What determines your choice of synth beyond sound?

[DJ Warmonger]

I'm looking forward to get a hardware synth this year. However, now that I have full stock of VSTs, I don't need another mono/poly synth that could be replaced by them. I'm looking for something unusual which will let me create weird sounds and loops out of the box and will also jumpstart modular or semi-modular setup.

Nowdays there's no much point to buy synths which don't have CV support, unless you are a collector. Modular setup will allow any synth to expand its possibilities in the future.

[cron]

Speed of programming is the single largest factor for me. Even more so than 'pure' sound quality. I remember when Massive first came out, the workflow was the revolutionary aspect. There was just nothing out there that let you get from sound-in-head to sound-in-synth faster. The modulation system was a revelation when it came to usability, and that workflow has been endlessly copied since (with Serum flying the flag in the modern arena).

A big, or at least diverse preset library is a big thing for me now too (although not a deal-breaker). I don't much care for 'completed' sounds, I'm more interested in them as 'alt-init' patches. Just lots of usable starting points. Naturally I'll just make a generic pluck/lead/pad etc template with sensible init envelopes etc for each if there's nothing suitable, but it's nice to have these things out of the box. Presets are a great demonstration of techniques you might have overlooked too if the synth is super complex/flexible. There are loads of tricks I'd have missed in Bazille if not for the generous preset library demonstrating them. Modulating the multiplexers at audio rates to 'stitch' different oscillator outputs together one wavecycle after another, (admittedly limited) logic operations - that kind of thing.

[deastman]

I look for synths which, when you play them, produce a giant monster mushroom which is going to destroy Tokyo if Godzilla doesn't stop it first.

(This is an actual dream I had once.)

[KBSoundSmith]

I look for synths/samplers with minimal overlap of their key strengths. For example, Serum can do "analog" sounds...but Diva is a better choice for that in general. But if I want evolving pads or non-analog sounds, Serum is the choice. Or Spectral for FM, etc.

I have one actual analog synth -- the Moog Sub Phatty. It checks the "analog" box for me, and it's a damn fine MIDI controller (minus aftertouch -- but whatever, easy workarounds to automate that parameter anyway). But I don't need another such synth.

Simple questions for every bit of gear I consider: What does this bring to the table that I don't already have? Can it do something faster and easier than what I already have? Does it replicate too much functionality of something else? Does it make sounds I will actually use in productions? If the answers don't pass the test, I don't buy.

At this point, I have only four soft synths that I use Serum, Diva, Spectral, Zebra, an electronic drum kit, plus two samplers. Aside from picking up BDF3 second-hand, I haven't purchased new gear since Serum was released (late 2014?).

[thecontrolcentre]

Wooden end cheeks are essential imho.

[chk071]

A Jordan Rudess endorsement is absolutely key.

Followed closely by BT and Richard Devine, of course.

I only buy synths which have been tagged as sounding "particularly modular" by Richard Devine.

His stuff sounds great BTW.

[Uncle E]

Take a look at something like Waldorf Rocket - the versatility they manage to wring out of a dozen or so knobs and a few switches, without having to change modes or go menu-diving, is amazing. Software GUIs could learn a lot of synths like that.

I agree that the Rocket accomplishes a lot with very little. To me, Minimonsta is the best possible version of this (even better than the Rocket), it takes the simple and inviting Minimoog interface and adds Modular-like capabilities with a logical, intelligently lain out side panel.

But what if it is such a PITA to work with that you can't get the sound to work the way you want it to?

Well, if you can't get the sound you want, I'm guessing you won't say it's a great sounding synth.

I mean, sometimes it is really important but an amazingly versatile synth that maybe doesn't ultimately sound as good will get a lot more use.

Actually, this is a good case for Minimonsta again. It sounds great but even more important is that I can get the sound in my head so effortlessly.

Or what if you can't save patches, like KORG's ridiculous ARP Odyssey clone?

I agree that it's an unfortunate limitation. I do think there's something to be said for making a part, recording the audio, and moving on to the next part. Obviously, that doesn't help a live performer like yourself.

[Uncle E]

I just bought the Odyssey from JRR(hurry and ship uncle e )

Thank you! We'll get it shipped out ASAP!

[Uncle E]

Wooden end cheeks are essential imho.

LOL! Sure, how else would we know it's analog?

[IncarnateX]

Wooden end cheeks are essential imho.

LOL! Sure, how else would we know it's analog?

Yup. Just like the microkorg!

...eh..wait a minute..

[lfm]

To me I want every patch to feel like a new instrument.
And next to that large number of patch memory to store intermediate results of various paths you choose for a range of sounds.

To do that a synth need really good cross modulation stuff, and the easier the better.

I think Clavia Nord rules in this, from those I saw. Real easy and clever way to make different touch of keys be expressive. You just enter velocty learn mode and turn the knobs between min and max you want for that parameter and done.

I also like the KingKorg, for the large amount of oscillator sources and filters to experiment with. Some diving in menus but also some good shortcut keys to get where you want quickly. And also good cross modulations connections and fair amount of hardware knobs on panel. Even though not as good as Clavia.

I am curious on these new analog trends going on, but would not be satisfied with just what you did in the 80's - you quickly get bored creating the sounds you heard all your life, kind of. So modern cross modulation stuff as well as analog path.

Having heard the Prophet 5 I was stunned in the 80's, and don't know how much new Prophet 6 do to be modern?

[Vectorman]

I look for synths which, when you play them, produce a giant monster mushroom which is going to destroy Tokyo if Godzilla doesn't stop it first.

(This is an actual dream I had once.)

It's been decades since I dreamed of Godzilla. Perhaps tonight is the night.

[JCJR]

Tis hard to say. I avoid sound overlap. If two synths sound about the same I don't need both.

I like sound tweaking when in the mood but I do not twiddle knobs while playing. To me it would be like constantly adjusting the radio while driving a car race. Driving the car at high speed would demand every bit of attention. The radio better be tuned in and adjusted before the race starts. Therefore synth menus and one function per knob makes little diff, so long as the UI isn't insanely difficult to use.

Pretty is better than ugly but either is fine. Sometimes ugly is beautiful. Bulldogs and bloodhounds ferinstance.

If I wanted to blow a lot of money on tweak toys, would maybe be interested in Solaris or Matrix 12. There are so many fun-looking toys it would take extensive study to pick the ones most desirable.

Wouldn't want any mono synths. I liked mono synths long ago but I rarely play a strictly mono line except bass. It seems useless to have a synth rarely played, especially if such mono synth would also be big, expensive and finicky. I get any bass tone I need without needing a mono synth. Were I to rarely want a martian chainsaw or nuclear krumhorn patch for lead work, poly synths have lots of em.

Digital vs analog doesn't matter so long as it sounds ok.

At the end of the day a good enough rompler or two is good enough to get the job done.

[thecontrolcentre]

Wooden end cheeks are essential imho.

LOL! Sure, how else would we know it's analog?

... as many flashing lights as possible is always good too.

[BONES]

I could offer a counterpoint here. Synths with presets tend to make me scroll through presets and then tweak, but you can go down any number of rabbit holes and lose sight of what you are trying to do in the first place. I just bought the Odyssey from JRR(hurry and ship uncle e ) specifically because I want to be forced to put hands on the controls to make sounds.

I definitely agree with the sentiment but not the whole argument. I just got my hands on a Pulse 2, to go with my Rocket. I spent the whole first night I had the Pule 2 just going through it's 500 presets,whereas I spent the first night with my Rocket just twiddling it's knobs and getting to know it far more intimately (sounds kinky, doesn't it?). Presets definitely get in the way and 500 of them is just ridiculous.

OTOH, a patch memory is absolutely essential for live performance so you just have to discipline yourself and not spend too much time just listening to presets. I will go through the Pulse 2's presets again on the weekend and save just the dozen or so that jumped out at me when I was going through them the other night. Everything else I will reinitialise so that I end up with 490 default patches to work my magic on.

What I discovered with the Rocket was that as I rehearsed with it, I kept tweaking and tweaking the sound until I found a single sound that I could use for all the songs I needed it for. It kind of felt like cheating, except that it worked so damned well for each of the songs. Now I have the Pulse 2, I am going to spend some time trying to get the same sound out of it, then save it. Then I'll play around with the Rocket some more until i get another great sound, which I will again try to recreate with the Pulse 2 and save. In this way I hope to end up with a best of both worlds scenario - all the creative best of a very tweakable set of knobs and switches plus the convenience of a patch memory. I only hope the Pulse 2 and Rocket sound similar enough to make it work.