The CS-80 is a particular case in point, it seems to me. The combination of the polyphonic aftertouch and the ribbon mean that the main reasons why Vangelis et al made it their own can't reasonably be even replicated (using a mouse with the ribbon seems just silly), and so you end up with another perfectly good soft synth with tiny tiny faders.Piet De Ridder wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2022 3:23 amAll of which has me, by and large, preferring softsynths that aren't based on hardware originals. (I've also always felt there's something strangely ridiculous about the skeuomorphically designed softsynths. It's very helpful in one way, sure, but in the case of a beast like the CS-80-now-GX-80, it also hampers working with the thing. I mean: ever so carefully pushing a tiny mock-fader with the mouse pointer? That, in my opinion, goes totally against what these instruments are, and should be, all about.)
Hi Piet,Piet De Ridder wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2022 3:23 am It's pretty impressive, yes. Took me quite some time before I fell under the spell of Cherry Audio — their first few releases never quite convinced me, I must admit — but since the Elka-X, I'm a convert. And Sines is my favourite of the lot. I really, really like Sines.
What stops the GX-80 from becoming another favourite, for me, has got nothing to do with Cherry Audio — they've done a superb job — but everything with the awkwardness of the original instruments. I mean, there's no getting away from the fact that a CS-80 is not a very intuitive or fun synth to program, with all its peculiarities and idiosyncracies. At least, that's my opinion. I firmly believe the 'CS-80 experience" can only be truly and fully had when sitting in front of the real thing. No matter how accurately they manage to model or recreate the sound, there's simply too much, in the way of interacting with and performing on the instrument, that has to be sacrificed when turning it into a piece of software. A CS-80 suffers from this conversion (from hard- to software) much more than, say, a Juno. The OB-E has the exact problems as the GX-80 in this respect, I feel. G-Force has done their absolute best to make working with this software as intuitive and enjoyable as possible, but the individuality of the hardware original is such that it simply stands in the way of a software-translation ever becoming an undivided inspirational joy.
All of which has me, by and large, preferring softsynths that aren't based on hardware originals. (I've also always felt there's something strangely ridiculous about the skeuomorphically designed softsynths. It's very helpful in one way, sure, but in the case of a beast like the CS-80-now-GX-80, it also hampers working with the thing. I mean: ever so carefully pushing a tiny mock-fader with the mouse pointer? That, in my opinion, goes totally against what these instruments are, and should be, all about.)
But it sounds fabulous, no doubt about it. Whether it actually succeeds in perfectly simulating the classic CS-80/GX-1 sound, I can't say (only knowing the originals form their recorded appearances) and it doesn't really interest me anyway. I have no intention whatsoever of doing 'Blade Runner' soundalikes with this software (in fact, one of the challenges will be, when working with the GX-80, to stay as far away as possible from anything that might remind the listener of 'Blade Runner' or other iconic CS-80/GX-1 recordings).
Too soon for me to include the GX-80 in a round-up of favourite recently purchased softsynths. Three synths that do make it into that round-up are the aforementioned Sines, the impossible-to-overpraise Repro-5/1 (an older release, I know, but I only bought a few weeks ago) and the jaw-dropping surprise that is the UAD Opal.
_
OK. Thanks. I guess it's just my system is not up to the task to deal with these newer, more demanding synth plugins. I have a 10 year old PC / Intel based. I plan to move to Mac/ Apple silicon chip next year, once Apple releases their next generation M2 processors. I'm hoping a well spec'd Apple Silicon M2 Mac next year should be able to handle my full template, without the need for any slave machines.Piet De Ridder wrote: ↑Nov 27, 2022 11:40 am I've read a few other people saying that too, but I don't have a single issue with the performance of GX-80 so far. Seems to consume about the same resources as the Elka-X. Just checked it again, picking a dozen or so presets at random, and the highest the CPU-meter ever rises is somewhere around 30-35%, pretty much the same as the Elka requests. Most of those presets I tried didn't even get past 20-25%.
In comparison: the Knifonium (Plugin Alliance) frequently makes the CPU-meter go up to 50% and higher, and u-he Diva (granted, with its Accuracy-setting at 'Great') can even make it jump up to 75% or higher still.
All this in LogicPro (still in Rosetta mode, because of BFD3), running in Monterey on a MacStudio Ultra.
_
Yep. Any synth that used polyphonic aftertouch is going to lack the authenticity unless support for it is included and you have a keyboard controller capable of generating it.Piet De Ridder wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2022 3:23 am
What stops the GX-80 from becoming another favourite, for me, has got nothing to do with Cherry Audio — they've done a superb job — but everything with the awkwardness of the original instruments. I mean, there's no getting away from the fact that a CS-80 is not a very intuitive or fun synth to program, with all its peculiarities and idiosyncracies. At least, that's my opinion. I firmly believe the 'CS-80 experience" can only be truly and fully had when sitting in front of the real thing. No matter how accurately they manage to model or recreate the sound, there's simply too much, in the way of interacting with and performing on the instrument, that has to be sacrificed when turning it into a piece of software.
