Arturia today introduced Memory V, a software reimagining of the legendary Memorymoog.
Here’s what they have to say about it:
“Memory V captures the colossal analog character and triple-oscillator architecture of one of the rarest polyphonic synthesizers ever made, recreated with Arturia’s advanced TAE® technology and expanded with modern modulation, arpeggiation, effects and expressive workflow integration.
From towering brass and dense basses to evolving leads, cinematic pads and unstable analog textures, Memory V delivers the unmistakable weight of early-80s polyphonic synthesis in a reliable, production-ready instrument.”
Here’s the official Memory V overview:
Features:
- Component-accurate TAE modelling of its oscillators, filter, mixer, drive and analog non-linearities.
- Triple-oscillator architecture – Three free-running oscillators per voice deliver the harmonic depth that set the Memorymoog apart.
- Legendary ladder filter – Shape sound with a modeled low-pass ladder filter per voice, complete with 24 dB and 12 dB modes, self-oscillation and Bass Compensation to preserve low-end weight at higher resonance.
- Authentic “analog feel” – Use Vintage and Dispersion controls to introduce continuous analog drift, then fine-tune variation across pitch, pulse width, levels, cutoff, emphasis, modulation and envelope times.
- Modern modulation and FX – Drag-and-drop modulation, a four-layer Multi-Arp and a 4-slot FX rack with 17+ effects bring contemporary sound design into the Memorymoog architecture.
- 300+ presets – Explore a library of brass, saturated basses, cinematic pads, evolving textures, expressive leads and modern electronic tones.
Pricing and Availability:
Don’t forget there is the Memorymoon – Memorymoon ^_^
Forgot about it straight away – Memorymoon is Windows only and definitely not in the same league as Memory V.
EDIT: Memorymoon Synthesizer
NOT interested and Windows only, really…?!
Woo, another skeuomorphic interface to drool over.
And don’t forget there is a Cherry Audio MemoryMode. These guys have run out of ideas, and now are competing amongst themselves for the “best” simulation. What is, 5 or 6 CS-80 simulations and counting?
Competition is good!
Not only will they compete about the sound, but also the price of their plugins then 😀 (Win-Win for the end-user)
It is frustrating. The companies know where the money is. Outside existing customers there are newbies to whom these emulations are new to them. They won’t have been around when these synths were new and going wrong. I get a LOT of use out of some of these emulations and often find results quicker when I don’t have a billion parameters. Having said that, I always appreciate a new software synth. I raised this point to Cherry when they released a new drum machine version of a classic “please use your skills to make a new drum machine”. That is not to be ungrateful for their emulations. At £50 I can afford to buy most of the plug ins when they come out but I am not need so many CS80s or Jupiters etc.
Nothing new. The last good thing from Arturia was Pigments.
Agreed
You have to pick an emulation and roll on. Arguing over who makes the best one just gives you leprosy of the privates. At this point, multimode filters and effects are so advanced, they take the last edge off of any small lacks a self-contained synth has. I look at them as a finishing module in a Eurorack system.
I generally still think that arturia’s emulations dominate the game for their excellent sound and generally for adding so much more possibility and ease of use to an instrument without spoiling the very character that inspired the emulation. as much as emulations get a bit tired, i do think they add enough to make their emulations worth the while. most straight-forward emulations are boring tho, but arturia’s sure have the bells n whistles
it sounds great – until you compare it to Acustica Squid 3 – not even close. They both emulate different Moog’s, but Squid 3 achieves a new level of realism in a synth plugin. This Arturia sounds flat and 2D in comparison. You can really hear the difference in the low end.
Woof. I just looked up Squid 3, and it’s €199. That’s a bit out of my league for a single plug-in.
I am so set on vintage synth plugins. We need new stuff.
Like what?
For one, I’m looking forward to checking out the plugin version of the Schmitt, that supposedly is coming out this summer. I worry that it is going to be ridiculously expensive. A Bowen Solaris plugin would be great, considering Sonic-Core is kind of in zombie territory; they made a big mistake by not building in Apple compatibility. Reading the Sonic-Core forums on PlanetZ is like wading into a DIY computer architecture class.
Not sure what you’re talking about. Original instruments like Arturia Pigments and U-He Zebra 3 are absolutely stunning.
Cherry Audio has released “new stuff” like Harmonia, Sines, and Dreamsynth. The problem is that most users just shrugged because the original designs didn’t carry the aura of a vintage reproduction.
Love the Arturia V Collection…
But they are starting to run out of insturments to add to the collection.
They should add the Roland System 700 to the collection. That would be a first, not a single plugin developer has attempted that… yet.
I think most people looking to grab a softsynth for their collection of tools will find modular boxes with patch cables like to be an extraordinary pain in the butt to use. iirc arturia’s last entry of that sort is the semimodular ms-20 and that worked reasonably well but overall i think their design philosophy seems to have moved towards modern UI/UX approaches for parameter changes and add-on functions that expand synths’ capabilities rather than just 100% emulation as accurately as possible. i just don’t think that’s in arturia’s own interest or strategy.
and i personally want nothing to do with it lol. why bother with patching 4 modules together to get a sound in a softsynth?
Suggestion: [insert softsynth emulation developer name here] could riffle through really obscure Vintage Synth Museum synths, pick two or three, and create a frankenstein softsynth incorporating elements of different synths into somthing entirely new.
Just spitballing here.
I think u-he DIVA is exactly that. You can combine elements from vintage analog synths to your taste.
They don’t tell you the names or brands, but you can guess… “Ohbie filter” for example.
That’s exactly the purpose of Diva.
Dear VST developers,
The 70’s and 80’s have been exhausted to death by this point. Please stop developing the same old software clones!
Instead, why not focus on some more recent stuff from the late 90’s/early 2000’s and/or a synth that hasn’t been emulated a dozen times before?
Thank you.
The 90’s/2000’s are quite difficult to emulate as they are more likely digital/DSP/or even mini pc’s in disguise, with copywritten firmware/data that companies won’t share/license. While ‘some’ have open-sourced ways to deal with a few DSP platforms, it’s not viable for a commercial company to sell a direct product when the origin company themselves are still operating. As such, they’re quite a different animal. I expect the few synths that matter in that regard will only be created by Korg/Roland/Waldorf/etc themselves. It would be nice to see someone tackle the Alesis synths but I question if there is really much interest or reason to at this point. We have a plethora of choice and much overlap.
Marc, a few synths we’d love to see emu’d are like the D-50. The base sound data is proprietary, so most makers go for something that employs the usual soundwaves, like sawtooth. I get the loose feeling that so far, no one has wanted to build their own soundwave base and start fresh. Samplers are easy to acquire now. Sampling and trimming a full library for a D-50 surrogate probably takes more work & expense than they want to tackle. It may start happening as we run dry of new vintage stuff. A lot of it is about hitting the price point and making a decent profit.
What about Roland’s own software rendition (which by the way it’s on sale on Plugin Boutique right now)?
What about Roland’s boutique unit, the D-05?
What about UVI Digital Synsations Vol. 1 (DS50)?
What about IK Multimedia Syntronik 2 (D-VCO)?
What about AudioKit iOS/iPadOS Digital D1 and King of Digital?
What about the D50 for the VSynth (DC1 card)?
What about the D50 built-in the Vsynth XT?
What about the D50 card for the VariOS?
What about JunoDS and FA06, which have almost 1:1 D50’s sounds?
I have the vintage unit and it’s one of my favourite sounding synths of all time (once you avoid the internal FXs engine). It is gritty and it is lo-fi but in a charming way. Said that, right now, I don’t see the point of having the vintage unit given the better, cheaper and more versatile options already available (mentioned before, and many more that will surely be available in the future).
I got mine really cheap, really long time ago, otherwise I wouldn’t doubt a second in getting one of the software replicas .
Nostalgia is a hell of a drug, but surely it ain’t cheap.
Arturias first emu was the Modular V. In many ways it’s all you need in a VA-synth – due to the fact that it is also polyphonic, have that huge sound of Moog – as well as tiny wee bits and everything inbetween. However – what Arturia could do was to add the more esoteric modules from the System III and the System 55. And perhaps give the user interface an overhaul.
Quite a discussion going on here so I’m going to ask a question out of left field.
Where does the sound of a VST come from? Everyone here is discussion the pro’s and con’s of various VSTs but at the heart of it, VSTs are just software. Does that mean that the sound is created inside your computer hardware and if that’s the case, isn’t the sound quality relative?
I used to work in the visual arts and we had the same problem with our display screens in that the same file looked different depending on the characteristics of the monitor you used. We’d calibrate screens to a chosen reference so we’d all sing off the same page but it was never 100% accurate.
Evaluating a VST surely depends on your studio acoustic, hardware and the state of your ears. That being said, I can’t help by being impressed by some of these emulations. Lots of clever people out there…
The “sound” of a VST starts with the math (formulas and calculations) needed to generate a synth sound as a stream of ones and zeros. The stream is then passed to a digital-to-analog (D/A) converter, which turns the stream of ones and zeros into the voltage values that drive an amp & speakers and/or headphones.
So just like your example of how different computer screens color the appearance of graphics, the quality of the D/A converters in a hardware audio interface can color the sound of a VST. That said, advances in circuit design and technology renders this less of an issue than it was in, say, the early 2000s.
So basically, it’s horses for courses… what I hear and you hear running the same VST can be vastly different if the end of line gear is also vastly different. Quite a rabbit hole to fall into me thinks!
No, you’re reading way too much into it. “Vastly different” is a very dramatic overstatement. It’s true that even today, some D/As are better than others, but all the essential qualities of a VST will always be clearly audible.
No, you’re reading way too much into it. “Vastly different” is a very dramatic overstatement. It’s true that even today, some D/As are better than others, but all the essential qualities of a VST will always be clearly audible.