KVR Audio

Greenstorm33 · Post by **Greenstorm33** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:15 am

djanthonyw wrote:One Ping Only.

To truly master the Ping, you must become the Ping

foosnark · Post by **foosnark** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:19 am

Bodhisan wrote:For me, it’s not a matter of mastering a synth - it’s mastering how synths work.

Eh, that's kind of like saying "I don't need to learn any languages, I just need to learn how language works." Good luck with that Mandarin pronunciation based on general linguistics theory.

Even if you limit yourself to subtractive synthesis, unless you are working with a simplified, stereotypical example of the type, there are going to be particular features and quirks of individual synths that are worth mastering.

And there's a lot more out there than subtractive synthesis.

wagtunes · Post by **wagtunes** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:28 am

foosnark wrote:
Bodhisan wrote:For me, it’s not a matter of mastering a synth - it’s mastering how synths work.
Eh, that's kind of like saying "I don't need to learn any languages, I just need to learn how language works." Good luck with that Mandarin pronunciation based on general linguistics theory.

Even if you limit yourself to subtractive synthesis, unless you are working with a simplified, stereotypical example of the type, there are going to be particular features and quirks of individual synths that are worth mastering.

And there's a lot more out there than subtractive synthesis.

Unless the architecture is something totally foreign, the mastering of a particular synth really just comes down to knowing where everything is located and any shortcuts or procedures that make adjusting each parameter as easy and quick as possible.

If you know how an additive synth works, you should be able to use any additive synth at an advanced level. Same for wavetable, FM or any synth. Modular synths can get a little tricky because the way that each one gets "hooked up" can vary so much from modular to modular. For example, MUX and Softube are nothing alike.

All I know is, outside of Cycle, because it was so different, there has been no synth that I haven't been able to program with a high degree of proficiency, even if all I do is make Martian noises and chiptune music,

Now, building synths, like in Reaktor, that's a whole different story. I have no aptitude for that stuff and have long given up trying to make my own version of Andromeda.

So I kind of understand where he's coming from.

Synths are nowhere near as complicated (at least not yet) as learning Mandarin.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:45 am

wagtunes wrote:
Unless the architecture is something totally foreign, the mastering of a particular synth really just comes down to knowing where everything is located and any shortcuts or procedures that make adjusting each parameter as easy and quick as possible.

Then we have very different concepts of what mastery means...

dandezebra · Post by **dandezebra** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:17 am

Hmmmmmmm.

Falcon because I love it.

Absynth because it frightens me.

Harmor because it seems futuristic.

Can't pick one!

Uriel Anthony · Post by **Uriel Anthony** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:30 am

Operator.

I've barely scratched the surface and it's really more powerful than you think.

Kalamata Kid · Post by **Kalamata Kid** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:50 am

dandezebra wrote:Hmmmmmmm.

Falcon because I love it.

Absynth because it frightens me.

Harmor because it seems futuristic.

Can't pick one!

Pick the one that intoxicates you.

Tj Shredder · Post by **Tj Shredder** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:29 am

chk071 wrote:But what's the point in getting bad sound, just for the work and effort to try and make it good sound? Don't we all want to sound good with the least amount of work involved? Why do we use DAW's? We could just use tape machine, and work like in the 70ies, if it was for the work involved to get a good result.

If you look into music history, all, really all sounds we think are good, had been made with a lot of effort. Of course you might think nowadays I just need to call up that good sounding preset, it sounded so good in that hit x. But, you missed the point in that case. If you redo the hit x, well there is no need for to do it again. If you create something else out of that preset, it sounds like a clone of hit x. Nobody needs that.
My experience in the old days, when I was creating and mangling DX 7 sounds, it took me less time to hit exactly what I imagined by programming it myself than by browsing through tons of presets. It was much more fun and much less tireing. The only requirement was mastering the synth...

My choice would be Reaktor. I am already a master in Max/MSP...
Anything else would limit my choices too much...

egbert101 · Post by **egbert101** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:30 am

pdxindy wrote: which 5?

TAL-Sampler, Absynth 5, Sylenth1, CS-80 V, Harmor.

Well, TAL-Sampler and Sylenth1 are straightfortward (or are they?) but the others are in my 'strange' category, that require quality time.

EnGee · Post by **EnGee** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:34 am

egbert101 wrote:
pdxindy wrote: which 5?
TAL-Sampler, Absynth 5, Sylenth1, CS-80 V, Harmor.

Well, TAL-Sampler and Sylenth1 are straightfortward (or are they?) but the others are in my 'strange' category, that require quality time.

Harmor is the most difficult one to master among those IMO, but it worth the effort as it is a very capable synth.

maschinelf · Post by **maschinelf** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:37 am

Falcon

Bodhisan · Post by **Bodhisan** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:48 am

foosnark wrote:
Bodhisan wrote:For me, it’s not a matter of mastering a synth - it’s mastering how synths work.
Even if you limit yourself to subtractive synthesis, unless you are working with a simplified, stereotypical example of the type, there are going to be particular features and quirks of individual synths that are worth mastering.

Thank you for helping me make my point - though I'm not limiting myself to just subtractive. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe if you teach yourself the basics of the three main languages we use in synthesis, you're going to have much better luck in having a shorter learning curve when you hop on a new synth. If I'm wrong, at least I'm trying.

kevvvvv · Post by **kevvvvv** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:58 am

Has to be Avenger

KushiQ · Post by **KushiQ** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:21 am

Omnisphere 2

foosnark · Post by **foosnark** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:23 pm

Hmmm. Not trying to get into a pointless semantic argument, but I would say getting to know the general rules ((in theory and practice) of a type of synthesis does help you get comfortable and proficient with other synths more quickly.

Mastery is something above that IMHO -- knowing every nook and cranny of it, not just sound design but how it responds to different performance/sequencing techniques, how it sits in a mix, outboard effects that make it sound its best, and so on.

I"m thinking of a martial arts master, a chess master, etc. compared to someone who just knows the general principles and has some experience. Except that this isn't a competition, so a zen master maybe? Anyway.

I've played a lot of subtractive synths since the 80s, and I've used a Microbrute pretty extensively for a couple of years now... and only recently do I feel like a first dan black belt with it, not a master yet

If You Could Only Master One Soft Synth - Which Would It Be?