Using a synth that's easy to program with great results is probably the best solution so that it becomes familiar and the knowledge goes deeper. Limiting the range of synths used does focus the mind too.

On the other hand, choosing a synth because it's a challenge and has some very intriguing new features might also be inspirational. That's if these new features are showcased in a way that allows musicians to view and understand their potential. Perhaps there are a lot of new synths with new features but I don't think the potential of these new features is being demonstrated. If anything it's the ability of the synth to cover all genres that's highlighted.

Personally, I seem to program the exact same 10 sounds no matter what synth I'm using. It's just what I like. A good synth will get me closer to what's in my head and it'll get me there faster than a mediocre synth will.

I think many people will agree that it's good to have a balance of both. Think of the Minitaur vs. the Minibrute: the Minitaur really only makes a few really distinct tones but it does them extremely well, whereas the Minibrute can make a lot more sounds but doesn't do those Minitaur tones as well as the Minitaur does.

What's cool about the Minibrute is it creates modular-type sounds without the complexity of a modular synth. Minimonsta is like that, it's one of the easiest synths around to program yet has more modulation possibilities than just about any synth around. Zebra is, of course, incredibly flexible, as well, but it's not nearly as easy to program as Minimonsta is.

If all synthesizers sounded the same then how come all the synthesizer gurus of the past would own a collection of various analog synthesizers and what not?

Maybe because they were rich and could afford tons of different keyboards to flaunt their wealth? Or maybe it had to do with the sound of the different electronics involved inside.

A buchla doesn't necessarily sound like a serge modular. If you disagree then go take the argument to the guys over at the muffwiggler forum.

Sure lots of virtual synthesizers may sound the same if they're algorithms all start with generic code. I think what sets the good Virtual analog synthesizers apart form the others is that extreme level of detail in the programming. Take DCAM Synthsquad and Diva for examples, as both utilize some very detailed programming to make the sounds simulate how circuits interact.

I personally really love the almost chaotic sound of analog synthesizers, because it just sounds more lively and organic.

This thread has the "in a mix" clause attached to it, which does hold weight if someone doesn't have a massive adoration of synthesizers. If someone does have a massive adoration of synthesizers, such as those gurus you're referring to do, they will appreciate the distinctions between instruments regardless of whether the end listener can hear it or not.

Right sorry I didn't quite follow the whole thing when i skimmed over it. I'll take the time to read the whole argument more carefully before replying, I thought he meant in general at first.

Don't worry, around here, it's one of those things that seems to be in the background even when it's not stated.

Ha, yes. As a DCAM lover I find this to be unfortunate... or good, because some think DCAM is some monster that pops out unusable sounds and can't even do a basic pad properly. Many presets to me sound like they have been FMed do death.

@munchkin

Limitation is a good point. I think many people are overwhelmed with all the options they have in modern software synths. With older hardware synths people used to concentrate on a dozen or so bread-and-butter patches that sounded great no matter how often you heard them. Similar to the Rhodes piano, it has been around for decades and still sounds great and is thus widely used.

One problem might be that many people making music in DAW's are not really musicians, they are more like programmers or even laymen trying to make quick money, after all many of those people in the charts are not musicians, either. So they want to achieve quality via sounds instead of music. Thus many of them use the same fancy standard synth VST's that have received great reviews.

Plus, underneath the different and oftentimes very fancy and appealing user interfaces most synths are not that different from each other at all.

And many people simply overdo the use of synth sounds, so that the individual sounds kind of cancel each other out in the mind of the listener. Good sounds need space to breathe and leave an impression. That's why I still love tracks like Kool and the Gang's Summer Madness They knew what they were doing, what effect a certain sound has on the psyche...

Take ten different soft synths. They all have e.g. their "jarre pad", "vangelis brass", "minimoog lead", "jp supersaw" etc. Select and play them: of course, being good simulations, they are (almost) identical. But not like mirrors: if you play only C3 key, they will probably be identical. Start playing a chord in this area: still (almost) identical. Change octave, you will SURELY perceive subtle differences. If you play arps and scales, with different velocity and speed, you will understand why every synth sound different even with the same presets.

By the way, regarding presets, apart omnisphere and (for different reasons) samplers, I have never found more than 100-150 (real) basic different sounds in synths. In these 100-150 paterns per synth you will find its character, IMO. Very similar, subtle differences. It's like guitars, or pianos: microscopical, sometimes invisible elements.

Interestingly I get that feeling more with vintage analog synths. The lack of options, in particular modulation options, makes the range of sounds very narrow, and furthermore quite a few models sound pretty much the same since they share the same components/circuitry.

Richard

I like how the OP already gives the right answer to his own question, but still the thread goes 6 pages big.

It's statistics.

If you have three synths, you know what the differences are in their sound.

If you have 30 synths they all start to sound like a generic cloud of synth-ness.

i checked lots of synths in the past weeks, and i jusf found one that really sounds different. its an emulation of jupiter 8 put. its kind of dirty and oldschool. just what i always looked for:


http://www.manxsynthesizers.com/Super-Jay.htm
Last edited by chipfunk on Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:01 am; edited 1 time in total

When I went through my "analog phase" some years ago this was a driving factor. If you wanted to do some particular routing and whatever synths you had couldn't do that, then you considered alternatives.

After you have a number of them you do start to realize that similar circuitry often yields similar synths. This why I'm not really a fan of so many of the CEM based synths. Certainly, one can still influence the design, but it's often not done, just as many SE devs just use the out of the box components, many synth manufacturers use the data sheet designs.

Still though, even with vintage analog synths, you're still going to get a lot of similarity owing to the canonical substractive synth architecture.