The NEW version 2.0 THREAD!!!

[MartinMM]

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?

[Naive Teen Idol]

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.

[Antoine]

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

Going back to the Origin torture room...

[Naive Teen Idol]

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?

[Sweep]

...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.

[omissis]

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?

[Dooley]

So, any hints as to when we can expect V2, and what the updates will include? I love this synth and can hardly wait....

[el-folie]

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

[slammah2012]

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.....

[el-folie]

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

[omissis]

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.....

But, I'm  a little tired about pointing out where this software can be made better,it seems there are no ears listening  therearound............

 

[omissis]

In the end the KAS controls just half of the process; the rotation itself is left to the gate counter which has an *** logic.

[el-folie]

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.....

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

[omissis]

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

[el-folie]

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!