Not sure about VSTs, but there certainly are examples of this approach, e.g.
A question that is near and dear to my heart. First answer: No! VCV sounds “perfect”. VCV itself doesn’t even change audio going though it in many cases.
But the modules! The are thousands, from hundreds of different developers. Some are very high quality, some are very low quality.
I don’t know if you are old enough to remember the dx-7? The original (depending on your taste) sounded terrible, the dx-7 II sounded really good. Many differences, but both did essentially “the same thing”.
You will have to ask the developer of Dexter about that module in particular. In VCV probably the most popular FM operator is FM-OP from Bogaudio. It uses 8X over-sampling (I believe) to get rid of unwanted FM artifacts. That is the current one does. The original one had no over-sampling of multi-operator patches, but I think that was an accidental omission.
Unfortunately, with VCV modules you don’t really have any reviews to go by, so it’s difficult to know which are going to sound good. In addition there is some personal taste. Some people say they like the artifacts that come out when a module does not remove them. Most people probably don’t like that. And plenty don’t notice or don’t care.
I have found that the modules you see used over and over in people’s videos are also ones that tend to sound good (to me).
If you are deeply concerned about this, you should listen critically to a module before deciding to commit to using it in a patch. It is also easy to see most kinds of digital artifacts on a spectrum analyzer, and there are several good (free) ones.
The signal path in VCV is 32 bit float. It’s possible some modules use 64 internally (as it is sort of more natural in C++), but that would not make much difference in quality or CPU usage. A lot of VCOs in VCV do use 32-bit floating point vectors to make 4 voices take no more CPU than one voice, and that does limit you to 32-bits.
I doubt it? FM (actually almost always phase modulation) is very easy to do. As a dev it’s difficult for me to imagine that someone would implement it all with tables. You would need a ton of them for different C:M ratios, different FM depths, etc…
I love Dexed VST, but it sounds pretty boring without effects, I did try other Vsts that do FM too, and imo these perform way better dry. They sound just like FM-op or Kitchen sink here in VCV. I have a Digitone too, but imo it has quite a unique sound compared to some other FM stuff. Btw Sunvox will soon get a new FM5 module, i’ll be curious to try it and see what i can get with it .
Dexed is super cool, it opens DX7 patches, you can build crazy cool sounds on it, it’s complex . But i hate how it sounds dry, i can’t stand it without at least some delay or reverb. I don’t have that “problem” with any other of my Free vsts.
Shameless Plug: If you like FM (I do as well, and own a digitone too)… I rebuilt the FM Synth Engine of the digitone in VCV: Mo's sphere of random patches / music - #15 by mosphaere
Still waiting on some refinements from @Squinky.Labs since I would like to replace the FM-Ops with Kitchen Sinks (because of build-in folding) - but it works well, and you can get a ton of sounds from it, which are actually very close to the digitone.
On.Topic: I agree with @Olival_Clanaro - the better the effects, especially reverb, the better the sounds of a VST. I never use any build-in effects, they are often not up to stand-alone hardware or software units. And a good delay or chorus or reverb (!) has a lot to do with a good overall sound. We have the luxury of plateau, which is a very versatile and usable reverb in VCV. The more modules you find for your style of music, the better the combination of them will be in VCV. In a VST you are limited to the choices of the developers. Nice sounding VCO but not so great filter? Not a problem in VCV.
Ah, maybe it is a sample rate issue: How might I run a particular VSTi at a higher sample rate than my main project? : Reaper (reddit.com)
Are you sure this isn’t some basic issue like volume differences? In modular systems it’s a convention the oscillator modules output at full volume, but in VST plugins the developers might have reduced the output level by default to accommodate playing chords, for example. (The host applications also often have a default pan law that can reduce the output levels.)
There is no technical reason as such why VST plugins and modular synthesis modules would sound any different. Both can run the exact same code.
Good vcv plugins often run at a higher internal sample rate.
They can run the same code, but usually they don’t. You can easily measure the differences, and people post all kinds of comparisons in other communities.
The original poster here didn’t post any sound examples or measurements. And I have no agenda for or against either VST plugins or modular synthesis modules. If there are differences, it would certainly be interesting to have some real evidence.
Oh, for sure. The claim I usually hear is “vcv doesn’t sound as good as X”. It is true this post is more specific. But I hear the more general one all the time.
The original poster’s point was anyway that “modular synthesis” sounds better than VST plugins. But no context was provided for that claim. No sound examples, no measurements, nothing that could actually be reproduced by people in order to test it.
cherry audio uses 64bit floating point: What’s the audio quality of Voltage Modular? - Cherry Audio LLC (kayako.com)
For some reason I thought VCV did also, though there may be other differences. I suspect its VCV’s sample rate that I am attracted to.
64 bits makes absolutely no difference. I have studied this quite a bit. Vcv sample rate is fully adjustable.it’s true that cherry (I think it’s that one?) runs everything at 96k, which can make bad plugins sound better, but is generally not consider a great solution. There are videos about that issue.
Yes, but I stand corrected, and I have been able to improve my skill at using or selecting said synths, so a worth while discussion any who. IMO 64 bits do make a difference in certain types of repeated processing and or filtering situations. EG if you sample at 96k in a feedback loop then band pass filter you are working with much less of the 64 bit range than you might think. Not that it isn’t possible to get good sounds with 32bit, but the number of configurations that are possible increase the higher sample rate and bit depth. That is my opinion. Though yes, limits otherwise.
It’s floating point. Huge, huge dynamic range. Even at -100 db there is an enormous dynamic range in 32 float.
Bear with my madness here, but I have a theory about why I find that modulars DO sound better TO ME. It is entirely subjective and dependent on my frame of reference.
When software modulars came along it completely changed the way I made music/experimented with audio. Modulars are always on. When I make music with them it always begins for me with the drone. I get a sound going and I am always listening to it. The rests, silences, melodies and harmonies come later (if at all!). When I used a DAW most of the time I was not listening to the sound. The transport was stopped and I was fiddling about looking for a vst, previewing presets, fiddling with sticking notes in the piano roll, drawing automation, etc etc. So now, when I make sounds/music, I hear what I am making constantly. I am happier and no longer frustrated with the software and things just sound better for reasons that go beyond the sound itself.
There can certainly be objective differences, or variations, which Bruce has explained in detail, but I think a lot of it, for ME, just comes out of the experience of creating everything from scratch every time and ‘deep’ listening to what I am hearing and how I am changing that sound.
That makes a lot of sense to me!
That’s why I always have a coffee mug pressing keys on my Midi controller with Serum open in one channel.