I don’t hear anything in the audio that’s totally surprising for the AR/A4 (not that I have an A4). There’s a few sounds which might be samples (the metallic ones, from the AR), but even those could be well crafted noise. There’s a generous slice of thick reverb (which I assume is the A4, it doesn’t sound like the one on the AR to me). The opening pad has an FM-ish quality, but I imagine you can get that from the A4’s modulations.
I can believe the audio was all Analogs.
And goddammit… another thread making me think I “need” an A4. My killer mono synths are looking really anxious on my desk.
I’d say it’s entirely possible this is only A4 and AR synthesis.
They’re actually the same, it’s also the same reverb in DT and DN. The different types of synthesis/sampling engines, gainstaging etc. result in differences how the reverb sounds in those machines, but it’s the same algo.
IIRC @Ess mentioned this before in a thread.
Edit, A4’s reverb is indeed different, see explanation below.
I got an A4mki for 388 this weekend. Keep your eyes peeled on 2nd hand, it seems to be a market slump for that machine for some reason (can’t blame Putin…?)
This is interesting. To me the AR reverb sounds “closer” (more “cronpressed” wide band content) than some of the other boxes (e.g. the cathedral-like, super wide open spaces in that video). Of course… my ear could be off
Damn, I always thought the A4s reverb sounded different, “more spacious and catheral like” is a good description, lol, ofc it does, because it is. My memory, my bad…