Arturia Forums
V Collection - Legacy versions => CS-80V => CS-80V Users Community => Topic started by: omissis on October 11, 2005, 09:32:48 am
-
Hi people, I'm there since a little while
As many people probably realised from their daily usage some things about the CS-80V were bettered and nearly all the bugs fixed;
The new version won't be sseing the light of day until first quarter of 2006 I suppose, but if you agree I would like to talk with you and deeply investigate into the remaining bugs and try to set the evolution of this yet legendary virtual instrument to another level.
It could be that Arturians will be considering the adoption of more severe copy protections in the future, like other companies did , and I think that some improvements must be done , also to make the synth more appealable with relations to the hypothetical new copy protection type:
1. First of all ,to have FREERUNNING on master VCOs , over all the modulation vcos is , by now a not postponable task
2. There a new mode could be set: a CLASSIC one , with all the correct responses of envelopes, resonance etc.
3. Support for all the latest processors including SSE2 , 3Dnow and Altivec and multi-processor support, in order to manage this "heavy" synth in an easier way...
Let me know what do you think of my proposals and what are yours!!!
Max
-
Hi, im a Prophet V owner and have only tried out the Demo of CS-80V.
I agree with both your points. I would love to see arturia redo their CS-80 in the same manner they did the Prophet V, I think the Prophet V is their best emulation yet and I'd completely love if they redid the CS80 with that updated technology and with Classic mode that doesn't have all the extra bells and whistles, just as close to the real deal as possible. This would be an instant winner for me.
Cheers!
-
The main things to do to get the most correct sonic response:
-redo the filters in order to have their original range from 25Hz to 25 KHz which assumes an importance with regards to aftertouch and velocity modulation
-slightly redesign the square to get that fuzzy character the original has
-slightly redo the sine to get the squary flavor
-redesign the sine modulator in the ringmod and carefully craft the AD envelope
-add the expression circuit with dynamic,frequency related smooth filter as in the original, which gives the well-known loudness effect
-add the chorus' feedback, actually missing
-fix some differences in the ribbon and sustain modes
-get the correct velocity response which is not flat but resembles to an ADR waveform, piano like
-reduce the range into some parameters, especially for the VCA ( the original adds 5dB more on aftertouch, not 60!!! )
I wish that these things which are long-time claimed by fans of the V will be received and applied, the CS80V deserves these to its further glory!
-
And you'd deserve to work in collaboration with Arturia.
Would be about time they hired a competent cs-80 expert like you Max to polish their V.
Btw any release date/ETA for the 2.0 version ?
-
now seems because of Mac Intel versions we will wait for a while, to get the 2.0 :cry:
-
Work in progress, guys, I haven't any news up lately...I trust the guys, better to have a late even good synth than a buggy or not correct one....
Cross your finger men, I'll do the same.... :wink:
-
'The VCA and VCF envelopes both have a very fast available attack time of (1ms). However, longest attack time available is only 1 second. The release/decay times on both of these envelopes had a range of 10ms to 10 seconds.' - as found on synthmuseum.com
I would be so thankful if Arturia CS80V had correct envelope times.
However, rev 1.6 sounds truly amazing. And I never use the extra features, only those of the original CS80 :-)
-
Same here, I use the multi from time to time but the real deal is the CS80 itself; by the way, I pointed ALL the differences between the HW and the SW, do you guys want me to list them?
-
If you would be so nice, omissis, please list the differences taking the newest version 1.6. I've read the old posts and many of the issues you listed are fixed now.
I have read on this forum about an old 'bug' not permitting to set VCF attack below 1ms under certain conditions. How does it relate to the aforementioned quotation from synthmuseum.com? If they are right we shouldn't be able to go below 1ms, am I wrong?
-
talking about differences......
VCOS:
CS80: fuller on basses than CS80V ( can match it if you add kinda -25dB of Sine Wave )
VCF:
CS80: the actual range of the filter is 25Hz-25KHz
CS80V: 20Hz-20KHz
The difference relates with the interaction of the HPF-LPF combination together with the usage of touch response ( velocity-aftertouch ): on the CS80 hardware you've got more "room" on the LPF before the HPF affects the sound
VCA: to me, the core part into the CS80 emulation, the hardware has 220 of them
CS80: the VCA has a subtle nonlinear distortion that enriches the bandwidth of the VCOs and VCFs
CS80V: seems too clean and ,unfortunately, dry sometime
Envelopes
CS80: has much shorter decay-release times
CS80V: has much longer decay-release times , but it's not supposed as a bad thing at all
Effects:
Ringmodulator:
CS80: the distinctive sound is given by a slightly distorted sine modulator ( about which I nailed it with a well-known modular softsynth ) and the envelope has a characteristic "hold" time of half a second before decay stage which has birth from the relationship between the Depth control and the decay stage of the envelope
CS80V: a "digital" sine modulator, meaning a purest-than-pure sine doesn't beef up the sound as the original, moreover the envelope behaves like a plain digital envelope
Chorus/Tremolo:
CS80 : there is a phasing effect coupled with the modulation which enriches a lot the sound, moreover the switching between Ch and Tr produces a "brake" effect like the Leslie
CS80V: misses those characteristics, plain and simple
Output and pedals:
CS80: has a so-called "Expression circuit" which links a photoresistor to 2 2nd order filters therefore linked with the pitch of the fundamental: those filters act like a "loudness" booster for the lower notes because enhance the fundamental by cutting part of the trebles
CS80V : misses this, plain and simple
Touch response:
CS80: has a unique velocity system: rather than a "level" it generates a kind of an ADSR waveform which peak is given by the action of velocity ; it superimposes to the envelope signal giving out a kind of piano action:the initial part is an AD with peak whose inverse is sent as the "Initial pitchbend"
CS80V: has a more common "level" generator acting on the Sustain part of the envelope and the i-pb has its own envelope ( supposed by myself):
Aftertouch:
CS80: you can get fastly the top value of the aftertouch you set on the panel because of an exponential CV response
CS80V: harder, depending on the keyboard itself
More, each VCO had its trimmers on the CS80 while the CS80V has the "detune panel" only to offer an amount of TAE drift effect while a simpler detuning between VCOs could have been better... anyway if anybody wants to complete this list please feel free to do that
-
talking about differences......
VCOS:
CS80: fuller on basses than CS80V ( can match it if you add kinda -25dB of Sine Wave )
Max, thanks for your good summary.
Fuller bass reminded me of this: http://www.parsick.com/
This webpage automaticaly plays music (at least with Internet Explorer) that is mostly CS-80. Listen to the sound of the dark foreboding bass notes. Even with delay/reverb I can't quite get V to do this.
-bart
-
Thank you, omissis
-
talking about differences......
Max, thanks for your good summary.
Fuller bass reminded me of this: http://www.parsick.com/
-bart
Yes, the album Steve did is mostly a CS80-Vangelis honouring even if more on the darker side; what jumps immediately to the ears is that the CS80 has a strong, and I mean it, fundamental: this wealth comes 90% from the VCOs because the filters are quite ordinary 12/dB SVFs, moreover add to this the expression circuit ( actually missing on the V )which have the main task of bass boosting at low registers , as a legacy from the old electronic organ technology; last but not least the VCA ( remember this is the most important component of the whole thing ) which has a nice soft distortion on it output, and you can count more of 200 among the whole synth: what you have is a sound which is big like the MiniMg but subtler like an acoustic instrument...this is the goal Arturia should reach with the upcoming version 2.
PS, Bart you can push the sound of the CS80V if you add some -25dB of sinewave to get a very similar presence :wink:
-
I tried the trick with adding the sine wave and it sounds good. However, as the sine is added after filter, some sounds cannot utilise this to get more fullness. For example, longer VCF attack leaves the sine too audible.
Let's hope Arturia decides to deliver more updates :-)
-
It's a trick, Martin :wink: and it's just anexample to get a glimpse of how an oscillator of a CS80 sounds in the real world :) ....after all if the CS80V aspires to be a perfect emulation it should hae to emulate everything :wink:
-
How about the free running oscillators? Personally, I have never had a chance to try how they sound different from the digital generators side by side.
From Arturia website, I gather that all TAE oscillators are already free running. On the other hand, I can read that the latest update of Mg Modular V introduces new free running VCOs. So what are the VCOs on CS80V at the moment?
-
So, what's the word? Is this ever getting another update? All I hear about is how Arturia's "moved on" to the Origin. I've never heard of a company abandoning a product like that.
-
The word is that Arturia is a small company that cannot be on all battlefields at the same time. It's as simple as that.
The first generation of our synths is not abandoned at all, but put on a side for a while; the huge project Origin just let a few resources available to release a recent Prophet-V update, and the upcoming Jupiter-8V one, be sure we won't disregard the fantastic ARP-2600V, the holy CS-80V, the magnificent Mg Modular-V, nor the delicious MiniMg V :D
Going back to the Origin torture room...
-
Hey, checking in again. Didn't intend for my previous post to sound bitter -- it's just that the most recent version of this has a pretty sizable preset bug (eventually presents are all categorized under "Basses" and named "CourtJester"). Plus, there are some features I can imagine would be updated.
Any word?
-
...it's just that the most recent version of this has a pretty sizable preset bug (eventually presents are all categorized under "Basses" and named "CourtJester")....
Have you (or has anyone else) actually seen this happen? How long is `eventually'? It's never happened with mine.
-
I really aimed to have a version 2.0: I completely understood the process of assignment (KAS), which is like anything you can find on other synthesizers, and also velocity, glissando and key tracking process and would bring them to the guys, if they are interested; moreover I would bring them a lot of datas, I didn't give up on this; I wish that Frederic Brun would contact me on this, or anybody in the coding team; unfortunately it seems that Arturia would be choosing hardware for its next future :'( ; I'm making experiments because the KAS has a weird architecture but its implementation would kick off some of the most annoying differences, it's hard for me because I can't code and the early digital implementation uses ternary codes instead of binary ; I'm using a well known modular environment to understand these processes for a very personal usage but the road is long.... hey tech team, ever thought about it?
-
So, any hints as to when we can expect V2, and what the updates will include? I love this synth and can hardly wait....
-
Hi,
Iīm new to the forum, this is my first post. I just purchased the CS-80V and must admit being a long-time Vangelis fan. The plugin controls are so very tiny on a 19" lcd. Please, if anyone of the developers reads this, you may like to consider a bigger size of the plugin GUI in a future update. My eyes would be grateful.
As a second suggestion, when Arturia already went hardware+software with the Origin, why not develop a dedicated controller for the CS-80V in a format like the ASB/creamware/sonicCore sound boxes - it would be a dream come true for lots of CS-80V users to have all the (main) controls in direct access as they need it during live jamming... Maybe this had been on the drawing board already?!?
The sound of the plugin is fine for me, great job!
Regards,
el-folie
-
I really aimed to have a version 2.0: I completely understood the process of assignment (KAS), which is like anything you can find on other synthesizers, and also velocity, glissando and key tracking process and would bring them to the guys, if they are interested; moreover I would bring them a lot of datas, I didn't give up on this; I wish that Frederic Brun would contact me on this, or anybody in the coding team; unfortunately it seems that Arturia would be choosing hardware for its next future :'( ; I'm making experiments because the KAS has a weird architecture but its implementation would kick off some of the most annoying differences, it's hard for me because I can't code and the early digital implementation uses ternary codes instead of binary ; I'm using a well known modular environment to understand these processes for a very personal usage but the road is long.... hey tech team, ever thought about it?
I fully Agree with you......
having spent hours conversing about how my Yamaha CS80 works in comparison to the Arturia CS80V I am sure we got all the KeyAssigning rotation all sorted....
We also got the Sustain I versus II (regarding pitch and filter during note off) and their affect on the Keyboard Control section (Upper/Lower - Filter/Amp)
It would be appreciated if we could optionally tame down the ranges on Ring Mod/ Brilliance to match the ranges of the original and to match the correct controls of the SubOsc....
To me the CS80V sounds exactly like a CS80 does to the ear.....My quest is to get it to respond like one.... all my concerns lie in the performance panel section of the synth.....
-
Dear Arturia Team,
would it be possible to include ring mod and sub osc parameters in the modulation matrix under the lid of the CS-80V? I know one can always use the midi learn feature, but a complete set of modulation destinations would still be very nice.
Also the synth puts out 0,7 dB more level on the left output even when no stereo features are used (chorus/tremolo/delay). This should be corrected for the glory of mono...
Thanks,
el-folie
-
I fully Agree with you......
having spent hours conversing about how my Yamaha CS80 works in comparison to the Arturia CS80V I am sure we got all the KeyAssigning rotation all sorted....
We also got the Sustain I versus II (regarding pitch and filter during note off) and their affect on the Keyboard Control section (Upper/Lower - Filter/Amp)
It would be appreciated if we could optionally tame down the ranges on Ring Mod/ Brilliance to match the ranges of the original and to match the correct controls of the SubOsc....
To me the CS80V sounds exactly like a CS80 does to the ear.....My quest is to get it to respond like one.... all my concerns lie in the performance panel section of the synth.....
Laurie
It goes a bit beyond that: KAS logic involves four important things:
the assigning itself,
the portamento glissando ,
the sustain feature
the keyboard tracking on filter/amplitude.
All these things respond to the logic of the KAS, because the porta-gliss uses the mux-demux logic and the note-ladder network to directly encode the transitions into the FIFO then into the Sample/Hold; the Sustain uses the interaction between pitch encoding and sample and Hold function and lastly the key tracking uses the note pitch as a reference for filter cutoff; the levers do an operation of creating a difference between note pitch and filter cutoff .
Moreover there is the velocity problem: basically there is a fixed decaying envelope controlling the levels so it is not a plain velocity, but something sounding much more organic to ears.
Another thing : each voice is made of two mono synths which can stay "by design" detuned one another, like the strings of a piano; this is another core problem.
Lastly , the unforgotten ringmodulator which sine is more of a lightly parabolic , not a digital one, analog sines are not mathematical ones.
Oh, by the way, there is a very very distinguishing SPECIAL feature involving the filters that has never been taken into the original design of the CS80V. I'll leave it the developers , happy finding..... ;D
But, I'm a little tired about pointing out where this software can be made better,it seems there are no ears listening therearound............
:'(
-
In the end the KAS controls just half of the process; the rotation itself is left to the gate counter which has an *** logic.
-
Laurie
It goes a bit beyond that: KAS logic involves four important things:
the assigning itself,
the portamento glissando ,
the sustain feature
the keyboard tracking on filter/amplitude.
All these things respond to the logic of the KAS, because the porta-gliss uses the mux-demux logic and the note-ladder network to directly encode the transitions into the FIFO then into the Sample/Hold; the Sustain uses the interaction between pitch encoding and sample and Hold function and lastly the key tracking uses the note pitch as a reference for filter cutoff; the levers do an operation of creating a difference between note pitch and filter cutoff .
Moreover there is the velocity problem: basically there is a fixed decaying envelope controlling the levels so it is not a plain velocity, but something sounding much more organic to ears.
Another thing : each voice is made of two mono synths which can stay "by design" detuned one another, like the strings of a piano; this is another core problem.
Lastly , the unforgotten ringmodulator which sine is more of a lightly parabolic , not a digital one, analog sines are not mathematical ones.
Oh, by the way, there is a very very distinguishing SPECIAL feature involving the filters that has never been taken into the original design of the CS80V. I'll leave it the developers , happy finding..... ;D
But, I'm a little tired about pointing out where this software can be made better,it seems there are no ears listening therearound............
:'(
Hi omissis,
as you seem to be the CS80V "guru" here on the forum and know so much about the electrical functions in the original machine please let me know the following:
- is it normal CS80 behaviour that the Ring Mod reduces the volume of the synth or is this only a CS80V bug?
- is it possible to play trills and do relative pitch bends when using an external ribbon controller like for example "Expression Mate" by Kurzweill? The problem that seems to be there is the relative zero point of the pitch bend midi signal - so can this be done with an external ribbon? Somewhere you wrote about this some years before and that someone would build a ribbon for you that would behave like that...
- please let us know your findings about the filter that makes it so special on the CS80, Iīm so curious to know. Would it be possible to recreate that with the mod matrix?
- also, Iīm quite interested in having those original CS80 features like velocity/ADSR behaviour on filter/initial pitchbend + loudness/expression circuit on the v2.0. I donīt care about messed up patches as the CS80 is always about live playing and working the sliders. Iīm really looking forward to the v2.0.
Hey ARTURIA : I actually love this machine - thanks a ton! And please listen to "omissisī" suggestions ;o)
Regards,
el-folie
-
Hi el-folie.
I'm not a guru or anything about the CS80V; I just love the CS80 and have nothing against Arturia, they did a remarkable work when it comes to modeling the oscillators or filters' curves.
I cannot decide where the project should go, I think that the guys at the moment are trying to get a 2.0 with just some new features, don't really know.
Coming to your questions:
1: wheter it is a bug or not, the overall volume shouldn't be affected when you move the M lever down, on the contrary, the original gets a slight increase .
2. You can use whatever ribbon but:
- the CS80V wasn't successful in modeling the "on/off" effect that you hear when you try to do a trill, this was a basic because of the nature of the circuit (if you put your finger on the ribbon you close a circuit so you turn it on, as opposite to when you put your finger off the ribbon)
- -the other problem is in the Kurzweil ribbon itself: it has a memory function IIRC, which prevents a little to do a correct job. Meanwhile there is an italian small company called SKNote which produces a ribbon that is able to do the CS80 job; or otherwise the Eowave company which produces ribbons too ;)
3. Velocity: I talked about that with one of the old developers and he agreed with me: of course if you want to do it you would need a lot of calibration; I made atry with a modular environment and it tells me that the velocity env+ master envelope should drive the filter in an exponential fashion.
4. Special feature: nothing special my friend, of course you can do it with the matrix but how can you figure it out to program the matrix for a factory preset sound, given that you can't save them or save just a single synth channel? I can't tell it to you here, the devs seem quite lazy, but it is there, it's hardwired and it's fairly visible, nothing buried in the diagrams at all.
But I can give you a hint: listen to any record that uses the CS80; do you hear the filters open completely ?
Salutes
-
Hi Max,
I went through the feature lists of both ribbon manufacturers. Unfortunately sknote doesnīt seem to have any info up on how it really works (no user manual). Also itīs not clear whether you only need the eBow or eBow + an extra midi controller. A bit confusing here and there.
The eowave seems to be a very good construction overall, but it doesnīt seem to feature the "relative zero point" that would be needed to make the CS80V ribbon feel like a CS80 ribbon. The relative zero point is something that would either have to be generated by the ribbon hardware controller or generated by the CS80V at how it interpretes the pitch bend midi messages.
I thought about it a while and came to following: When you first click the ribbon with the mouse there is no actual shift in pitch, so using the ribbon by mouse click itīs correct. As a thought the ribbon is "loaded" with the first midi note you play which is then taken as the relative zero point.
When turning the pitch bend wheel to the top there is an actual pitch bend even before any note on the CS80V is played - so the CS80V interpretes the pitch bend midi messages as absolute values. Or to put it in other terms the CS80 doesnīt wait for a note on message in order to regard it as the "zero point" and then in a second step to interprete the incoming pitch bend messages as relative values.
So as all of this doesnīt seem to be very straight ahead I wonder how sknote could have done it? Do you maybe have that special ribbon in use and some more information about it or do you know someone who uses it?
And a quick answer to the bugs/feature list:
1. Obviously the volume level drop should be considered to be changed in a future update. It really annoys me while using it. There is no way of using the matrix to compensate for it (like routing >M< to VCA level), so it really should be changed.
3. As the CS80V is considered as an CS80 substitution in software, all aspects should be taken regard of and implemented in the VSTi. I think most users will want that.
4. Okay - I must admit I donīt get it ;o). So you say that filter specialty can be programmed in the matrix... Maybe just drop me an email or pm about it?
Saludos!
-
Hi el-folie
Quinto Sardo is a nice guy, drop him an email, the SKBow has the zero-relative, I remember I suggested this feature to Quinto, quite some years ago.
The ribbon in the original works like that: when you put your finger on it, the "on" message is generated and buffered as the zero, so as long as you have the first finger on the ribbon that will be the zero; if you put another finger on, the result will be the pitch shift which is 0 +/- the actual position of the second finger, here is why you can do trills; being so there is no glide between the two positions. SKBow has this function as a hardware implementation which obviously should be trimmed with the midi message you've got then.
Of course keep in mind that the ribbon is a completele integrated feature within the CS80 so it reacts also according to the KAS assignment, therefore you can make special effects when using the ribbon together with Sustain 1 or 2, getting different results at that point.
Arturians will be releasing this famous version 2.0; I really hope they will succeed; I'm not the one to tell them where to go, they do have a real CS80 in house so they can do these measurements on their own.
They should implement the KAS logic which is hard to understand; it took me a lot of time , as I'm not a technician or else; once they will implement it , lots of problems and bugs will be taken out as a consequence.
As for the filters: you know, when the HPF is full on the sound disappears because you cut the basses, so why a preset like FUNKY3 does not cancel the sound into the sweep, even with AL at full?
Come on, it's not hard at all.
-
Hi Max,
thanks for the explanations about the ribbon - I had the exact same thoughts about how a midi interpretation of that behaviour could be realized. I started a request in the tech forum, so maybe Arturia will have an eye on it.
Okay, I checked the FUNKY3 preset and itīs just like you said. But when turning AL all the way up (and of course switching the unfiltered >sine< off) the sound cancels completely in the sweep on my v1.6 CS80V. I never played a real one though - so itīs hard for me to tell what it could be that you mean but Iīd be still curious to know.
-
you can play trills on a continuum.....
A continuum uses the pitch bend function on its X axis
-
How **much** is a Continuum fingerboard?
Sorry, I couldn't resist
;D
-
>continuum< Yes, perfectly right - but itīd be much better/easier/versatile to just let Arturia implement a relative midi mode for ribbon pitch control...
Hoping... :)