Syntronik [update March 2018: New T-03 Bonus Content & 4-for-1 bass synth promo] available

[ghettosynth]

Don't get all the stuff about ROMplers being limited. When I used hardware, I owned several ROMplers; namely a D-50, K-4 and 2 Emu Proteus rack mounts and I was able to create some very cool sounds from them. I never thought of them as limited at all....guess it depends on your attitude and creativity.

My JD-800 and RS7000 still sit at the center of my hardware studio. They are certainly not a pain to program! Both have terrible filters though, especially the JD. The limitations come from the limitations of sample based oscillators, particularly when they aren't specialized, e.g. granular or wavetable, and how the sampling is used to create variety in the synth.

These limitations have been there since the earliest days. Strictly speaking, the D50 isn't purely a rompler BTW, but to the extent that it is, it faces the same limitations as well.

I think that we've already touched on this. Osc sync is a great example. There's no native sync on this machine so you have to rely on it being a part of the sample. This is to be expected, right? What does the notion of resetting a waveform mean when the waveform represents more than a single cycle? Same can be said about FM. That's not to say that you can't brute force or fake these features to some extent, but it won't sound like a modeled synth, let alone a model of a vintage analog.

So, if you really want to capture the sound of, e.g., the A6 sync in a sample based synth, then you really have no choice other than to record the sync in the sample. Consequently, this is going to limit how much flexibility you have in changing that sound in the rompler. That is a very real limitation that is a consequence of the technology used and that is what we mean when we use the word "limitation" with respect to romplers.

So, one can't dismiss these "limitations" as an artifact of history, they are real. Virtually all sample based, in the classic sense, instruments have these limitations. Modeled synthesizers are not restricted by the technology in the same way.

BTW: I've programmed a huge number of sounds with the JD-800. Shitty filters aside it's a wonderfully powerful synthesizer for working with sample based layers and the U/I, of course, makes it fast to use. However, all of the features that are missing from the IK product that I listed a page or so ago, and more, are on the JD800.

[JJ_Jettflow]

I think that we've already touched on this. Osc sync is a great example. There's no native sync on this machine so you have to rely on it being a part of the sample. This is to be expected, right? What does the notion of resetting a waveform mean when the waveform represents more than a single cycle? Same can be said about FM.

So, one can't dismiss these "limitations" as an artifact of history, they are real. Virtually all sample based, in the classic sense, instruments have these limitations. Modeled synthesizers are not restricted by the technology in the same way.

Oh for sure it has limitations but so did some hardware synths. Not all came with cross-mod or ring-mod, had fixed pole filters, etc...which is one thing I dislike about some modelled synths. They put a bunch of features that never existed before into a "faithful reproduction" of a vintage instrument. I am most likely a minority in that kind of thinking though.

Personally, I look at Syntronik to compliment my other softsynths; not to rely on it completely; just as I did with my Proteus.

[ghettosynth]

I think that we've already touched on this. Osc sync is a great example. There's no native sync on this machine so you have to rely on it being a part of the sample. This is to be expected, right? What does the notion of resetting a waveform mean when the waveform represents more than a single cycle? Same can be said about FM.

So, one can't dismiss these "limitations" as an artifact of history, they are real. Virtually all sample based, in the classic sense, instruments have these limitations. Modeled synthesizers are not restricted by the technology in the same way.

Oh for sure it has limitations but so did some hardware synths. Not all came with cross-mod or ring-mod, had fixed pole filters, etc...which is one thing I dislike about some modelled synths. They put a bunch of features that never existed before into a "faithful reproduction" of a vintage instrument. I am most likely a minority in that kind of thinking though.

Personally, I look at Syntronik to compliment my other softsynths; not to rely on it completely; just as I did with my Proteus.

I think that in this thread people are reading more pejorative intent into the words limitations and romplers than is intended. My initial use of the word was simply to say that the choice to make a product a rompler comes with specific limitations as described above.

It's like people getting offended that you called a F150 a pickup truck and started talking about its limitations. That's what it is, and it has limitations, if you need it to be a car, it may not work for you. Similarly, if you really need Synctronic to be a synthesizer on the level of the synths that it samples, it probably won't work for you.

Beyond that, the IK product also has a selection of limitations which I do intend to be criticism. It is too basic IMO. There's no reason to exclude a pitch envelope, inverted envelope modulation, and other features as I've described. Moreover, it hardly makes sense to include a bunch of different front panel pictures when they're all the same. That's just silly.

With respect to including features not in the original, this product does that in spades. The TB never had a full EG.

[noiseboyuk]

I really don't know what the point of all this pedantry is

It's always fun to see someone accuse others of pedantry while somehow believing they are immune themselves. The whole discussion is pretty much pedantry, including my comments. In my defence, my really interest in it is in practicalities - what can you expect from a synth?

You have your own terminology, ghetto, I guess I have mine. But (and here comes my pedantry) you will always be misunderstood if you choose a word like "basic" to denote things that really aren't genuinely basic. Basic, to most people, means bottom of the rung (adjective (1) forming an essential foundation or starting point; fundamental). I've chosen two popular synths as examples of products which are considerably more basic than Syntronik in terms of manipulation, so you'd have to label those sub-basic I suppose. But then I'd argue that implies they are not fit for purpose at all, which would be completely wrong. So sorry, "basic" is just the wrong word to use as this pedant sees it.

Here's my take on what is reasonable to expect from Syntronik, with the vital caveat that users have access to the samples in a way other than via preset patches. You'd be able to create a huge variety of old analogue sounding synth patches from scratch, due to a large sample pool and the modelled filters. If you're after classic strings, brass, bass sounds et al, I bet you'll have them in spades and you'll be able to make them from scratch just as you like them. You'll be able to layer stuff easily to come up with some unique stuff too. However, it will be a long way from true synthesis programming.

[ghettosynth]

Rompler is definitely better than rompers.

Have you seen pictures of my child in one of her rompers? Cute as a bugs ear, I tell ya! Also, a time saver when trying to dress a squirming infant. I'd call those technologies tied, in terms of usefulness.

I don't think most of us have seen that. You know, I'm pretty sure that a picture of her in a romper playing on a rompler would be on topic.

I have no idea what's wrong with me lately, I think that my grandpa gene must have woken up or something because I actually like the fact that my friends share pictures of their little worms and I feel more empathy than annoyance when children are upset.

Ok, enough of that, back to synthesizers and grumpiness....

[OneOfManyPauls]

So I've just opened UVI's DS77 (it's been a while - can you tell?). The only way I can see to start is to load a preset. Once I'm there, I have an ADSR, a HP/BP/LP filter, pitch, drive, butcrusher, effects and modwheel controls for trem or filter. That's it. No sources to start with, unless there's a hidden page I've always missed. So that - and I presume the rest of the UVI synth range - is rather like Nexus. They are basic romplers - preset machines with some (useful) basic tweaks.

Now let's compare with Syntronik's OBXa (just from the picture). Well there it is - an oscillator section, with a choice of waveforms. The 2nd oscillator has detune. You also have a wide choice of modelled filters and a basic mod section. Clearly somewhere there's also the large FX and arp sections. Now, that's a less control than a real OBXa, but with its (cutdown) Osc section that's more than UVI.

certainly not the case with all uvi synths - even if just using uvi workstation rather than falcon to host them.

For example. UVI's Synthox and CSM let you select basic waveforms for both oscillators and to tune them independently:

https://www.uvi.net/synthox
https://www.uvi.net/en/vintage-corner/cs-m.html

[OneOfManyPauls]

Beyond that, the IK product also has a selection of limitations which I do intend to be criticism. It is too basic IMO. There's no reason to exclude a pitch envelope, inverted envelope modulation, and other features as I've described. Moreover, it hardly makes sense to include a bunch of different front panel pictures when they're all the same. That's just silly..

not silly from a marketing point of view - the whole thing is designed to give the impression that this delivers the equivalent of a room full of the synths that those front panel pictures ape.

[JJ_Jettflow]

It's like people getting offended that you called a F150 a pickup truck and started talking about its limitations. That's what it is, and it has limitations, if you need it to be a car, it may not work for you. Similarly, if you really need Synctronic to be a synthesizer on the level of the synths that it samples, it probably won't work for you.

Depends on how deep an individual will program. Some people don't get far beyond the presets on hardware.

Again, I do not believe Syntronic is meant to be the sole synth you use unless you are someone who is looking for vast collection of classic vintage sounds that are highly editable but lack the complete level of editing the originals did...and for $99

[projectdan]

Seems to me the price is crucial, you can look at it two ways, a rompler that has bonus features or a synth that is lacking in some trivial and easy to implement features. Personally I would find it hard to excuse lack of pitch envelopes and more LFOs and bipolar modulation, it suggests they want to restrict you intentionally and it seems so unnecessary, but if the price is low enough most will overlook that. It is intresting but could so easily be better, unless we are wrong about the features and there is more to it.

[DarkStar]

Moreover, it hardly makes sense to include a bunch of different front panel pictures when they're all the same.

Hmm, I had not noticed that before, but, on closer inspection, I can see that the controls are the same but with different appearances. That explains why some of the controls are unlabelled - not relevant to / available in this instrument. And it also answers one of my earlier questions about selecting the filter type - there's a rotary switch or set of buttons etc on each GUI.

Talking of the rotaries and buttons- they are all skewed upwards (I do not know the correct technical term) so we look up to them, but they are not skewed left to right. I'm not keen on that. Either do it in both directions or not at all (I prefer the latter).

Q: If I load a Syntronik instrument into ST3, do I still have all the Syntronik features? if not, then which ones would not be available in ST3?

[ghettosynth]

It's like people getting offended that you called a F150 a pickup truck and started talking about its limitations. That's what it is, and it has limitations, if you need it to be a car, it may not work for you. Similarly, if you really need Synctronic to be a synthesizer on the level of the synths that it samples, it probably won't work for you.

Depends on how deep an individual will program. Some people don't get far beyond the presets on hardware.

Limitations don't depend on your perception to be limitations, they are objectively limitations. Now whether those are limitations for your needs is a subjective question that we each answer individually. My statement, however, includes that subjective need. If you "need Synctronic to be a synthesizer on the level of the synth it samples" is explicit.

My perception based on how this thread is evolving is that some people were buying into the hype and hadn't looked closely beyond the vague similarity that the front panels have to the sampled synths.

I think that a more complex engine mapped appropriately to each synth with respect to that synth would be a better product. You need greater complexity to do justice to many of the emulated synths, certainly, e.g., the A6, but that complexity might make the simpler synths less approachable, e.g., the 303. So, for the intended market, I can see the value of doing a low CPU quasi emulation focusing on some the most important aspects in terms of expanding upon what a Rompler can do. Multiple modeled filters is a good start.

[ghettosynth]

Beyond that, the IK product also has a selection of limitations which I do intend to be criticism. It is too basic IMO. There's no reason to exclude a pitch envelope, inverted envelope modulation, and other features as I've described. Moreover, it hardly makes sense to include a bunch of different front panel pictures when they're all the same. That's just silly..

not silly from a marketing point of view - the whole thing is designed to give the impression that this delivers the equivalent of a room full of the synths that those front panel pictures ape.

No doubt, but, I don't think that it's unfair to call out marketing veneer for what it is.

[JJ_Jettflow]

I think that a more complex engine mapped appropriately to each synth with respect to that synth would be a better product. You need greater complexity to do justice to many of the emulated synths, certainly, e.g., the A6, but that complexity might make the simpler synths less approachable, e.g., the 303. So, for the intended market, I can see the value of doing a low CPU quasi-emulation focusing on some the most important aspects in terms of expanding upon what a Rompler can do. Multiple modelled filters is a good start.

I think that would raise the price considerably and also raise the CPU usage which I think are 2 things this product is trying to avoid. Again, I do not think it is supposed to be the Omnisphere of vintage synths to be used as a centrepiece for your synth setup...but then again why not? If you are not making synth-heavy music and wish to add some very good sounding vintage synths in a song, it may be more than enough...limitations and all.

[wagtunes]

You know, this whole conversation is giving me a headache.

A short time ago, I did a cover of Howard Jone's "New Song". There were 3 sounds in particular that I needed to pull it off. The bass, the lead and the plucked sound. OP-X II came with an 80s sound bank with those 3 sounds so I used them. I didn't have to tweak a thing. They were near perfect out of the box.

So for me, for that song, for that purpose, OP-X II, a true synth, was a rompler.

Here's the track if anybody's interested.

https://soundcloud.com/steven-wagenheim ... 0s-squared

The EQ on the mix in general is a little off, but the sounds themselves are almost dead on the money.

I did no programming. I used presets out of the box. For all practical purposes, this "synth" might as well have been a rompler.

Each person will use a piece of software in his own way and for his own purpose. For some people, this new product will be totally useless. For others, it will be a dream come true to be able to make sounds like some of these vintage synths, especially the A6 which I will never be able to get near in a hundred years.

You all make great points. But none of them matter when it comes to making music.

Not really.

[ghettosynth]

So for me, for that song, for that purpose, OP-X II, a true synth, was a rompler.

Nope! It was a preset machine. See, that's the problem with getting your knickers in a twist over words that you don't understand. The OB-SX was a preset machine, do you know what that is, here's a picture?



Just a few controls for the most obvious synth settings and all of the presets encoded as settings in rom. However, it wasn't a "rompler" as people mean the word today. It's not just about presets, it's about the oscillators being sample based in the traditional sense without the ability to use your own samples. There isn't a sample in sight in either the OB-SX or the OP-X II so there's no way that either was ever a "rompler" for anyone.

The OB-SX had full blown synthesizer voice cards that were fully analog. You just couldn't change the presets, however, if a preset used sync and you swept the oscillator 2 detune you'd get that sync sound.

There are examples of romplers that are also preset synths, e.g., Roland JX-1.

BTW: Since it's drone day, I feel the urge to drone on.