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

[wagtunes]

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.

Great, so for practical purposes, what's the difference between a preset machine and a rompler if, ultimately, you can't change the sounds?

[JJ_Jettflow]

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.

But I think that the OP-x II is based on an OBx-a (like the one I owned) which indeed was a full fledged synth.

What Wagtunes was saying is that by using the presets on the OPx-II he was essentially using it as a ROMpler despite the fact that was modelled and had the capabilities of a full on synth. Much along the lines of what I was saying about having a complex synth and just using the presets.

[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.

Great, so for practical purposes, what's the difference between a preset machine and a rompler if, ultimately, you can't change the sounds?

That's what we've been talking about. The practical difference is that romplers have technical limitations that preset machines won't necessarily have. I even gave you an example above. You aren't limited to a recorded sync sweep with the OB-SX.

[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.

But I think that the OP-x II is based on an OBx-a (like the one I owned) which indeed was a full fledged synth.

No doubt. I wasn't comparing the OB-SX with OPX-II on any sort of technical level. It was an example, the fact that they are both related to the OBXA synths is purely coincidental for the purposes of my example. To the best of my knowledge, the OB-SX is the only synth like that so I couldn't use any other example to make the point.

What Wagtunes was saying is that by using the presets on the OPx-II he was essentially using it as a ROMpler despite the fact that was modelled and had the capabilities of a full on synth. Much along the lines of what I was saying about having a complex synth and just using the presets.

What he was saying was obvious, the point is that because you use X like Y doesn't make X a Y. I use my truck like a car, it's still a truck. Calling it a truck is a descriptive term just like rompler. Trucks and romplers have limitations because of what they are and that has nought to do with how you use it.

Lots of people use every synth they own as a preset machine, doesn't make them romplers, doesn't mean that they have the limitations of a rompler. If you never create a patch in Diva but you load up something with sync and sweep the second oscillator you will get a sound that you can't get from a rompler, that's the point, try to get it.

The label isn't about presets, it's about WHAT IT IS. A synth based off of a traditional sample based oscillator for which you cannot change the samples to those of your own is a ROMPLER. That's the definition. OPX is NOT a rompler, that's a fact. Using one like the other won't change those facts.

[waltercruz]

DX7, in a sense, was a preset machine.

[wagtunes]

DX7, in a sense, was a preset machine.

Tell me about it.

The point I'm trying to make isn't that a preset machine and a rompler are the same. Clearly they're not. The point is, in practical application, they can BEHAVE the same.

If I pull up Diva and never touch one knob, never assign one modulation and never do anything other than play the keys, is Diva, at that point, any better than a rompler? Clearly, it's not. In order to make it "better" or more versatile, you have to do things with it beyond playing the keys.

Look, I don't have a dog in this fight because, quite honestly, I don't care what anybody calls any of this stuff. I buy "tone generation machines" for one of two purposes.

1) Make music

2) Sell libraries

Some stuff I can do both. Some stuff is only good for making music. From a business standpoint, the differences matter a great deal, which is why it's doubtful I'll buy this product. But from a "making music" standpoint, there is very little difference as far as I'm concerned.

[ghettosynth]

DX7, in a sense, was a preset machine.

Yep. Come to think of it, the Matrix 1000 was a preset machine if you didn't own a computer editor. I guess Oberheim had a fascination for analog preset machines. There might be other non-trivial examples, but I can't think of any.

[Teksonik]

The practical difference is that romplers have technical limitations that preset machines won't necessarily have.

And full blown Analog Synths will have limitations that Romplers don't. Unless your definition of "Synthesizer" is myopic.

There is a whole world of sound out there beyond Saw Waves, Low Pass Filters and Hard Sync. I feel genuine pity for those who don't realize that fact.

Anyway when Syntronik is released I plan on starting with a plugin instance that makes no sound and end up with a plugin that's making wonderful complex sounds. That is the textbook definition of Synthesis. Will it do every sound that every one of the hardware instruments make ? Most probably not but if the designers capture the essence and highlights of each instrument then Syntronik will be well work the pre-order price and be a ton of fun to create patches with.....if your definition of "patch" is not myopic as well......

[wagtunes]

DX7, in a sense, was a preset machine.

Yep. Come to think of it, the Matrix 1000 was a preset machine if you didn't own a computer editor. I guess Oberheim had a fascination for analog preset machines. There might be other non-trivial examples, but I can't think of any.

I owned a Matrix 1000, which is why I ultimately ended up buying the Matrix 6R, which ultimately ended up being a preset machine anyway for obvious reasons.

[ghettosynth]

DX7, in a sense, was a preset machine.

Tell me about it.

The point I'm trying to make isn't that a preset machine and a rompler are the same. Clearly they're not. The point is, in practical application, they can BEHAVE the same.

If I pull up Diva and never touch one knob, never assign one modulation and never do anything other than play the keys, is Diva, at that point, any better than a rompler?
Clearly, it's not. In order to make it "better" or more versatile, you have to do things with it beyond playing the keys.

No, clearly it is. You are assuming that the modeling of the oscillators itself has no advantage or how you play it doesn't trigger other elements of analog modeling, it does. A simple example, a patch with sync may have oscillator detune mapped to velocity, done! With one example, I've destroyed your argument. You don't have to touch a knob to see that one synth will be more dynamic than the other.

Sorry, this is why some of us aren't interested in analogue romplers and want to make sure that new products are properly identified. A rompler isn't a modeled synthesizer. Adding some modeled elements to a rompler may help, but it doesn't change the fundamental limitations of being a rompler.

If you want a rompler in your collection, fine, but no amount of song and dance is going to change what it is or eliminate the disadvantages that romplers have. What I think will happen is that the more people try to insist otherwise, the more they will actually learn about the advantages of proper modeling of analog synths.

Don't get me wrong, I like romplers for some things, I just don't think that bog standard analog synths are where they shine. I think Soniccouture products, especially NovaChord, are examples of excellent and deep romplers that take a very focused and accurate approach to rare instruments. I like Rhythmic Robot's Platter which builds a simple rompler around a really interesting sampled oscillator model. In both cases there is limited value to accurate modeling. Not that it wouldn't be valued, per se, but the Novachord isn't a complex instrument from a synthesis point of view really and the raw sound of Platter's oscillators are what's appealing about it. But a rompler of a 303 that isn't even close to accurate is a brutally silly idea to me when 303 modeling is really well covered ground.

[wagtunes]

DX7, in a sense, was a preset machine.

Tell me about it.

The point I'm trying to make isn't that a preset machine and a rompler are the same. Clearly they're not. The point is, in practical application, they can BEHAVE the same.

If I pull up Diva and never touch one knob, never assign one modulation and never do anything other than play the keys, is Diva, at that point, any better than a rompler?
Clearly, it's not. In order to make it "better" or more versatile, you have to do things with it beyond playing the keys.

No, clearly it is. You are assuming that the modeling of the oscillators itself has no advantage or how you play it doesn't trigger other elements of analog modeling, it does. A simple example, a patch with sync may have oscillator detune mapped to velocity, done! With one example, I've destroyed your argument. You don't have to touch a knob to see that one synth will be more dynamic than the other.

Sorry, this is why some of us aren't interested in analogue romplers and want to make sure that new products are properly identified. A rompler isn't a modeled synthesizer. Adding some modeled elements to a rompler may help, but it doesn't change the fundamental limitations of being a rompler.

If you want a rompler in your collection, fine, but no amount of song and dance is going to change what it is or eliminate the disadvantages that romplers have. What I think will happen is that the more people try to insist otherwise, the more they will actually learn about the advantages of proper modeling of analog synths.

Don't get me wrong, I like romplers for some things, I just don't think that bog standard analog synths are where they shine. I think Soniccouture products, especially NovaChord, are examples of excellent and deep romplers that take a very focused and accurate approach to rare instruments. I like Rhythmic Robot's Platter which builds a simple rompler around a really interesting sampled oscillator model. In both cases there is limited value to accurate modeling. Not that it wouldn't be valued, per se, but the Novachord isn't a complex instrument from a synthesis point of view really and the raw sound of Platter's oscillators are what's appealing about it. But a rompler of a 303 that isn't even close to accurate is a brutally silly idea to me when 303 modeling is really well covered ground.

See, I actually agree with you that sampling a synth is a piss poor idea unless there are no alternatives.

I needed a Polymoog for my 80s synth pop project. One does not exist so I had to go with the best option available which was SynthMagic's. It was good enough for what I wanted to do but it's still no Polymoog and I am waiting with baited breath for XILS' PolyM and hoping to God it's even remotely faithful to the original. I'm not holding my breath though and here we are talking about a synth. Synths can be disappointing, even with their advantages over romplers for sound manipulation. There are plenty of synths that I will never buy.

Romplers? I have very few. Actually, I don't think I own any. But then again, I'm not even sure what your definition of a rompler is.

All my EWQL stuff. Those are not romplers are they? If so, those are the only rompler type things that I own, stuff that emulates real instruments, not counting the Polymoog. I got virtual guitars, violins, cellos, brass, drums, harmonicas, all that stuff. It's all sample based. The only exception is MODO Bass, which is modeled and, IMO, the best virtual electric bass out there. It's the only thing I use anymore for real bass. Everything else pales in comparison.

But all my stuff that sounds like "synths" is synths. I'll never buy Nexus or anything like it.

So I agree, making a rompler to emulate synths is not where I'd go. As somebody who likes modulating the hell out of things and turning knobs, especially on those rare synths, I'd be frustrated only being able to do certain things. Again, I only bought SynthMagic because there was no other option.

But I can absolutely see this product appealing to some people.

And as Peter alluded, I think that's their target market.

My gut tells me it's going to be a damn big one.

[jancivil]

DX7, in a sense, was a preset machine.

In a sense? No, it is a fully programmable synthesizer. Your post makes no sense. Unless everything one only uses presets for rather than program it gets to be a "preset machine".

[murnau]

DX7, in a sense, was a preset machine.

In a sense? No, it was a fully programmable synthesizer. Your post makes no sense.

I think he wanted to point out that for most users FM was to inticrate therefore they used it as preset machine.

[ghettosynth]

DX7, in a sense, was a preset machine.

In a sense? No, it was a fully programmable synthesizer. Your post makes no sense.

I think he wanted to point out that for most users FM was to inticrate therefore they used it as preset machine.

Yes, statistically, it was a preset machine. In fact, it even spawned the whole third party patch industry really.

[wagtunes]

DX7, in a sense, was a preset machine.

In a sense? No, it was a fully programmable synthesizer. Your post makes no sense.

I think he wanted to point out that for most users FM was to inticrate therefore they used it as preset machine.

Yes, statistically, it was a preset machine. In fact, it even spawned the whole third party patch industry really.

Yep, cause nobody around these parts knew what to do with that damn thing. Took me years to finally figure out FM synthesis and I still hate the DX7 interface.