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

[Gamma-UT]

I tried loading the new syntronik synths in sampletank and I keep getting unknown effects errors in sampletank when they load. Is that normal or did I do something wrong? Can sampletank load the effects from the new syntronik?

There's a v3.7 update for Sampletank that fixes the problem.

[jacqueslacouth]

It would be nice if the browsing within Syntronik filtered down (across) to Sampletank, I've never been a fan of how to audition patches in Sampletank.

[Russell Grand]

It should be pretty clear by now that I don't think that the Syntronik environment is a powerful synthesizer

Then why are you hanging out in this thread? See, that's why some of us here see you as doing nothing more than stirring up the pot. You've said your piece and made it abundantly clear that you're not a big fan of Syntronik. Fair enough. Yet you are still in here arguing with people about trivial things. Perhaps it's fun to troll, eh?

[Russell Grand]

It would be nice if the browsing within Syntronik filtered down (across) to Sampletank, I've never been a fan of how to audition patches in Sampletank.

Agreed

[ghettosynth]

o do that in Falcon compared to Syntronik.

That's one of the Syntronik assets. IK clearly put a lot of thought into making it possible for you to work with ALL of the synths from a single interface. Combining, layering, coming up with very complex sounds is relatively easy because the user interface was obviously developed with that in mind from the start. Wouldn't it be swell if you could look at ALL the patches from ALL the VV synths at once? Demo sounds from multiple synths from the same patch list? Well, you can't. But with the Syntronik synths you can. Or just a few, or however many you'd like.

Yes, but, because they're different products, they have different features. So you can't really have your cake and eat it too here because those different features do make the different products interesting in their own right. Granted, they are all cut from a similar cloth.

As I said, I don't have VV, I do have some UVI products, however, and they can all be loaded inside of UVI's workstation. I'm not really seeing the difference TBH, other than the different organization of the patch structure because UVI requires you to use the product hierarchy. I guess it depends on how you prefer to browse patches and I've never been a fan of tagged browsers. I much prefer hierarchy so the UVI approach works better for me.

Further, the fact that the effects routing in UVI is so much better gives you a much better structure for saving and working with multis. Reverb, for example, can be put on an aux bus which makes adjusting the reverb for all layers MUCH more convenient as it can be done on the same mixer page with the levels.

[Bump1]

So, is it a sample library, rompler or a synth?

It's a rompler; a synth by the absolute basic definition of the word.

You can record a fart, give it an envelope and a filter and make the argument it's a synth.

[JJ_Jettflow]

You can record a fart, give it an envelope and a filter and make the argument it's a synth.

That would be a sample-based synth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample-based_synthesis

[Elektronisch]

You can record a fart, give it an envelope and a filter and make the argument it's a synth.

That would be a sample-based synth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample-based_synthesis

you know wikipedia is not a source you always can trust right?

When i studied at uni wikipedia was forbidden to use because its not trusworthy website since alot of content there have no source and can be altered.

Also in the given link this is written:

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

[JJ_Jettflow]

You can record a fart, give it an envelope and a filter and make the argument it's a synth.

That would be a sample-based synth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample-based_synthesis

you know wikipedia is not a source you always can trust right?

When i studied at uni wikipedia was forbidden to use because its not trusworthy website since alot of content there have no source and can be altered.

Also in the given link this is written:

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

https://soundbridge.io/sample-based-syn ... ogle.ca%2F

https://theproaudiofiles.com/sound-synthesis-basics/

http://courses.cs.washington.edu/course ... hapt4a.pdf

https://noisesculpture.com/how-to-make- ... synthesis/

http://www.musicradar.com/tuition/tech/ ... day-361804#

[ghettosynth]

You can record a fart, give it an envelope and a filter and make the argument it's a synth.

That would be a sample-based synth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample-based_synthesis

you know wikipedia is not a source you always can trust right?

When i studied at uni wikipedia was forbidden to use because its not trusworthy website since alot of content there have no source and can be altered.

Also in the given link this is written:

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

This isn't something that really needs such authority. It is, in fact, sample based synthesis, there's nothing to argue there really. Of course "sample based synthesis" is synthesis, it's just a very general definition of synth architectures based on samples as sources. Romplers are also generally "sample based synths."

The argument that wikipedia isn't reliable is a largely outdated idea. For this level of conversation it is generally sufficiently authoritative. Uni profs don't like it not because it isn't often correct, but because it doesn't teach you how to use the literature. There is research, however, that shows that Wikipedia is generally as authoritative as encyclopedias used to be and that the arguments against it are largely born of prejudice.

Here's a paper from CMJ in 1996 that uses the phrase without definition. Cmon, the definition is so obvious, how much authority do you need to understand what it means? The use of sample to synthesize sounds is "sample based synthesis." You don't even need a filter, just pitch shifting a single sample so that it plays in a particular, e.g., chromatic, is "sample based synthesis."

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gi ... d1aff8.pdf

Heckroth explains it clearly in this Crystal AP Note from 1998.

Heckroth, Jim. "A TUTORIAL ON MIDI AND WAVETABLE MUSIC SYNTHESIS." (1998).

If you don't like a Wikipedia source, the responsibility is on you to provide a better source to support your alternative definition, whatever it happens to be, or, some valid reason why the definition is incorrect.

If we were discussing politics and someone cited the Daily Mail, it would be reasonable to claim that the source is unreliable and that the author was guilty of false attribution. Or, if the source was unverifiable. In this case, however, you can look at it yourself, so it isn't something unknown, e.g. "I saw it on TV once."

[Elektronisch]

You can record a fart, give it an envelope and a filter and make the argument it's a synth.

That would be a sample-based synth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample-based_synthesis

you know wikipedia is not a source you always can trust right?

When i studied at uni wikipedia was forbidden to use because its not trusworthy website since alot of content there have no source and can be altered.

Also in the given link this is written:

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

https://soundbridge.io/sample-based-syn ... ogle.ca%2F

https://theproaudiofiles.com/sound-synthesis-basics/

http://courses.cs.washington.edu/course ... hapt4a.pdf

https://noisesculpture.com/how-to-make- ... synthesis/

http://www.musicradar.com/tuition/tech/ ... day-361804#

Why are you giving those? what should i do with those links or i care?

[Elektronisch]

You can record a fart, give it an envelope and a filter and make the argument it's a synth.

That would be a sample-based synth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample-based_synthesis

you know wikipedia is not a source you always can trust right?

When i studied at uni wikipedia was forbidden to use because its not trusworthy website since alot of content there have no source and can be altered.

Also in the given link this is written:

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

This isn't something that really needs such authority. It is, in fact, sample based synthesis, there's nothing to argue there really. Of course "sample based synthesis" is synthesis, it's just a very general definition of synth architectures based on samples as sources. Romplers are also generally "sample based synths."

The argument that wikipedia isn't reliable is a largely outdated idea. For this level of conversation it is generally sufficiently authoritative. Uni profs don't like it not because it isn't often correct, but because it doesn't teach you how to use the literature. There is research, however, that shows that Wikipedia is generally as authoritative as encyclopedias used to be and that the arguments against it are largely born of prejudice.

Actually yes you are right. But come to think of from the explaination of what synthesis and synthesizer is you can slap any word to those and call it XXX-Based-Synthesis/er - Sample-Based, Fart-Based, Human-toungue-based.

But about unis forbidding wikipedia, well maybe its at the uni you have studied, but where i have studied the reason was that as i wrote above, not reliable enough source. BUt that was 10 years ago so who knows maybe it has changed

[JJ_Jettflow]

You can record a fart, give it an envelope and a filter and make the argument it's a synth.

That would be a sample-based synth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample-based_synthesis

you know wikipedia is not a source you always can trust right?

When i studied at uni wikipedia was forbidden to use because its not trusworthy website since alot of content there have no source and can be altered.

Also in the given link this is written:

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

https://soundbridge.io/sample-based-syn ... ogle.ca%2F

https://theproaudiofiles.com/sound-synthesis-basics/

http://courses.cs.washington.edu/course ... hapt4a.pdf

https://noisesculpture.com/how-to-make- ... synthesis/

http://www.musicradar.com/tuition/tech/ ... day-361804#

Why are you giving those? what should i do with those links or i care?

Well you pointed out ot me that using wikipedia could not be thought of as reliable so I found some other resources to verify my point.

If you chose to pursue the matter, then by all means check out the links and see if the Wikipedia definiton differs greatly in any way from these and then that will validate your point. If you do not wish to do that, then you have no need to check the links.

[layzer]

a sample based collection like this would have been better suited for vintage romplers ONLY.
with so many great physical modeled analog emulations out already, this is just
a huge waste of HDD space. wtf were they thinking?

[ghettosynth]

Actually yes you are right. But come to think of from the explaination of what synthesis and synthesizer is you can slap any word to those and call it XXX-Based-Synthesis/er - Sample-Based, Fart-Based, Human-toungue-based.

But about unis forbidding wikipedia, well maybe its at the uni you have studied, but where i have studied the reason was that as i wrote above, not reliable enough source. BUt that was 10 years ago so who knows maybe it has changed

Yeah, I know what profs say or said, but that is often just repeated false wisdom born of prejudice as you are doing here. Policies were often parroted without significant thought from the department or even the college or university level. Frankly, it was largely driven by fear, especially from non STEM profs and departments. I have some first hand experience studying this. Even ten years ago they were wrong, in general. Not all entries are created equal, of course, and you have to match the reliability of the source to the problem at hand.

You should stop repeating it unless you are going to be much more nuanced about it. Wikipedia is an extremely reliable secondary source for many academic and technical subjects and a suitable primary source for conversational topics such as this, or for primary school level reports. Basically, if you used to use an encyclopedia, then, for the most part, Wikipedia is a reasonable replacement. Just like an encyclopedia would only be a place to start for a research paper in secondary school or later, Wikipedia should only be used as a secondary source in those contexts.

FYI: Wikipedia's own page on the subject references much of the research in question. I've read many of these original articles as this was related to an area of interest a number of years back. Also, technically, wikipedia is often a tertiary source and not a secondary source, but that level of distinction isn't particularly important here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia