That's a well done comparison. Thanks.

 

I know this is not the right topic but I didn't want to open a new one... in the past I used to watch a lot of these channels. I know it's not the case with this guy (I think...), but most of the time I found myself asking: "Hey this guy seems cool and all explaining this and that, showing us this and that... but does he actually write music? What are his aliases?" and well most of the time I did this I couldn't find anything. After a while I stopped watching shit on You Tube and focused solely on myself, trying to understand synths on my own (exception: Dan with the videos from Fab Filter) and actually make music I like the way I wanted
Sadly, whenever I open You Tube (which is not many times) I'm filled with thumbnails of "Write Good Melodies!" "This is why your bass sucks!" "Compression Tutorial n. 4843" etc.
/off

 

Hi @Backtired, before the Internet existed, most people bought and read and learned a few specialist books.

 

Only Wankers can't spell wanker!
lol :D

 

Got to love the Nordic humour. This video actually validated my positive impression of the PG-8X VST.

 

Please don't say that you have never read something in a synth manual, and still been confused? YT videos are awesome help.

When I go buy a HW synth, I do not ask the salesperson for his Discography. When I go buy a pair of sneakers; I usually arrive with the preconception that Michael Jordan will not be there to make sure I pick the right size for my feet. I do not own any Bob Moog records, cds, or even mp3s of his music. That entire "logic" is completely flawed. The world would have many fewer Trainers and Teachers using that thinking.

 

Last edited: Jan 18, 2022

Agree. But as I said, I was off topic: I mostly meant people offering more producing-oriented "tips".

 

That guy is such a snowflake looses his temper easily and becomes rude if he reads something critical or something that bruises his tremendous ego.

 

He used to semi-regularly post on GS and then he said something a few months back, and someone else pointed out he was wrong and politely corrected him with the actual informed facts, and strangely he deleted his account and left the next day....

Honestly, I can handle the slightly awkward presentation and his humourless style etc, he is who he is and we can't control that about ourselves - and he does make some decent content and so on. Make what you wanna make, and find your audience etc - I'm all for that.

The main problem I have is that other channels I like have a "Hey look at *this thing*! It's cool, let's have a play with it!" kind of vibe, whereas to me his channel comes across as "Look at me, *I* have this cool thing that *you* don't have, and probably never will, so let me show off how cool I am by demonstrating what I have. (support_me_on_patreon_so_I_can_play_with_synths_more)".

And a lot of the time, the cool things he has aren't his, he has synth-owning friends that borrow him stuff. (Nice friends if you can get them! )

That's how it comes across to me, anyway. Anyone who can't bear to admit they might be wrong in public usually has some issues - I had a best friend like that when growing up so I very much know the type. The self-importance is the thing I find super dislikeable.

So yes, some of his content is decent, but I can't bear the "let me show you about chords that you don't know because you're dumb" and "here's another pet shop boys soundalike demo I made" and "let me sing my golden boy song it's all about how great I am" so on I don't find appealing (but he seems to have an audience, and that's OK too.) And honestly, much of his music sounds like what I was making in my room when I was about 14, just with (mostly) better hardware than I had, so I find it rather simplistic, unemotional and unengageing.

Anyway, enough about *my* problems... :D

(And FFS, the word is pronounced "pol-if-onny", not "pulloffonny"... C"mon, Espen!)

 

Last edited: Jan 19, 2022

I think that YouTube videos are something different than textbooks or a well-founded education. Many musicians have learned an instrument. Some even studied music. Especially here in the forum you can see that there is little talk about specialist books, the question arose whether books are still read at all. I think if you want to master something, you have to learn in a structured way.

 

Sounded like the typical Cannibal blind-date story to break the ice, warm the hearts before the buffet..

 

Last edited: Jan 19, 2022

-I think he's exaggerating a bit tho,
if the new unit is so different, well then it's a Different synth inspired on the original.
(not the original but still a synth, so it's a win)

If the original is that Amazing, just keep it and f-off,
it's just a random retro synth, there's Zillions of synths both hardware/software in the world that could replace it,
it's not the end of the world..


Ofc purist will be on my neck now, how do I dare belittle this synth's uniqueness..
But in practical/general terms it's true, other synths can probably do what this does, and can get the work done.. can't they?

And that's one of the great things about synths,
even tho they may have a unique sound/character/approach,
they're still Electronic Tools, they can be replaced more easily than granpa's violin,
or that unique classical guitar/whatever fine acoustic instrument on the closet..


(I can agree with him tho, the new version sounds less rich/warm/puchy..
but, couldn't it be tweaked to get closer?

And it's true similar things happen with other synths, or even software..
Roland Canvas VA sounds different than the original..
so if you want the original sound, you need a Windows 98/XP VM)

 

Last edited: Jan 19, 2022

What i hear in most vst synths is that they are pushing digital junk that is not there in the hardware. Not only this one in the video but all.
Digital junk for me are frequencies that should not be there, like additional baggage. The second thing i notice is the lack of transients and the lack of weight. Hardware is also cleaner but also warmer and fatter.
There are companies who have almost crossed this barrier like synapse audio, xils synths, u-he and a few others.

 

Indeed, many synth comparison videos on Youtube are comparing apples with oranges for the lack of trying hard to make both candidates sound as similar as possible in the first place.

I've done a lot of sound re-creations on VAs though and it seems like Aspen has done a good job here.
The audible difference is a typical example of a sub-par software clone.
Some virtual Roland synth clones do sound very close to the original but the JX-08 is obviously not one of them.

I've fired up UVI's Synth Anthology 3 lib and although the sampled versions are not as editable (LP filter cutoff cannot be increased and oscillators can't be edited), the grit and beef of the original JX is definitely there.

 

There is no such thing as a perfectly accurate analog emulation. Only purely digital systems can be recreated perfectly (ignoring DACs and other aspects that are still analog).

Even the Prophet-5 reissue (Rev4) doesn't sound exactly like the Rev3, and people will say the prefer the Rev3, etc etc.

Even Roland Cloud Juno 106 is not exact to a real Juno 106 despite its simplicity and digital oscillators. You can probably pass an A/B blind test if you've used one long enough. And I don't expect Behringer's OBXa or CS80 clone to beat a focused A/B test either.

Analog gear is different even between exact models. It's not about elitism or purism, it's just reality. The simple SID chip in Commodore 64 machines all vary in slight ways because of the analog filter, and its challenging and CPU intensive to emulate it correctly, and some people still swear by real chips/hardware.

It's kind of like headphones - they all end up with a different spectrum analysis fingerprint, but we still all call them flat.

The main question is, is it usable, does it fit your workflow, is it good enough, what exactly do you need/want? If you really care, you will lose your mind until you realize only the original unit or a time machine will do.

But it is kinda funny that a free plugin with low CPU usage sounds closer than their super demanding, detailed circuit modelling.


Also, a JX-3P Botique comparison:

 

Last edited: Jan 19, 2022

PG-8X *is* a detailed JX8P model. Roland's JX-08, or the ZenCore version *isn't* a detailed circuit model, that's the point of these ZenCore models.

Roland said upfront the ZenCore models are simplified, CPU-lighter models intentionally designed to give higher voice counts than the actually-circuit modelled-but-CPU-heavy ACB models. JX-08 doesn't sound identical to a real JX8P because it's *not intended too*. It's intended to give a JX8P-like experience in terms of features, layout, look etc, but it's not intended to be accurate - if they had wanted that, the JX-08 and a JX8P plugin (if it comes, seems likely) would be ACB (detailed circuit modelled) and not ZenCore (simplified lighter CPU approximations that are in the ballpark.)

So yes, the JX-08 doesn't sound exactly like a JX8P, but it does a decent job in many areas. If you expect it to be an accurate ACB-like model of the JX8P, you might be disappointed. If you never owned a JX8P, but like the sound, you may just as well engine the ZenCore/Boutique versions, then are decent sounding fun synths, if not exactly a JX8P.

And yes, PG8X does sound great.

 

You can make them similar with a Nebula preamp EQ

 

just venting