What you think is missing on the today soft-synth market?
- KVRAF
- 25419 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
What I would like to see more of, is physical modeled synths. I mean more the creative type than one modeling a specific instrument... but I don't mind the later too.
I would like to see more explorations similar to Sculpture (can only use it in Logic)... but with high quality modeled filter, modern GUI
I'd also like to see some physically modeled vocal synths.
I would like to see more explorations similar to Sculpture (can only use it in Logic)... but with high quality modeled filter, modern GUI
I'd also like to see some physically modeled vocal synths.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 105853 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
probably more a "utility" than a synth, but something i can have open in my host and use it for "data-bending" of sorts, input text, convert to midi sequence for example.
- KVRAF
- 8828 posts since 6 Jan, 2017 from Outer Space
The majority of synths which are appearing are pretty boring simple subtractive synthesis. They sound good as we know, but there is no need for the 2001st of it.
But if we just look at the basic sound creation, lets call it an oscillator, we can still keep a filter with an multi stage envelope behind it.
Within oscilators we could have a collection of all known synthesis methods: wavetables, samples, granular, additive etc. no commercial synth yet has implemented concatenative synthesis.
That is what a universal synth could look like. Of course modular environments like Reaktor or Max/MSP do give us that, but you first have to build it before you can create the sounds...
What I don't need in a synth is effects, and arpegios/sequencer, they are separate...
What I miss in most synths, and any could have that, is an interpolation pad. Put 4 distinct presets into the four corners of a pad, and interpolate all the parameters of each preset. Almost no other modulation would be necessary for live treatment...
What I also miss mostly is MPE compatibility and that is a shame. Its long enough around. Ignoring that is like ignoring velocity sensitivity. No synth can afford to ignore velocity, its too common. MPE is now common as well!!!
But if we just look at the basic sound creation, lets call it an oscillator, we can still keep a filter with an multi stage envelope behind it.
Within oscilators we could have a collection of all known synthesis methods: wavetables, samples, granular, additive etc. no commercial synth yet has implemented concatenative synthesis.
That is what a universal synth could look like. Of course modular environments like Reaktor or Max/MSP do give us that, but you first have to build it before you can create the sounds...
What I don't need in a synth is effects, and arpegios/sequencer, they are separate...
What I miss in most synths, and any could have that, is an interpolation pad. Put 4 distinct presets into the four corners of a pad, and interpolate all the parameters of each preset. Almost no other modulation would be necessary for live treatment...
What I also miss mostly is MPE compatibility and that is a shame. Its long enough around. Ignoring that is like ignoring velocity sensitivity. No synth can afford to ignore velocity, its too common. MPE is now common as well!!!
- KVRAF
- 9577 posts since 16 Dec, 2002
Amazon: why not use an alternative
-
- KVRAF
- 35434 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
They sell. For a reason, and that's because virtual analog/subtractive is an easy way to get into, and yields good results, and can produce most bread and butter sounds in many electronic genres. Really, from a business point of view, it would be pretty retarded to reinvent the wheel with every synth, and sell the next exotic synthesis thing nobody wants to get into. I can understand why some advanced guys may feel like trying out new things to fuel their creativity, but, let's face that most of that is quite of a niche market. That's why we have a dozen Minimoog emulations now, and people never seem to grow tired of them.Tj Shredder wrote:The majority of synths which are appearing are pretty boring simple subtractive synthesis. They sound good as we know, but there is no need for the 2001st of it.
The "sweetspot" for soft synths really seem to be VA "flagship" synths like Sylenth1 (ok, rather limited), Spire, Dune 2, ANA and the likes, with a classic VA/subtractive synthesis layout, a mod matrix, loads of modulation options, and (mostly) basic FM stuff. Those seem to attract most people, and produce the most pages in the respective threads here on KVR. If a developer wants to aim for a likely solid market, and sell copies of his soft synths, he will likely go for such a synth, and that's also why we frequently see them. And i don't see an issue with that either, because each of these synths brings something new to the table, and variety in terms of what it can do. And, i also think there's still potential for improvements in the sound department. At least in the department of a good sound quality to performance ratio.
Last edited by chk071 on Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- KVRist
- 493 posts since 9 Mar, 2003
Restraint
- KVRAF
- 21196 posts since 8 Oct, 2014
People need to remember that, like it or not, this is still a business.chk071 wrote:They sell. For a reason, and that's because virtual analog/subtractive is an easy way to get into, and yields good results, and can produce most bread and butter sounds in many electronic genres. Really, from a business point of view, it would be pretty retarded to reinvent the wheel with every synth, and sell the next exotic synthesis thing nobody wants to get into. I can understand why some advanced guys may feel like trying out new things to fuel their creativity, but, let's face that most of that is quite of a niche market. That's why we have a dozen Minimoog emulations now, and people never seem to grow tired of them.Tj Shredder wrote:The majority of synths which are appearing are pretty boring simple subtractive synthesis. They sound good as we know, but there is no need for the 2001st of it.
-
- Banned
- 195 posts since 18 May, 2016
Postby vurt; Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:09 pm
Re: What you think is missing on the today soft-synth market?
Brother Greg wrote:
I was listening to some Reaktor sequencers recently, and while the sounds appealed to me, the sequencers themselves got pretty monotonous, quickly. Even with the ability to change scenes to vary the beat, I still found these sequencers monotonous. I would love to see a good, multi-layered sequencer attached to a sampler/synth that allows you to create a beat on top and then enable you to create and weave various sub-rhythms in and out below the main beat—in addition to being able to change scenes.
If something like this already exists, please excuse my ignorance and point me toward the product. Thanks
the very thing you where using does it
being modular, you can load up more of the sequencer module to attach to the instrument module.
look for the true freak label.
do not!feed the vampyr.
click link to hear the sounds of vurt coming into your ears
---
Thanks. I think I understand what you're saying, and you're right. But it seems clunky to work that way. I could also do it by muting and unmuting multiple looped tracks on my DAW, but it seems to me there could be an easier way to accomplish this layering of multiple rhythms. Seems like something a programmer could easily come up with.
Re: What you think is missing on the today soft-synth market?
Brother Greg wrote:
I was listening to some Reaktor sequencers recently, and while the sounds appealed to me, the sequencers themselves got pretty monotonous, quickly. Even with the ability to change scenes to vary the beat, I still found these sequencers monotonous. I would love to see a good, multi-layered sequencer attached to a sampler/synth that allows you to create a beat on top and then enable you to create and weave various sub-rhythms in and out below the main beat—in addition to being able to change scenes.
If something like this already exists, please excuse my ignorance and point me toward the product. Thanks
the very thing you where using does it
being modular, you can load up more of the sequencer module to attach to the instrument module.
look for the true freak label.
do not!feed the vampyr.
click link to hear the sounds of vurt coming into your ears
---
Thanks. I think I understand what you're saying, and you're right. But it seems clunky to work that way. I could also do it by muting and unmuting multiple looped tracks on my DAW, but it seems to me there could be an easier way to accomplish this layering of multiple rhythms. Seems like something a programmer could easily come up with.
- KVRAF
- 10254 posts since 7 Sep, 2006 from Roseville, CA
I'm sorta surprised that, with the modular hardware craze, there isn't more demand for a modular software paradigm. I'm thinking a whole new dedicated platform where you have a standard software shell and you can mix and match modules (e.g., OSCs, filters, etc) from different developers.
Not that it would interest me personally, since modulars don't really appeal to me, but it just seems like a logical successor to hardware modulars.
Not that it would interest me personally, since modulars don't really appeal to me, but it just seems like a logical successor to hardware modulars.
Logic Pro | PolyBrute | MatrixBrute | MiniFreak | Prophet 6 | Trigon 6 | OB-6 | Rev2 | Pro 3 | SE-1X | Polar TI2 | Blofeld | RYTMmk2 | Digitone | Syntakt | Digitakt | Integra-7
- KVRAF
- 12522 posts since 21 Mar, 2008 from Hannover, Germany
Subtractive synths get more versatile and flexible as soon as you get a bigger collection of different filters including some more complex ones. Also having a dual filter (or more than 2) could add a lot.Tj Shredder wrote:The majority of synths which are appearing are pretty boring simple subtractive synthesis. They sound good as we know, but there is no need for the 2001st of it.
But if we just look at the basic sound creation, lets call it an oscillator, we can still keep a filter with an multi stage envelope behind it.
As long as peole mostly focus in using Lowpass filters subtractive synths might be a bit "boring" but even along Lowpass filters there are many options for different sounding ones.
Recently i loaded a sample with multiple synths and was quite surprised how different this could sound in those synths, even when just using Lowpass filters. Of course there is a big change once you use something like e.g. a Comb, Notch, Vowel or other more complex filters. Also a bandpass filter or multiple ones in series could make a huge difference. Some synths also seem to change the sound of the sample quite a lot even without using a filter. In some cases in a specific synth this could make the sample quite unusable for certain sounds you want to get.
Subtractive synthesis is also not just about having a huge low end so often for certain pathes adding a HPF or BPF could give better result than just using a lowpass filter. Adding a HPF as a second filter coiuld be really helpful there.
Ingo Weidner
Win 10 Home 64-bit / mobile i7-7700HQ 2.8 GHz / 16GB RAM //
Live 10 Suite / Cubase Pro 9.5 / Pro Tools Ultimate 2021 // NI Komplete Kontrol S61 Mk1
Win 10 Home 64-bit / mobile i7-7700HQ 2.8 GHz / 16GB RAM //
Live 10 Suite / Cubase Pro 9.5 / Pro Tools Ultimate 2021 // NI Komplete Kontrol S61 Mk1
- KVRAF
- 6325 posts since 18 Jul, 2008 from New York
Drum synthesis - both acoustic and drum machine modeling.
- KVRAF
- 4590 posts since 7 Jun, 2012 from Warsaw
Missing? Customers.
Clone me and I promis he buys more plugins.
Clone me and I promis he buys more plugins.
Blog ------------- YouTube channel
Tricky-Loops wrote: (...)someone like Armin van Buuren who claims to make a track in half an hour and all his songs sound somewhat boring(...)
Tricky-Loops wrote: (...)someone like Armin van Buuren who claims to make a track in half an hour and all his songs sound somewhat boring(...)