The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Synths for sale     Latest  Trending
For Moog Bass: Monark, Diva, or Trillian?
Old 12th October 2013
  #1
Lives for gear
 
soultrane's Avatar
For Moog Bass: Monark, Diva, or Trillian?

Any opinions?

Of the three, Diva is the only one I've heard and I love it but it eats up the resources;

I guess the question is, are the Trillian Moog basses up to snuff with Monark and Diva?

If so, and if I get the added benefit of getting a good acoustic upright and a couple good electrics, it might be the solution for bass...

How are the Trillian synth basses? (Would need to be a big improvement over Trilogy, which I had but never used)
Old 13th October 2013
  #2
Lives for gear
 

Would Arturia's Moog be any good at all?
Old 13th October 2013
  #3
I have Arturia's Mini V and Diva. Diva overall is a much better instrument and can do way more, but the Arturia has it's own sound and uses. They do not sound alike a whole lot comparing Moog/Moog. I feel like whenever this comes up, Minimonsta gets the most love. So if it is Moog bass only that you want, you may want to check that out. I haven't used Trillian, but it is sample based, no? Diva is a bit of a hog, but what newer plug-ins are not? That issue is overhyped IMO. There is a new update coming with yet another emulation, and likely better CPU efficiancy. Write your bass line, set it on Divine, bounce it down, and move on. I don't think Diva is the best Moog, or the best Juno (Tal-U-No-Lx), or the best........but when you start mixing OSC and filters and envelopes, it does a lot others can't do. I can't see a reason why anyone shouldn't have it.
Old 13th October 2013
  #4
Monark for me personally
Old 13th October 2013
  #5
Ham
Lives for gear
 
Ham's Avatar
 

I just bought a moog sub phatty after having used all three of those soft synths. Monark is the closest for me.
Old 13th October 2013
  #6
Lives for gear
For straight up moog i go monark. Funny cause to me its the closest one, but least talked about on these forums. Nothing has come close accept for diva, but diva does a lot of other things and is crazy cpu hungry. With diva you def have to bounce down or freeze track. Monark is mot nearly as cpu hungry and i can run several instances even on an older mac with no issues. Plus its very simple for getting a moog bass sound with an easy interface.
Old 13th October 2013
  #7
Lives for gear
 

I just cant come up Monark - horses for courses. Trillian is a no-brainer for synth/bass sounds. I use it some way in nearly every track
Old 13th October 2013
  #8
Gear Maniac
 
Illustrious's Avatar
 

I sold my Minitaur after getting Monark, it's good enough for me.
Old 19th October 2013
  #9
Lives for gear
 
CoolColJ's Avatar
 

When I had a Minimoog, my SH2 could sound quite similar, but slightly different and a little thinner and more stable sounding

Well Monark is by far the closest thing to sound like my Sh2 in the box

Even the speed and snap of the envelopes is uncanny
The trick is not to abuse the overload and keep the oscillators 75% or lower in volume in the mixer section

It reminds me more of my Minimoog than Diva ever did. Diva just sounds too rubbery and not snappy enough, and the oscillators are a bit hard sounding, while also being "dull" and more plastic.
Diva's oscillators also don't blend and detune like an analog synth does, Monark's does.

guess which is which

Just 2 detuned sawtooth oscillators
Attached Files

CCJ_SH2 vs Monark_.mp3 (1.20 MB, 9034 views)

Old 19th October 2013
  #10
Lives for gear
 

None of the above.

They don't even come close to the real hardware. I'd say buy a (second hand) Minitaur.
Old 19th October 2013
  #11
Lives for gear
 
nectarios's Avatar
 

Ok, I love and own lots of hardware, use my Moog Slim Phatty and Minitaur like there is no tomorrow but Monark is damn close. I would not be able to tell the difference in a mix and I consider my self pretty "anal" with sound.

Old 19th October 2013
  #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolColJ View Post

guess which is which

Just 2 detuned sawtooth oscillators
interesting test - I too like Monark (and used to have an SH2 breifly but swapped it for a Source)

Is the first one Monark?
Old 19th October 2013
  #13
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthio View Post
They don't even come close to the real hardware.
That's weird, every test I've done with the original next to the emulation gets pretty dang close. Of course it means that you have to respect the exact limitations of the originals w.r.t. modulation and routing but still.

Perhaps we estimate distances differently.

CoolColJ: I am hoping for a Christmas discount on the K9 upgrade. Thanks for the test - first one is Monark?.
Old 19th October 2013
  #14
Lives for gear
 
CoolColJ's Avatar
 

Hey guys, the first one is the SH2 - which probably needs a recap, <60db of signal to noise ratio :p
I also didn't use my Lynx Hilo for capture, just the Motu 24 I/O which is not as clean, and has slightly less bottom end.

tweaking the filter - I assigned Monark's to my controller's 2nd mod wheel.
More resonance here.
Considering Monark has an emulation of a ladder filter vs the Sh2's Roland filter, I'm surprised how similar they sound even when near self oscillation.
Listen to how well Monark's oscillators detune and blend. With Diva, it blends more like sampled Waveforms... with some notes phasing and some getting much louder etc

And a few more of the Sh2 vs the Minimoog I did ages ago.

edit - in person I still prefer the SH2 when playing both, there is still something more organic about it, even going through the Motu 24 I/O at 44.1 khz
And Monark is brighter than the SH2, and the SH2 is in turn brighter than my Minimoog
Attached Files

CCJ_SH2 vs Monark2 - SH2.mp3 (1.16 MB, 8636 views)

CCJ_SH2 vs Monark2 - Monark.mp3 (1.69 MB, 8582 views)

CCJ_Minimoog_vs_SH2_DualVCO.mp3 (231.4 KB, 7516 views)

Old 19th October 2013
  #15
Nig
Gear Head
Never tried Monark but own the others.

So between Diva and Trilian I would say Diva cause it models the oscillators, filters and envelopes of a Moog.

Trilian has just various samples from Moog synths. Not a bad thing but for straight up emulation it's not the best choose IMO. It is a great plugin though
Old 19th October 2013
  #16
Lives for gear
 

Hmm maybe this could be operator error. Might try Monark again. In filter types the only differnce in filters is the distortions from the different modes - transistor from the ladder ect. Not sure of the filter topology of the SH but many have very similar distortions hence why these two can sound so similar.
Old 20th October 2013
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Kindred's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EDGEK8D View Post
I have Arturia's Mini V and Diva. Diva overall is a much better instrument and can do way more, but the Arturia has it's own sound and uses. They do not sound alike a whole lot comparing Moog/Moog. I feel like whenever this comes up, Minimonsta gets the most love. So if it is Moog bass only that you want, you may want to check that out. I haven't used Trillian, but it is sample based, no? Diva is a bit of a hog, but what newer plug-ins are not? That issue is overhyped IMO. There is a new update coming with yet another emulation, and likely better CPU efficiancy. Write your bass line, set it on Divine, bounce it down, and move on. I don't think Diva is the best Moog, or the best Juno (Tal-U-No-Lx), or the best........but when you start mixing OSC and filters and envelopes, it does a lot others can't do. I can't see a reason why anyone shouldn't have it.
^ this

Instinctively I would say that Moogs are one instrument that would be tough to get right as a soft-synth. But a lot of why I love Moogs is probably placebo - that are so tactile - just play around with the filter knob and it is an instant smile. I wouldn't be surprised if I failed a blind test between a real Moog and Diva or Monark.

The Arturia one didn't sound remotely like a Moog to me - a really nice synth, but not very Moog-esque - especially the subosc from memory.

Put another way, I have limitless faith in Diva, so I am sure in the right hands it could get eerily close to whatever you want to get in terms of moog-y sounds.
Old 20th October 2013
  #18
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolColJ View Post
And a few more of the Sh2 vs the Minimoog I did ages ago.

edit - in person I still prefer the SH2 when playing both, there is still something more organic about it, even going through the Motu 24 I/O at 44.1 khz
And Monark is brighter than the SH2, and the SH2 is in turn brighter than my Minimoog
Thanks for the demos. Its interesting to hear some differences...for my ears - the SH2 has more punch esp in the low mids - and slightly sweeter sounding esp when you open the filter...but they are quite close. tbh Im slightly disappointed because I thought Monark was pretty punchy for software and its not quite SH2 but still - not bad...SH2 is reknown for being good on bass...The NI Monark Minimoog samples were impressive - but they were not played phrases like your examples...When I get my Source back I may do some A/B with Diva and Monark to see for myself if its worth having that money invested there...
Old 20th October 2013
  #19
Lives for gear
 
CoolColJ's Avatar
 

Well when I run Monark through the Minimoog line amp program in Nebula, from one of AlexB's libraries, it gets much closer. Adds that lower mid thump back in
Old 20th October 2013
  #20
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
Monark, for sure.
Old 20th October 2013
  #21
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolColJ View Post
Well when I run Monark through the Minimoog line amp program in Nebula, from one of AlexB's libraries, it gets much closer. Adds that lower mid thump back in
is that the STN one?
Old 20th October 2013
  #22
I think Monark is probably the closest to the authentic Moog bass, but Diva also gives a rather authentic sound and is much more flexible overall.
Old 20th October 2013
  #23
Lives for gear
 
CoolColJ's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
is that the STN one?
This one - which has the filters and line amps as well from the Minimoog, MS20 and a Yamaha analog synth. The MS20 Line amp adds a lot of thickness and bottom end as well!
AlexB Audio Engineering by Alessandro Boschi - VSF Vintage Synth Filters - Nebula Programs

My test - Jupiter 8 going into Cytomic "the Drop" MS20 filter
The same, but then going into the AlexB MS20 Nebula Line amp


And also the Monark clip from above processed with the Nebula VSF Minimoog filter, and Line amp.
Not a major difference, but it does sound sweeter
edit - added one running through the MS20 Line amp
Attached Files

CCJ_JP8_theDrop.mp3 (1.33 MB, 7495 views)

CCJ_JP8_theDrop_Nebula.mp3 (1.33 MB, 7424 views)

CCJ_Monark - NEBULA_MoogLineamp.mp3 (1.68 MB, 8018 views)

CCJ_Monark - NEBULA_MoogFilter.mp3 (1.68 MB, 7933 views)

CCJ_Monark - NEBULA_MS20Lineamp.mp3 (1.68 MB, 7905 views)

Old 20th October 2013
  #24
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolColJ View Post
This one - which has the filters and lin amps as well from the Minimoog, MS20 and a Yamaha analog synth. The MS20 Line amp adds a lot of thickness and bottom end as well!
AlexB Audio Engineering by Alessandro Boschi - VSF Vintage Synth Filters - Nebula Programs

My test - Jupiter 8 going into Cytomic "the Drop" MS20 filter
The same, but then going into the AlexB MS20 Nebula Line amp


And also the Monark clip from above processed with the Nebula VSF Minimoog filter, and Line amp.
Not a major difference, but it does sound sweeter
edit - added one running through the MS20 Line amp
cool do you have the Monark without any Nebula?
Old 20th October 2013
  #25
Lives for gear
 
CoolColJ's Avatar
 

Its the same clip vs the SH2 one, further up
Old 21st October 2013
  #26
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolColJ View Post
Its the same clip vs the SH2 one, further up
Col have you tried doing ABX tests on the Nebula results? The difference can be so marginal...Im finding it very difficult to get consistent results particularly for the Monark samples...

Given your trove of high end gear I sometimes wonder why you bother with Nebula as its such a pain in the arse...and the difference can be so marginal...there is the odd preset I like..I found the free apex tape program to soften the highs of Monark quite nicely...but sometimes I wonder if its worth the effort...I like it for EQ and Tape mainly...the console and Pre...not sure worth the effort...
Old 21st October 2013
  #27
Lives for gear
 
CoolColJ's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
Col have you tried doing ABX tests on the Nebula results? The difference can be so marginal...Im finding it very difficult to get consistent results particularly for the Monark samples...

Given your trove of high end gear I sometimes wonder why you bother with Nebula as its such a pain in the arse...and the difference can be so marginal...there is the odd preset I like..I found the free apex tape program to soften the highs of Monark quite nicely...but sometimes I wonder if its worth the effort...I like it for EQ and Tape mainly...the console and Pre...not sure worth the effort...
Never done an ABX, but I can hear what Nebula does, I do have good ears and SM9 monitors
I was able to tell difference between the Motu 828 mk2 internal vs external clocked audio files that NMS sent me blind, as well as correctly label which was which, in the Hilo ADC vs the 828mk2 ADC clocked from Hilo audio files he also sent me

I can hear the harmonic distortion quite easily. To me it's quite a large difference. Maybe I'm listening to different things most people are - a curse or a blessing I don't know
Maybe a curse as most music are in the box these days, and my ears do not like the flat/dead sound, and yes it can ruin a good track to me :/

I use Nebula because I like all the various colours I can get, even when using analog synths, they still enhance the sound.
I don't put Nebula on every channel like some do, it's mostly on selected bits and busses or global mix.
Don't know why people find it a pain to use TBH - it's fairly streamlined to me now - load up one of the custom load out Nebula VST (ie Tape only, preamp only) select program and go
If anything it saves much time when mixing because the sound is already rich, fat and warm. And it gels together nicely. I don't tend to EQ much if any.

All the subtle harmonic distortions do add up to a greater whole by the time final mix is done and all the sounds are piled onto each other. It's what allows the whole thing to glue together, yet still stay separated with depth. Otherwise it's all flat, samey and fighting for the same mix space
Old 21st October 2013
  #28
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolColJ View Post
Never done an ABX, but I can hear what Nebula does, I do have good ears and SM9 monitors
I was able to tell difference between the Motu 828 mk2 internal vs external clocked audio files that NMS sent me blind, as well as correctly label which was which, in the Hilo ADC vs the 828mk2 ADC clocked from Hilo audio files he also sent me

I can hear the harmonic distortion quite easily. To me it's quite a large difference. Maybe I'm listening to different things most people are - a curse or a blessing I don't know
Maybe a curse as most music are in the box these days, and my ears do not like the flat/dead sound, and yes it can ruin a good track to me :/

I use Nebula because I like all the various colours I can get, even when using analog synths, they still enhance the sound.
I don't put Nebula on every channel like some do, it's mostly on selected bits and busses or global mix.
Don't know why people find it a pain to use TBH - it's fairly streamlined to me now - load up one of the custom load out Nebula VST (ie Tape only, preamp only) select program and go
If anything it saves much time when mixing because the sound is already rich, fat and warm. And it gels together nicely. I don't tend to EQ much if any.

All the subtle harmonic distortions do add up to a greater whole by the time final mix is done and all the sounds are piled onto each other. It's what allows the whole thing to glue together, yet still stay separated with depth. Otherwise it's all flat, samey and fighting for the same mix space
its a bloody curse I tell you - the way things are going...the shift towards ITB and the ease of production - the close emulations get - the more seductive they become which instils temptation to take convenience over absolute quality of sound...

of course Ill take your word for it re ABX although IMO its good to take the challenge every now and then because it can shift the outlook sometimes...

But I hear some artefacts in that Korg example on the Monark?
Old 21st October 2013
  #29
Lives for gear
 

I've never felt the instant gratification from software that I get from a real Moog.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nectarios View Post
Ok, I love and own lots of hardware, use my Moog Slim Phatty and Minitaur like there is no tomorrow but Monark is damn close. I would not be able to tell the difference in a mix and I consider my self pretty "anal" with sound.

Thanks for posting!

There most certainly is a difference.

The second is Monark.
Old 21st October 2013
  #30
Lives for gear
Monark vs sh2 clip: the 2nd one doesn't have as much snap. The first one is the sh2.

I just got an sh9, lovvvvin it.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump