Sorry for the length of this post, but potential inconsistencies need to be at least tried to be pointed out before they can be criticized. If you read the thread, you should notice that people are arguing on different aspects of the sound and the sound generating process. They're using some very generalized vocabulary to drive their own point accross, and reacting to each other's usage of the said terms more than anything else. I would still say that the major cause of confusion are deb76's statements regarding the quality of the sound of the Arturia Origin being "better" than the plug-ins, whereas others are making statements on the structure offering "a different sound". That shouldn't however make it sound "more real".
For example, deb76 stated that the Origin is a "synthesizer" as opposed to "being just VSTi's in a box" as stated by some others. That strongly implies to me that he sees physical units as "real instruments" as opposed to software synthesizers, which apparently are "not real" (that seems to be the logic there - it's hard to deny).
And I repeat, the sound of the origin is different, better, is that of a synthesizer and not a VST.
Statements like these have nothing to do with the Origin's routing capacities and all the additional extra compared to the VSTi's. It is simply a statement that makes a qualitative division between hardware and software, in favour of the first. It also implies that VSTi technology even in principle can't pull off what the Origin can do.
He also states:
The sound of the Origin Arturia has nothing to do with what goes out of a computer from a Vst, as good as it is the sound card.
It might be just due to his English, but he basically says that the sound has "nothing to do with what comes out of the computer when using a VST(i)". So his stand is clearly that the Origin's sound quality is far superior regardless of the quality of the D/A -conversion involved in the process. I find this hard to believe myself.
And I repeat: the Arturia Origin is an excellent digital synthesizer that has nothing to do with the VST.
That's another hyperbole, and clearly false. if you were to just read Arturia's own statements regarding the product you would not say it has "nothing to do with the VST".
We also have this:
When I play with a preset Minimoog, I really feel a real Minimoog, feeling that I did not, which is similar, with the VST.
Take that for what it is. Is it any wonder that people would doubt his statements on the whole? Despite the grammatical errors, what is stated is that the Origin's Minimoog emulation is superior to the plug-in version, and comparable to a real Minimoog in "feel". Again, it has nothing to do with the additional features of the Origin, and he had already refuted the soundcard / converters -aspect playing any part in it. Essentially, he is saying that it is closer to a real analog Moog sound than the VSTi version.
So despite the "IRCAM" connection, this is a typical example of what many people posting on this board would see as a very naive way to see the hardware / software division. Deb76 hasn't on his own behalf taken part in the DSP / shared processor debate, yet he is thanking the others for defending his views on this (as if they would be a part of his own arguments). He also states that the "computer running firmware" description must be applied equally to the Arturia Origin as well as to the Moog Voyager if we were to use such descriptions in the first place - which is just a silly thing to say.
I hope you do not take this is a personal insult. I listened to some of your music that you had uploaded to the internet and liked it (especially a few things you had uploaded to youtube). I was also delighted that someone uploaded sample material here that showcased a synth's capacities from the experimental music perspective, since that is what I am into too. But your arguments in this thread aren't really that convincing, and just remind people of some of the most naive things that for example are stated commonly by teenagers' who do not have much of an understanding of the technological aspects involved in synthesis. You must understand that and allow people their skepticism, as there's hardly too much reason to believe otherwise. If you really think it is a relevant aspect to introduce your own level of education into this discussion, you perhaps should be able to discuss it in a more convincing manner that follows some academic standards as well (I have a degree in Musicology too - but wouldn't say it matters too much in such issues though, especially as I've noticed academics often have tin ears in regards with electronic sounds). So please, don't seek agreement from other people's comments that aren't even necessarily in accordance with what you have yourself stated earlier. The "you should try it out yourself" -argument also seems rather irrelevant to many when they are disinterested to get it in their hands judging by the specs, the manufacturer's own advertisements and by using common logic.
Perhaps you would like to prove your point
by playing something on the aforementioned Minimoog preset(s) on the Origin and the same thing on the plug-in version, then upload those both for us to compare? You could also use MIDI files for that, so that the played parts would be similar. I understand it could be too much work dor you, but it would be one way to try to convince us of its superior sonic character. Otherwise, it's just mostly empty talk that isn't going anywhere.
Nevertheless, when you state things like these
This is an experimental machine, very effective in experimental music.
... we have no reason to doubt you. I am sure it is very effective unit in experimental music in the right hands.