Only one main synth- realistic goal or stupid idea?

[DodgingRain]

You may also want to consider Halion5 if your looking for a single synth only.

[MogwaiBoy]

Like with guitars, there isn't one single example that covers everything - many people are happy (ie: I love Telecasters) but others want versatility, flexibility and just plain fun of exploration.. humbuckers, singlecoils, fretboard/body wood types and all the variables.

Now - with a softsynth that is all 1's and 0's... (correct me if I'm wrong but) technically it would be possible to create one virtual instrument that does basically everything you could ever need - if there were no limits on development times and hardware limitations. I imagine in future such a synth will exist and with Zebra2 , Falcon, Omnisphere and others.. we may be approaching it already...

If for no other reason, threads like this are valuable because they double as a "what's the best synth plugin ever" curiosity for newbies like me

[ksandvik]

You could say Reaktor or MaxForLive are such one-synth-only cases as you could build-rebuild-construct just any kind of synthesizer you wish -- but you need to learn how to do it. The cool thing today is that most mainstream computers could easily handle multiple instances of both systems. And it will be even better in future.

[goldenanalog]

Sup KVR, long time no see

I got time and inspiration for music again, but unfortunately need to rebuild my setup from the ground up. I've been checking out all the numerous free synths new to me, but haven't found that one perfect tool among them (yet). So next step is to start demoing commercial offerings, but before I go there I wanted to ask if it's even realistic to try and find one synth to rule them all? Do you have a setup based around one workhorse that can do most of the things? For how many years have you used your main synth? (your new current favourite of the week doesn't count )

I'd like a synth that excels at substractive synthesis (more "vintage analog" than modern virtual sound), has extensive modulation, big, useable and inviting interface, and ideally would offer other types of synthesis when needed. A modular or semi-modular would probably work. Style of music is melodic ambient with strong Berlin school and contemporary classical influences.

I dislike the idea of having to learn and adjust to numerous different UIs, it appears every synth wants to be a special snowflake in terms of UI design. Another option would be to have a small family of synths with different sound engines/synthesis types, but with common UI.

This is a great challenge, .jon!

A reasonable compromise between (1) synth/many unrelated synths might be as simple as going with a consolidated 'package' - the idea being to not choke yourself:



by being unrealistically self-limiting (ie: Take advantage! There's a lot of good sh!t out there!) The top-rung solution in my mind would arguably be Native Instruments' Komplete or (especially) Ultimate - if you're willing to commit the $$$'s (and it's a lot), then Ultimate in conjunction with their Maschine hardware interface will set you up with a consolidated package of virtually every type of sound that you could imagine - you'd suffer zero restrictions and could expect to reasonably manage opp (other peoples' plugins) envy; the caveat being that you'll also need a DAW - the NI packages are first and foremost instrument bundles, with Ultimate perhaps being the ultimate bundle, indeed -

OK: The other option is to 'settle' for a group of integrated instruments & sample sets *with* a DAW, like: Ableton Live 9 Suite; or Samplitude Pro X2 Suite; or even the FLStudio12 ALL bundle -

Or: I *really* like what's happening with the Reason ecosystem nowadays, especially with what's going on with their current RE's and the push to further enhance their RE SDK - this instrument, as an example, is sick:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb3oyEF ... tion=share

Sort of like Image Line's Sytrus (and not) - Sytrus you would get if you went with the FLStudio12 ALL package -

Anyway: Zero plus the standard stuff that comes with Reason 8 would keep you busy.

It's also worth noting that there are several great RE's that don't cost an arm and a leg (FM4 and Aurora as examples - $39 and $29 at their normal prices, respectively)

[.jon]

Thanks again everyone for their replies, you've helped me to come to a conclusion in this matter:

I'm simply incapable of making an educated choice for such a workhorse synth, or even to decide if it's a feasible approach due to lack of deeper understanding of synthesizer sound design.

I know the principles of synthesis (thanks Gordon Reid ) and know my around the typical controls, and can even use them to make the simple standard sounds ... but I now humbly admit that a large amount of sounds that even a relatively simple analog emulation freebie can produce are way over my head in terms of design. Check out Breeze's banks for OBXD for an example of what a skilled person can achieve, pretty far from my epic sound design repertoire of Fuzzy Sawpad With Tons of Reverb That Fills The Whole Spectrum, Pretty Cool Noughties Trance Bass, A Dull Plucked Sound and the classic Weird Electronic HIsses and Bubbling That Was Supposed To Be A Magical Evolving Stardust Pad.

When testing synths, I also realized quickly that I need a structured approach- a set of replicable standard tests and a list of features to look for. It's too easy to fall for huge, shiny presets heavy with internal effects designed to impress potential buyers, and a pretty graphical interface. I did that once with AAS Ultra Analog, never again.

The distance from this point where I know the basics, and have a clear idea of the sounds I want to achieve, to where I actually want to be with sound design is much, much longer than I thought it was. How to match sounds? What's the synthesis type that realizes the sounds I have in my head? Do I need to buy anything more or will the tools I already have be enough? Maybe I need Max/MSP, PD or Reaktor? Or a Eurorack modular with analog sequencer? (kinda hoping that would be what I absolutely need )

So this all means a massive meatware upgrade is required, and I've already started by collecting a list of online resources, got rid of 90% of synths, stopped the demoing timewaste and planned an educational process to learn sound design from the ground up.

[robotmonkey]

If melodic ambient with strong Berlin school flourishes is your thing then I would look at the Virsyn Tera. It's kind of old, not had much development in recent years except bug fixes and update for modern systems. But it's also a great all around synths that has a "german" sound. It's very powerful.

Synthmaster is another option for a single synth that can do it all.

[ghettosynth]

You could say Reaktor or MaxForLive are such one-synth-only cases as you could build-rebuild-construct just any kind of synthesizer you wish -- but you need to learn how to do it. The cool thing today is that most mainstream computers could easily handle multiple instances of both systems. And it will be even better in future.

YEs, but, if OP really means "one plugin" then reaktor is very realistic, but really, it's just a different hosting platform and it doesn't alleviate the problem of learning new U/Is.

[ariston]

Check out Breeze's banks for OBXD for an example of what a skilled person can achieve, pretty far from my epic sound design repertoire of Fuzzy Sawpad With Tons of Reverb That Fills The Whole Spectrum, Pretty Cool Noughties Trance Bass, A Dull Plucked Sound and the classic Weird Electronic HIsses and Bubbling That Was Supposed To Be A Magical Evolving Stardust Pad.

You just described my first few weeks of "learning" synthesis.

[loachm]

Now - with a softsynth that is all 1's and 0's... (correct me if I'm wrong but) technically it would be possible to create one virtual instrument that does basically everything you could ever need - if there were no limits on development times and hardware limitations.

...well, to be fair - analog synths even a few decades ago also use more or less the same parts and technology and yet there was a plethora of different synths. I guess, "with just 0's and 1's" there is an even larger amount of possibilities. So it comes down to deliberate decisions (or deliberately creating limitations to put it the other way) that are crucial in the end - just like deciding for a main instrument. So I guess, just one synth that really does and have everything isn't very desirable, because it's questionable if we would be able to use it. But the idea of having a main synth with not more than a handful others seems quite reasonable for being productive...

[.jon]

The internet is a wonderful and mysterious creature, as I was searching for a typical, classic, simple and basic substractive synth for learning sound design, I somehow ended up browsing through Klaus Schulze's gear list to see what he used to explore this then-new instrument. Turns out many of the sounds I've loved are most probably Farfisas intead of real synths, but then I stumbled upon a real nugget of gold: an interview from 1976 on the topic of synths, sound exploration and music:

http://www.klaus-schulze.com/interv/in7606.htm

Amazing how his thinking, expressed in the year I was born, when the whole synth technology was just introduced to common music still applies so perfectly today. The same issues he faced with his Big Moog are exactly the same we computer musicians face today. Def recommend reading the whole thing, but here's an excerpt:

This isn't an easily answered question. A synthesizer player is in different phases. The first phase is when you get to know the synthesizer. You can easily like everything the instrument offers you. For instance, you have a certain setting, and you love it and you play it repeatedly. You must get over this state, otherwise you find yourself in the permanent situation that you always let the synthi play some beautiful things, mostly the same. As a result the synthi controls you!
If you work consistently, if you try rationally to explore the synthi, then you overcome the fascination of the pure sound's beauty, but the danger is still there.
Because of this rational exploring of the possibilities your experience and your knowledge about these possibilities get larger and you change into the phase where you slowly become able to imagine soundscapes, yes, whole compositions.
The basic condition is, as it should be with every music and musician, that you realize what you want. These days there are about ten people worldwide who work with large synthesizer units, and all go in different directions. They fly apart in directions that will maybe lead to musical areas that are yet unthinkable.
There is the danger that an artist who uses such technical tools goes into a direction where nobody can follow him. The audience may know the Minimoog; I mean, if something is chirping they know where it comes from, but if someone sits on stage hitting a pair of drums and you hear from the loudspeakers complete melodies or the sound of bells or whatever, this isn't so easily to understand. There is a freedom where it is possible either to do what you dream or to try using the tools in a way that the audience can still follow you. This freedom must be explored.

The freedom offered by his Big Moog, impressive as it is/was, is hilariously narrow compared to the vast oceans of freedoms we are tormented with.

[PurpleCatfishBettie]

jam on it was tight

[J.Hartmann]

Zebra 2 is my main go to synth when I have something on my mind. Because it's the one I know better and can do any type of sound I want.
That said, I prefer using other synths as much as I can. Explore them and find what they are good for. For example, I prefer using Diversion for Bass sounds, find it even better than Diva. Having multiple syths AND knowing them is the best situation.

[ghettosynth]

Check out Breeze's banks for OBXD for an example of what a skilled person can achieve, pretty far from my epic sound design repertoire of Fuzzy Sawpad With Tons of Reverb That Fills The Whole Spectrum, Pretty Cool Noughties Trance Bass, A Dull Plucked Sound and the classic Weird Electronic HIsses and Bubbling That Was Supposed To Be A Magical Evolving Stardust Pad.

That's funny right there. Something that really struck me when trying to create those other worldy complex evolving sounds that are supposed to evoke a feeling of being someplace else, e.g., Atlantis Pad, is the importance of layers. I first realized this with FM synths with the parallel algorithms but it really evolved for me when working with romplers, the JD-800 in particular. The ability to solo and mute layers helped me to more easily visualize how different elements work in a sound. It's not unlike visual layers as I'm discovering. Often the tiniest of contributions dramatically enhances the realism of an image or sound.

Similarly, you can break sounds down in time, think of the Roland D50, where the attack is a sample and the tail/body of the sound is synthesized. Features like, literally layers, and envelopes with delay are really helpful for this type of sound synthesis.

When I hear Breeze's bank, and this isn't meant to be taken as any slight on Breeze, whoever that is, they are fine sounds, I don't hear sounds that are that far away from what you're talking about above. What I hear is really two things: 1) the ability to name a patch in a way that evokes a sense about the sound, and 2) the ability to leave the controls in non-standard places and call the result a sound. I struggled with (2) for a while when I first really dug into this a bit. Every sound became "basic bass", or "simple pad", because no matter where I was in the sound I couldn't accept that a valid sound my have the filter left in that weird place where the sound is all fizzy, or tinny. What you need to do, is leave the settings there, name the sound, and then perhaps tweak other controls to bring the sound closer to what the name evokes.

When I'm creating banks now, I save often, I mean really often. I don't sweat the names on the first round because that can be a bottleneck. If something comes to me, I use it, maybe "click bass" or something simple like that. Then I tweak a bit where I think that I want the sound to go and it becomes "click bass 1", "click bass 2", and so on, until it's no longer click bass and has become "whale yawn", and then "whale yawn 1", "whale ..., you get the idea.

I usually take a break and listen again to these drafts later. Sometimes the variations sound really different and I keep them, sometimes they're just too similar and I keep only the best examples.

I think when we hear banks from other, the diversity can be intimidating. But I think that the process above can yield similar diversity for anyone that has a basic understanding of synthesis. Take a simple idea, and explore it small variations, don't be afraid to save and name them. The name is important, it will help guide further development of the patch.

Back to layers, you have to give credit to Eric Persing, that guy knows how to program with layers. I learned a lot from the factory sounds of the JD-800, and, even though I personally don't like the synth engine, I suspect that you can get a lot of education out of Omnisphere.

Bazille and Ace also give you some ability to program in layers, I think that this is really one of their strengths that doesn't get talked about a lot. Finally, the ultimate tool for this kind of learning, in my opinion, is Reaktor. The reason is that you can choose a basic synth in Reaktor. For example, sound school, and explore it completely. Then, when you start asking questions like, "what if it had a second LFO", you don't have to go looking for a second plugin, you just add an LFO.

[BERFAB]

You may also want to consider Halion5 if your looking for a single synth only.

I don't think of Halion 5 as a 'synth' per se. But yeah, it's all in there. Great pianos, guitars, bass, drums, plus actual programmable instruments live inside of it: A real retro drum machine, an amazing B-3 emulation, vintage synth, pad machine. Very cool stuff.

I could very easily create my music with just this. But, happily, I've got plenty of other toys too.

[.jon]

That's funny right there. Something that really struck me when trying to create those other worldy complex evolving sounds that are supposed to evoke a feeling of being someplace else, e.g., Atlantis Pad, is the importance of layers. I first realized this with FM synths with the parallel algorithms but it really evolved for me when working with romplers, the JD-800 in particular. The ability to solo and mute layers helped me to more easily visualize how different elements work in a sound. It's not unlike visual layers as I'm discovering. Often the tiniest of contributions dramatically enhances the realism of an image or sound.

When I hear Breeze's bank, and this isn't meant to be taken as any slight on Breeze, whoever that is, they are fine sounds, I don't hear sounds that are that far away from what you're talking about above. What I hear is really two things: 1) the ability to name a patch in a way that evokes a sense about the sound, and 2) the ability to leave the controls in non-standard places and call the result a sound. I struggled with (2) for a while when I first really dug into this a bit. Every sound became "basic bass", or "simple pad", because no matter where I was in the sound I couldn't accept that a valid sound my have the filter left in that weird place where the sound is all fizzy, or tinny. What you need to do, is leave the settings there, name the sound, and then perhaps tweak other controls to bring the sound closer to what the name evokes.

Solid advice, back in the days Crystal was my most used synth, and I used it in a very layer-oriented way due to how it's signal path and layout worked. I really liked programming it and got results that I liked, but unfortunately the interface is too dated and controls too impractical today. But I guess I could apply the same approach to other synths with more modern UI.

The reason I mentioned Breeze's patches (Bread and Butter sounds) on the OBXD is because that is a relatively simple synth, yet his bank has amazing variety from impressive drum sounds and bells to synthesized "real world" instruments. While nothing special by modern standards (more like general MIDI type of stuff) and mostly not usable for me in my music, what struck me was the fact that I couldn't coax those sounds from the OBXD on purpose if I sat in front of it right now.

I want to achieve a level of programming competency where I can open a synth and decide to make a gong, a cello or a pulsating laser without resorting to random twiggling of knobs. A rational, engineer's approach based on theoretical knowledge on the aspects of sound, and understanding synths in the context they were designed for. After all, all these wonderful machines were originally intended for emulation of traditional instruments.