I have quite a few softsynths now and the more I buy the more they all start to sound the same. What I mean by this is that if it's an FM emulation then it invariably has an "analog" switch and visa versa.

Even the presets begin to sound the same. Either I have GAS fatigue or there really is less to distinguish between softsynths.

For example, I can tell there's a difference in sound between PolyKB II, Alchemy and Arturia MiniV when I play them on their own but the difference is so slight as to be indistinguishable in a mix. Especially when most modern mixes have loads of FX piled on top.

I listen to contemporary music and haven't a clue what synths have been used in a mix. They could even be mainly sample based - it's really hard to distinguish. But if I listen to John Foxx, Soft Cell, Rick Wakeman (ok that was a joke) or anything that was produced pre-mid 90's then I can usually tell what type of synth was used.

This isn't some pointless longing for the good old days nostalgia trip. The point I'm trying to make is that what is the point of buying emulations if they get lost in the mix and why have more than a couple of synths if they all sound so similar?

I'm thinking of buying Zebra and the latest expansion but what's the point?

Since buying Omnisphere its pretty much all I use. I have Z3ta+ 2 also and all the stuff included in Cubase 6.5. It's enough. I'm not a collector, I don't need anything else to get some work done. Same goes for FX. Stick to a small collection and learn it well.

After you get Zebra it will be so much easier to let the others go.

Depends on which synthesis method your synth uses. I agree that many of the "typical" analog emulations sound quite the same but there are differences in those too. Try to add the Formant filter in the new Oxium plugin for example.

Then there are other synthesis methods like e.g. sampling, FM synthesis, additive synthesis, phase distortion synthesis, wavetable synthesis, granular synthesis, formant synthesis, spectral synthesis, vector synthesis, physical modeling, HCM synthesis (e.g. Tone2 Gladiator) etc.

My favorite "unusual" synths are e.g. Tone2 ElectraX (tons of features...), Tone2 Gladiator 2, KV331 Audio Synthmaster 2.5 (again tons of features...), Waldorf Largo, Waldorf PPG Wave 3.V, Camel Audio Alchemy, NI FM8, NI Absynth 5, Hamburg Audio Nuklear, Korg Wavestation plugin and of course NI Kontakt for "normal" samples.



Alchemy got several different synthesis methods like VA, additive synthesis, samples, granular synthesis and spectral synthesis so a comparison to e.g. PolyKB II is maybe not a good choice.
As a "pure" analog emulation PolyKB II or the other Xils LAb synths are the better choice IMO.


Ingo

most synths these days have so many features they can all be made to sound very similar to each other



prob cos the same people make them for diff synths....trance lead for 9 diff synths anyone?



i assume you are using the same type of preset then...? in which case, yes, you would be hard pushed to tell what was used in a full mix (dont believe the hype)



thats prob because you have read about it, the info is oput there...trying to guess when you know nothing about about is very different



thats down to your taste and requirements. Im sure you will have a load of posts telling you what you 'need' and what is 'best' but its really down to you. If you're happy with two synths, use two synths, its not illegal

But many synths now have a variety of types of synthesis and if I played a preset in Alchemy and Massive, for example, I wouldn't know the difference unless I could see the plugin. I think the distinctive quality of older synths has been superseded with the versatility of contemporary synths.

I have Cyclop which can create some off the wall sounds that are probably very difficult for other synths to make but the vast majority of presets sound very similar to, for example, Massive. I have Oxium and it sounds great but having gone through the presets it sounds very similar to other synths I own. I do agree that XILS 3 can make some unique and distinctive sounds but so can PolyKB II but, once again, the vast majority of presets sound very similar to those of other synths including SynthMaster.

If I want a particular sound, moog bass for example, I can load up any of these synths and choose a preset and very few people, especially those who listen to popular music, could tell the difference.

Perhaps softsynth developers could put up a few tutorials that show how their synths can make unique sounds that others can't. But mostly the tutorials show how to learn the synth to make bog standard sounds that everyone else does. Let's have a little ingenuity and creativity when it comes to marketing. After all they've spend months developing their product to be unique.

Hmm i was initially unimpressed by thor but that was just bad factory banks. Now over the last weeks i have realised it is my favorite synth ever in my history of working entirely ITB.

I think thor, and a sample based thing can cover all ground.. but... i don't know if i agree that things sound the same...

zebra for example has a unique sound to me that you either don't like or do...

there are of course synths that sound similar but i do feel there are many unique ones.

I believe alchemy has it's own "sound" also for example, love it or hate it.

I know very well what are you talking about.
Now i'm getting more synths, i'm starting to think the same.

So basically, i will try to narrow down all of them to 7 or so as maximum. And learn them in deep.
The others i will use them to make demotracks if needed.

I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed now with too many synths.

I will try to choose the best ones for each type of synthesis.
Analog, Vector, Sample Based, WaveScanning, Wavetable, FM, Spectral, HCM, etc...

Have a good day

Good advice! I guess I have been sucked into the GAS hype.

I suppose most people wouldn't know what synths were used for 'Are Friends Electric' and 'I Feel Love' but they still make the songs sound very different. I accept that's mainly because they're different genres but even so I think the synth sounds they use still make them sound distinctive. IOW Moroder uses one type of synth and Numan another to get those distinctive sounds. If they wanted to swop sounds they knew what synth to choose. A DX7, for example, could never sound like a Moog back in the day.

Now days it seems hard to tell what distinguishes synth sounds even if they're different genres of music. For example a bass sound in Dubstep could have been made by the same synth that created the lovely synth strings in the latest saccharine pop ballad or New Age track.

One softsynth that has character to the point of my own puzzlement is Oddity. I've got synths that can sound unique and I understand that the origin of this is to do with a 'novel' way of processing sound or some other technical detail. Oddity's simple square+saw+filter+envelope+blah patches just have this instantly recognizable raspiness to them that perplexes me. I've tried to isolate or extract this and it just seems to be 'ingrained' into the synth.

Personally, I think the thing with synths is that the differences can be very subtle, but they're still picked up on. For example, everybody extracts a lot of information out of the attack of a sound, without even knowing what an attack is. Sound has a direct connection to our subconscious, so while two sawtooths might sound the same if you played C5 on both synths, when you apply a wide range of musical expressions the differences between how the two instruments respond are "felt" more than heard in some cases.
Last edited by Sendy on Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:05 pm; edited 2 times in total

Theoretically, you could use ONE synth for all kind of sounds and all genres of music! But nevertheless, I think there ARE differences between all synths. For example, I couldn't imagine to use Z3ta+ 2 for chillout tracks (or would it be possible if I try hard??)

All guitar amp sims sound the same but My real amps all sound way different

I do not have a clue. Maybe its time to invest in some character filled hardware synthesizer(s) to complement your soft synth collection?

As for what was used on albums I listen to and like as simply a humble fan of music, I could not care less what was used aslong as it sounds good
I certainly do not actively listen to albums to pickout what gear was used personally but sometimes it happens that it stands out a mile. It would kill the enjoyment for Me as just a humble fan of what I listen to

Obviously all peoples MMV, But first and foremost surely music is created by others for our listening pleasure and it is totally upto the bands/artists to select whatever the hell they want to use as they do it as a creative outlet. Well thats how I hear/see it or my 2 pence FWIW

Dean

every synth sounds different. It is like human voice: every person has a different voice. They of corse are similar, but every one has got a unique character. It is like faces, cats, cars, flowers, wine, beer, football players, cheese, perfumes, etc. Some are similar, some others very similar, but they are never identical. The more one has AN EAR, the more can recognize the "quid" aka the character of a synth (or every other instrument, of course). And that's why it sounds not easy to emulate even very simple instruments like TR909 or minimoog. Let alone the rest!

Exactly. Laurent/Lotuzia asked me how close Oxium sound to a Jupiter 8 (i had owned a real one and also made Jupiter 8 presets for U-He Diva) and i told him that it could sound close but there is still a difference.
With analog synths the biggest differences are usually with the filters and the envelopes but sometimes also with the oscillators (one Sawtooth does not sound exactly like another one...).

You should also be able to hear the difference of a simple SynthEdit synth and one of the new analog emulations like e.g. Oxium, Synthix, Diva or Saurus.
If not maybe all synths really sound the same for you but the problem does not seem to be with the synths then...


Ingo
Last edited by Ingonator on Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

People who claim they have "an ear" often can't guess the sound of a plugin correctly. There was the embarrassing example on the UAD forum of people choosing an IK Multimedia plugin over an UAD emulation for accuracy awhile back and on Gearsluts similar comparisons catch many people out.

If a synth has a distinctive sound in some way then surely this is a selling point but that's not coming across when I view many of the tutorials for them. Unlike a human voice which is a billion time more complex then a software synth and can't be reduced to such a mechanical comparison the developers of these products could do more to show us what makes their synth distinctive. The golden ears argument just doesn't cut it in an era where most synths can emulate each other.