KVR Audio

MarlaPodolski · Post by **MarlaPodolski** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 5:14 am

I used to be a critic of Omnisphere but all that changed with version 2. Now, I'm seriously impressed. I was just about set to buy it, then this happened. I had no idea Falcon was in the works, but here it is suddenly.

I'm only going to purchase one of these two (I own or have owned just about everything else in softsynths).

I expect that enough of you have foregone sleep and really know a lot about Falcon by now. So, kindly compare. I'm sure I'd be happy with either, but could some of the true softsynth experts tear into both of these and make some detailed comparisons. Forget the money side of this debate -- it's just not an issue at all. But how about the features? Which has the better synthesis oscs, better and more envelopes, LFOs, all that and more. The Falcon GUI is very modern, much like Serum, if you ask me. But I like the slighly older look of Omni maybe even more? What do you say on all this? Two major major softsynths.

Oh, and don't forget the sound quality. From just osc alone and on up into effects. Which sounds better to you?

Teksonik · Post by **Teksonik** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 6:55 am

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 1&t=449467

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 1&t=449200

deastman · Post by **deastman** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:38 am

I bought both, and I like both. I'm tired and about to go to sleep for the night, so I can't do an extensive comparison. I'll just say that Falcon is more extensive in terms of the modulation sources and layering being essentially limitless. Omnisphere also offers excellent modulation and layering options, but there are limits. Falcon also allows you to import your own multisamples, whereas Omnisphere only allows you to import a single sample. On the other hand, Omnisphere offers a vast collection of sample material to work with, while Falcon is much more limited in terms of the factory library which ships with the product. Omnisphere also offers that cool locking functionality so you can prevent specific aspects of the sound from changing when you switch to a new preset, which makes for a fast and effect means of taking the factory patches even farther with no effort.

Really, I think they're both great, and I doubt you'd be disappointed with either one.

cocoazenith · Post by **cocoazenith** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:41 am

Omnisphere got the Eric Persing know-how and a lot more soundsources than Falcon.
Yes, I'm an Eric Persing fan.

SLiC · Post by **SLiC** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:45 am

frankly Falcon is looking like the most powerful and flexible vst ever made....I have omni2 and it sounds great but I still find it only excels on complex organic sounds, although it can do bread and butter synths, other do it better. Falcon is a different thing, it seems to do everything very well! The VA section (just one of the 15 synth types) is actualy pretty deep and combined with some of the unique modulation and outstanding effects can imho rival synths like Zebra....the wavetable section contains a lot of what synths like nerve and serum (one of my faveroutes) can do, then you have all the other stuff ...

dwozzle · Post by **dwozzle** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:26 am

How's Falcon's resource usage, CPU and RAM? Of course it depends on what you're doing, just a general feel.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:33 am

The more stuff there is in the instance, the more CPU is used, of course. It can definitely munch some CPU especially when lots of FX and unison is used.

SLiC · Post by **SLiC** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:45 am

I was surprised by how CPU efficient it was, but it really depends if the patch is sample/wavetable based or VA based with a lot of VA based effects/sparkle reverb etc. Overall, it is (for example) less hungry on the wavetables than say serum, less hungry on the VA than Diva...but then its all relative and I am not sure about the level of oversampling etc...

The only way I can give you some perspective is that on my rig (i7 3.4G SSD 16M RAM Win 10) I could play all the pre-sets with plenty of poly and no more than 50% CPU.

For a V1 piece of software, its very well behaved. It would benefit from multicore support (perhaps per part), especially as it has a multipart architecture and would be a great laptop based standalone live instrument (in fact I cant think of any better for this type of 'workstation' function)

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:48 am

Technically it's v4 of software... not v1, since there's a lot of MF3 in Falcon

wagtunes · Post by **wagtunes** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:41 pm

Marla, this may be the toughest synth comparison I've ever had to do. Most VSTs are pretty basic when you tear them apart and really do come down to price, assuming we're comparing two VSTs that do similar things. Obviously, if you're comparing say Waldorf Wavemapper to Gforce ImpOSCar 2, they're two different animals and comparison just makes no sense.

In this case, Omni 2 vs Falcon, you're splitting hairs, literally.

Sound quality? Perception here is totally subjective. To say that one sounds better than the other would only be opinion. I can say without question that they sound different. Omni has a very unmistakable sound, especially the ambient and ethereal patches. The granular engine, which is very limited, has a very distinct sound. The FX are very distinctive and, in some areas, very different from Falcon. For example, nothing sounds like Omni 2's Innerspace FX. Throw this on any granular based patch and the results are very distinct. Conversely, Falcon has its own distinct FX and sounds.

So how "interchangeable" these synths are really comes down to what it is you're trying to achieve sound wise. Falcon has more synthesis options and more modulation capabilities. But all this comes at a price. That price, for me anyway, is ease of use.

There is no question that Falcon is a more complex synth and has a much bigger learning curve. I find the architecture much more difficult to work with. Now a lot of that may have to do with the fact that I've been using Omni 2 for a lot longer and need more time to get used to Falcon. But I've been around synths for 36 years and Falcon is not something you just open up and go to work in. Whereas with Omni 2, a default patch actually makes a sound, Falcon's default Multi does not. And figuring out how to actually put an oscillator into a patch, something that should be basic 101 synthesis, took my having to actually open up the manual to figure out how to do it. The "intuitive" things that I tried to actually start sound design didn't do anything. This is the first out of over 300 VSTs that I have used where I have had this problem.

Point is, Falcon is a steeper learning curve by leaps and bounds over Omni 2. I was programming complex sounds in Omni 2 without having to ever open the manual. With Falcon, I'm going to literally have to read the entire manual.

If that is a factor for you, ease of use, then Omni 2 is the clear choice. It's not even close, IMO.

However, if having to really dive into learning a synth is not a problem for you, and it really comes down to CPU efficiency, sound possibilities and sound "quality: then below is my 3 point evaluation of the two synths. Please take the following with a grain of salt as it's just my opinion.

Point 1 Sounds Quality: Toss Up. We're talking two high end systems here that probably are the best sounding of any on the market. You cannot go wrong with either.

Point 2 Sound Possibilities: If you put me up against a brick wall, I'd have to say that Falcon probably has the edge here. Omni 2 has a limited architecture structurally. You can't have more than 8 parts to a multi. Falcon, it's unlimited. Falcon has more modulation capabilities. More synth methods. More of everything except presets. In that area, Omni 2 blows Falcon out of the water. However, many of Omni 2's presets are unusable. Sorry, but they are. I don't know what Spectrasonics was thinking with some of these, whereas almost all Falcon's presets appear to be very usable.

Point 3: CPU Efficiency: Omni 2 is a pig and a half. I can only load 20 instances into my DAW before I run out of system resources. Now I haven't tested Falcon in this area and I'm sure that if you used really complex patches you might run into the same problem. But I can't imagine Falcon being any worse than Omni 2. Omni 2 also has sound issues with some of the granular and innerspace patches. Kind of a distortion. Not everybody is experiencing this but many are. I am sure this is a resource issue. Like I said, Omni 2 is a pig.

Bottom Line: If somebody put me up against a brick wall and forced me to choose one of these, for ease of use, Omni 2. For sound possibilities, Falcon. For CPU efficiency, probably won't matter for my own purposes.

Ultimate Choice: Falcon

YMMV.

focusrite · Post by **focusrite** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:29 pm

There is no question that Falcon is a more complex synth and has a much bigger learning curve. I find the architecture much more difficult to work with. Now a lot of that may have to do with the fact that I've been using Omni 2 for a lot longer and need more time to get used to Falcon. But I've been around synths for 36 years and Falcon is not something you just open up and go to work in.

The manual is gash imo. This thing is really easy to program once you know how to "focus" on the "master", the "part" and the "layer" as there are multiple ways to do this.. Then you need to know where to find the save / preferences dialogue under the spanner Icon at the top left.

This video gets you there in 20 minutes which is fairly painless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pw5mMFD4LE

MarlaPodolski · Post by **MarlaPodolski** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 7:56 pm

Thanks, all who have commented so far. Thanks in particular to wagtunes for some very insightful opinions. I expect I'll be on the fence over these two for a while, but there's no rush. Perhaps the biggest reason for only going with one of these is that I know there is a learning curve with each. I was able to download Falcon's manual and began reading it already. Does anyone know if Omni 2's manual can be downloaded? I have so far bookmarked its online page and have had an account there for ages. It's a little easier to have these longer manuals in hand than lengthy staring at a screen.

Please, anyone else - add your opinions on these two marvellous synths as your time allows!

Numanoid · Post by **Numanoid** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:01 pm

MarlaPodolski wrote:I used to be a critic of Omnisphere but all that changed with version 2. Now, I'm seriously impressed. I was just about set to buy it, then this happened.

If you get distracted by any new instrument released, you weren't really intent on buying Omni2

And neither Falcon

Because there will always be a shiny new plug appearing

wagtunes · Post by **wagtunes** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:05 pm

MarlaPodolski wrote:Thanks, all who have commented so far. Thanks in particular to wagtunes for some very insightful opinions. I expect I'll be on the fence over these two for a while, but there's no rush. Perhaps the biggest reason for only going with one of these is that I know there is a learning curve with each. I was able to download Falcon's manual and began reading it already. Does anyone know if Omni 2's manual can be downloaded? I have so far bookmarked its online page and have had an account there for ages. It's a little easier to have these longer manuals in hand than lengthy staring at a screen.

Please, anyone else - add your opinions on these two marvellous synths as your time allows!

I have yet to find a downloadable Omni 2 manual. It's the one thing about the synth that kind of bugs me, not that I need one at this point but what if I don't use it for a while and forget some things? A PDF would be really nice.

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:24 pm

I just got both here. Love both their attributes.

Well? Falcon vs. Omnisphere 2