Arturia V Collection 5

Discussion in 'Studio & Stage' started by LSchefman, May 20, 2016.

  1. LSchefman

    LSchefman Hears Tones

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    24,928
    Likes Received:
    22,709
    Arturia just updated and upgraded their V Collection to version 5. I've used their instruments since they came out, and have kept them all current, so I upgraded and can give a preliminary report.

    First, they've added an acoustic piano, a B-3, a Farfisa, s Synclavier (!), and a Fender style electric piano. I haven't spent enough time with these, obviously, to report, except to say that all sound good so far.

    But they've also upgraded and redone their earlier releases with new scalable graphics and (it is claimed) improved sound quality.

    The graphics are a big improvement; in fact, the entire interface, including the browser, all the editing features, MIDI assignment, and the like, are vastly improved, state-of-the-art for plugins. I like the audio better, but I haven't lived with the emulations for long enough to know if that's just a matter of better sounding presets, or whether the audio engines themselves are actually more accurate. I have to dig in for that.

    Having a Synclavier model is epic; I lusted after them when I first got into the commercial scoring biz, but could never quite swing the six figure entry price tag. They had the original designer of the Synclav's software, who had saved all of the original code, working with them on it. It was always a digital synth, so whether it sounds truly analog or not isn't an issue for me.

    As many here know from prior posts, I prefer analog stuff to digital stuff in general. These synths do sound really good, however. I'll have to use them in projects to know whether they get lost in a mix, like so many plugins have in the past, or if they really can stand up to analog instruments.

    If they can sit in a mix with real hardware instruments, I will be very, very impressed.

    And I'll report back.
     
    #1 LSchefman, May 20, 2016
    Last edited: May 20, 2016
    Dusty Chalk likes this.
  2. Dusty Chalk

    Dusty Chalk alberngruppenführer

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,491
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    What is the resolution? 96 kHz, 192?
     
  3. LSchefman

    LSchefman Hears Tones

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    24,928
    Likes Received:
    22,709
    I have no idea -- you'd have to ask Arturia. I'm going to guess it's whatever your computer can handle.

    The US spec for audio for picture is still 48KHz, so that's what I run Logic at. Since I run my soft synths in the DAW, its setting will automatically run plugins at the same resolution.

    Most DAWs choke badly running soft synths at 96, let alone 192.
     
  4. Dusty Chalk

    Dusty Chalk alberngruppenführer

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,491
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Don't care, it stops mattering whether they're analog or digital somewhere between 48 and 88.2.

    Or if you run them through a nice enough system (e.g. an external tube stage).

    It probably matters less if you're a wiz at the DAW like you are, but with my music, the synths tend to be a lot more upfront (think Kraftwerk or Pink Floyd), so I got the best computer I could ("solved it with hardware").
     
    #4 Dusty Chalk, May 21, 2016
    Last edited: May 21, 2016
  5. sergiodeblanc

    sergiodeblanc I like to party, mmm hmm, everybody does.

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    21,643
    Likes Received:
    35,377
    I love their graphics, it's so easy to get around on if you're familiar with the original units and they do look [email protected] cool!

    But... (there's always a butt)
     
  6. LSchefman

    LSchefman Hears Tones

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    24,928
    Likes Received:
    22,709
    Nah, I'm no wiz. And I do a lot of synth stuff, too. Here's an all-synth, all the time, piece: https://soundcloud.com/lschefman/red-orchestra-verdant

    I solved my soft synth problem with hardware, too:

    [​IMG]

    But I will give credit where it's due; the new Arturia versions are pretty interesting sounding, the interfaces are even better than before, and the Synclavier model really, really sounds good.

    The question will be how the synths blend in a mix. I find that soft synths tend to get lost. That has been my biggest problem with them. It's almost like they play nice with each other, but add hardware synths, guitar, bass, vocals, etc., and they tend to disappear a bit.

    If these blend well, great. I'll get more use out of them than for just pads and stuff.

    I have found a few soft synths that don't disappear: Serum, which is a CPU hog even with very fast computers, but sounds great; the latest versions of the Waldorf stuff; the u-he Diva, ACE and Bazille (also CPU hogs). Tell you what, download the Serum demo, run it at 96KHz, and I'll bet that no matter what computer you're using, it will click and pop from CPU overload unless you're running it all by itself.

    I have much better luck mixing with sample-based soft instruments, but I also had better luck with hardware samplers in mixes than hardware synths.

    One thing I find effective in using soft synths is taking the output from my DAW, running the synth into a good hardware direct box or amp, and then recording the output that way, but it's kind of a pain. I'm hoping these new Arturia synths do the job, because I really want to use them in final compositions, not just demos or for fun.
     
    #6 LSchefman, May 21, 2016
    Last edited: May 21, 2016
    Dusty Chalk likes this.
  7. Dusty Chalk

    Dusty Chalk alberngruppenführer

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,491
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    XD

    Well...yah...
     
    #7 Dusty Chalk, May 21, 2016
    Last edited: May 21, 2016
  8. LSchefman

    LSchefman Hears Tones

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    24,928
    Likes Received:
    22,709
    Incidentally, I was able to set the Arturia Collection instruments to 192 KHz. Sounded really nice there, but a lot of load on the DAW. Still, it worked flawlessly. I had five instruments going, no crackles or pops.

    The sound quality was noticeably better than 48 or 96KHz. Everything sounded less congested, more open.

    Even the Prophet 12 sounded better going through the DAW at 192. Now I'm spoiled, dammit.
     
    #8 LSchefman, May 22, 2016
    Last edited: May 22, 2016
    Dusty Chalk likes this.
  9. alantig

    alantig Zombie Four, DFZ

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    10,261
    Likes Received:
    15,697
    Saw this deal - going to jump on it this weekend even though I just jumped to 4 late last year. The new instruments sold me. I don't use synths a ton, but I do use piano and B3 a lot, so those are selling points (I lost my fave B3 when I upgraded my OS). Being a Zappa fan, the Synclavier is huge to me. That pretty much sealed my fate.
     
    Dusty Chalk likes this.
  10. Dusty Chalk

    Dusty Chalk alberngruppenführer

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,491
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    (evil grin)

    Exactly!
     
  11. aristotle

    aristotle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    772
    Likes Received:
    173
    I know nothin' about nothin' relative to this stuff... Sounded cool to me. I could imagine this as the lost track after "Metro" from Berlin in the early 80s....

    More importantly (to me) though I clicked on your Tweed Model McCarty 4 track which appeared in your playlist. That was uber cool. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd search your posts to see what that was about, but I'm presuming it was an amp model. Sounds great.
     
  12. LSchefman

    LSchefman Hears Tones

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    24,928
    Likes Received:
    22,709
    Unfortunately, I'd have to downsample the entire thing to submit a project for TV ad production, so I'm stuck at 48KHz anyway for my professional work.

    Or maybe that's fortunate. I dunno!
     
    #12 LSchefman, May 22, 2016
    Last edited: May 23, 2016
  13. LSchefman

    LSchefman Hears Tones

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    24,928
    Likes Received:
    22,709
    Thanks! It is the Universal Audio UAD-2 model of a Fender Tweed. No need to read my other posts, I'll expound a little...

    You probably know this, but just in case...

    UAD plugins are controlled in your DAW, but are hosted by the UAD hardware outside the computer, or on a standalone card. In my case, this is an Apollo interface. For some reason the UAD-2 hardware-hosted plugins sound a little nicer than most native plugins. I have some of the identical Brainworx plugins in both configurations, native and UAD-2, and often the difference is clearly audible. There is apparently a difference in how they're rendered, according to the tech folks at UA.

    UA has been partnering with one of the professors at Cal Berkeley to develop some of their plugins, and they've been modeling the response of every part of the hardware on their newer plugs.

    So...this amp model. I agree, it sounds good, though you're hearing it after processing the way I'd process a real amp, with EQ and compression.

    The drawback is that it doesn't quite feel like the real amp when you're playing, and though it sounds very good indeed, it doesn't quite sound like the real Tweed amps -- and I've recorded a lot of them over the years. So it's good sounding, and useful, but not as accurate as one might hope.

    One good thing is that there's no latency; since it's hosted in the hardware at the input stage, it runs ahead of your DAW in the signal chain.

    However the result is that whatever it sounds like, it makes nice recordings once all is said and done. ;)
     
  14. Dusty Chalk

    Dusty Chalk alberngruppenführer

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,491
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    You don't think there's some small benefit at running the individual tracks at higher rates, then only downmixing the final mix? I have to admit, that's more bit depth/resolution, but I'd still think it'd be worth it...but then I wouldn't downmix it at the end.
     
  15. LSchefman

    LSchefman Hears Tones

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    24,928
    Likes Received:
    22,709
    Well, here's the deal.

    I have to sync to picture when I work. And the final project also has to be in perfect sync to picture at US TV's 29.97 non-drop frame rate, a holdover from analog days. I have seen errors in synchronization when switching rates, depending on the algorithm used to change the sampling rate.

    I can't take that risk for something that's going to wind up on TV, and has to be sub-frame accurate, and since my work is background music, not "listening" music, I doubt it matters.

    In terms of whether you'd down-sample at the end of a project, if your work is going to iTunes, to CD, or other sites, it has to meet certain criteria, including their preferred bit and sample rates. I'm no expert at this; mastering engineers do this stuff using more sophisticated algorithms than the ones that come on most DAWs.

    So if I was making a record for distribution, I'd record at the highest sampling rate I could, and let the mastering engineer sort out delivering it to the various distribution companies at the correct rates. But I'm not in that business.
     
    Dusty Chalk likes this.
  16. Dusty Chalk

    Dusty Chalk alberngruppenführer

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,491
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Yeah, okay. I imagine it's also just plain easier to work "in sync", without having to worry about dropouts, discontinuities, glitches, etc. I also imagine the video takes up a certain amount of CPU, or is it external?
     
  17. LSchefman

    LSchefman Hears Tones

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    24,928
    Likes Received:
    22,709
    Yes, it's one less major headache. As to the CPU, I'd have plenty of headroom at 96KHz, but honestly, there isn't much point for the work I do.

    What surprised me was the difference between 192 and 96, using my own sample library, software, and processors that I've had for a long time. It's larger than the difference between 48 and 96. We all know that the human ear isn't supposed to be able to hear the difference, and maybe we can't hear the frequency response potential, but the resolution at the higher sampling rate is truly a lot better, so I thank you Dusty for asking about the synth's sampling rate, because otherwise I doubt I'd have tried it.

    I have some hi-res digital records by major label artists done at 192, and it doesn't sound noticeably better than the 96 stuff; of course, it was either recorded a long time ago, and who knows what the audio limitations were, or recorded recently at who-knows-what sampling rates.

    But on my own DAW, with my own stuff, I gotta say it was ear-opening. So thanks!
     
    Dusty Chalk likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice