.... This Comment is for me (or everyone) so I/we can go back & forth between Patches & Sources 🥸 Patch 1 2:45 A 3:09 B Patch 2 3:34 A 3:49 B Patch 3 4:05 A 4:22 B Patch 4 4:38 A 4:51 B Patch 5 5:03 A 5:21 B
I keep getting drawn back to this synth in my V Collection, as there is a vintage character that sounds so good. I can understand why John Carpenter used this for his film scores.
Yeah the older SQ8L VSTi is much closer to the SQ80 then the SQ80V , unfortunately it’s abandoned, win32 bit and not automate-able . It was however so damn close I ran them in overflow mode ( poly chained to my SQ80 ) and wouldn’t ever notice the difference. BTW you can or can have the original battery replaced with a button cell battery holder so your not doing this again in 10 yrs ...if the previous owner didn’t already . Cheers
I own both the SQ80 V and an actual Ensoniq ESQ-1. They are both fantastic! I want to give a shout out to Arturia for their excellent on-screen tutorial. By the time you get done with that you'll have a good idea of all the functions. That actually helped me understand the ESQ-1, whose manual is 217 pages. That's quite a lot more to go through.
Having worked as a beta tester on the SQ80V it's really fun to do this. I do not have (played) an SQ80 but do have the ESQ-1 which sound a bit different so I can not compare them live. My guess for the hardware is: A, B, B, A, A Thanks for making this!
Haha - well actually it does seem like your ear was picking up the difference but you just guessed in the opposite direction. I think plugin companies have been wise to err to the side of darker when it comes to filter emulation because it will sound more "analog" lol - and that might have thrown your ears off that the SQ-80 is actually brighter.
I LOVE the SQ80v, and i also love the ESQ-1/SQ-80. I have two ESQ-1s right now, they're an integral part of our sound, so i was really pleased when Arturia did this. The software and hardware both have their place, especially with that lovely Ensoniq keybed. I also have the VFX-SD and an EPS16+, and won't be selling any of them anytime soon.
The best way to get this plugin is waiting for a 50% off for the entire V Collection which Arturia seem to do at least twice a year. That said, the Arturia version of this is what inspired me to pick up an ESQ-1, and then an SQ80 and I agree it's worth owning in hardware - especially for the poly aftertouch keybed of the SQ80 if you don't have a poly aftertouch controller. One massive advantage of the software over the hardware is the ability to map any parameter (eg: filter cutoff/res) to a controller and modulate it manually on held notes. On the hardware parameters changed via controller don't get picked up until you play the next note, with the exception of if you map it to the mod wheel/AT.
That is a huge advantage of the software! And honestly everything you can do with it makes it pretty incredible. I love the analog filter but it's total synth geekery to even be able to notice the difference
Out of space.SQ-80V is it for me. Polyphonic after touch is seductive though but I have it with the Hydrasynth and can MPE it to the VST hopefully. Love your work.
I have both. I prefer the software sound and versatility especially dealing with it as a plugin but to just sit on the Sq80 to tweak patches and lay down some ideas on its sequencer its marvelous. It's the software I learned on. When I was 20 I bought an ESQ-1 when they first came out and I lived and breathed it. I still think that sounds and feels better than the 80. I'm still not sure why I sold it :(
@@VultureCulture I have both, and I hope to do a video later this year that compares the same patches from both instruments. By all accounts from what I've been able to research, the ESQ and the SQ-80 have identical filters, but the SQ-80 has a brighter final output. I can't verify that though, so hopefully the video that I'll hopefully make will shed some light!
Btw…no one takes into consideration that line in pre also adds a sound to the hardware…plugins should be played through the same line amp in order to sound the same!
I hear the difference, although it is very subtle. My preassumtion was that hardware would have less repetitive texture and probably less presence due to the influence of a 30-year old analog output amplifier. From what I've heard, I'd say AAABA is hardware, and that is what I'd choose to use in the mix.
Damn i got it right, and im sitting on the floor drinking coffee, listening to it on my phone. 😅 idk how i knew, because i never owned one. I do have arturia V collection, but the original has a certain sound.
soldering in a little cr2032 coin cell battery holder by its 2 wires (red and black = positive and negative) to the points on the board where you clipped the old lithium battery out takes MAYBE 2 minutes, not even. easiest thing in the world
I guessed: BABAB Only 2 out of 5, but I'll say in my defense that I tossed in my guesses as a non-owner but distant admirer of the gear and having the SQL8 32-bit freeware VST. I was slapping my forehead on #4 because I guessed hardware due to the attack sounding punchier. Since I don't own the original hardware, and I was so close to guessing #4 correctly because I am aware of how punchy software envelopes can be (yes, I too preferred the software for that bassline). I would even have a difficult time deciding for or against the hardware ownership. On one hand, it seems like an instrument that lends itself well to a plug-in setting due to how its architecture is chameleon like for button mashing instead of a platform of sliders and twirly-twirlies. On the other hand, you have tactile interactivity that includes a great keyboard WITH aftertouch (even on single notes, if I'm not mistaken), and that elusive analog filter (and the UI does actually make sense; a lot quicker sense than the menu-dive-y DX-7). I'll say this, if I had a near-kin who gave me one that was a dust-collector in an attic, I would keep it for sure -- but then again, that "I'd-keep-it" list is quite ponderous. May I ask what that ambient music was in the background of your talking? That brassy patch rising out of the melancholic dawn was glorious. Thanks, this video was both entertaining and informative.
Well thought-out comment! 👏 I agree with your points. I don't think it makes any sense to not be satisfied by the plug-in - it's amazingly close. But like you said, if you have one / love ancient machines it can be cool to get that extra little grit / character. The song is just something I wrote for this video with the Vangelis for Omnisphere soundbank by my boi Luftrum.
I have an ENSONIQ ESQ-M, the rack based version, which I love very much. I just loaded the sysexes from the hardware to the software today before I found this video... and holy moly. The emulation is so nice. Unfortunately renders my hardware redundant :(
It is very very close, but at least comparing the filters at high resonance I could definitely tell a difference between the two. Could just be my SQ-80 is not calibrated correctly though lol
I made notes of which ones I thought were the hardware. I had B, B, A, B, A. So I guess I got the second one wrong. I also made notes of which sound I preferred. After learning the results, it turns out I preferred the hardware on examples 1, 3, 5. I preferred the software on 2, 4. But the Arturia product is really close to the original, and as stated in the video, some of these patches could possibly be tweaked to sound even closer to the hardware. After hearing this I'd say the raw waves on the soft synth still lack some of the filth from the OG's converters. Not sure if (like some Arturia V synths) the SQ80-V has a setting that allows you to toggle the quality of the converters between original and clean, and if such a setting exists, how it was set on the plugin. The Arturia adds some very cool new features, including curated onboard fx, transwaves from other Ensoniq synths, and different envelope modes (including simplified ADSR and complexified envelopes you can draw. It sounds great, and it is an excellent value! (But I'm keeping my SQ-80, thanks very much)
I agree with all of that. Arturia should be proud of how great of a recreation they made, but for those of us with the original hardware, there's still a little magic left in the circuits.
1. A - original (more clear) 2. A - original (i hear saturation effect) 3. A - original (more details in hf) 4. A - original (more punchy) 5. A - original (more details)
I thought A,B,A,B,A and I own a vintage SQ. However, there were certain circumstances where I thought I preferred the sound of what I THOUGHT was the software, so to be so turned around is actually not so bad considering I have a vintage unit lol. TBH, I’ve not dug that deeply into the SQ since getting it a few years back. This explains my being unfamiliar with the sound as much as I am.
My Guesses: A, B, B, B, A My Observations: Patch 1 My Choice 'A' Notes: 'A' Sounds considerably darker, 'B' seems to have some degradation in Audio, this makes me think 'maybe' Hardware IS actually 'B' *Some Hair Follicle Loss on this one Patch 2 My Choice 'B' Notes: 'B' is oh so slightly Darker .. But these guys are so similar *Decision made only after multiple A/B ing (Is only then that I could really hear 'The Darkness') Patch 3 My Choice 'B' Notes: Again 'B' is slightly Darker .. But again both are so similar Patch 4 My Choice 'B' 'B' almost sounds like a Slightly Lower/Glorious Bit Rate Patch 5 My Choice 'A' 'A' sounds Darker, 'B' sounds a little fuller
I think you've had the closest guesses so far! The filter is implemented such that it is slightly darker - not a terrible choice but a difference nonetheless. Also, nothing to say my SQ-80 is actually right, old parts can waver significantly, even though I have had her checked out.
I paused and believe that the original hardware is version B. On some of the patches A just sounds thinner and in some cases perhaps has a different velocity curve altogether. I'm trying to be brave haha but I'm probably wrong lol. Back to the video! EDIT: After you said there's a combination of possibilities I now know I blew it HAHA Edit #2: In my defense I have only ever owned soft synths. Sad but true, but they are getting better!
There's nothing wrong with soft synths - Omnisphere is still my favorite synth of all time. I think the biggest difference was the first example and version B was the hardware - it just sounded fuller, more compressed and saturated. So maybe your ear heard that and was like "okay B it is" lol
@@VultureCulture I'll take it! I always have fun regardless. Great comparison video! I do remember the Ensoniq brand growing up but if I remember correctly they were not as sought after as Korg, Yamaha, or even as well known as Casio. At least not in my small reality bubble of the 80's and 90's as a military brat. It's good to see people like yourself shinning the light on some lesser known synths.
It's true! Ensoniq never really had the prestige the other big brands, ARP, Sequential, Moog, Yamaha and Roland had. I think it's because their products were competitively priced, and they never had a big, knobby synth that's considered a classic. Which is a shame, because the SQ-80 sounds incredible, it really is their magnum opus.
Love your channel mate, you're so dark 👍 I know I'll be called a Troll but really no one can really tell the difference and let's face it, it's just a guess. It's like guitars and I have some really expensive guitars but the player makes the sound. When you are on stage who the hell could tell what is playing eg a synth, software, even a tape. Look I love synths and would kill for a Juno 6, I have a Rev 2 so I'm not bagging synths in any way. There's a youtube clip where the guy says he will play the real guitar and the software, and like you did pick the difference. Now people were arguing over the Hardware and the software, but the funny thing was he only used the software LOL. Like I said great video, and I'm not trying to upset anyone it's just my opinion.
I agree with all of that. I have some really expensive pieces of gear from the 80's but ultimately I don't believe it contributes to the sound in any great way. It's great if gear inspires you but I've always been more inspired by sound anyways. Thank you for your comment! Hope to see you during a live stream, this week I'm doing the Chroma Polaris ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Gd-ztitqRQk.html (Wednesdays at 9 est)
It's definitely a horses for courses sort of situation. I have an original MS20 and a software version. Cost aside, there is definitely a change in workflow for me; but yeah software is just as great as hardware. When it comes to a definite difference, we can talk about the Mirage (which I saw you have there). Sure, you can drop a bit crush/sample rate reduction effect; but you're missing out on the filter and the aliasing.
@@VultureCulture dac emulation? Very interesting. I've heard the TAL sampler is very reminiscent of the Akai S612, so that makes me consider getting the two of them.
I find that Arturia doesn't make the most accurate emulators. They are close but U-he or even cherry audio emulators are much much closer to the originals. It's the same story with Arturia prophet 5 and OBX.
I really would like to do a shoot-out between a vintage synth, arturia, cherry and U-he to see what works and what doesn't. For what it's worth I'm extremely impressed by SQ80V but less so with some of their other plugins.
Synth A in the first example sounds like a joke. If that's your SQ-80, I suggest it needs a tech service. I own ESQ-1 and SQ-80m (module) and they don't sound so poor.
Well I'm back... I listened on phone at first and to my surprise I couldn't tell... Fyi I owned a ESQ1 which is 90% same... Anyways moved to better speakers and I agree the first one was the only one I could truly tell a difference on but in a deep way... I would have liked to hear more synth deep bass pads and or strings comparisons... To me this is where I feel vst still has some distance to go... And further add a hardware reverb vs a digital reverb :). And yes ensoniq esq and sq80 are outstanding and versatile
They're incredibly similar - I don't know if the difference is noticeable to anyone but synth nerds listening to the isolated synth part through great speakers lol
@@VultureCulture Looking at the comments it seems I only got one right guessing which was the hardware synth haha. I also found your video right after playing with the Arturia SQ80 for about an hour so maybe my ears were used to its frequencies and tones etc. Man, Arturia did a great a great job with emulating classic synth sounds. Great video btw!
They really did! In the video I was a little too hard on them because there is a subtle difference in the filter's juiciness. But I wouldn't be surprised if that's just my synth being out of calibration. The SQ80 V is a triumph
@@VultureCulture Yes! From what you've played and what I've seen from other videos; this synth in its analog form is incredible. I've had the Arturia pack for about about a year now and I admit I ignored the sq80 because I thought it was just another 80's generic synth.(to be fair it's got the prophet 5 and a mini Moog vsts) But now Ive learned of it's awesome capablites. Whether digital or analog its revolutionary sounds live on!
To me Arturia plugins sound very boring, unpleasing to ear and the presets of plugins are complete crap. Roland does much better work both in sound modeling and sound design, though you can't buy emulations of anything other than Roland from Roland.
Thank you for the idea for this video! 🙏 And yes - for all intents and purposes once you put it in a mix and it's compressed to mp3 the differences will disappear
@@VultureCulture Yes, but the difference between a hardware synth and a modern VST is not about sound quality (VSTs are just as good and even better), but about form-factor. Synthesizer is a musical instrument to which you feel emotional and tactile attraction, it inspires to play and create.
Trust me - the VST is easier to program lol. I'll give you that with something like a one-knob per function synth, and for what it's worth the SQ-80 does have a great layout for what they were working with budget wise, but it is not as easy to program as the software.
