How have Arturia Origin sales been?

Discussions about anything analog, digital, MIDI, synth technology, techniques, theories and more.
User avatar
sensorium
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:17 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: How have Arturia Origin sales been?

Post by sensorium » Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:46 pm

deb76 wrote:But clearly here the dominant idea is that the Origin was the vst Arturia in a box...
That is the dominant idea because that is a FACT (as stated by Arturia's own developers).

From a review by Tom Whitwell @ Synthopia/MusicThing:

"The trouble starts when you turn it on, after first plugging it in, using the OEM external power supply that must have cost 99p. (Seriously, a £1900 hardware synth only really makes sense if you're playing live. An external PSU only makes sense if you're desperately trying to cut costs. If Behringer can manage a proper internal universal PSU in £70 mixers, why can't you?) Anyway, when you turn it on, it takes 30+ seconds to boot. Because it's a computer in a box.

The hardware was designed - in 2005 - by Wave Idea, a French company who make MIDI interfaces. What's frustrating about the Origin is that it's a computer in a box pretending to be an analog synth... and nothing more."

and...

"I wonder if Arturia will give you a discount if you already own some of their soft-synths, like NI did with Komplete. If not, it will be like buying some of their softsynths for the second time.

Wes Taggart
Analogics
http://www.analogics.org/"


I know it is human nature to defend your $2500 purchase, but in this case, you are wrong. You bought a knob covered DSP based computer running VST's. Plain and simple. The only difference between this and the muse receptor is that the muse runs more vst's that just Arturia. Any difference you hear is sound from the VST's is wishful thinking.

User avatar
23
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:19 am
Gear: TB-303, MC-505, MC-09, V-Synth GT, FR-777, FR-XS, MFB: Synth II, EMU Proteus 2500/CS, FS1R, Supernova II, Fusion 6HD, ER-1 MKII
Band: 23, A23P, Piss Ant
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Contact:

Re: How have Arturia Origin sales been?

Post by 23 » Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:46 pm

sensorium wrote: I know it is human nature to defend your $2500 purchase, but in this case, you are wrong. You bought a knob covered DSP based computer running VST's. Plain and simple. The only difference between this and the muse receptor is that the muse runs more vst's that just Arturia. Any difference you hear is sound from the VST's is wishful thinking.
See prior post on how/why this assessment is wrong.
It's correct only in regard to what any LONE specific module does by itself.

In any regard, I agree with the thinking that the Origin is a way over priced and limited on idea concept.
But it really isn't like one is simply buying Arturia's VSTs as the things modular nature just ends up allowing for things that owning all their VSTs still wouldn't allow.

User avatar
deb76
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: France, Haute-Normandie
Contact:

Re: How have Arturia Origin sales been?

Post by deb76 » Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:49 am

Sensorium wrote :
Off Topic
From a review by Tom Whitwell @ Synthopia/MusicThing:

"The trouble starts when you turn it on, after first plugging it in, using the OEM external power supply that must have cost 99p. (Seriously, a £1900 hardware synth only really makes sense if you're playing live. An external PSU only makes sense if you're desperately trying to cut costs. If Behringer can manage a proper internal universal PSU in £70 mixers, why can't you?) Anyway, when you turn it on, it takes 30+ seconds to boot. Because it's a computer in a box.
True, but there are also tests that go into a totally different meaning.
Thus, the test appeared on AudioFanzine
when - http://fr.audiofanzine.com/rack-modelis ... sts/#pages - I read :
In the Origin, there is no PCM frozen in memory, but powerful DSP that synthesize sound in real time. Audio output occurs in 44.1 or 48 kHz, as desired. Arturia announces particularly cared 4 essential aspects of sound: no aliasing (global downturn in the spectrum of acute, leading to metallic noise), reproducing the effect of discharge capacitors VCO (borough forms of wave) VCO fluctuations (instability periods of oscillation) and non-linear behavior of filter circuits (particularly high resonance). The Origin 1000 contains preloaded programs 400. To find the machine allows you to filter out programs with 2 criteria to choose from a list: modeled instrument, category, project and author. Very useful!
Or this is : Without chauvinism, this is a machine that does not leave indifferent. In a compact and well built, Arturia has met the challenge to focus a powerful modular synth with infinite possibilities and completely autonomous. Beyond modeling vital instruments mythical, it is the ultra-wide sound range that has most impressed. The Origin evokes in turn the many low fat and leads large modular wrenching and all p'tits Moog, textures vector Prophet-VS, the digital PPG piles, ground copper to JP-8 and the strings CS80 bright ... everything is not perfect, as polyphonic saturate very often, especially those using the PWM. Similarly, the high frequency modulations provide lot of aliasing and other digital artifacts in the extreme treble. But all this can be corrected, especially as improvements are already planned. In any case, and given the current state of things, Arturia has managed his tour de force, making the synth Origin deep evolutionary created for experimentation and construction daily from delusions sound in any kind and in this area, it has no competition.
Off Topic
I know it is human nature to defend your $2500 purchase, but in this case, you are wrong. You bought a knob covered DSP based computer running VST's. Plain and simple.
Admit I'm confused, surprised, by as much vanity, of complacency.
As I said, I do MAO since 1981 (see my studio in 1981; after training at Ircam, I make electroacoustic music since 1971, I work with vst synths and hardware, I pretend to know what a synth to know the difference between a synth and vst and there comes a guy that tell me I am wrong, from what he could read on the Net, while I have the Origin, as I ' hear that I play with it....
Off Topic
Any difference you hear is sound from the VST's is wishful thinking.
Incredible ... The image of the intolerance... Integrism of analog synth hardware...

And even if it's a computer, why not the limit. For me, the most powerful synthesizer that was being built the famous 4X, the digital music station
(look at the photos I had taken the 4C on which Morton Subotnick worked), what interests me is the result, this will leave the machine. And no matter if I wait 30 seconds when it boot, the bottom line is after is what I can do with music. Here is the essential.




Any difference you hear is sound from the VST's is wishful thinking.
Origin Arturia, Yamaha SY 99 & EX5R, Evolver, G2 Engine, Stratocaster Roland midi, AudioSculpt & Open Music of IRCAM, Moog Modular V2, Prophet VS, EMS Avs, Tassman 4, Arturia Brass, Max Msp 5, Fireface 800. http://magelectrique.blogspot.com/

User avatar
mwbassguy
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:32 am
Real name: Justin
Location: nyc
Contact:

Re: How have Arturia Origin sales been?

Post by mwbassguy » Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:57 am

in case you weren't aware, this guy is a pretty big deal.
Isn't this whole thread just a reiteration of the "are VAs just softsynths in a box" thread?
an avatar and a sig make one's posts more easily recognizable.

User avatar
Stab Frenzy
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9723
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:41 pm
Gear: Eurorack, RYTM, Ultranova, many FX
Location: monster island*
Contact:

Re: How have Arturia Origin sales been?

Post by Stab Frenzy » Thu Jul 02, 2009 2:47 am

sensorium wrote:I know it is human nature to defend your $2500 purchase, but in this case, you are wrong. You bought a knob covered DSP based computer running VST's. Plain and simple. The only difference between this and the muse receptor is that the muse runs more vst's that just Arturia. Any difference you hear is sound from the VST's is wishful thinking.
This statement doesn't even make sense, and shows that you don't really understand what you're talking about. A DSP is different to a computer, it's a microprocessor that's optimised for digital signal processing (duh) rather than for general purpose.

Your patronising attitude in the face of something you don't really understand is pretty amusing though. :) Hey, my V-Synth takes up to 45 seconds to boot up, why can't I check my emails on it?

User avatar
OriginalJambo
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:04 am
Gear: Check my sig
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom

Re: How have Arturia Origin sales been?

Post by OriginalJambo » Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:02 am

Stab Frenzy wrote:This statement doesn't even make sense, and shows that you don't really understand what you're talking about.
Sure it does.
A DSP is different to a computer, it's a microprocessor that's optimised for digital signal processing (duh) rather than for general purpose.
Computer
n.


1. A device that computes, especially a programmable electronic machine that performs high-speed mathematical or logical operations or that assembles, stores, correlates, or otherwise processes information.

2. One who computes.


A DSP-driven piece of hardware may not be general purpose, but it still qualifies as a computer given the first definition above. The clue is in both "digital" and "processing".

Regardless his point still stands - it's pretty much VST soft synths in a box with a dedicated control surface and some D/A converters for the outputs. That's not to say it's an overpriced piece of s**t of course, but it is what it is. Code is code.

If you happen to love Arturia's software synths and have the money it's not a bad way to go if you ask me. Sure it's expensive, but so is a Virus Ti, Clavia Nord Wave or a workstation keyboard from the Big Three.

User avatar
Stab Frenzy
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9723
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:41 pm
Gear: Eurorack, RYTM, Ultranova, many FX
Location: monster island*
Contact:

Re: How have Arturia Origin sales been?

Post by Stab Frenzy » Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:24 am

Jambo your ability to inspire facepalms knows no bounds.

Sensorium is comparing the Origin to a computer, you know those things that have little keys with letters on them and a screen and run Microsoft products so you can email your mum.

It's not a computer in a synth shaped box running VSTis any more than a Micron is, or a Virus. Code is code, code is not always VSTis. It's not a receptor.

Arturia have used the algorithms they used in their VSTis and ported them over to run on DSPs instead to make the Origin. I don't own any of their softies or an Origin so I can't tell you what they sound like but I know you can't just take the exact code that runs on one platform and put it into another and expect it to work the same.

User avatar
OriginalJambo
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:04 am
Gear: Check my sig
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom

Re: How have Arturia Origin sales been?

Post by OriginalJambo » Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:53 am

Stab Frenzy wrote:Sensorium is comparing the Origin to a computer, you know those things that have little keys with letters on them and a screen and run Microsoft products so you can email your mum.
I actually think Sensorium's point is that the difference in sound and functionality between the VST software running on a general purpose computer and the firmware running on the DSP chips for the Origin is negligible. Therefore you'd be saving a packet by buying all the VST software, a cheap USB control interface to make it a little more hands on and the end result would be awfully similar.
I don't own any of their softies or an Origin so I can't tell you what they sound like but I know you can't just take the exact code that runs on one platform and put it into another and expect it to work the same.
Sure this may be true but surely it's not too hard to port it. If it was how would we all be able to play the exact same game on a PC/360/PS3? I know from experience that aside from some slight differences (usually to cater for the game console's unique controllers and inferior hardware) these generally play, feel and behave the same. Now obviously games consoles aren't DSP-driven, but they are certainly not what you'd call "general purpose" either exactly - although they are a lot closer to this than they once were! Sure I can send an e-mail from my PS3, but it won't run Excel for me to keep my books.

For a better example just look at KORG's Legacy M1 software synthesiser. The original code was written to be processed by DSP chips on the original M1 which has now been ported to VST/AU etc. formats for use with DAW software packages. Now the general consensus is that aside from the D/A conversion and a few tweaks to the software (making the filters resonant for one) there's virtually no difference in sound and functionality between the two. And there's also Novation's V-Station. It can, and has, been done.

As I said it's not necessarily a bad thing, just don't expect the Origin to sound any different from the VST versions. And why should it, since Arturia pride themselves on the quality of their software emulations. On the upside it's likely to be more reliable running on dedicated firmware and it'll also take a potential load off your computer's CPU since it's handling all the processing. Then there's the analogue outputs which allow you process sounds individually, send them to PA mixers for gigging etc., so there are plenty of benefits.

Bottom line is that it still can be definited as a computer since it processes information. Maybe this definition is severely outdated but who am I to argue with what's in the dictionary. It's not any less a computer than my mobile phone.
Last edited by OriginalJambo on Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:04 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Neonlights84
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 5:28 am
Gear: Moog Minimoog Model D
Behringer DeepMind12
Novation UltraNova
Korg MS20 mini
Korg EMX-1
Band: Winter's Glow
Contact:

Re: How have Arturia Origin sales been?

Post by Neonlights84 » Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:54 am

Murderhausen wrote:A Solaris wouldn't cost a whole lot more and does the same things (although unlicensed) the Origin does and a whole lot more innovative stuff as well.
Well struck. The solaris to me, is the end all be all of digital technology impersonating analog circuitry.
Gear: Novation Ultranova, Korg Monotribe, Korg Electribe EMX-1, Electro-Harmonix Memory Boy, Lexicon MX200.

User avatar
Stab Frenzy
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9723
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:41 pm
Gear: Eurorack, RYTM, Ultranova, many FX
Location: monster island*
Contact:

Re: How have Arturia Origin sales been?

Post by Stab Frenzy » Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:22 am

OriginalJambo wrote:I actually think Sensorium's point is that the difference in sound and functionality between the VST software running on a general purpose computer and the firmware running on the DSP chips for the Origin is negligible.
What he actually said begs to differ.
sensorium wrote:You bought a knob covered DSP based computer running VST's. Plain and simple. The only difference between this and the muse receptor is that the muse runs more vst's that just Arturia. Any difference you hear is sound from the VST's is wishful thinking.
The reason I disagree with him is that it's not running VSTis, they won't run on DSPs. It also has completely different hardware to the Receptor, which is basically a rackmount computer with a motherboard, hard drive, USB support etc. Please don't keep arguing about the definition of 'computer', we both know what we're talking about.

The Origin is running code which is based on the code from their VSTis but has been modified so it runs on this hardware and you're able to change around the architecture of the synth, unlike the VSTis which are fixed. Someone who owns both the plugins and the Origin and has been making music for 30+ years and studied at IRCAM says they sound different. Have you even played an Origin? Has Sensorium? Who are you to tell him he's wrong, based on a not-entirely-accurate opinion of what the synth is and does?

I find this attitude to be particularly amusing coming from a forum where people discuss the subtle differences between the R A Moog Minis and the later ones, and talk about how each 303 or 909 sounds subtly different even though they were manufactured with the goal of all sounding the same.

User avatar
sensorium
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:17 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: How have Arturia Origin sales been?

Post by sensorium » Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:49 am

I realize there are no motherboards etc. stuffed into the Origin's case (ala Hartmann Neuron). My point was that the Origin is nothing more than (and would not sound better) a computer running Arturia's VST's. If they used the same algos (which they say they did) then there would not be a difference in the sound.

User avatar
dracena
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:59 pm
Gear: 2cabinet 100m,Source, MS20, sh09, JP8, OB8,OBSX,106,Performer,DX7, DX21,FB01,CZ101,Maestro, MC4,
909,707,626,Drumtraks,dr110,kpr77
Location: emona-noricum

Re: How have Arturia Origin sales been?

Post by dracena » Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:49 am

Stab Frenzy wrote: I find this attitude to be particularly amusing coming from a forum where people discuss the subtle differences between the R A Moog Minis and the later ones, and talk about how each 303 or 909 sounds subtly different even though they were manufactured with the goal of all sounding the same.
Well put Stab Frenzy!
I've been reading this thread from it's beginning and have been wondering the exact same thing all the way along.

:roll:

User avatar
deb76
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: France, Haute-Normandie
Contact:

Re: How have Arturia Origin sales been?

Post by deb76 » Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:09 am

Stab Frenzy : Thank you for your comments to know the difference.


For Sensorium :
Go into a store, try it in depth, not superficially rather than play cards or to carry ideas made by people who have never heard the true Origin. Then we can discuss.
At the outset, you will hear the difference and that's it, anything to see, with the sound of a VST, both in terms of finesse, dynamics, color.

For those who think that with all VST Arturia can get what the Origin, and OK Gentlemen, show us that. Do it! But for the test to be comparable, I would remind you that you will have to take into account these constraints:
I still recall that on the one hand, there is an assignable joystick three modes at once, there is a 32 step sequencer which allows to have simultaneously three different sequences either on the pitch or other parameter as filter, envelope, etc.. In addition, the Galaxy module that has appeared on Jupiter 8 assignable but is also on the whole of the Origin.

PS : Sorry for my bad English.
Origin Arturia, Yamaha SY 99 & EX5R, Evolver, G2 Engine, Stratocaster Roland midi, AudioSculpt & Open Music of IRCAM, Moog Modular V2, Prophet VS, EMS Avs, Tassman 4, Arturia Brass, Max Msp 5, Fireface 800. http://magelectrique.blogspot.com/

User avatar
23
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:19 am
Gear: TB-303, MC-505, MC-09, V-Synth GT, FR-777, FR-XS, MFB: Synth II, EMU Proteus 2500/CS, FS1R, Supernova II, Fusion 6HD, ER-1 MKII
Band: 23, A23P, Piss Ant
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Contact:

Re: How have Arturia Origin sales been?

Post by 23 » Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:37 am

I don't see where the "Just VSTs" in a box argument keeps coming from.
The arch is completely different from the VSTs, thus the sound beyond individual specific parts can, and is arguably likely, to end up different then any of their individual VSTs.
I would present this same type of argument between say Native Instruments Kontakt and Reaktor.

Can an Origin emulate the VSTs pretty dead on?
Yes.
Can the VSTs emulate the Origin pretty dead on?
This becomes directly dependent on the modules being used in the Origin. The further away from archs of the specific VSTs the Origin gets, the less likely those VSTs are going to be able to emulate an Origin sound.
(this is despite the Origins individual modules being rooted in the same things as various "specific individual" aspects of what comprises the various VST instruments).

I.E. The Origin can be setup to create vocal formant filters (in limited fashion) via numerous BPFs, however, none of the VSTs Aurturia has released can pull off this same feat.
(the difference in arch needs to be taken into account)

Now I'd stop short of saying the individual pieces of the Origin are going to sound any better then the specific parts in any given VST that they correspond to; but stopping short of saying that isn't saying that the Origin is just their VSTs in a box. It's their VSTs in a box broken down into individual modules.
For various reasons, I just don't see that modular nature being that big a deal when paired up with the price of the Origin. (but that even if one owned all the Arturia VSTs, they still wouldn't be able to necessairly emulate an Origin)

nvbrkr
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:14 pm
Gear: An electric piano and analog synths.
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: How have Arturia Origin sales been?

Post by nvbrkr » Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:49 pm

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).

He states:
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.

Deb76, 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.

Post Reply