Yo everyone, I was curious i just tested Ob-x by G-Force it sounds incredibly nice to me and i was curious if u guys new other vst brand that actually collabed with the manifacturers to make a synth emulation, Looking forwards to you answers, have nice day/night.

 

Well, UAD supposedly does, and claim to make the 'perfect' Neve 1073 emulation etc, that is until their next version is released, which they claim is more 'perfect' etc....

 

Arturia makes synths and they make VST's, I'm sure one process feeds the other and vice -a- versus.
They do have nice reverbs and chorus on their virtual instruments. You could concievably shove a small intel based cpu inside an 88 key arturia midi controller and use it as a standalone musical instrument at this point.

 

I think Korg and Roland do something similiar, as well. The line between virtual and physical is becoming smaller.

 

I was using this, I think they may just put their team to analyse the hardware anyway and reproduce it, very closely. i need to check that
i like uad plugins especially pultec eq's, special mention to analog obsession for neve emulation

 

that's true but i feel like they do good emulations but on some specific synth like prophet 5 i prefer x5 repro or softube model 80 but that's just personnal

 

i do like roland cloud and korg vsts

 

But they are not really what you asked about. A real Company cannot just go around emulating other companies' gear directly. If they do, they have to disguise it a little. That is how Behringer first made a bad name for themselves. They would be accused of taking other companies products, reverse engineering them, and changing just enough in effort to not get sued. Roland and Korg are emulating their own hardware via software. They make them damn close, but they aren't exact either. No-one would buy their hardware, and that is their main business. They are not some 3rd party trying to make money from nothing but some code. When they sell a software version, it is competing with their own hardware. You might speculate that is better for them also, other than the labor involved in programming; the costs of making and selling software is much lower than making an actual product. That can be true, but only extends until their factories productivity drop and they have to start shutting down production lines.

I cannot really think of a manufacturer who has worked with another company to create emulations of their products. Maybe there are, but most of these software versions of hardware are being done by themselves. They do not have much incentive to do it, when they can just hire a few programmers.

 

They and everyone else for the last 20+ years.

Different approaches. Some are top down. (Arturia at least used to be that way), some are bottom up (Roland ACB), and some are whatever in the middle.

My crack was that UAD is full of shit, and I know people like their stuff, and there is a cult around it, and sure, it sounds ok... but you don't have to go there to get there so to speak.

It's always just gonna stick in my craw with those fucks as I bought their V1 on a pci card in a g5 Mac decades ago, and was promised the world, and "perfect" (for example) Neve 1073 sound and whatnot.. just for them to abandon the platform I had, and not give any cross grade love at all, and then come out with Neve 1073 V2 which is EVEN MORE perfect then their last one which, to their claims, was already perfect... so in between getting ripped off by them, and their being so full of shit, and the fact that many users veer towards acting like MAGA folks, ... and the fact the require being online more often then they should, and previously required a dongle in an interface etc...

they can pound sand.

 

Tom Oberheim with G-Force of late... I imagine SSL has licensed their stuff as they do.. technically Bob Moog "licensed" to/or worked with Moog as that (and his namesake) was sold out from under him, kinda like some others as the business rolls.. ARP did with Korg.. but those are mostly people (well, not ssl), not manufacturers working with another company, that got squeezed out or knocked out or whatever.. so aligns with your general point for sure.. and yeah, Roland and Yamaha etc aren't too thrilled with Arturia and whatnot etc, that's for sure...

 

Last edited: Apr 2, 2024

so there's that anyhow....

 

honestly Tom Oberheim and G-force created beast vst reproduction, that's what i was looking for when i launched this conversation if the world know other collabs like this, because it really suprised me a lot and i think what made it sound so good to my hear is maybe the fact that G-Force collabed directly with Oberheim, but i get what ur saying.

 

Yea, Arturia makes hardware synths and software synths but not software synths of their hardware. I like Pigments which is the only one that I really dig. I've played the hardware Roland Jupiter 8 a whole lot back in the 80's and I find it not comparable to their emulation. The hardware blows it away. I have their Polybrute, Drumbrute, an old SparkLE with those yucky, sticky blue knobs and the Keylab 61 mk2 controller. I guess I get and go hard for Arturia

 

Things like this are often in the licensing. So Omnisphere as an example, they have their whole Bob Moog Tribute Library. His name is on it, but you think Bob Moog actually worked on the thing? It's much more likely they sent him some copies, he listened, maybe makes some recommendations, and said Ok stick my name on it. For $20K. (or whatever number).

A software product could be created before Oberheim even knows it exists. "Hey Tom, we have this emulation done that is really close. Would you like to check it out and maybe give it your blessing?" Sure, for $20K you can put my name on it. All of a sudden that 1gb file on a hard disk is now "an Oberheim". I am just using this as an example. Some guys would insist on being very involved in a products development. Some will just take the money and run. Here is a good example of that kind of thing: https://www.musicradar.com/news/it-...ingers-murdered-out-version-of-the-td-3-synth , and it can be even more true of software collaborations.

So much of the audio software business is marketing and hype. Maybe some product is even great without some synth pioneer's name on it. But in all likelihood, it would turn out the same. The Bob Moog Tribute Library sounds really good. But Bob Moog was not attending the production meetings with an oscilloscope and a multimeter. If the guy gets paid, they can use his name. When not, is when you see marketing text like "a very famous old compressor" or "well known polyphonic analog synth" getting used, because they did not pay so they can tell you it's a... whatever.

 

Well I'm not suggesting GForce built the thing from the ground up with Tom Oberheim and Marcus Ryle, but those two gentlemen absolutely worked with them on it, as they hated the Arturia bullshit etc, and heard what GForce was doing and got in touch with them as they thought they were on the right path, and they wanted to collaborate with them to get it right. There have been numerous interviews I've read that seem to corroborate that. And again, GForce is imho, one of the better ones, as perhaps smaller, but Dave Spiers and company really really have a passion for the stuff, and aren't trying to do what nonsense Arturia does in carpet bombing everything with the same kinda plasticky shit etc.. and they have a long history of getting stuff right, from the earlier releases in the MTron to VSM to Oddity, imPoscar, etc... they were always better then the other people at the time with the tech available (again, mho)..

RE: Bob Moog etc, sure, he just signed off on the Spectrasonics Omni stuff etc and cashed a check... and the story on he and Moog is pretty well known, and they aren't doing well now, and yeah, I've had the pleasure to work with the man a long time ago, and, well... interesting and brilliant man who was honestly looking for the next horizon to cross.. he wasn't as obsessed as many (at least then) with trying to do a victory lap in recreating what he felt he had "already done" and whatnot.

 

Isn't that just a controller and not a standalone vst. The Polybrute also has a controller that too depends on the hardware engine and thus makes no sound of it's own. It is a fine thing because it makes it really easy to record midi and it also enables me use my controller keyboard to play the Polybrute while facing the monitor (the Polybrute is 90° on the right). Another plus is, because of the morphing ability of the instrument between completely different sounds so it's like having two patches in one, to see the precise setting of both patches simultaneously and to watch the knobs of the software iteration move in real time where the knobs and sliders on the hardware are not flying and one can only see where in the morph phase each one is only after it is moved and which is animated on the small hardware's screen. They are frozen in time where you last left them. And...you can store unlimited patches embedded in the software and move them by drag and drop into the hardware which in my system far outnumber the available hardware slots...the hardware has but 768 9patches A patch can be played that's embedded in the software and not a part of the hardware.

You almost got me!

 

It's a full blown balls to the walls VST. It's awesome.
Bit too heavy on the CPU though.