Softube : Model 82 Sequencing Mono Synth

I think it’s equal to TAL 101. I think it sounds better pure (it's more... bouncy, but also a little more driven, even with overdrive off?), but TAL has additional, and very useful features. And a better, easier to use UI.

I wouldn’t pay $99 for Model 82. $59 seems like it should be the regular price, and it’s worth all of that. So far.

I also have 72 and 84. It’s likely I’ll pick this one up, even though I have TAL 101.

EDIT: So, yeah, I bought it. If, when reaching for a 101 bassline, I always use Softube, I'll eventually sell the TAL 101, despite the useful features - I'm sticking with sound over features.

I really don't like that Softube are releasing this (and Model 72) as mono only. I'm going to pass unfortunately as it sounds good but limiting in my use case. I don't need a painfully exact replica of the original functionality to the point that it ignores something as basic as polyphony. I have Lush 101 which is polyphonic and use it for pads, chording, etc. I know you can use multiple instances for poly but what a PIA for functionality they could have easily added. They could at least offer the option to turn on poly and leave it off as the default for the purists. I'm sure most other's will disagree but just my 2c.

sean8877 said:

I really don't like that Softube are releasing this (and Model 72) as mono only. I'm going to pass unfortunately as it sounds good but limiting in my use case. I don't need a painfully exact replica of the original functionality to the point that it ignores something as basic as polyphony. I have Lush 101 which is polyphonic and use it for pads, chording, etc. I know you can use multiple instances for poly but what a PIA for functionality they could have easily added. They could at least offer the option to turn on poly and leave it off as the default for the purists. I'm sure most other's will disagree but just my 2c.

Click to expand...

Agreed. For a modern soft synth to not have a poly mode is ridiculous, even if it is an emulation of an old monosynth.

sean8877 said:

I really don't like that Softube are releasing this (and Model 72) as mono only. I'm going to pass unfortunately as it sounds good but limiting in my use case. I don't need a painfully exact replica of the original functionality to the point that it ignores something as basic as polyphony. I have Lush 101 which is polyphonic and use it for pads, chording, etc. I know you can use multiple instances for poly but what a PIA for functionality they could have easily added. They could at least offer the option to turn on poly and leave it off as the default for the purists. I'm sure most other's will disagree but just my 2c.

Click to expand...

I don't think polyphany is basic. There's excellent reasons for monosynths, even in digital form. In physical hardware, it's especially not trivial, because a synth designer doesn't just want lots of voices, but lots of voices that work together.

I understand your preference, though.

Mine is opposite: I'd generally prefer to get the best sounding instruments and then work with, or around, any perceived limitations. For example, I believe, if you want polyphany, you can make it happen in Bitwig or using Shoebridge's PolyChain DIY. Or do it the original way of recording one track at a time.

All that said, I wouldn't mind polyphany. But I have no requirement of it in a monosynth.

I think we should also remember that the SH-101 was mainly used for Bases. Which is what made it very popular during the 80's and 90's. It wasn't a synth for making Pads, or brass patches.

So, developers are trying to stay as close as possible to the way it was designed. But I still feel that having a Poly feature in the VST version would have been a nice bonus.

I think the TAL version has a polyphonic mode, I'm also curious which one is a better sounding or closer emulation of the SH-101, The TAL or Softube version ?

muziksculp said:

I think we should also remember that the SH-101 was mainly used for Bases. Which is what made it very popular during the 80's and 90's. It wasn't a synth for making Pads, or brass patches.

So, developers are trying to stay as close as possible to the way it was designed. But I still feel that having a Poly feature in the VST version would have been a nice bonus.

I think the TAL version has a polyphonic mode, I'm also curious which one is a better sounding or closer emulation of the SH-101, The TAL or Softube version ?

Click to expand...

I don't have the hardware and never have. There's no way to 100% match 40+ year old analog hardware, as every single unit will sound different. They may both fully match the unit(s) they acquired in order to create the plugins.

The TAL version does have a poly mode, but it's a bit limited compared to a real polysynth and I rarely use that feature, preferring to use polysynths designed to be polysynths.

Personally, I believe the new Softube version sounds a bit better, a bit more like hardware sounds/behaves. The TAL synth also sounds good to me, but a little bit lifeless/static in comparison - it sounds more like a softsynth generating sounds. My favorite feature in the TAL is the FM modulation slider, and the UI is easier to read.

I see what you're saying regarding mono but I still think it would be nice as an option to have the polyphony. A lot of times when I use things "not as they are intended" (ex. poly for a mono synth) there are some really interesting results.

You can host multiple instances in Unify to create a poly.

sean8877 said:

I really don't like that Softube are releasing this (and Model 72) as mono only. I'm going to pass unfortunately as it sounds good but limiting in my use case. I don't need a painfully exact replica of the original functionality to the point that it ignores something as basic as polyphony. I have Lush 101 which is polyphonic and use it for pads, chording, etc. I know you can use multiple instances for poly but what a PIA for functionality they could have easily added. They could at least offer the option to turn on poly and leave it off as the default for the purists. I'm sure most other's will disagree but just my 2c.

Click to expand...

Honestly, it's a really weird product decision. I could be wrong, but I don't think it was made for authenticity. I think it's rather something technical like CPU consumption, or maybe even a marketing strategy to release the product asap even if it's not feature complete.

And yeah I agree it's a deal breaker.

My favorite Analog Bass sounds are from Moogs. The HW.

I have a Moog Minimoog Model D, and the Moog Little Phatty Stage II Keyboards. Love the Bass sounds these two can create.

How is the new Arturia V-Collection 9's newest version of the Korg MS-20 V emulation for creating Analog Bass Sounds ?

It's not like this is the first mono softube has released, eg monoment & model 72, but since these come with modular versions, you can also create polyphonic patches in modular.

The default '82 modular patch is set up as 4 voices:

muziksculp said:

How is the new Arturia V-Collection 9's newest version of the Korg MS-20 V emulation for creating Analog Bass Sounds ?

Click to expand...

It is a really good synthesizer to be honest. I’ve never been a particular Korg afficionado, but I am kind of amazed by the filters in this synth. Great to make gnarly basses with. I feel it does sound better than the Cherry Audio version, but I haven’t truly A/B’d so I may be mistaken there.

doctoremmet said:

It is a really good synthesizer to be honest. I’ve never been a particular Korg afficionado, but I am kind of amazed by the filters in this synth. Great to make gnarly basses with. I feel it does sound better than the Cherry Audio version, but I haven’t truly A/B’d so I may be mistaken there.

Click to expand...

Thanks @doctoremmet .

I have the Korg version of the MS-20 VST Synth, but the older version 1, which is pretty good.

I noticed they have a new MS20 V2 now. https://www.korg.com/us/products/software/kc_ms_20/

sean8877 said:

I really don't like that Softube are releasing this (and Model 72) as mono only. I'm going to pass unfortunately as it sounds good but limiting in my use case. I don't need a painfully exact replica of the original functionality to the point that it ignores something as basic as polyphony. I have Lush 101 which is polyphonic and use it for pads, chording, etc. I know you can use multiple instances for poly but what a PIA for functionality they could have easily added. They could at least offer the option to turn on poly and leave it off as the default for the purists. I'm sure most other's will disagree but just my 2c.

Click to expand...

I have Lush 101 and though a great pad synth sounds nowhere near as beefy as this model 82 nor does it really sound like the SH101. If I had to liken it to any roland synth I use it as a substitute for my favorite Roland synth the JD800.

José Herring said:

I have Lush 101 and though a great pad synth sounds nowhere near is beefy as this model 82 nor does it really sound like the SH101. If I had to liken it to any roland synth I use it as a substitute for my favorite Roland synth the JD800.

Click to expand...

I have the Lush 101, and it is far from being an SH-101.

muziksculp said:

How is the new Arturia V-Collection 9's newest version of the Korg MS-20 V emulation for creating Analog Bass Sounds ?

Click to expand...

Anything with patch cables - even virtual patch cables, similar to math or HTML code, sends me running for the hills. You'll never catch me with a modular, semi or otherwise! "Semi-modular" is like saying "semi-torture".



(all the hardware cables coming out of the back or top of the stereo synths and fx along with midi and usb are bad enough - having them in front would drive me crazy)

vitocorleone123 said:

Anything with patch cables - even virtual patch cables, similar to math or HTML code, sends me running for the hills. You'll never catch me with a modular, semi or otherwise! "Semi-modular" is like saying "semi-torture".

Click to expand...

Oh dude man up already.