Thanks for doing these tests - my general impression is that they usually reveal more about the humans taking the test, than they say empirically about the gear! ;) As much as my opinion is worth, for me the sound differences between any given emulation (assuming it's been done well) and any single piece of reference hardware are usually negligible, compared to the difference of the *experience* using them to make music, which will *always* differ. I find it's hard to avoid the brain trying to game these kinds if tests - we're always looking to find meaning and to use that meaning to unlock the mysteries, and we convince ourselves of all kinds of things - "I hear a difference, in this case the second example is brighter, so I'll decide that must be software, and now my expectation is that all slightly brighter examples will be the software" and we're now lost in a maze of expectation bias and second guessing. Or maybe that's just me! ;) These tests are fun, particularly for people who have decided their truth is one thing, and when you test empirically, you find those "truths" don't hold up. But ultimately, like whether one guitar sounds better to you than another, the key thing is, pick the instrument that inspires you, and create something with it. As long as we still do that, the tests, and the results one chooses to draw from them, don't really matter...
That is rather challenging! I can’t tell on my phone. I really appreciate the efforts you’ve gone too by running both through the same DAC signal path.
I figured that if I didn't run it through a ADC, one could identify the softsynth by seeing that the sound before it is perfectly zero. (That said, it may be that the noise floor is low enough that it rounds down to zero anyway, I didn't bother to look...)
I'm way late here but there's def a difference. G vs H, for example, G is easily brighter which brings out some sort of filter or phasing sound underneath, for lack of a better description. Same for I and J. I is brighter, it cuts more, J is more controlled, muted. K vs L, the buzz on K is more defined, sticks out more, which gives it a slightly brighter edge. Some differences throughout, that said I couldn't tell you which is which because I've never owned a VS. I also wonder if anymore differences would be noticeable/apparent if we were listening to some actual playing. Complex sounds/modulation + voices overlapping so we can hear how they interact with each other. Anyways, a purist or someone looking to get "that" exact sound for whatever reason could justly say there's a differences. And of course there's the workflow, physical interaction, ect to take into account. That might matter as well.
This reminds me that I need to publish the answer key for this. I'll just mention here that the really interesting thing is that the differences you hear between the hardware and the software varies from patch to patch. In some cases the hardware sounds brighter, sometimes the software sounds brighter (or with deeper bass, or a more phased sound, etc). So whatever differences you hear, you can't consistently use that to identify which is which, even if you spend a lot of time with the software and the hardware. My theory is that the Prophet VS voice is so complex that it's best thought of as more than the sum of its parts, so whatever differences there are in how the software implements part of the architecture vary in terms of how they manifest themselves in the sound of a particular patch.
@@Lantertronics Oh, cool. That will be interesting. In the case of consistency, or identifying the synths, I'll take your word for it. I don't have either. To answer the big question though, no I don't think VS is worth 6k+. It's a classic, and I love some of those sounds, but I don't 6k love them. I hope someone clones it really well and sells it at a reasonable price. I prefer hardware where possible. I don't think the 3rd Wave counts, as many have suggested, though I do think it's awesome.
I'm listening through a 15" P.A. woofer with a mid horn tweeter, so I could hear a distinct difference as I'm sure most anyone would with a high-fidelity speaker relative to my own. *With that said, I have no idea which was which lol.* I can say that someone familiar with the 2 would be able accurately label which one they were hearing. Currently, we're just finally seeing digital reach a point where it can produce the highly unique textures of valve distortion. That fizzy, chiming zinging sound that quite literally sounds like it is made with glitter is still unmistakable when it's a genuine valve, but we're now well within sight of digital being all around superior to everything and I say that as someone that boldly prefers the sound of semiconductors run analog. *I can design and build superior analog circuits compared to a digital equivalent, but when your desire is 20 different options for each effect available, there's only a few specific processes I will still insist should remain analog.* I've produced a transistor overdrive that sounds so identical to valves, I don't like that it sounds identical to valve distortion lol! *I prefer the grind, snarl and sleaze of solid-state distortion with a HINT of valve texture.*
As much as I love these ‘I’m camera’ videos, I would like to hear these two compared ‘in situ’ within a track. Then of course there are other factors to consider such as GUI and curb appeal at a party, for example. Please throw a cocktail party and invite your guests to experience playing with your VS Rack and then the Plug-in. Please use the same guidelines with WIKI references so we can all have a solid base line for reference. As we all know, a solid baseline is essential for a decent cocktail party these days :)
To answer your initial question in the thumbnail of this video. The audible differences between the two are so small (in many cases insignificant) that the price of the vintage VS is not justified if you look at them purely as tools for music creation. If you compre them from a different perspective like the collectors point of view the story is of course completely different. Thanks for doing this comparison. I’m happy I don’t need to get a vintage VS now just to examine the differences between it and the Arturia version 😊
@@Lantertronics then it is completely justified when you’ve had it for so long 😊 I was thinking a bit from the GAS perspective buying one at today’s prices compared to the practical musicial application compared to the Arturia
@@jespertralala Yeah, that's what the thumbnail was going for. I'm at the same point with almost every vintage synth, they're like vintage guitars now, where the cost is way our of proportion to the capability of the instrument, especially with so many new high quality synths being designed.
thats because you cant hear the differences... there super pronounced to me... you just havent trained your ears over years and years to pick out these details, the other reason might be because your not using a high enough fidelity playback device to even hear it in the first place?
The VS waves are now available in the Groove Synthesis 3rd Wave, and have been available on other Dave Smith instruments so no need to shell out $6k on the antique just for bragging rights.
From the comparisons I've heard, the Pro VS Mini sounds darker than the Arturia plugin and original Sequential hardware. I suspect they're "properly" interpolating the waveforms and not modeling the rough-and-tumble way the original hardware does it (which, they could theoretically do with just a firmware update I think!)
I was really tempted to have at least a few of the experiments like this where BOTH the examples were from the Arturia and a few where BOTH were from the Sequential, and let people's imaginations try to figure out which one was from the hardware and which one was software. Glenn Fricker has done some stuff like that on his SpectreSoundStudios channel.
I wrote down, but used a different system: No. 1-31, a column and crosses for Arturia & VS. I assume not everything will be right anyway, if not completely wrong. 🤒 Since I found Arturia's version of the OBXa to sound almost brighter than the real OBX8, I used the same intuition here. 🎼Overall excellent VS sounds, balm for the ears, especially some distinctive ones Prince used. To me Arturia are, though it's surely a few more: 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22, 31. Real VS might be: 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 23 until 30 (23-30 is most likely wrong). Did I fail? Kind regards Gerald
not sure about these, but: ADEGIKMORSVXZ1358adegilmprswyBloop sound qualities i noticed differences in: clickiness/attack emphasis of transients, stereo field and biases towards one side or the other, brightness, filter resonance character, maybe aliasing differences, additional saturation, modulation depth. I tended to make guesses based on the assumption that Arturia would want to tame/compress/control the sound a bit more for the modern era. I'm not sure I even guessed consistently as my attention to the differences increased. Also, just because I thought it was the hardware doesn't necessarily mean I preferred that version.
Non sento differenze di suono che giustifichino una differenza di prezzo così elevata. Detto questo, mi piacerebbe avere il Prophet hardware ma vivo e suono lo stesso anche con l'Arturia. 😊❤
Heh, uhm… I should have made this more clear, but the other of each pair is randomized. So around half of what you thought was blatantly obviously hardware is actually the software and around half of what you thought was software was actually the hardware. With that in mind, try the exercise again?
I think the main result is that most of the examples show discernible differences between the two. Very few sound absolutely the same. So there you go.
Im going to say this isnt really a fair test... for starters all the secondary sounds are louder which can sway the decision making, louder sounds tend to sound "better" so i ripped this and normalised it in my DAW, its clear that all the first sounds came from one source and the second sound from the other, im going to say that the first sounds where all software based, they lack depth and a gloss/shine... they sound a little less articulated, flat perhapse and totaly grainy in the lower midrange. theres a clear difference between both sounds in all patches.
That's really interesting that you think all the first sounds came from one source and all the second sounds came from another -- several other people have made the same mistake. I randomized which one came first -- I should have probably made that clearer in my video (I thought that would be understood since I asked a separate question for each one instead of a global question of "is the hardware first of each pair or the second of each pair). So around half of what you thought was software was actually hardware (I'll reveal what was which in a future video).
Time and ear fatigue really. I got about a third of the way through and started second guessing myself so I undid it and decided to just be done with it.
I bought mine 25 or so years ago when they went for a lot less than they're going now, so I'm thinking of trading it in for something with a lot more knobs. :)
Fair enough , I also have a feeling that old synth gear won’t hold insane value like vintage guitars so now’s probably as good of a time to trade as any
@@jacobthebatchbandit3092 Especially when a lot of these are getting difficult to maintain. My Prophet VS has a PCB that Wine Country made to replace a CEM 5530 sample & hold chip that blew. Ironically really old synths like the Minimoog will always be repairable, but a lot of 90s digital stuff with custom ASICs -- if those chips die, it's a paperweight.
Audio comparison on UA-cam? John Clesse voice: "Right! I don't think so." :D Joking aside, I think making a video - "how youtube degrades audio" would be worth making. Because there is plenty material for it. I live by selling sounds for synthesisers, and there is nothing more frustrating hearing your own work being degraded once the video is up (be it hardware or software source). It's not just about cutting the highs, it also introduces artefacts and in some cases changes character. I am 99% sure YT audio compression algorithm was designed for guitar and human voice, not synths. TLDR: for audio tests 48k/24bit wav per favor. Cheers!
If you’re comparing two things and the UA-cam compression is makes the only thing making the difference between distinguishing them or not, I’d say the difference isn’t worth worrying about. In this case one can definitely hear differences even with the UA-cam compression. I have the original 24 bit, 48 KHz wave file if anyone wants it, but it won’t come with visual clues of which experiment is which. And definitely UA-cam’s audio compression used to be much worse.
@@Lantertronics I understand there are hobbyists who listen to synths on UA-cam, that's fine with me, but there are people out there living from making music for films, TV, broadcast etc. For the second group these "can you hear the difference" tests can be a bit misleading (@128 kbps AAC mp3). I remember few yrs ago watching PPG 2.3 vs VST version UA-cam vid and concluded they sound the same and passed on a PPG 2.3 for 2.5 grand. Until few yrs later I've heard PPG in person and regretted my UA-cam adventure. Lesson learned. ;)
@@DonSolaris Admittedly at this point I my hearing is probably a bit shot over around 16 kHz. When working on CRTs my son can hear a whine that I can't.
There are differences, but so far no one has been able to consistently tell which is the real hardware. The nature of the differences appear to vary based on the nature of the particular patch.
@@RikMaxSpeed It would be interesting to see which patches are running with the filter full open to focus on that (probably the organ patches) -- of course I could take any patch and mod it to run the filter full open, I might try that...
NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE PLANNING TO TRY THIS EXPERIMENT, DON'T READ THIS BEFORE DOING IT, SPOILER WARNING... .... .... .... You got 5 out of the 14 right. Does this mean Arturia has designed a better-sounding filter than Dave Smith? ;)
@@Lantertronics That's why i thought that not all of my guesses are correct though I absolutely do think that certain programmings emphasize certain tonal aspects of an instruments and some do not. That's not about extremes here but mainly nuances. My overall guess is that the sometimes little harsher sounding device is the original.
You're premise that hardware is better than software is moronic. The difference, as in this case and all others, is negligible and software is MUCH easier to work w/ in a DAW, as well as having less noise. I'm listening to this using a Benchmark DAC3 and a pair of Audeze LCDX headphones. I can hear a slight difference, but neither sounds better than the other. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in a final mix.
I was being sarcastic. There’s a reason I was showing the Gearspace forum while saying that. ;) The point of the video is that people make that claim all the time without doing blind listening tests to back them up. I completely agree with you.
as i said above the differences are clear i can hear them perfectly well... you just havent trained your ears to be able to pick the small details out.
BCFGI?KNOQSVWZ1358adehikmortvwzBloop My guess/ime is the Arturia has a bit of extra top end sizzle (and a touch of aliasing) - really wants a bit of tape em or some vintage ccts after it (but im sure im no better than 3/4) - but honestly its a lil more versatile
B D E H I L M O R T V X Z 1 … 5 8 b c e g I k n p q s v x z bloop. spaced out a bit during the number tests, and hard to tell without actually being too familiar with a real VS. Regardless they're very close, esp when the analog filters and chorus aren't being used as much
Thanks for doing these tests - my general impression is that they usually reveal more about the humans taking the test, than they say empirically about the gear! ;)
As much as my opinion is worth, for me the sound differences between any given emulation (assuming it's been done well) and any single piece of reference hardware are usually negligible, compared to the difference of the *experience* using them to make music, which will *always* differ.
I find it's hard to avoid the brain trying to game these kinds if tests - we're always looking to find meaning and to use that meaning to unlock the mysteries, and we convince ourselves of all kinds of things - "I hear a difference, in this case the second example is brighter, so I'll decide that must be software, and now my expectation is that all slightly brighter examples will be the software" and we're now lost in a maze of expectation bias and second guessing. Or maybe that's just me! ;)
These tests are fun, particularly for people who have decided their truth is one thing, and when you test empirically, you find those "truths" don't hold up. But ultimately, like whether one guitar sounds better to you than another, the key thing is, pick the instrument that inspires you, and create something with it. As long as we still do that, the tests, and the results one chooses to draw from them, don't really matter...
That is rather challenging! I can’t tell on my phone. I really appreciate the efforts you’ve gone too by running both through the same DAC signal path.
I figured that if I didn't run it through a ADC, one could identify the softsynth by seeing that the sound before it is perfectly zero. (That said, it may be that the noise floor is low enough that it rounds down to zero anyway, I didn't bother to look...)
I'm way late here but there's def a difference.
G vs H, for example, G is easily brighter which brings out some sort of filter or phasing sound underneath, for lack of a better description. Same for I and J. I is brighter, it cuts more, J is more controlled, muted. K vs L, the buzz on K is more defined, sticks out more, which gives it a slightly brighter edge.
Some differences throughout, that said I couldn't tell you which is which because I've never owned a VS. I also wonder if anymore differences would be noticeable/apparent if we were listening to some actual playing. Complex sounds/modulation + voices overlapping so we can hear how they interact with each other.
Anyways, a purist or someone looking to get "that" exact sound for whatever reason could justly say there's a differences. And of course there's the workflow, physical interaction, ect to take into account. That might matter as well.
This reminds me that I need to publish the answer key for this. I'll just mention here that the really interesting thing is that the differences you hear between the hardware and the software varies from patch to patch. In some cases the hardware sounds brighter, sometimes the software sounds brighter (or with deeper bass, or a more phased sound, etc). So whatever differences you hear, you can't consistently use that to identify which is which, even if you spend a lot of time with the software and the hardware. My theory is that the Prophet VS voice is so complex that it's best thought of as more than the sum of its parts, so whatever differences there are in how the software implements part of the architecture vary in terms of how they manifest themselves in the sound of a particular patch.
@@Lantertronics Oh, cool. That will be interesting.
In the case of consistency, or identifying the synths, I'll take your word for it. I don't have either.
To answer the big question though, no I don't think VS is worth 6k+. It's a classic, and I love some of those sounds, but I don't 6k love them. I hope someone clones it really well and sells it at a reasonable price. I prefer hardware where possible.
I don't think the 3rd Wave counts, as many have suggested, though I do think it's awesome.
@@EnervatedSociety The 3rd Wave is totally awesome, but it's definitely it's own PPG-type thing and not like a VS.
I'm listening through a 15" P.A. woofer with a mid horn tweeter, so I could hear a distinct difference as I'm sure most anyone would with a high-fidelity speaker relative to my own. *With that said, I have no idea which was which lol.*
I can say that someone familiar with the 2 would be able accurately label which one they were hearing.
Currently, we're just finally seeing digital reach a point where it can produce the highly unique textures of valve distortion. That fizzy, chiming zinging sound that quite literally sounds like it is made with glitter is still unmistakable when it's a genuine valve, but we're now well within sight of digital being all around superior to everything and I say that as someone that boldly prefers the sound of semiconductors run analog.
*I can design and build superior analog circuits compared to a digital equivalent, but when your desire is 20 different options for each effect available, there's only a few specific processes I will still insist should remain analog.* I've produced a transistor overdrive that sounds so identical to valves, I don't like that it sounds identical to valve distortion lol!
*I prefer the grind, snarl and sleaze of solid-state distortion with a HINT of valve texture.*
And there's some effects that you really need DSP for -- there's no way to implement them with op amps and resistors and capacitors and BBDs.
As much as I love these ‘I’m camera’ videos, I would like to hear these two compared ‘in situ’ within a track. Then of course there are other factors to consider such as GUI and curb appeal at a party, for example. Please throw a cocktail party and invite your guests to experience playing with your VS Rack and then the Plug-in. Please use the same guidelines with WIKI references so we can all have a solid base line for reference. As we all know, a solid baseline is essential for a decent cocktail party these days :)
To answer your initial question in the thumbnail of this video. The audible differences between the two are so small (in many cases insignificant) that the price of the vintage VS is not justified if you look at them purely as tools for music creation. If you compre them from a different perspective like the collectors point of view the story is of course completely different. Thanks for doing this comparison. I’m happy I don’t need to get a vintage VS now just to examine the differences between it and the Arturia version 😊
When I bought my Prophet VS, it was a lot cheaper than they are going for now. :)
When did I buy it? Around 25 years ago I think…
@@Lantertronics then it is completely justified when you’ve had it for so long 😊 I was thinking a bit from the GAS perspective buying one at today’s prices compared to the practical musicial application compared to the Arturia
@@jespertralala Yeah, that's what the thumbnail was going for. I'm at the same point with almost every vintage synth, they're like vintage guitars now, where the cost is way our of proportion to the capability of the instrument, especially with so many new high quality synths being designed.
thats because you cant hear the differences... there super pronounced to me... you just havent trained your ears over years and years to pick out these details, the other reason might be because your not using a high enough fidelity playback device to even hear it in the first place?
Thanks, Prof. Aaron 👍
The VS waves are now available in the Groove Synthesis 3rd Wave, and have been available on other Dave Smith instruments so no need to shell out $6k on the antique just for bragging rights.
Of course there’s more to the sound of a synth than the raw waveforms… but the 3rd Wave looks and sounds really tasty, doesn’t it?
Plot twist, they’re all a Behringer Pro VS Mini
I’m still trying to decide if I want one of those things.
From the comparisons I've heard, the Pro VS Mini sounds darker than the Arturia plugin and original Sequential hardware. I suspect they're "properly" interpolating the waveforms and not modeling the rough-and-tumble way the original hardware does it (which, they could theoretically do with just a firmware update I think!)
I was really tempted to have at least a few of the experiments like this where BOTH the examples were from the Arturia and a few where BOTH were from the Sequential, and let people's imaginations try to figure out which one was from the hardware and which one was software. Glenn Fricker has done some stuff like that on his SpectreSoundStudios channel.
On a phone speaker none sound the same, but as money wise glad I have the Arturia was a good investment.
I wrote down, but used a different system: No. 1-31, a column and crosses for Arturia & VS. I assume not everything will be right anyway, if not completely wrong. 🤒 Since I found Arturia's version of the OBXa to sound almost brighter than the real OBX8, I used the same intuition here.
🎼Overall excellent VS sounds, balm for the ears, especially some distinctive ones Prince used.
To me Arturia are, though it's surely a few more: 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22, 31.
Real VS might be: 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 23 until 30 (23-30 is most likely wrong).
Did I fail?
Kind regards
Gerald
When I get a critical mass of answers I'll make a follow up with the solution and let people know how they did.
Thanks for your detailed work on this!
not sure about these, but:
ADEGIKMORSVXZ1358adegilmprswyBloop
sound qualities i noticed differences in: clickiness/attack emphasis of transients, stereo field and biases towards one side or the other, brightness, filter resonance character, maybe aliasing differences, additional saturation, modulation depth.
I tended to make guesses based on the assumption that Arturia would want to tame/compress/control the sound a bit more for the modern era.
I'm not sure I even guessed consistently as my attention to the differences increased. Also, just because I thought it was the hardware doesn't necessarily mean I preferred that version.
Non sento differenze di suono che giustifichino una differenza di prezzo così elevata.
Detto questo, mi piacerebbe avere il Prophet hardware ma vivo e suono lo stesso anche con l'Arturia. 😊❤
I actually don't hear any differences. You might have used the same source all along.Having said that, nothing seemed to be out of place.
I've never used either, but it is _blatantly obvious_ that the second of each pair is the hardware. Absolutely no doubt about it.
Heh, uhm… I should have made this more clear, but the other of each pair is randomized. So around half of what you thought was blatantly obviously hardware is actually the software and around half of what you thought was software was actually the hardware.
With that in mind, try the exercise again?
I think the main result is that most of the examples show discernible differences between the two. Very few sound absolutely the same.
So there you go.
But there’s an important follow up, which is generally one does not seem obviously better than the other. ;)
@@Lantertronics as it's been said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or in the ear in this case.
Im going to say this isnt really a fair test... for starters all the secondary sounds are louder which can sway the decision making, louder sounds tend to sound "better" so i ripped this and normalised it in my DAW, its clear that all the first sounds came from one source and the second sound from the other, im going to say that the first sounds where all software based, they lack depth and a gloss/shine... they sound a little less articulated, flat perhapse and totaly grainy in the lower midrange. theres a clear difference between both sounds in all patches.
That's really interesting that you think all the first sounds came from one source and all the second sounds came from another -- several other people have made the same mistake.
I randomized which one came first -- I should have probably made that clearer in my video (I thought that would be understood since I asked a separate question for each one instead of a global question of "is the hardware first of each pair or the second of each pair).
So around half of what you thought was software was actually hardware (I'll reveal what was which in a future video).
@Lantertronics ahhhhh I get it now... you built this experiment to catch people out and point the finger! Understood! Recieved loud and clear!
why adjust the volume? arent you compairing them?
Time and ear fatigue really. I got about a third of the way through and started second guessing myself so I undid it and decided to just be done with it.
F and G are hardware. There is a lot more definition in the sound
Let’s be real, the sound is pretty close at this point but it’s way cooler to own a real unit🤘🤘
I bought mine 25 or so years ago when they went for a lot less than they're going now, so I'm thinking of trading it in for something with a lot more knobs. :)
Fair enough , I also have a feeling that old synth gear won’t hold insane value like vintage guitars so now’s probably as good of a time to trade as any
@@jacobthebatchbandit3092 I am wondering if we're at the top of a bubble?
@@jacobthebatchbandit3092 Especially when a lot of these are getting difficult to maintain. My Prophet VS has a PCB that Wine Country made to replace a CEM 5530 sample & hold chip that blew.
Ironically really old synths like the Minimoog will always be repairable, but a lot of 90s digital stuff with custom ASICs -- if those chips die, it's a paperweight.
@@Lantertronics hey don’t say that out loud….😅
Audio comparison on UA-cam? John Clesse voice: "Right! I don't think so." :D Joking aside, I think making a video - "how youtube degrades audio" would be worth making. Because there is plenty material for it. I live by selling sounds for synthesisers, and there is nothing more frustrating hearing your own work being degraded once the video is up (be it hardware or software source). It's not just about cutting the highs, it also introduces artefacts and in some cases changes character. I am 99% sure YT audio compression algorithm was designed for guitar and human voice, not synths. TLDR: for audio tests 48k/24bit wav per favor. Cheers!
The audio on HD videos these days is reasonably decent, OPUS 251 @ 160kbps, passes down to DC and up to 16k, 17k for mono
@@mycosys I concur, modern YT audio is not bad at all
If you’re comparing two things and the UA-cam compression is makes the only thing making the difference between distinguishing them or not, I’d say the difference isn’t worth worrying about. In this case one can definitely hear differences even with the UA-cam compression.
I have the original 24 bit, 48 KHz wave file if anyone wants it, but it won’t come with visual clues of which experiment is which.
And definitely UA-cam’s audio compression used to be much worse.
@@Lantertronics I understand there are hobbyists who listen to synths on UA-cam, that's fine with me, but there are people out there living from making music for films, TV, broadcast etc. For the second group these "can you hear the difference" tests can be a bit misleading (@128 kbps AAC mp3). I remember few yrs ago watching PPG 2.3 vs VST version UA-cam vid and concluded they sound the same and passed on a PPG 2.3 for 2.5 grand. Until few yrs later I've heard PPG in person and regretted my UA-cam adventure. Lesson learned. ;)
@@DonSolaris Admittedly at this point I my hearing is probably a bit shot over around 16 kHz. When working on CRTs my son can hear a whine that I can't.
the one which harsher and bolder is real ProVS (i have one)
@@euggie2000 could you tell me which letters you think is the real one so we can figure it out for sure?
ps, i prefer the first one in each example
Oh I should have been more clear - which one is which is randomized by a coin flip. There’s no pattern to it.
BCF
Thanks!
it is so obvious that I think youre all trolling here but saying it sounds the same
If it’s so obvious then *someone* by now would have gotten more correct than you’d get by random chance. ;)
There are differences, but so far no one has been able to consistently tell which is the real hardware. The nature of the differences appear to vary based on the nature of the particular patch.
If you're sure you can figure out which one is the hardware, try it! :)
ADFHJLMPRTUXY2 - unless Arturia have designed a better-sounding filter than Dave Smith 😄
Thanks for trying it!
Once I get a critical mass of answers I'll make a follow up video with the solution.
@@Lantertronics My impression is that the wavetable playback is indistinguishable between the two synths, but the filter makes all the difference.
@@RikMaxSpeed It would be interesting to see which patches are running with the filter full open to focus on that (probably the organ patches) -- of course I could take any patch and mod it to run the filter full open, I might try that...
NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE PLANNING TO TRY THIS EXPERIMENT, DON'T READ THIS BEFORE DOING IT, SPOILER WARNING...
....
....
....
You got 5 out of the 14 right. Does this mean Arturia has designed a better-sounding filter than Dave Smith? ;)
I don't know which is which because I don't know either one. But you can hear differences.
BDEHIKNORTUXZ245dehjknpqtuxzBleep
I'm so glad people are actually giving this a shot! :)
There is a difference. One of them sounds more "beautiful", the other one a little harsh.
@@Gerald_Daniel Are you sure which one is a little harsh is always the same one and doesn't change depending on the character of the patch? ;)
@@Lantertronics That's why i thought that not all of my guesses are correct though I absolutely do think that certain programmings emphasize certain tonal aspects of an instruments and some do not. That's not about extremes here but mainly nuances. My overall guess is that the sometimes little harsher sounding device is the original.
You're premise that hardware is better than software is moronic. The difference, as in this case and all others, is negligible and software is MUCH easier to work w/ in a DAW, as well as having less noise. I'm listening to this using a Benchmark DAC3 and a pair of Audeze LCDX headphones. I can hear a slight difference, but neither sounds better than the other. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in a final mix.
I was being sarcastic. There’s a reason I was showing the Gearspace forum while saying that. ;)
The point of the video is that people make that claim all the time without doing blind listening tests to back them up.
I completely agree with you.
@@Lantertronics My bad and my apologies. My sarcasm meter must be broken. ;)
as i said above the differences are clear i can hear them perfectly well... you just havent trained your ears to be able to pick the small details out.
@@DJUPLIFT Could you tell me which ones you think are the original hardware? Even if just for a few examples? I could use more data.
@@andrewnichols2754 No worries, I should have been clearer.
BCFGI?KNOQSVWZ1358adehikmortvwzBloop
My guess/ime is the Arturia has a bit of extra top end sizzle (and a touch of aliasing) - really wants a bit of tape em or some vintage ccts after it (but im sure im no better than 3/4) - but honestly its a lil more versatile
Thanks for trying it out! I will make a follow up at some point.
B D E H I L M O R T V X Z 1 … 5 8 b c e g I k n p q s v x z bloop. spaced out a bit during the number tests, and hard to tell without actually being too familiar with a real VS. Regardless they're very close, esp when the analog filters and chorus aren't being used as much
ADFHJLNOQTUXZ as far as I got, not sure about quite a few of them
Thanks for digging into it!
This is hard. Analyzing WHY people thought a particular one was hardware would be interesting. ADEHIKMOQSUXY2 and I got bored.
@@drstaff Thanks for giving it a shot!