Yeah, I am just curious. Truth be told, I'm not big on any of them, and I don't want any flame war.

Alchemy's engine is incredibly flexible, but for many genres Omnisphere is always billed as a must-have synth.

I name alchemy because that's the closest thing I know to Omnisphere. What is it about Omnisphere that makes us feel it's part of 'necessary-for-certain things' synths? If Alchemy 2 does come out, (well, when?) do you think it's realistic to expect it to go against something like Omnisphere?

omnisphere is way beyond anything i could afford. ive heard the demos. its insanely amazing! id take omnisphere over alchemy any day of the year.

Camel just needs to hire Diego Stocco to set fire to a 1901 Steinway grand, and they'll be all set.

No, alchemy could never really compete with Omnisphere honestly. It has areas where it can come relatively close but Omnisphere is just to stupid powerful to really have any actual equivalents...

Why can't an apple become the next orange?

Complete BS. I've owned both since the day they were released and they are both equally powerful in their own ways. Try comparing Alchemy's additive, granular, and spectral synthesis engines to Omnisphere's and you'll quickly see that there is no comparison - Omni can't compete and, in the case of spectral synthesis, or the ability to load your own sample content, it doesn't even try to compete.

Last edited by jacqueslacouth on Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:48 pm; edited 1 time in total

Omnisphere has a very comprehensive multi-timbral aspect to it. I'm not a gigging keyboardist so it doesn't really appeal to me. But I'd imagine to some it might be a big deal, layering up to 8 patches with different ways to switch between patches.

I agree with cryophonik and think the Alchemy engine is as good (if not better) than Onmisphere's.

However, where Omnisphere really shines is the presets and soundsources (42 GB of it). If you start pricing Alchemy with all the current soundsets (Alchemy complete) the cost becomes $800 dollars. That's starting to make the MSRP of $500 for Omnisphere seem much more reasonable.

Both are amazing sound generators. It's a shame there is no Omnisphere demo but the good news is there are tons of videos on youtube (Torley especially) auditioning tons of the factory content.

Don't sell Alchemy short because it costs less. Sound designers need to be paid too, and that's (IMO) the majority of the cost of Omnisphere. Whether that extra cost is worth it to you is a personal decision.

The samples used in Omni are better than in Alchemy in my opinion.

Fixed.

But, look, the question at hand is whether or not Alchemy can be the next Omnisphere. Ignoring the fact that they were both released within a short time of each other, they still aren't trying to be the same synth. Alchemy's strengths are in its granular, additive, and spectral engines, but also has a pretty serious subtractive VA engine and is expandable through commercial banks or your own sample content. It's heritage is rooted in their Cameleon 5000 synth, which pre-dates Omnisphere (and its predecessor Atmosphere) by a few years.

Omnisphere is a combination sample-based and DSP-based VA synthesis, with some VERY limited granular, FM, additive, etc. features tacked on. But, as bmrzycki mentioned, it excels at things like layering and multiple outputs, has a much larger sample library included, but does not offer any methods for the user to expand it (aside from the ability for Trilian owners to open the sample content in Omni).

They're two very different instruments. I'll let the Camel Audio boys speak for themselves, but I don't think that they have any intentions of trying to make Alchemy the next Omnisphere (or vice versa for Mr. Persing).
Last edited by cryophonik on Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:15 pm; edited 2 times in total

i guess the thing omni can't be matched in is the amazing preset programming. It's like a rompler on steroids. I don't think any other synth has that many usable out of the box sounds?

Ok, and alchemy could never compete with the massive stock bank of included sounds (over 8,000 of them compared to alchemy's meager couple hundred) and content or the sheer quality of the patch programming or the 32 different types of included fx or the ability to stack up to 10 oscs or the inclusion of FM synthesis or whatever other shit you've obviously ignored that omnisphere does better.

ANYWAY.

Obvious that I wasn't just talking about synthesis then.

Alchemy is a really decent synth but it is no giant-killer.
Last edited by rifftrax on Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

That was exactly my point. There is little comparison between the two. Omnisphere is definitely the superior synth in some aspects, and Alchemy is definitely the superior synth in other aspects. They're two different synths with very different strengths. One is not better than the other, nor is Alchemy striving to be Omnisphere and it is complete BS to state that Alchemy "...could never really compete with Omnisphere honestly..." when it clearly can in some of the areas in which they overlap (i.e., additive, granular, etc.).

Maybe it was a little unfair of me to not qualify in what aspect overall Alchemy can't compete... which is in pure quality and quantity of the included patches, which is really the primary benchmark by which I see most synths being judged by.

However that is (surprise surprise) often influenced very heavily by the general architecture and capability of the host synthesizer... and often more options does not mean more power.

This is quickly turning into a "Why doesn't the orangey taste of an apple not taste as good as the orangey taste of an orange?" thread.

Alchemy can't be Omnisphere because they sound quite different and have different features, samples, sample and patch developers, feature designers, and GUI designers and they are from totally different companies that aren't trying to be one another.