KVR Audio

Azura · Post by **Azura** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:25 pm

Hi,

I don't own a lot of softsynths, but playing with them, and also with some demos, I realize that the patches included in these synths are quite often pretty impressive, with complex evolving sounds covering a wide spectrum. Perfect for making big intros for songs. BUT, 90% of the time, I tend to use more simple and "humble" sounds that fit well with guitars, bass, drum, piano, organ, etc... If you listen to songs on radio, many synth sounds are of that type. I found that quite often, there are not a lot of choices in softsynth's patches for simple strings, pads, simplified piano-like sounds, etc. Do you have the same opinion?

Marc

fese · Post by **fese** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:40 pm

I prefer simpler sounds that let you play a melody or chords myself. There are synths that offer playable sounds ( u-he in my experience) but it can be quite tedious to find them when the plug-ins come preloaded with several hundred or even thousands of presets...
I guess when you make primarily electronic music those complex sounds are quite right but when your focus are pop/rock songs I concur with you, it's mostly useless.
As a consequence I mostly make the sounds myself or use presets that I heavily modify to fit (e.g. disable the effects)

spaceman · Post by **spaceman** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:46 pm

I completely disregard all of these one-key wonder presets as they're mostly completely useless in a mix. So I totally agree that 90% of presets sound good as a synth showcase but are completely useless for composing. There are some exceptions, like Albino, Predator, Sylenth1 to some extend, etc.

ariston · Post by **ariston** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:54 pm

I think the beauty of synths lies partly in their simplicity. There's nothing like a synced, naked saw, or a slightly PWMed Square. Those complex patches do a good job of showing what a synth is capable of, but I find them pretty useless most of the time. Evolving sounds have their place, of course, especially in ambient or related genres, and sometimes a patch can take center stage, as a bridge or intro/outro, like you said. Most of the time, though, I prefer simple sounds, with interesting timbres, and high playability (sounds that make good use of aftertouch, velocity, etc.).

Simple sounds have the additional advantage of being much more pliable; you can really pile on the effects! Two of my favorite electronic musicians, Richard James and Clark, do this a lot.

Xenos · Post by **Xenos** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:24 pm

I agree. When you're trying to mix a bunch of different sounds in a single track, the "wowie" ones are hard to get to "gel" with the rest. They're good for intros/outros, or sparse mixes with only a few other things going on, but not so much in a busy mix.

As a sound designer for a lot of synth developers, I have to keep this in mind. "Wow" patches are the most fun and fulfilling to make, but how many people are going to actually use them in their music? How do you keep a sound easy to fit in a mix, without it coming across as "too" simplistic. I like starting with a very basic 80's type patch, then adding very subtle modulation and other "extras" for added "depth" to the sound. Subtlety is the key, here.

You're exactly right about radio songs using simple sounds. Case in point: I made the bass sound used on Chris Brown's track "Loyal". It's really a very simple patch, but it fits splendidly into a lot of different musical contexts. I'd like to see the day when my more complex and exciting work finds its way on the airwaves. Maybe it already has, but I never know how my work is being used unless the producer actually tells me.

DJ Warmonger · Post by **DJ Warmonger** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 9:21 am

Well, when it comes to simple sounds, I can program them on my own. The presets are there to give some inspiration and ready-to-use sounds that otherwise are difficult to create.
If the patch is too complex, you can always filter it out or remove some components. It's not possible to do it the other way round

The synths I know have balanced set of both, though.

Lotuzia · Post by **Lotuzia** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 10:52 am

DJ Warmonger wrote:Well, when it comes to simple sounds, I can program them on my own. The presets are there to give some inspiration and ready-to-use sounds that otherwise are difficult to create.
If the patch is too complex, you can always filter it out or remove some components. It's not possible to do it the other way round

The synths I know have balanced set of both, though.

This.

+ I feel a certain confusion in this thread between complex sounds ( ie sounds whose purpose is to be first plan and drive a whole track ) and wow presets ( that are just a subset of the above, and just mean modulations and complexity are often more apparent ), and more second plan/merge/blend presets, which much blend in full tracks with other instruments, that are sometimes, and with few/poor reasons, understood as *simple* sounds with *few modulations*. So I'll just give an example : An FM EP can sound simple to play, will blend nicely with other instruments like guitars or voices, but can be very complex to build, and include a lot of modulations, the same with some organs, clavinets, or all instruments assimilated in classic songtracking as *keyboard instruments*. Same with classic, or less classic, *synthesizer sounds* like brass pads, stabs, strings. It's just that the modulations are not clearly/obviously perceived. But modulations there are, and subtle and complexity is just less apprent... at least at first sight. My 0.002.

penguinfromdeep · Post by **penguinfromdeep** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:08 am

Maybe developers feel the need to have those complex patches to hide the fact that basic raw sound of their "analog modeled" synth is weak and wimpy?

No_Use · Post by **No_Use** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 12:12 pm

Azura wrote:Do you have the same opinion?

Yes.

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 1&t=260713

tapper mike · Post by **tapper mike** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 2:04 pm

I love presets. Being a musician and arranger I know how to both play and arrange parts. I think this is something that "producers" with lack of arrangement skills struggle with.

Sendy · Post by **Sendy** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:14 am

Nothing beats a nice pad with a LPF with low cutoff on a good synth. Pure warmth. Add some pitch modulation, a bit of randomization, stretch the octave a bit, add a bit of keytracking to the filter and some PWM, and let those low harmonics glow. Diva supersaw oscillator through the Uhbie filter? Yes mate.

fluffy_little_something · Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:32 pm

Indeed, simple sounds are more effective. On the other hand a simple sound tends to depend more on the sound quality of the synth or sampler. With a simple brass pad good filters etc. are more important than with complex sounds, because with basic sounds (which have often been around for decades now) people already know what they should sound like, so they have certain expectations.

Azura · Post by **Azura** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:51 pm

Thank you all for your comments, that's very interesting. After reading them, I feel like going back to my old and trusty JV-1080 to program a bunch of pads and strings, just to have a nice collection of sounds that I could use in future compositions. I have the feeling that my dusty hardware synth could be a wonderful tool for this kind of job.

Have a nice day!

Marc for Azura

Not enough simple sounds?