From Ted Chapman Sent Wed, Feb 25th 2004, 00:11
From Ted Chapman Sent Wed, Feb 25th 2004, 00:11
> My real question is why make the Mini and Modular separate products? > I don't hear anything that particularly distinguishes those two > emulations from each other, which would leave it a matter of interface > alone. 2 good reasons I could think of. 1. $329 is a pretty high price-point if all I need is a mini sound. While $199 is still a bit high for a software synth, it's more appealing if you're just looking for the mini sound and don't need the extra features of the modular. 2. With a reduced total feature set, it's possible to write a smaller and less complex code package. That represents significant decreases in QA and development costs, particularly the QA costs. It also allows a smaller ultimate client footprint which is probably appealing if someone isn't looking for the full-blown modular complexity. I see this about the same as the difference between a physical mini and a physical modular, although in this case the comparable price disparity makes the modular a more compelling option. As for sound, it definitely demos better than the mini-clone available in my Pulsar SFP setup. Actually, I really wish all the Arturia products could leverage my Pulsar DSPs and operate directly within the SFP environment. I'd love to combine the Pulsar Modular III with the Arturia Modular modules in my virtual studio as easily as I can combine CMS, Doepfer and Roland 100m modules in my physical studio. It can be done using a lot of input/output links but it definitely isn't easy or intuitive. On the same line, I wish Clavia would offer a pulsar plugin version of the Nord Modular, especially since they both run on the same SHARC DSP. =====