When you do a reply there is an “up arrow” in the top menu
1 Like
Thanks, that’s quite simple … here we go …
Kit_1_AK_Dark_Spooky_01.syx (2.6 KB)
I hope that I have dumped it correctly … have fun 
The sound file was recorded in polyphonic mode with a Cmin chord.
1 Like
You can drag and drop onto the reply as well, I’ve found it works with mp3’s up to I think 10MB…
3 Likes
thanks!
I don’t believe that. One osc can be enough for a good pad.
So, I bounced some comparisons down to get to the bottom of things.
In each clip below it’s an A minor chord playing one triangle oscillator. First one is the A4, then a generated Triangle wave, and finally the Jupiter 8 sample from Omnisphere. I did my absolute best to normalise levels using a meter.
OSC TEST
First clip is with all filters disengaged. On the A4 that is F2 on the default setting and F1 fully open and resonance turned off. I know res 25 is supposed to be flattest, but to my ears you get more body with no res at all.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Ki-kUOxu0Lqmn9bGY4YJpqU7sKucfVPw
I looked at the spectrum for this and, contrary to what I thought, there is approx. the same low mid content for all of them. The A4 is buzzier and the JP8 is more saw-like, but in terms of “body”, there isn’t much difference to my ears.
FILTER TEST
Next I tried to test the filter. On ther A4 I set F1 to 64, again with no res. I used Omni’s most bog standard LP12 filter to avoid any enhancements, with no resonance, and again I did my best with the spectrum analyser to match cutoff values. I admit this is really not easy but I think you’ll agree that, tonally, they are close enough.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1KjTVORZ3cmvKZnkdE-P3lakme64qhpd_
Frequency-wise this time there was slightly more thickness on the JP8 in the low mids, but again it’s a small difference.
The most notable thing is that the level of the A4 completely fell off a cliff. It will be more apparent if you loop the clip because it starts with the A4. Again, I haven’t changed anything here except the Filter cutoff.
This is kind of what I’ve been getting at from the start, but based on this unscientific test, the (triangle) oscillator isn’t at fault, it’s Filter 1. I don’t know enough about this stuff in truth but a simple LP12 filter set to 50% cutoff should not behave like this.
1 Like
Wait … filter 1 is a 4-pole LP and this is 24 dB/Oct.
AFAIK Jupiter 8 has both, 12 and 24 dB/Oct and if your reference sound has been created with the 12 dB/Oct, then there is a big difference indeed 
Edit: just checked the Jupiter 8 spec … there are two resonant filter, 12 and 24 db/Oct …
Oops. Then I need to re-run, however, I tried to tonally matched the results of the filters anyway…
I still don’t think the power of the A4 should drop like that with 50% cutoff…
A4 F1 is 24db ladder filter moog style, that means as long as there is no gain compensiation, level and especially bass will drop off at higher resonances.
4 Likes
Here’s the same comparison with 24db filters across the board. Level still drops off on the A4 more than it should, in my opinion.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BiyrERxc0FcmWtpaR8krl4NyG_Rfsqkl
But I realise I’m tying myself in knots at this point, so should probably move on with my life 
1 Like
You should consider that a triangle wave has very few harmoncs, if compared to saw or square waves.
You would need to compare the true Jupiter 8 waveform to the A4 (using an oscilloscope).
In the ages of the Jupiter 8 triangle waves have not been a triangle geometrically. They have been more of an acendend and descendend exponential slope, which is just the result of the analogue circuits used at the time. The shape of the A4 might be quite different and have some particular differences. Many modern synths tried to achieve as much an ideal triangle or saw as possible.
Those differences are hard to hear sometimes, if the waveforms are played without a filter. But filter, particularly different filter, can emphasize the harmonic differences.
2 Likes
What about the Juno? 
One Osc, great pads
4 Likes
Yep … but wasn’t there this particular chorus FX, which made a difference … ?
2 Likes
There is one DCO for each of the six voices in the Juno-60, plus a sub-osc and a few waveshapers, so it’s even more fun than that. The chorus is lovely.
The Juno’s great for instant polyphonic gratification for all those reasons - and thanks to the patch memory too.
2 Likes
There is 
But I don’t like the chorus sound too much. Prefer the clean Juno Sounds.
In fact I don’t like the thick, many voices, chorus, unison pad sounds anyway. Remind me of cheesy 80s sounds most of the time.
I prefer the intimate, pitch modulated, mellow, 2-4 notes, 1-2 Oscs, reverby Aphex style Pad sounds
I get my favourite Pads with 2-3 Operator fm and a big reverb
2 Likes
I have a DX-7 sat next to the Juno-60 for that reason too.
1 Like
Also often I just tune a second Osc to a fifth or any nice Intervall. Then maybe 1 Octave down SubOsc and that’s all I need, which is perfectly doable on one track on the A4.
Found that many of my favourite Aphex and BOC Pads are simple two note intervalls (probably often just tuned Oscs of a monosynth).
Pitch mod, and a good sounding delay and most important reverb are the key for me.
I love the Aphex Pads so much I could drown in there I believe he often used fm sounds. Much of the amazing warmth of SAW1 and 2 come from the quadraverb and a lot of tape saturation.
2 Likes
Exactly the pads I am trying to make! Completely agree.
2 Likes
Don’t take this cover serious it was just for fun and very fast done. But I like these kind of pads
Just 2 notes. Root note and fifth of the SH01a into Valhalla Vintage Verb.
10 Likes
So we have hijacked this thread a little … hopefully the OP doesn’t mind
1 Like
Unison, reverb and delay are a pads best friends.
A4 being only 4 voice is definitely not the first choice.
It maybe worthwhile multi tracking to create the density and thickness required
1 Like