Verb for the huge ambiance). I think if you cant afford the hardware then these are golden times. Imagine scoring Blade Runner from your bedroom. I too grew up in 70s and 80s and know how much these instruments originally cost. I could only afford an Octave Cat back then. Sort of a poor mans Moog. But i wouldnt change a thing. And if i could have hardware i would as its like going home😌
No idea what is real and what is emulated, as I have no point of reference. My assumptions are that the hardware would sound a bit more unstable, and have a lot of raw power, probably in the bass. But the sounds with the most bass are the more stable ones. 🤷🏼♂️
cs80 V4 is completely rewritten by Arturia and sounding so far better than V3. it has a distribution voices algorithm witch give it a pure analog sound compared to V3
thank you.Just note that you permit evaluate fot what YOU HEAR: hardware version / soft + YOUR dac used at output of your computer. For what WE can hear on this video the software/ hardware + YOUR preamp used for record the cs80 sound. But in this case i think the sounding is really different apart of that.
the real one provide some "mecanical with raw resonnance" the VSTs doesn't have. But I presume, with a good EQ it would be manageable. $50 000 you said... hmmm....
I'm guessing the narrower frequency response from B corresponds to the real CS-80, as one would expect from aged circuits. Both sound lovely, but I prefer the emulation (gasp!) ;)
honestly theres no comparison. the weight if the hardware is unmatched, subtle smoothness, even the portamento is more organic and smoother. Theres always a certain whiny sound to software synths that give them away to me. sure its in the ballpark range but sorry the hardware is so much better
I think A: plugin B: hardware A sounds more “complete” (like someone made a plugin that sounds like an already-mixed like a record synth). B sounds like a hardware synth (that sounds flatter than you expect when you get it until you BEEF it up with a good mic preamp & channel strip). I must say, I do tend to think Arturia’s VST emulations have the best attention to actually making them sound “complete already”. …& maybe I’m totally wrong🙄 lol
Nobody will work on a cs80 in the United States. There’s that. So, I have to ship it to Kent Spong in England. It’s kinda like a Jupiter 8. For me the Oberheim obx sounds better than both of these. The Minimoog will never be replaced by a computer. I have 4 of them. Same with the ppg, and the Taurus 1 bass pedal. Moog is out of business, so the Minimoog will bring 20,000 now.
People that really like to preserve beautiful machines from the past from extinction. And I can imagine that if you take care of a synth like it’s your baby. You just can’t sell it anymore. But sometimes you have to sell your synthbaby’s. And that’s why I think they become expensive.
Being a Drum & Bass artist I'm a huge fan of Subfocus who is very big on the ME80 emulation by Memory Moon. In one of his UA-cam videos he explains that he used to have a studio next door to the band Nero who purchased and original CS80 like yourself. They spent some time comparing the various VST emulations to the real thing and decided that the ME80 was much closer to the original than any other emulation. Personally I like using both the ME80 and the CS80V-3 and CS80V-4. Cheers!
i will absolutely check it out!! great story
@@josesvintagekeys I'm sorry but where is Example 5 No Fx?
A comparison that I'm sure many, many people will greatly appreciate. As a CS80 fanboy and CS80V owner, I've been wanting this for a long time. Would love to see more.
"As a..." is THE single most overused thing in comments. Why is it not enough to say, "I'm a CS80 fanboy and own a CS80V"?
@@X22GJP I wonder how often “fuck off” gets used
@@renwestmaria😂
@@renwestmariabeautiful reply. i hope the universe gifts you a cs80 for that comment alone
Thanks so much for doing this video!
The Yamaha Montage has an incredible sounding CS80, particularly the cutoff and rez filters.
Love the montage - I have the XS8 and even had the first Motif - love the sound of Yamaha -
If you mean the free CS80 patch set from Yamaha, I have to disagree. For me this set was a huge disappointment. The Montage CS80 patches are samples of "new and creative" sounds form the CS80. For everyone looking for characteristic CS80 sounds this patch set is more or less garbage and the underlying samples are of limited use if you want to make typical CS80 patches yourself.
Really enjoying just listening to the sound bytes. Did have trouble working out which was which.
Thank you for your insightful synth knowledge! I love these videos when they come out!
3:48 Example 1 No Fx
4:19 Example 1 With Fx
5:57 Example 2 With Fx
6:56 Example 2 No FX
8:23 Example 3 With Fx
9:02 Example 3 No Fx
10:24 Example 4 With Fx
11:20 Example 4 No Fx
12:51 Example 5 With Fx
Thanks so much,I always wonder a closer comparison between the two ,but it's very difficult in this days to see it ,in of course cheers
The original CS80 was well known for having unstable tuning. Apparently there was uneven heating between the voice cards. This alone will make quite a difference between the two- difference, not necessarily better mind you!
In the second example there is PWM on the hardware CS80 and non on on the plugin and you can hear the modulation and non modulation.
Great video thanks. I’m sure we’ll get “I knew it” from people who didn’t vote. Starsky done one, analog vs digital and nobody got them all right. Comment section did though 😅
I need next video 5 Sound examples of the hardware CS80 versus the Arturia CS80V versus Deckard's Dream (Black corporation)
Last evening I listened to the 20 mn Arturia, had a good time, amazing being able to explore such an Instrument. So I was able to have in mind it's print, little behind and some confusion using the two layers with exact same settings. The Arturia have a color, perhaps depending of the driver, or inherent of a numeric transition. I can compare only analog to what I Have, an original Juno 6, and a Deepmind 12 (to use first without effects!). So I've this little signature I can compare , the direct analog is more rich, powerful, with subtile resonances. That's why I stand to analog rebuilts of those instruments I was not able to play years ago, but, pluggins are very important too, because that's time you can spend to understand the instrument, listen results and think about to buy a replica, then use the two wich are complementary as the plugging is useful to memorize settings things you can't do with old instruments without presets. As for my Juno 6, I have a vsti, useful to save presets (not a Juno 60 !) I use also a web cam, this is more subtile.
So the last example remind that with effects, and in an ensemble, Hat you hear is the resulting stereo wave your daw registered and leveled and decoded in your computer by YT, the sound is an average of sometimes opposed frequencies, it's like a landscape an artist is painting.
Patricia!!!! welcome. YT stats show that 99.99% of my viewers are male - and I am pretty sure that there are lots of female synth lovers as well.. which your are one of. As to your point; embrace yout Juno - a great instrument. The Juno 60 eas my first real synth - its a gem!
@@josesvintagekeysThere are some more of us female synth collectors hanging around here.
😊
I have the Cherry Audio GX-80 and its pretty decent. It cant replace hardware though as everyone knows deep inside, the emulation is not the same as the tangible product.
you will understand that i do prefer hardware :-)
For the price though, vst's work for me.
Great videos on the CS80, thank you!
There was one in my local music shop when I was in high school, and the owner was cool about letting us hang out and play it. It became a weekly thing, everyone loved it! They told us that Stevie Wonder had been using the one we were playing.
I'm going with A B A A A, or all the ones with the low/low-mid warmth. Curious to see how my memory serves me.
I think A B B A A
I have both the Arturia and the Cherry Audio CS80 emulations and, whilst a real CS80 would be pretty cool to own (and I am deep into electronics repair, so would be a dream to work on it), there is no way I could fit it in my current studio. Both VSTs are pretty good IMO
Yeah, the problem is not that the real thing costs as much as a new Mercedes, but that you couldn't fit it in your studio... right.
@@auralplex
$70,000 as of now.
Being a Drum & Bass artist I'm a huge fan of Subfocus who is very big on the ME80 emulation by Memory Moon. In one of his UA-cam videos he explains that he used to have a studio next door to the band Nero who purchased and original CS80 like yourself. They spent some time comparing the various VST emulations to the real thing and decided that the ME80 was much closer to the original than any other
Would love to see you do the same with the Jupiter 8 and Jup-8 V plugin! Especially that Jupiter patch from your previous CS80 video - comparing basic tones
I will! 😊
Looking at the results, it looks like there is around 1/3rd or at least 1/4th of people who think the answer is the other way round than the majority.. in one of the answers is was almost 50% even.. this tells me that people really can't tell the difference and liking either one or the other is just a matter of taste
the google thong was an experiment; but do i understand correctly that you are ablecto see what the score is? (fine obviously - its not the presidential electios :-)
@@josesvintagekeys yes after we put in our answers, we can see the results
@@MreenalMams full openess! again: it was an experiment, but turned out really nice
The Hydra does a surprisingly good job.
The differences between the two could likely be made much smaller with a bit of additional processing on the VST. Analog signal paths have natural eq, saturation that you can most definitely add in. Arturia also makes some great vsts for this!
Cope harder, you were just expecting the VST to sound identical and that wasn't the case clearly.
Emulating the sound of analog synths in plugins has reached a point of maturity where the differences are slight if not imperceptible most of the time.
However, the thing that really sets analog synths apart… and this is especially true of the CS80… is the interface. The immediacy of controls and knobs and sliders, etc is what makes analog synths so expressive and fun to play.
that’s it!
That's not true in my experience. Granted it depends on the synthesizer, a lot of them even with added days of tweaking for natural EQ, saturation and clarity at higher notes sound noticeably distinct.
"FUN"...... 😂😂😂😂
Excellent video! Please do a similar one with the GX-80.
I’ll think I have to - got many comments on this!
It would be a unique comparison that many people would want to see! The ultimate comparison should also include the Memorymoon ME80, which many people prefer.
Both sound great, but the real hardware has some raw unruly power to it that CS80V (and very few plugins at all) does not provide. Great times for synthesiser enthusiast. And it will only get better ;-) Even polyphonic aftertouch are becoming more usual.
Thanks for the videos!
you describe the difference very well!
Yeah, the point is that near cs 80 is more than so many virtual instruments. If you tweak the Arturia to it's strenghts and get the expression brill and so on right and play a good enough midi keyboard, you can express yourself on it so well and have so much fun. My custom presets are better than these presets, in my opinion. (Arturia should hire me lol). It's much harder to tweak virtual synths because hardware gives you great sounds everywhere while the virtual ones have very sensitive sweetspots.
Nothing beats the hardware in the end. If money and space is not an issue, no one will choose a vst over a hardware synth
Then it should be easy to tell them apart in a blind test, right? :)
I would! If a VST is close enough, I'll use it as it's more convenient for me working in the box.
Great stuff! ANOTHER VIDEO IDEA: It would be great if you could compare the 3 iconic Vangelis sounds programmed on the CS80 (that you did on another video) with the CS80V letting us see the settings as you do on this. (I thought I had already made this comment but I don't see it here).
The benefit of the software over the hardware is that when the software goes wrong you don't have to ship it off half-way across the world for a year, only to get a five-figure repair bill when it finally comes back.
PS
I think your subs have almost doubled in the last 2 weeks, so congrats. I found you though your vid with Doctor Mix BTW.
I just moved for new home…considering also this…lol..hardware and software the double face of a medal. :)
For me the software has finally become quite close to the original, but the most important thing is not there.
Indeed, the CS80 has a very expressive keyboard, what could be more frustrating than using the software with a KEYSTEP for example.
The KURZWEIL midiboard then seems ideal. Finally, the important thing will always be what we do with it.
i understand that Native Instrument will intoduce a new board with poly after touch
I have an ASM Hydrasynth deluxe which I haven't yet tried as a midi trigger for my Arturia CS80, but I suspect is would work exceptionally well. Thing is, the Hydrasynth by itself does a pretty darn good copy of the CS80 sounds and keyboard response.
Somehow it seems like the curve how the filter responds to different control signals seems different. In the first example I actually thought that the difference came from using aftertouch (which would be tough to replicate exactly on a different keyboard). This makes me wonder if the two could be made sound closet to eachother by just tweaking some settings.
This reminds me of a lot of guitar effect pedal comparisons where some expensive original is compared to a clone... They tend to match the settings by turning the knobs so they match visually. In real life the potentiometers (be it rotary or slider) have horrible tolerances and even if the compared pedals were exactly the same circuit with all other components matched exactly, they could sound different when the knobs are matched visually. Better match can usually be achieved by tweakin the settings just a bit.
that is what I did - if you look closely you will see that the settings are not exactly the same
definitely hear a difference with the brass. (i'm typing as I listen. I prefer the first example whatever it may be)
Especially in mixdowns its extremely difficult (or impossible) to distinguish difference, but within music. Its easy. Aftertouch, dynamics and response, all hands controls (pedals, gliss switches, ribbon, ringmod) are not simply approachable with software and hence you cannot use software as real CS-80. Deckard's Dream have same issues, tiny faders ok for sound design but not performing...
@theboofin You are trying to tell me that every user have cripled their CS-80 with midi and using only that, never actually playing it? :D
I'm really 8nterested in running vsts hosted in cubase vst32 and os9 9n my mac g4 and the CS80V is a very nice plugin to use on that platform. 😊
Great video, and great idea to make us interact with the form! I’m curious to see the results
keep you posted!
I started up a little home-studio for less than $1500 and Arturias Lab V X is a real treasure, that u can rent-to-own it is just insane. I shouldve done this sooner!
Actually kinda insane how they sound so alike, I really hear a difference, but I would never ever be able too tell in a song I think which one is which
I’d be curious to know the signal path for each. B sounded noticeably brighter, which is often the case with software emulations. When I route VST audio through my mixer and my UA Volt interface, it always softens the edges of that brightness and the overall tone sounds much more like my analog hardware.
I LOVE that noise piano patch on the CS-80............shame i can't better replicate it on the plug-in......yet.....
I didn't keep a copy of my responses, and neither they nor the correct answers are indicated on the results page, so I don't know how well I did. I'm guessing about 50%, though, since there doesn't seem to be a consensus in the results. I'm not surprised. In each case the two options sounded a little different, but I (like most people) can't tell whether those differences are the results of actual circuits doing what they do or emulations of that.
When in doubt, apply the *Law of Diminished Returns*
Just fyi, Cherry Audio also has a great version of the CS80, and it incorporates emulations from the older GX-1
I’ll certainly listen to it!
I honestly don't know which is which. I do know that I consistnty and strongly preferred the "A" version. It sounded much fatter and better mixed, especially on Alaska, where the high note just screamed in a nice way. B sounded kind of thin and uninteresting by comparison. The only one that was very close was Stranger Things. I still preferred A, but the B version was also pretty nice.
Like some others, I recommend trying the Cheery Audio GS-80. It's not expensive and regardless of whether it's more or less autentic, I find that I prefer the sound of it to the Arturia one.
This kind of comparison is very difficult to make, as the choice of sounds has a major influence on the result. For example, I regret that the Ring Modulator was not used, as the CS80's is incomparable. I also regret that the ribbon was not used, because it's a strong point of the CS80, or I regret the string comparison, because any synth is capable of making "vintage strings" and whether it's a prophet, an oberhaim or anything else, they almost all sound the same when set to do so. In short, when it comes to producing traditional synth sounds, the CS80 doesn't necessarily shine any brighter than any other good synth. But if you use it at its best, as Vangelis did, no VST or even hardware synthesizer can compare.
On trivial sounds, comparisons are almost impossible (trivial not in the sense that they're badly programmed, but in the sense that they can be remade with any decent synth).
Thanks for the video!
got your point - next time I will use more - different - sounds
@@josesvintagekeysA wider choice of sounds will certainly help to recognize certain synths, but when comparing a machine and its copy/clone (digital or software), all comparisons tend to highlight similar sounds. This is usually an honest and unconscious choice. But what will be great is the opposite: trying to make them sound very different with roughly the same settings... So build the test with the question "what makes these synths different" and not "what makes them the same". A more fun challenge, don't you think? ;-) And thanks again for this video and the work that went into it (those who don't have a YT channel don't know how much work goes into any video)!
The roll off makes this an easy one
please make a comparison with softube model 77
I scored zero, so I could consistently tell them apart!
Great .. its as if you read my mind
Great video. I had the opportunity to play a cs80 in Austria this summer. Amazing machine.
I filled in the form. I am curious how I have done. When will you reveal the answers?
Groeten uit Emmen 😊
groeten uit Heemstede. I have already 40 ! reactions to the quiz… My idea is to see whether we can hit a 100! Agree?
@@josesvintagekeys I totally agree!
Julie kunnen Nederlands spreken? Grappig. Miauw.
I wonder how a couple of other alternatives hold up to the real thing. 1) The free Arminator vst. & 2) The Hydrasynth deluxe.
While not a CS80 clone or emulation the latter gets recommended as a CS80 alternative, because it has a CS80 like touch strip and poly aftertouch.
Any chance for a comparison of either?
Not sure - but expasmples show hardware operational panel photo's and screendumps of software - when the hardware and when the software produces sounds - can you re-work the video with a flashing brand name Y (hardware) - vs A (software)? etc.? TH X in advance.
Eddie Jobson did the UK reunión with two controllers and two Mac Books. They sounded like rhe records
from my understanding listening on headphones,
vst has that uneven sizzle and shallow sound, it would be this
1: A CS80 B VST
2: A VST B CS80
3: A VST B CS80
4: A VST B CS80
5: A VST B CS80
I wish I could import all the presets from CA GX-80 to my Arturia CS-80.
While I think there are differences to be heard I also think much of that comes from EQ and some dynamics differences which can be addressed. For me it does not matter since the real thing is made of unobtanium.
Its not EQ, its a matter of a physical oscillators "voice" producing a different note quality. Along with the strange blending different analog voices have when they interact upon each other.
Cool comparison.
Examples 3 and 4 are somewhat difficult to compare because noise levels are pretty differing in example 3 and the filter cutoff does not seem to be at the same position in example 4.
Otherwise nice work and CS80 showoff.
My guess for 'the real thing' CS80 are: 1B, 2B, 3B, 4A, 5A
The software sounds way more shallow without effects, digital precision. ^^
check my video with the results ua-cam.com/video/cYpVpTP8Vzg/v-deo.htmlsi=KzD3vFG0iCHZ0Hpl
Always an interesting exercise but for me I like the physical interaction of hardware synths - even menu diving on my DX rather than using Dexed. Because I don't want to make my influences too obvious, I'm not hung up on particular gear - I use what I have rather than what I wish I had.
Even if software achieves exact replication i have no interest in it. I prefer a physical book instead of reading on a tablet. I prefer listening to a band live vs a recording and an album vs an mp3. We are more than our ears, we are tactile, and the smell of wood and feel of keys. Its all a part of an experience, its not just what it sounds like. But i really love this video so much ❤ and love your channel
The plugin really needs a full hardware controller of some sorts. It's just too hard to use with a mouse.
fully agree 😊
I was wondering, were the patches created using identical settings between the two? Generally speaking, it is often possible to closer match the sounds of hardware synths, but often the settings need to be tweaked a bit to come closer, so they settings used generally won't identically match to make the closest possible sound to the hardware.
As I was hearing these examples and listening to what I felt was the weaker of the examples, I couldn't help but think, it is certainly possible to closer match that in software wither with the Arturia CS80 or some other VST synth. For example, the low end of the Alaska patch is much weaker in one of the examples. Yet, I've heard patches a lot closer to that in software. Or..maybe the better sounding one was the software??
I did tweaked them indeed for that reason
I got 0 lol. Apparently im sort of able to tell them apart, but the idea of analogue boeing warm/darker sounding blinds my ear and vision. Seems like arturia knew exactly what one would be looking for in the vst abd made sure it’s properly exposed :)
All of these examples sounds better without FX!
glad you njoy it :-). I am known for overdoing it with fx…
The original has more depth, low end. Check out my FREE presets for the VST : ua-cam.com/video/jE3_4QHpSj8/v-deo.html&ab_channel=M80
So we have real CS80 owner in the Netherland! OMG. I represent two fans (me and my son). would't it be great to visit your studio actually listen and look at it ;-)
You’re welcome - mail adres in my channel description
I have a bunch of hardware synths and software. I like my hardware synths to explore, but when producing I use software, period. There is nothing the hardware can give me that the software can't. For example, I have a Waldorf Q, a XP, Pulse, Alesis QRS, Emu Morpheus, ASR-10, JD-800/990, two JP-8080, two Virus Ti2 Whiteout in rack and keyboard, Quasimidi Polymorph and Raven. To name a few and just to think that I have to patch the midi and the audio to use the "Vahala effect" on them... forget it! The time you waste routing stuff. Is better to have the VST, is just a few mouse clicks. With a good vst workflow you are releasing songs every day.
I use software more and more - especially Omnisphere and Pigments - but I always use it together with hardware - all instruments have midi and are connected to the UA Apollo’s. Why do you keep the hardware synths if you don’t use them..?
@@josesvintagekeys "I have no money to keep them, I would feel miserable if I did not have them".
What version of CS-80V are you using in this video? It sounds like a older version, the latest is V4 wich is greatly improved and quite nails the sound. Earlier versions were crap to be honest.
You are fully right - I didnt' realise there was an update. I'll see whether I'll make a second version - with the V4 - and some other sounds
@@josesvintagekeys Would be great, cheers! Thanks for excellent content btw.
There must be a difference : I got 0 (zero) match in the quiz. So I am proud to have consistently heard something. Or to have won (lose) a game with a probability of 1/32th
By the time everything's bounced to UA-cam audio its hard to tell. First hand i can easily tell the difference between my analogs and software.
agree, YT compression doesnt help
Respectfully, every time somebody puts out a blind comparison like this for people to participate in, whether it's on the usual forums or on UA-cam, there's always some reason that hinders someone's ability to pick out the hardware even though they insist they can tell the difference easily in person. :)
what were the results? - I screen shot my choice as an owner of both arturia & the Yamaha cs80
ua-cam.com/video/cYpVpTP8Vzg/v-deo.htmlsi=kNLXsmPiZkIggj6S
I submitted my responses BUT I need to hear the CS80 more to know how the things sounds like it. There are sounds that can be good on VST.
I compiled the Google form but I was not returned with the results... So where can I find the results please?
The first time I heard the CS it was on the first UK album. A beast.
Does the Arturia respond to PA?
same for me
The Arturia does respond to polyphonic aftertouch and MPE.
@@grindhouseglitch and NI will release an new keyboard range with PA… that will make a huge difference
@@josesvintagekeys this is what I’ve been waiting for.
did you buy your 80 in Belgium? I sold mine some 20 years ago (still regret it) ;)
Omg I selected the plugin in all cases. It sounds much better. Less aggressive high and more body. Does your Cs80 need service or do my ears need it?
I see what you mean, its actually more difficult to record. But believe me: nothing beats the real thing. YT compression doesnt help. Listen to some of my music video’s - you will hear the beauty of the instrument
I find it's not so much the internal sound of the cs80 but the interface that defines the sound. Most people for example would be using a generic USB keyboard but the cs80 is meant to be played with aftertouch and the keys wobble for vibrato. Add the ring mod sliders and pitch ribbon and you have a great performance synth. Someone should make the interface for the VST.
you are fully right: it’s the whole user xperience that makes the instrument so special
Hi Jose, I'm new to your channel but really enjoying the content. this was a great comparison. I have filled out the form and I think I am either completely right or completely wrong as I feel like I heard similar timbre differences in each test and I'm familiar with the Arturia synths. Either way I'm looking forward to the correct answers!
check my video with the results ua-cam.com/video/cYpVpTP8Vzg/v-deo.htmlsi=KzD3vFG0iCHZ0Hpl
I think the difference is clear. It is surprising that the arturia on some sounds seems to have some tuning issues and it's digital rather than analogue
What’s your answers?
The warmer sounds are the cs80@@vaiman7777
@@keithbutler2222Sizzling highs and crunchy lows.
Something like that 🙂@@vaiman7777
Multiple people claiming the differences are oh-so-obvious, but nobody is posting their answers, heheh.
What seems to be missing from the comments is that everyone else who is not a devotee of the hardware or has had a lot of experience living with the hardware will certainly not know the difference and the emulations will sound more than adequate to everyone else at 1/100 - 1/1000th of the cost. It's just where we are.
i see what you mean; at the same time: you dont know what you are missing if you havent ‘felt’ the power, directness and rawness of hardware. That’s maybe the point I want to bring across: just njoy the plugins, they do bring the sound, but not the experience
Yes, I agree. I've been at it 40 years too and have owned Juno 106, Matrix 6, Poly Six, Prophet, etc. so I know exactly what you mean. It is far more inspirational for sure because as you are dialing in and experimenting on the fly you get what I call "Happy Surprises"@@josesvintagekeys
I have lots of both. I tend to assume the hardware synths are superior, i.e., a more robust sound. But I've been surprised more than a few times. And sometimes for recording sake, you can get a better sound faster with a soft synth. Iissues with warming up (if analog), or unreliable power where the voltage fluctuates, that can affect the hardware, not so much soft synths. And other times, you don't always want a robust sound because they don't always fit into the mix as well. And lastly, if you don't have everything you own set up all the time, just setting up a hardware synth can limit how often you use it. But the definite diminished returns should make anyone think twice about paying for somthing that most people can't tell the difference with.
AND, with a hardware synth (older), you have to be able to really play or you use a controller that captures midi data and try to setup the hardware synth as an external instrument. I'm not exaggerating I think over 90% on you tube cannot play their keyboards in any meaningful way. That's why the most popular and bought synths for 2022 were 37 keys. I think the truth lies is all those people are doing loops, beats, rap, trance, synthpop stuff. No Billy Joel or Vangelis there. @@commodoor6549
This is exactly true. As a musician and designer I can’t tell you how many people thought we are crazy about insistence in preference for lots of original analog synths - UNTIL they come over to the office and actually play them… even just one note and their eyes go wide an they say holy cow.. ok now I get it.
what Genelec studio monitors models are you using ?
Legitimately the hardest synth to emulate
The hardare is A B A A A. You can hear one tends to be brighter sounding, the portamento acted more singular, and is not as warm sounding That would be the Arturia. It is B A B B B. My guesses, for what it's worth. 😊
to be fair . The settings on the comparisons by far NOT equal. some envelopes and detunes are way off. So, it's hard to compare if you can't match the settings. They will always sound different. And the one you like more might just be that small difference in settings.
as said in the video: the instruments behave differtently : so its more complex than just copying the settings.
Yes, not remotely similar.
Yes, copying settings won't make the sound the same.
Making them sound the same makes them sound the same.
Sorry.
Cs80 weight a ton. So my back takes the arturia.
Cool comparison. I filled out the form and I won't lie, I was basically guessing. As much as a real CS80 is a holy grail, and analog is obviously superior, Arturia have really managed to capture the essence of this synth. I could tell there was a difference, but was struggling to sonicly identify what it was. Very curious to see the results
The form is down, dont open for me. Id say Instrument A is hardware purely based on the warmth and depth. I don't know the characteristics of this particular synth, but I prefer Instrument A.
first like and comment 😄🤗 i just recently got the GX-80 VST from Cherry Audio and it's insane...well worth it and perhaps you might compare it as well 👍🏻...edit: the Arturia version was released in 2003 (?)
you hardly had time to watch the whole video :-) Take your time and be number 1 to do the test!
I have both Arturia, the Cherry GX-80 and the ME-80 which is a sort of CS80 created by Mixcraft.
I must say the GX-80 is very handy in getting patches to sound good in one instance without tweaking hours and hours. It has the obvious effects you assumably like.
Some sounds from the CS80 are only recognized/familiar after putting some reverb or delay in them so I think Cherry did a good job there.
But versatility is better with the Arturia version in terms of combining it in the "Analogue Lab" and adding other soundbanks from developers or users.
@@josesvintagekeys finished it :) it was easier to tell without FX, and 5 was difficult because A was so short but I know the Arp was the Jupiter 8 ;)
The Cherry Audio GS80 pretty much is spot on in a final mix. Thats what i found when comparing Vangelis blade runner tears in rain and intro from the film. I spent days comparing them on all sorts of speakers. And they were so close(i added Valhalla vintage Verb for the huge ambiance). I think if you cant afford the hardware then these are golden times. Imagine scoring Blade Runner from your bedroom. I too grew up in 70s and 80s and know how much these instruments originally cost. I could only afford an Octave Cat back then. Sort of a poor mans Moog. But i wouldnt change a thing. And if i could have hardware i would as its like going home😌
No idea what is real and what is emulated, as I have no point of reference. My assumptions are that the hardware would sound a bit more unstable, and have a lot of raw power, probably in the bass. But the sounds with the most bass are the more stable ones. 🤷🏼♂️
VST is very close!
exactly my point
@@josesvintagekeys,
Simply $30K saver! 😄
Nice job what reverb did you use?
Universal audio Lexicon 224
cs80 V4 is completely rewritten by Arturia and sounding so far better than V3. it has a distribution voices algorithm witch give it a pure analog sound compared to V3
that will make it even more difficult to hear the difference
V failed on brass right away
So... I sent my choices... where can I see the right answers?
I’ll wait a day for the quiz results and than i’ll share the outcome
Is there a way to find which answers I gave? A few days have passed and I can't remember now. @@josesvintagekeys
@@josesvintagekeys Hi! Also took part in quiz and want to know right answers if it's possible, thanks! :)
A is arturia and B is the harware synth. My guess.
thank you.Just note that you permit evaluate fot what YOU HEAR: hardware version / soft + YOUR dac used at output of your computer. For what WE can hear on this video the software/ hardware + YOUR preamp used for record the cs80 sound. But in this case i think the sounding is really different apart of that.
Please share the answers
we are a 40 forms - i’ll wait until 100
the real one provide some "mecanical with raw resonnance" the VSTs doesn't have. But I presume, with a good EQ it would be manageable. $50 000 you said... hmmm....
50k on Reverb; probably nonsense!
I'm guessing the narrower frequency response from B corresponds to the real CS-80, as one would expect from aged circuits. Both sound lovely, but I prefer the emulation (gasp!) ;)
honestly theres no comparison. the weight if the hardware is unmatched, subtle smoothness, even the portamento is more organic and smoother. Theres always a certain whiny sound to software synths that give them away to me. sure its in the ballpark range but sorry the hardware is so much better
Then it should be easy for you to pick out the hardware when you submit your results, right? :)
I think
A: plugin
B: hardware
A sounds more “complete” (like someone made a plugin that sounds like an already-mixed like a record synth).
B sounds like a hardware synth (that sounds flatter than you expect when you get it until you BEEF it up with a good mic preamp & channel strip).
I must say, I do tend to think Arturia’s VST emulations have the best attention to actually making them sound “complete already”.
…& maybe I’m totally wrong🙄 lol
check the results in the next video :-)
sorry where are the answers? I get zero point what ever I chose
Nobody will work on a cs80 in the United States. There’s that. So, I have to ship it to Kent Spong in England. It’s kinda like a Jupiter 8. For me the Oberheim obx sounds better than both of these. The Minimoog will never be replaced by a computer. I have 4 of them. Same with the ppg, and the Taurus 1 bass pedal. Moog is out of business, so the Minimoog will bring 20,000 now.
I will when Arturia is honest about it and displays Yamaha instead of Arturia on the software.
My guess: Original CS80 is B A B A A. Link doesn't work. (Edit: now it does work )
Who in their right mind would pay so much for a CS80? I do not understand that at all.
and who buys a Steinway grand? Quite a lot of serious people…
Rich people, that’s who. Pride of ownership.
@@mattdelany6799Not everyone bought them at the current value. Like people who own a LINN or LM-1 didn’t necessarily pay 6k. So it’s not rich folk.
When was a cs80 not expensive?
People that really like to preserve beautiful machines from the past from extinction. And I can imagine that if you take care of a synth like it’s your baby. You just can’t sell it anymore. But sometimes you have to sell your synthbaby’s. And that’s why I think they become expensive.