why are most soft synths and effects so expensive?

[HanafiH]

Yamaha DX-7: 160,000 units (largest selling synth in history)

Interesting, from Sound on Sound

"In a marketplace where a synth that sells a few tens of thousands of units is considered a success, one that reportedly sold 250,000 surely exceeds a manufacturer's wildest hopes. Such an instrument was the Korg M1, the widely-beloved Sample + Synthesis workstation that can rightly be called the most popular synth of all time. Released in 1988 at a UK retail price of £1499, it was manufactured until 1995 — and seven years is a very long time in music technology. Although Korg won't verify the quarter of a million figure I've just mentioned, they do tell me that 100,000 were manufactured during the first two years of the M1's life, serial number 100,000 having rolled off the production line in November 1990."

The number I gave earlier was from another source, and it seems perhaps exagerated.

I've heard the same figure from a number of sources, Jon; I'm thinking it probably is right.

ew

There's this at Wiki:

"The Korg M1 was the world's first widely-known music workstation and is the best-selling digital keyboard of all time, surpassing even the Yamaha DX7. With its onboard MIDI sequencer and adequate pallete of sounds, the Korg M1 allowed musicians to produce complete professional arrangements.

Prior to the arrival of the Korg M1, the Yamaha DX7 and the Roland D-50 were the best-selling digital synthesizers.

The Korg M1 was a serious breakthrough in many ways: it was Korg's most successful synthesizer (more than 200,000 units sold over a 6 year production period), and while not being the first workstation (this honor belongs to the Ensoniq ESQ-1 mid-80's synth), it was among the first in its class and set new standards for other manufacturers to reach. It even enabled Korg to regain total economic control of the company; the M1's unpredented sales allowed Korg executives to buy Yamaha's share of the company, a deal which had originated in the mid-80's."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korg_M1

[BONES]

I don't think that's right. The ESQ-1 was multi-timbral bu tit didn't have a proper sequencer, nor did it have on-board effects. SO who does fact-checking for Wiki's? Anyone can put what they like up there, can't they?

I sometimes have the idea that if Absynth costed 1500$ and everything else was priced accordingly, we wouldn't have any discussion like this. And maybe we'd have a sane market.

It certainly wouldn't include me because at those prices I would still be using hardware. The Trinity's sequencer is still my second favourite after the one I use now.

Look at what Z1 was and then look at what Z2 is! That is progress...

Or maybe that is Urs wanting to trade on a very well-respected name with his latest creation?

I'd rather have 5 great tools rather than 1,000 rehashes of the same idea, over and over.

Me too, its just that those 5 tools are either included in my host or are free. They are by no means anywhere near as good as I would like them to be but they are certainly much closer than any $150+ instrument out there.

Think about it, in time if the small devs are put out of business, do you think they will stop making synths? No, and they are not going to give them away either, they are going to keep them for their own use and in a 'non-refined commercial form', maybe give it to a few close friends and that is it. They do it because they love it, and that is what makes them feel alive. The same reason you make music eh? Should we start a discussion about some people writing music that isn't worth 1 cent? It isn't much different.

That would be a fine argument if there were not so many refined, well thought-out and very usable freeware synths out there. As it is, however, it doesn't stand up.

(Having said that, if you really don't think it is worth $200, then I think that you are simply deluded. I was a student once too. I think that if you surgically detach your mobile from your ear, stop drinking and smoking for a couple of weeks, and live off potatoes and lentils, you will miraculously find that after a couple of weeks that you have saved $200.)

I'm not a student, I earn really good money and could easily afford a $200 softsynth. I just have never seen one that I thought was worth that much.

This confirms my assumption that warez plug-ins and sequencers aren't typically used by anyone serious about making music.

Except that my earlier story about the guy with a No. 1 single who openly uses warez. He tells anyone and everyone because most of his collegues are in the same situation. Its rife amongst people who earn a living from it.

I'm sorry, £100 for a polyphonic, professional synth with loads of presets is just dirt cheap. Hey I remember saving for a year to buy my first synth, a Casio CZ-101.

Not when I can get a really good hardware synth for the same amount of money it isn't. And I can. And I have. In fact I don't think my brand-new CZ-101 cost me much more than that in 1985.

The problem is not that a decent synth costs £100. It's that there are too many out there, and because software is easily attainable (type in your credit card numbers, download and play) we all kinda want loads of them.

I don't, I want the least number possible.

Look at what's come out over the current months in that market alone: Surge, Zebra2, Octopus, Blue, Spectra, Prophet-V and others.

None of which have even the slightest appeal to me. I probably wouldn't use them if they were free.

New stuff comes out, and if I think it's worth it to me, I splash the cash. Things like Surge, Octopus, Specta etc - they all look great, but the utility is not that high to me - I already have a ton of synths, and I'm not even utilising many of them to the fullest.

And there's the rub. Too many, mostly developers, relate expensive to complex so we get an endless stream of increasingly complex synths, most of which are completely interchangable for what most use them for. I'm waiting for someone to come out with some just as useful but infinitely less complicated so that I can actually use it.

People always use the "can't afford it" excuse

I don't, I use the "can't justify the price" excuse.

If something is important, you will prioritise funds for it.

Only if you need it and th efact is that if you had to you could do it all on freeware, you just choose not to.

I assume you use a MAc, then? You can spend double what it costs for a PC, yet $200 is too much for a good synth.

I don't think $200 is too much for a good synth, I just don't think that I've ever seen one.

So are you getting the drift of my argument yet? Its simple, I think that every $150+ plugin that I've tried/seen/heard is well overpriced because none of them are more useful to me than a load of freeware or things I can build myself in SynthEdit. Yet the thrust of discussion here assumes that if it costs $200 it is definitely worth that amount on some absolute scale. I can only ask why? What makes synth X worth the asking price? What does it have over freeware synth Y? Really. All those I have seen just make it harder to get anything done.

[droolmaster0]

I don't think that's right. The ESQ-1 was multi-timbral bu tit didn't have a proper sequencer, nor did it have on-board effects. SO who does fact-checking for Wiki's? Anyone can put what they like up there, can't they?

I sometimes have the idea that if Absynth costed 1500$ and everything else was priced accordingly, we wouldn't have any discussion like this. And maybe we'd have a sane market.

It certainly wouldn't include me because at those prices I would still be using hardware. The Trinity's sequencer is still my second favourite after the one I use now.

Look at what Z1 was and then look at what Z2 is! That is progress...

Or maybe that is Urs wanting to trade on a very well-respected name with his latest creation?

I'd rather have 5 great tools rather than 1,000 rehashes of the same idea, over and over.

Me too, its just that those 5 tools are either included in my host or are free. They are by no means anywhere near as good as I would like them to be but they are certainly much closer than any $150+ instrument out there.

Think about it, in time if the small devs are put out of business, do you think they will stop making synths? No, and they are not going to give them away either, they are going to keep them for their own use and in a 'non-refined commercial form', maybe give it to a few close friends and that is it. They do it because they love it, and that is what makes them feel alive. The same reason you make music eh? Should we start a discussion about some people writing music that isn't worth 1 cent? It isn't much different.

That would be a fine argument if there were not so many refined, well thought-out and very usable freeware synths out there. As it is, however, it doesn't stand up.

(Having said that, if you really don't think it is worth $200, then I think that you are simply deluded. I was a student once too. I think that if you surgically detach your mobile from your ear, stop drinking and smoking for a couple of weeks, and live off potatoes and lentils, you will miraculously find that after a couple of weeks that you have saved $200.)

I'm not a student, I earn really good money and could easily afford a $200 softsynth. I just have never seen one that I thought was worth that much.

This confirms my assumption that warez plug-ins and sequencers aren't typically used by anyone serious about making music.

Except that my earlier story about the guy with a No. 1 single who openly uses warez. He tells anyone and everyone because most of his collegues are in the same situation. Its rife amongst people who earn a living from it.

I'm sorry, £100 for a polyphonic, professional synth with loads of presets is just dirt cheap. Hey I remember saving for a year to buy my first synth, a Casio CZ-101.

Not when I can get a really good hardware synth for the same amount of money it isn't. And I can. And I have. In fact I don't think my brand-new CZ-101 cost me much more than that in 1985.

The problem is not that a decent synth costs £100. It's that there are too many out there, and because software is easily attainable (type in your credit card numbers, download and play) we all kinda want loads of them.

I don't, I want the least number possible.

Look at what's come out over the current months in that market alone: Surge, Zebra2, Octopus, Blue, Spectra, Prophet-V and others.

None of which have even the slightest appeal to me. I probably wouldn't use them if they were free.

New stuff comes out, and if I think it's worth it to me, I splash the cash. Things like Surge, Octopus, Specta etc - they all look great, but the utility is not that high to me - I already have a ton of synths, and I'm not even utilising many of them to the fullest.

And there's the rub. Too many, mostly developers, relate expensive to complex so we get an endless stream of increasingly complex synths, most of which are completely interchangable for what most use them for. I'm waiting for someone to come out with some just as useful but infinitely less complicated so that I can actually use it.

People always use the "can't afford it" excuse

I don't, I use the "can't justify the price" excuse.

If something is important, you will prioritise funds for it.

Only if you need it and th efact is that if you had to you could do it all on freeware, you just choose not to.

I assume you use a MAc, then? You can spend double what it costs for a PC, yet $200 is too much for a good synth.

I don't think $200 is too much for a good synth, I just don't think that I've ever seen one.

So are you getting the drift of my argument yet? Its simple, I think that every $150+ plugin that I've tried/seen/heard is well overpriced because none of them are more useful to me than a load of freeware or things I can build myself in SynthEdit. Yet the thrust of discussion here assumes that if it costs $200 it is definitely worth that amount on some absolute scale. I can only ask why? What makes synth X worth the asking price? What does it have over freeware synth Y? Really. All those I have seen just make it harder to get anything done.

And, obviously, I should judge these synths by YOUR experiences. I've seen your software. I'd rather use Tera 3. Thanks.

[james0tucson]

So are you getting the drift of my argument yet? Its simple, I think that every $150+ plugin that I've tried/seen/heard is well overpriced because none of them are more useful to me than a load of freeware or things I can build myself in SynthEdit.

You yourself are a prodigious, even famous, synth/fx software developer, and not fairly representative of any part of the market.

[arke]

BONES, what would have been the maximum price you would have paid for WaspXT if you had to?

[biomechanoid]

So are you getting the drift of my argument yet? Its simple, I think that every $150+ plugin that I've tried/seen/heard is well overpriced because none of them are more useful to me than a load of freeware or things I can build myself in SynthEdit. Yet the thrust of discussion here assumes that if it costs $200 it is definitely worth that amount on some absolute scale. I can only ask why? What makes synth X worth the asking price? What does it have over freeware synth Y? Really. All those I have seen just make it harder to get anything done.

It depends entirely on what you want to do, and having heard some of your music I think for once I can appreciate your viewpoint.

I for one love to see innovative new technology that offers new options and new creative possibilities, but of course, you don't need a bazooka to open a can of beans, a plain old can opener will do the job perfectly.

[eduardo_b]

I for one love to see innovative new technology that offers new options and new creative possibilities, but of course, you don't need a bazooka to open a can of beans, a plain old can opener will do the job perfectly.

You have, in my mind, raised the most subjective but ultimately most essential aspect of this thread. If a $200 soft synth doesn't work for one's music goals, then it's really worth nothing. Its true value isn't the price tag as much as what it does for one's creativity. I have found that there are a few synths in this price range that are useful to me, whereas others (including a new one recently released) are truly worth nothing to me for my creative direction.

[shamann]

What would a perfectly simple, powerful, and good softsynth be like? I've always preferred modular softsynths for that reason, they are as simple or complex as you would like them to be. But excluding any possible complexity, I wonder what directions softsynth developers could go to get better, make something that is in demand, while not increasing the degree of clutter and options?

I've also noticed we've really only talked about softsynths, but the original question included effects. Considering the cost of Waves, URS and the like, the cost per value on my scale tips more towards the rip-off side with those things than any Imposcar or Zebra2. Luckily, there are a lot of quality free or mid-priced effects around, so I honestly can say I have never had even a mild desire to get the grossly priced effects (I know, aimed at a pro market, but still, pro means you have to lose your senses?)

[beej]

I'll save the synths discussion for another thread, but I don't think (front-end) complexity is the way forward. Especially as the majority of other people's sounds hardly bother to make the mod wheel do something interesting, let alone hundreds of mod sources and destinations!

I'd like synths with a smaller visible control set but doing internally complex things. Let me play with tone, texture etc but let the plugin do the complicated stuff behind the scenes. If I want a 'thicker" sound, I should grab the "thickness" knob and twiddle that, and let the plugin work out what to do with the oscillators, filters, modulations etc.

I'd basically want to combine a powerful synth engine behind the scenes together with a synth programmers knowledge base, tricks, techniques and so on to create some kind of sound expert system, accessible to the end user but still employing really skilled programmers' tricks in the back end.

Kind of like, I buy Rob Papen's "Green", and instead of a nice synth with loads of sounds designed by Rob Papen, I kindof buy a virtual Rob Papen that I can program the synth *through*. I don't have to know all his tricks, I just have to communicate the kinds of things I want in my sound, and my Virtual Rob presents various options to me that I can refine or reject.

Phew! So I *did* do the synth discussion! Anyway:-

As far as FX go, the only FX I use are the Logic FX, my Waves Musician's 2 bundle for compressors/eq/doubler, and my UAD-1 card (not on the laptop though ;(.

I don't feel the need for anything else, although there is some more UAD plugs and even some Waves ones I would like where I'm not so well covered (although I'm not gonna buy anymore Waves stuff ever...)

I don't see the point in having a million compressors, delays, choruses etc to choose from. As long as I have a good basic set of all the tools I generally need, that's good enough. If you're doing science experiments and designing wacky sounds, you can go a long way combining and routing effects, filters, running audio through synths etc to keep you going for a long time.

Ok, there are some interesing FX out there that can do wacky stuff, but again the utility decreases the less often i can use it. A decent compressor I can use on 90% of things which require compression is more usefull to me than a dubby feedback modulation distorto-delay-flangifier.

Besides, the free stuff (especially VST) covers wacky stuff quite well if you *really* need something different to your usual stuff.

[Borogove]

I'd like synths with a smaller visible control set but doing internally complex things. Let me play with tone, texture etc but let the plugin do the complicated stuff behind the scenes. If I want a 'thicker" sound, I should grab the "thickness" knob and twiddle that, and let the plugin work out what to do with the oscillators, filters, modulations etc.

/me quietly scribbles some notes

[BONES]

Good, because they are excellent thoughts.

And, obviously, I should judge these synths by YOUR experiences. I've seen your software. I'd rather use Tera 3. Thanks.

And exactly what output have you managed in the last few years? I have a demanding full-time job - I don't have time to go through endless multi-page GUI's to get sounds and I have no desire to spend countless hours learning to master something that, at the end of the day, won't do anything for me that I cannot do with much simpler tools of equal or higher sound quality. If developers want me to give them a lot more of my money they need to offer me a lot more of what I need, which is sound quality rather than emulation of something I would never have bought in the first place [any Moog synth] or unecessary, over-the-top complexity that I, and the vast majority of you if the presets are anything to go by, will never need.

You yourself are a prodigious, even famous, synth/fx software developer, and not fairly representative of any part of the market.

Says who? I may no tbe representative of the KVR segment of the market but I think my needs are not too disssimilar to a hell of a lot of other people who are more interested in the result than the process. I think the simple description that has been illuding me is effective - I want effective tools to get my work done. The two parts of effectiveness would be appropriate, i.e. able to do what is needed, and efficient.

BONES, what would have been the maximum price you would have paid for WaspXT if you had to?

Its really impossible to say. If I couldn't skin it [and if it were a VSTi I wouldn't be able to] I would not be as willing because the parameters are all over the place. But even so it would still be worth $100 to me easily. Why, do you think IL are about to do it?

You have, in my mind, raised the most subjective but ultimately most essential aspect of this thread. If a $200 soft synth doesn't work for one's music goals, then it's really worth nothing.

That may well be true, and I believe it is, but that doesn't seem to stop people from stampeding to buy up the next big thing, even though they often realise themselves that in 3 months it will be gathering virtual dust in a folder somewhere.

I wonder what directions softsynth developers could go to get better, make something that is in demand, while not increasing the degree of clutter and options?

There are plenty of options. Even the humble Alesis Micron manages to trump any softsynth I know by offering multiple filter emulations that cover a broad spectrum of tastes in a single instrument. On top of that it has both a "recently used" and "favourite" section in it's preset management system so that users don't have to wade through piles of krap to get at what they need. Then there is the fact that my two favourite filter sounds come from instruments that have been around for ages [WaspXT and MDA JX10]. Let's hear some great new filter algorithms, eh?
I try to incoporate all the things I have found to be useful over the years into my synths and nothing that is not whereas the commercial appraoch is to include everything just to cater to a wider market. Why can't commercial developers make niche versions of their uber-synths? Surely it would be a very cost-effective way of increasing sales? I'd rather have 5 easy-to-use synths that each do one particular thing really well than one synth that does it all but takes 5 times the effort to get anything from.

[diverdee]

All this perceived complexity vs. simplicity discussion.
A lot of it depends on what kind of music/sounds ones is attempting to create.
I prefer the simple stuff that can be made comples if need be (Reason combinator's), I'm still on the fence about integrating EXT into my setup, in order to utilise the routing possibilities, again fairly simple, but can be made to do some complex stuff.

If a $200 soft synth doesn't work for one's music goals, then it's really worth nothing.

Absolutely spot on (IMO).

I think the simple description that has been illuding me is effective - I want effective tools to get my work done. The two parts of effectiveness would be appropriate, i.e. able to do what is needed, and efficient.

Also spot on, although depending on ones needs & goals effectiveness is a subjective term, to an extent, at least so far as 'to do what is needed' is concerned (depends what you feel you need).
I was so sure I wanted to buy Reaktor a short while ago, if i'd have had the money i'd have likely grabbed it, & it would have been a mistake in retrospect.
I got giddy, then researched a bit further & realised I don't need it right now - not that i'm knocking it as an excellent creative tool - I just realised that it was only a small part of it that really caught my interest, that I can pretty much create something in Reason that will fulfill that function & in the process gain valuable knowledge as well as save money.
The same for GURU another on my tentative list - I've realised I don't need it (though if I got it for a Bday present I wouldn't complain too much).
I don't on the whole believe that VSTI's are too expensive per se but I have realised, & reading this thread has helped further clarify my thoughts, that there's very little I need anyway really - no matter what the price - i've hardly got much freeware, never mind payware.

[droolmaster0]

Good, because they are excellent thoughts.

And, obviously, I should judge these synths by YOUR experiences. I've seen your software. I'd rather use Tera 3. Thanks.

And exactly what output have you managed in the last few years? I have a demanding full-time job - I don't have time to go through endless multi-page GUI's to get sounds and I have no desire to spend countless hours learning to master something that, at the end of the day, won't do anything for me that I cannot do with much simpler tools of equal or higher sound quality. If developers want me to give them a lot more of my money they need to offer me a lot more of what I need, which is sound quality rather than emulation of something I would never have bought in the first place [any Moog synth] or unecessary, over-the-top complexity that I, and the vast majority of you if the presets are anything to go by, will never need.

How I spend my time, and what I have accomplished is really none of your business. It is also quite obviously true that you should use synths in whatever way you find the most productive and enjoy the most. However you simply don't seem to differentiate that what you may find worthwhile may not jive with the experience of others. from what I've tried of your synths, I wouldn't use them. I do enjoy using other more complex tools. The rest is irrelevant. Just as, even if I were more productive than you using just Kyma, MAX, and Vaz Modular, you'd still argue that your tools are the best. They are - for you, and what you want to do. But your attempts to generalize are hilarious.

[BONES]

How I spend my time, and what I have accomplished is really none of your business...
... However you simply don't seem to differentiate that what you may find worthwhile may not jive with the experience of others.

But it is certainly pertinent to my argument. It seems to me that all the expensive synths cater to noodlers such as yourself rather than to people more in my situation of having professional responsibilites [band, record company, etc] and limited time to create output. This goes totally against the general perception here that these instruments are somehow more professional simply because they are more expensive and/or more complex.

[mbell]

It seems to me that all the expensive synths cater to noodlers such as yourself rather than to people more in my situation of having professional responsibilites [band, record company, etc] and limited time to create output.

I think you are ignoring a very large segment of working and successful musicians who use deep, complex, expensive synths.