Solina V emulates the design of the original Eminent instrument very closely with (if you look carefully) just three visible enhancements. However, this can be adjusted by the (as yet unrevealed) Bass Section, so please read on. I found that the Lower amplitude envelope on Solina V is somewhat faster, making it possible to articulate notes more quickly, but losing something of the smoothness when playing legato. The contour of the bass voices was even simpler on the original it responded to the crescendo control, but the length of the release was short and fixed. At the other end of the note, the amount of ‘suck’ generated when re-initialising the envelope during the release phase was less pronounced on Solina V, and that’s a good thing. It’s also calibrated as a loudness (dB) rather than a time (ms), so that’s a bug, albeit one that doesn’t affect the sound in any way. I found the shape of the soft synth’s crescendo to be a tad different from the original’s, giving a slightly different character to sounds that speak slowly. The amplitude envelope of the Solina’s paraphonic section is defined by just two parameters: Crescendo (attack) and Sustain (release). Old analogue mixers (including those built into 40-year-old keyboards) don’t necessarily add sounds linearly but, within a narrow margin, everything was as it should be.
I then tested the various combinations of waveforms. Without an A/B test I would never have known which was which, except that the Trumpet sound on my Solina has always been a bit hissy, and the soft synth’s isn’t. I compared every Upper (paraphonic) voice and every Lower (monophonic bass) voice on the Solina with its equivalent on the soft synth and, in my view, the differences between them were unimportant. I liberated my trusty second-generation Solina (CV and Gate interfaces, but monophonic audio outputs) from storage, and set it up with an Arturia Analogue Experience keyboard sitting on top so that I could switch between the soft synth and the original. So, can a physically modelled recreation do better? A Direct Comparison Even today, nearly every sample-based keyboard offers patches named ‘Solina this’, or ‘Solina that’, although none of these sound exactly like the original. Nevertheless, despite its limitations, the sound of the Solina remained desirable. My favourite was the Logan String Melody 2, but there were many others worthy of acclaim. Numerous imitations soon appeared, and many of these improved upon the Solina. Even Herbie Hancock and Stevie Wonder were to be seen playing them. Pink Floyd were amongst the first, but Solinas were soon gracing the music of artists and bands as diverse as Elton John, Fleetwood Mac, the Eagles, Gentle Giant, Patrick Moraz, the Enid and Renaissance. Small and light by the standards of the time, the Solina allowed bands to add string sounds to their arsenal without lugging around heavy and often unreliable instruments (or viola players).
In 1974, Eminent extracted and extended the ensemble technology from the 310U and repackaged it in a four-octave keyboard. The 310U had little impact when it was released, but Jean Michel Jarre’s ‘Oxygene’ (1976) ensured that it would later be recognised as one of the most important keyboards of the 20th century. Then, in 1972, a similar sound was heard to emanate from Eminent’s 310 Unique home organ, which employed a single oscillator per note, but thickened up the sound using a bunch of modulated BBD chips (analogue delay lines) to create the ensemble effect. Until Ken Freeman invented string synthesis by detuning and modulating three oscillators per note to create a chorus effect, the only ways to obtain an ensemble sound had been to play a Mellotron or to book an orchestral ensemble. Arturia have revived a classic string synth in software, and the result is the Solina V.