Ubersynth vs one trick ponies

[jmh]

I'm in the one trick pony camp. As long as each does what it's supposed to do, it's all good. Having a variety of these means greater variety in the sound department, all the different oscillators, filters etc. taking care of that.

If there was an ubersynth that provided all the features and options I personally find necessary, I'd be all over it though - but it ain't gonna happen as long as different features etc. are delivered by a multitude of developers.

I do hope that some of these one trick ponies were a little more flexible. Quiten often the developers reply "but it's meant to be simple!" which is a little shortsighted...

Regards,

JMH

[deleted]

DELETED

[OzoneJunkie]

The answer may depend on "how" you write. If ones uses unique sounds/presets to inspire oneself and flesh out a track, uber may be the way to go. If you're more from the camp of "I hear this bassline in my head", then going with a one-tricker may get you there faster. Combination may sooth as well

[deleted]

DELETED

[Sascha Franck]

It depends on my needs. Whenever I need an organ, an epiano, whatever, it'll just be fine having a one trick pony.
Whenever I'm kinda "soundsurfing", the more complex synths might suit better though, simply because they usually offer more different sounds without having to switch around.

However, I love complexity coming with ease of use.
FM7 is sort of a good example as it allows for being tweaked to death, yet you have the easy edit page should you be short on time - and I think the upcoming Zebra 2 will be a prime example of a synth that actually can be extremely complex AND simple too.

Actually, IMO all more complexed synths should offer something allowing for quick n dirty tweaks, so you could get the best of both worlds.

[Barf]

NDC had a 'One Trick POny' synth but they've removed it from the side

[Ildon]

The answer may depend on "how" you write. If ones uses unique sounds/presets to inspire oneself and flesh out a track, uber may be the way to go. If you're more from the camp of "I hear this bassline in my head", then going with a one-tricker may get you there faster. Combination may sooth as well

I didn't think of it that way. That explains why I like ubersynths, too.

Can't wait for Motif ES Rack.

[smp]

I can see a lot of merit in the school of thought that says scratch/compose with the one trick ponies and then, if you want, replace some (or all) parts with more complex sounds/synths.

Since I never really finish anything (I must work on that...I'll start tomorrow ), I think the ubersynth is probably not going to be all that useful right now (although you'll pry Sonik Synth 2 from my cold dead hands ).

Keep the viewpoints coming, people. It's interesting reading.

-s

[ross g]

i'm really the last guy to tell you what to do but you asked and it's an interesting topic...i can relate to the idea of not finishing anything, but i've done a bunch of crap in the past...it seems like with synths there are two schools of thought...first is writing a song based around notes, like how you describe using a one-tricker to write the tune and then possibly flesh it out later with an ubersynth, and the second (which i think i belong in a bit better) is where you develop the song, or sound piece, or whatever you call it, around the synth patch you have come up with...in other words, the synth patch may produce a beat or the modulations may suggest a certain pattern, sometimes it may work the other way or a song can be written on a guitar and crazy synth stuff can be added on top....it's already been suggested that it depends on the way you write and i whole-heartedly agree...but i love the idea of writing on an "ubersynth" if for no other reason it produces weird, cool, synth-based music which i always appreciate...


rg

[shamann]

I mostly use modular synths, which are as simple or complex as you want them to be. In the broader scheme, I prefer synths that do a lot of things well - VAZ Modular, Synthedit, KarmaFX Synth, Foorius, Farbrausch v2, ZynAddSubFX, Rhino, Symptohm - mostly because programming them becomes part of the compositional process. I'll often sort out a sound as I develop a track around it. Complex synths give you enough variety for that kind of scheme to work well often, so I can make full use of one interface, but not exhaust its usefulness quickly.

One-trick synths are useful if you know generally what sound you want, I use small physical modelling synths a lot where I'm only after something in their ballpark.

But as an example of using an übersynth, I was playing with the new VST beta of ZynAddSubFX last night, and within a matter of minutes, had made three excellent and very different patches, where side by side, no one would ever know they were from the same synth. I like having that kind of breadth of options in one interface to work with.

[Meffy]

"I hear you've been having trouble with CPU pigs and one-trick ponies."

[gravehill]

I also like the combination of both. Well actually I much prefer übersynths because I normally start a song just by noodling around with sounds, arriving to a point of happy accident and work from there. So the sound itself is important to me and therefore I want all the possible modulation (etc) possibilities I can get.

In the end, though, I often end up replacing some simpler sounds with similiar ones from one trick ponies just for the sake of saving some cpu. For example, it very rarely makes much sense to have an insanely complex bass sound as it then leaves so little room for melodically important instruments.

If I had to choose between the two, however, I would always go with übersynths.

[ravasb]

I started in computer music with a couple of ubersynths, figuring bigger was better. I had a great time playing, but did not really write anything. I get a lot more written on my favorite one trick ponies, namely a real guitar and piano. I then try to figure out was is essential for the track. If the track has a spare feel I go with the one trick pony synths. If it is more complex I go with an Uber, though you could layer lots of one tricks as well.

In addition, what I thought were one tricks were sometimes a lot more complex when I took the time to learn them better.

[[ xerocreep ]]

My process has really been all over the map until recently. I suddenly got sick of my insane software gear bloat, and decided to really focus on just a few of the synths I had at my fingertips.

(Much like ravasb) A few of the synths I had originally thought were pretty much one trick ponies ended up being able to craft a broad palette of sounds. Augur is a good example. I had really pigeonholed it into the whole vector/wavesequencing sound, then realised I could make an insanly varied amount of sounds from it. If there were a seperate pitch envelope, it would really be unstopable (IMHO).

I tend to stay away from stuff like Crystal unless I have a very specific sound in mind requiring its multipoint envelopes or such. Rhino and absynth just seemed like far more than I really needed.

edit: I should add that I get a lot of use out of Karmafx synth though. Aside from its weird patch usage, it is very intuitive for having so many possibilities.

[kuniklo]

A lot of the more complicated synths differ from the simpler ones mainly in the amount of modulation they allow. You can do a lot of the same things by automating parameters on simpler instruments directly. This tends to make sounds a little more dynamic anyway.