 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - Synths & synthesis
Subject: SUPERNOVA vs. MKS-80
Viewing all 16 messages - View by pages of 10: 1 2
Original Message 1/16 22-Jan-99 @ 04:10 AM - SUPERNOVA vs. MKS-80
I was comparing the Supernova online demo to my MKS80 (I know not fair)
And to my ears, despite it's 3 oscillators, Nova sound is thin compared to the real thing. Any one out there done back to back?
No need to list the advantages of having a new synth.
And to my ears, despite it's 3 oscillators, Nova sound is thin compared to the real thing. Any one out there done back to back?
No need to list the advantages of having a new synth.
Message 2/16 22-Jan-99 @ 04:07 PM - RE: SUPERNOVA vs. MKS-80
In the development process we used my MKS80, Jupiter 8 & 6, SE1 and Juno 106 ans goalposts.
I can say with confidence that the Supernova can match an MKS80. If you look at the Factory Presets for the MKS and most of the presets that are the fattest are actually layers or in unison. True the Supernova in normal Prog made is not as fat as a MKS80 in unison but equally I dont think a un-unisoned single (not layered program in the MKS is as fat as a single program in the supernova because the supernova has 3 oscillators as opposed to the MKs's 2.
A fair comparison is Supernova in Performance Mode and in this situation the supernova is in my opinion just as fat if not more, cos theres up to 8 layers possible. Unison can be simulated almost exactlty by layering as well and its still polyphonic ( although somewhat reduced.
Don't get me wrong,I don't dislike my olde MKS any more but I feel I can give it a well deserved easier life nowdays.
Phill@Novation
I can say with confidence that the Supernova can match an MKS80. If you look at the Factory Presets for the MKS and most of the presets that are the fattest are actually layers or in unison. True the Supernova in normal Prog made is not as fat as a MKS80 in unison but equally I dont think a un-unisoned single (not layered program in the MKS is as fat as a single program in the supernova because the supernova has 3 oscillators as opposed to the MKs's 2.
A fair comparison is Supernova in Performance Mode and in this situation the supernova is in my opinion just as fat if not more, cos theres up to 8 layers possible. Unison can be simulated almost exactlty by layering as well and its still polyphonic ( although somewhat reduced.
Don't get me wrong,I don't dislike my olde MKS any more but I feel I can give it a well deserved easier life nowdays.
Phill@Novation
Message 3/16 22-Jan-99 @ 11:14 PM - RE: SUPERNOVA vs. MKS-80
Thanks for your comments Phill. Although, I must say even in the none unison mode
An analog synth like the MKS80 has a sub frequency that just can't be matched
By stacking up half a dozen virtual oscillators or even FM operators as in TG77.
I would suggest turning off the effects on nova and just using one oscillator with the same
Cutoff setting on the filter and comparing that to the MKS's one oscillator.
Any way, maybe you can answer this question Phill.
With the cost of electronic components having drooped so much since the 80's
And with the vast technology improvements, why isn't anybody building real analog synths
Instead of these virtual toys?
A 16 voice analog synth with 3 oscillators would coast about the same as in Nova
I would think? And we all know there's a market for them. Just look at the second hand prices
On old gear or the explosion of these virtual synth market.
An analog synth like the MKS80 has a sub frequency that just can't be matched
By stacking up half a dozen virtual oscillators or even FM operators as in TG77.
I would suggest turning off the effects on nova and just using one oscillator with the same
Cutoff setting on the filter and comparing that to the MKS's one oscillator.
Any way, maybe you can answer this question Phill.
With the cost of electronic components having drooped so much since the 80's
And with the vast technology improvements, why isn't anybody building real analog synths
Instead of these virtual toys?
A 16 voice analog synth with 3 oscillators would coast about the same as in Nova
I would think? And we all know there's a market for them. Just look at the second hand prices
On old gear or the explosion of these virtual synth market.
Message 4/16 24-Jan-99 @ 09:58 PM - RE: SUPERNOVA vs. MKS-80
I've often wondered that myself. I would be interested in the answer.
Message 5/16 25-Jan-99 @ 10:17 AM - RE: SUPERNOVA vs. MKS-80
Funny you mention turning unison/layering/effects off and listening to the bottom end...thats exactly what we did and the Supernova's ASM modelling does have the same bottom end...thats what we wanted!!!!!!!!!!!
Thats why I say it DOES compare well...anyways try them side by side like we did...
Number of components is the answer to you question in regards to you question on analogue synths....
The SuperBassStation has approx the same amount of componets as the Supernova...and it's monophonic and has a much more limited synthesis engine...if you wanted all the matrix stuff, 3 oscillators, the various filtertypes...and dont forget all the effects...SERIOUS COMPONENTS...now multiply by 16 to get 16 voices...and test it in production...Yep the price has come down, but not that much for analogue components...where the saving is made today is DSP's are getting much more powerfull for the same price and this allows digital technologies to advance for little hardware cost...just ( and a big just! ) sofware development...
Phill@Novation
Thats why I say it DOES compare well...anyways try them side by side like we did...
Number of components is the answer to you question in regards to you question on analogue synths....
The SuperBassStation has approx the same amount of componets as the Supernova...and it's monophonic and has a much more limited synthesis engine...if you wanted all the matrix stuff, 3 oscillators, the various filtertypes...and dont forget all the effects...SERIOUS COMPONENTS...now multiply by 16 to get 16 voices...and test it in production...Yep the price has come down, but not that much for analogue components...where the saving is made today is DSP's are getting much more powerfull for the same price and this allows digital technologies to advance for little hardware cost...just ( and a big just! ) sofware development...
Phill@Novation
Message 6/16 26-Jan-99 @ 04:22 AM - RE: SUPERNOVA vs. MKS-80
I must disagree with you with regard to the cost for building analog synths.
There is no way in the world a matrix12 or jupiter8 built today would cost as much
or more today than it did back in the early 80's. The automation factor alone makes this impossible.
The same analog synths could be build for no more than 2/3 of the price if not half.
This is a fact evident in every electronic component that's being used to assemble any product.
The same analog synths could be build using a lot fewer components due do to the technology advancements.
Just look at the new Mini Moog. It's an improved version of the old Moog with few extras as in midi
and other stuff and yet it cost a lot less than it did back in the old days.
So what's the answer for not building analog synths? Well, I guess we'll never know.
There is no way in the world a matrix12 or jupiter8 built today would cost as much
or more today than it did back in the early 80's. The automation factor alone makes this impossible.
The same analog synths could be build for no more than 2/3 of the price if not half.
This is a fact evident in every electronic component that's being used to assemble any product.
The same analog synths could be build using a lot fewer components due do to the technology advancements.
Just look at the new Mini Moog. It's an improved version of the old Moog with few extras as in midi
and other stuff and yet it cost a lot less than it did back in the old days.
So what's the answer for not building analog synths? Well, I guess we'll never know.
Message 7/16 26-Jan-99 @ 04:27 PM - RE: SUPERNOVA vs. MKS-80
Hey anon, they do still make them...for the price of the Nova you can string six Pulses together and get a six voice, 3 oscillator REAL analog, tho you won't get all the FX.
Message 8/16 26-Jan-99 @ 06:21 PM - RE: SUPERNOVA vs. MKS-80
What if this new Mini-Moog
had 16 (or 32) voices? What
would it cost then? I grew
up with analogues and think
the "virtuals" are a match
for them and better in many
respects. The question of
whether they're "real" or not is a moot point to me.
They sound excellent. Period.
had 16 (or 32) voices? What
would it cost then? I grew
up with analogues and think
the "virtuals" are a match
for them and better in many
respects. The question of
whether they're "real" or not is a moot point to me.
They sound excellent. Period.
Message 9/16 27-Jan-99 @ 03:04 AM - RE: SUPERNOVA vs. MKS-80
They sound puny and weak by comparison to say the least. Period!
Message 10/16 27-Jan-99 @ 07:47 AM - RE: SUPERNOVA vs. MKS-80
I would never exchange the possibilities of saving sounds and recording/controlling all the parameters with MIDI to a system that is analog just for analog's sake! There are lots of people who say that virtual analogs sound weak and there are lots of people who say they sound exactly the same... it's all just a question of personal taste, isn't it?
I would *never* give my SN away to get an analog device that maybe even has to be tuned every three months!
In my opinion the market success of the SN says enough. Now is the time for DSP with all its benefits *and* disadvantages (so let's say characteristics). Maybe anyhow it's better to treat every virtual analog synth as a new instrument. Maybe in your opinion they're not a real substitute for analogs. So don't buy it! But if you want a modern synth with the possibilities of an old vintage plus the ease of use of an up-to-date-synth it's perfect. And with every release of the OS it's getting better (hopefully :-] )
I would *never* give my SN away to get an analog device that maybe even has to be tuned every three months!
In my opinion the market success of the SN says enough. Now is the time for DSP with all its benefits *and* disadvantages (so let's say characteristics). Maybe anyhow it's better to treat every virtual analog synth as a new instrument. Maybe in your opinion they're not a real substitute for analogs. So don't buy it! But if you want a modern synth with the possibilities of an old vintage plus the ease of use of an up-to-date-synth it's perfect. And with every release of the OS it's getting better (hopefully :-] )
Message 11/16 27-Jan-99 @ 07:55 AM - RE: SUPERNOVA vs. MKS-80
I would never exchange the possibilities of saving sounds and recording/controlling all the parameters with MIDI to a system that is analog just for analog's sake! There are lots of people who say that virtual analogs sound weak and there are lots of people who say they sound exactly the same... it's all just a question of personal taste, isn't it?
I would *never* give my SN away to get an analog device that maybe even has to be tuned every three months!
In my opinion the market success of the SN says enough. Now is the time for DSP with all its benefits *and* disadvantages (so let's say characteristics). Maybe anyhow it's better to treat every virtual analog synth as a new instrument. Maybe in your opinion they're not a real substitute for analogs. So don't buy it! But if you want a modern synth with the possibilities of an old vintage plus the ease of use of an up-to-date-synth it's perfect. And with every release of the OS it's getting better (hopefully :-] )
I would *never* give my SN away to get an analog device that maybe even has to be tuned every three months!
In my opinion the market success of the SN says enough. Now is the time for DSP with all its benefits *and* disadvantages (so let's say characteristics). Maybe anyhow it's better to treat every virtual analog synth as a new instrument. Maybe in your opinion they're not a real substitute for analogs. So don't buy it! But if you want a modern synth with the possibilities of an old vintage plus the ease of use of an up-to-date-synth it's perfect. And with every release of the OS it's getting better (hopefully :-] )
Message 12/16 27-Jan-99 @ 09:23 PM - RE: SUPERNOVA vs. MKS-80
Obviously you've never heard or played a Matrix-12
Message 13/16 29-Jan-99 @ 12:43 AM - RE: SUPERNOVA vs. MKS-80
one point no-ones thought about here, we have to reckon with.... you're listening to the nova off of a demo CD right?.... and your MKS live ?.... now... obviously a cd cant capture all the harmonics and overtones of the actual unit plugged thru the mixer ... so it may be that !..... in fact it's bound to be a factor regardless of what it's doing... was any compression applied during cd mastering?... (and it will be transparent if done right)....or any eq-ing ??... etc... there could be many factors..... it's like the difference between looking at a photo of a painting and the actual painting so to speak...
Message 14/16 29-Jan-99 @ 03:29 AM - RE: SUPERNOVA vs. MKS-80
All I'm saying is that, as consumers we should be able to purchase what ever we want
And that includes new analog synths. If they want to charge twice as much for a new analog
Because the excuse is that it cost too much to make, that's a decision that we have to make whether
We're going to spend the money or not. I'm just tired of having companies dictate what kind of synths
I can buy. Let's face it, all we've had since the 80's as far as synths go are, three dozen digital with different name for type of filtering but same lousy sounds and two dozen samplers and now those virtual synths. I don't know about most users but to me having 64 or more notes or 16 track sequencers or all the
Bells and whistles are no substitute for a good sound that blends in perfect in the mix.
If there is any doubts about what sounds the best analog or virtual, Just look at the facts. The bass sounds are always compared to Moog the strings to Jupiter's or something else and the brass to Ob's. That tells us even after all these years and few hundred useless sounding synths the analog is the standard by which all synths will be measured and compared to. And that's not matter of personal taste but fact.
And that includes new analog synths. If they want to charge twice as much for a new analog
Because the excuse is that it cost too much to make, that's a decision that we have to make whether
We're going to spend the money or not. I'm just tired of having companies dictate what kind of synths
I can buy. Let's face it, all we've had since the 80's as far as synths go are, three dozen digital with different name for type of filtering but same lousy sounds and two dozen samplers and now those virtual synths. I don't know about most users but to me having 64 or more notes or 16 track sequencers or all the
Bells and whistles are no substitute for a good sound that blends in perfect in the mix.
If there is any doubts about what sounds the best analog or virtual, Just look at the facts. The bass sounds are always compared to Moog the strings to Jupiter's or something else and the brass to Ob's. That tells us even after all these years and few hundred useless sounding synths the analog is the standard by which all synths will be measured and compared to. And that's not matter of personal taste but fact.
Message 15/16 01-Feb-99 @ 07:42 PM - RE: SUPERNOVA vs. MKS-80
Well, it looks like I've been proved right about the Analog.
New kid is in town and it's called SE Omega-8. That's 8 voices of pure Analog.
New kid is in town and it's called SE Omega-8. That's 8 voices of pure Analog.
Message 16/16 03-Feb-99 @ 04:56 PM - RE: SUPERNOVA vs. MKS-80
Hey the supernova's so crap I managed to get sounds from my MATRIX 12 sounding better than they do on the Matrix.
These will be released on Version 3 OS.
Phill@Novation
These will be released on Version 3 OS.
Phill@Novation
Viewing all 16 messages - View by pages of 10: 1 2
There are 16 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
