Does any other VST sound as good as Sylenth?

[The Hamburglar]

Listen to my track "Tighter Baby" on my myspace, I think the filter sounds great.

The beat and samples (save the creepy string sample run through kontakt) are from battery and the synth is from Sylenth1.

http://www.myspace.com/jacquesnessmonster

[BONES]

There is nothing in that track that is testing the filter in any way. I could do that with MDA JX10.

That argument goes both ways. Say I want to do really nice acid type sounds or specific kinds of trance sounds that the Sylenth1 excels at, with your favourite synth edit synth that you like (or with WaspXT) I just can't.

Od course you can. In fact, guys like kriminal would probably tell you that WaspXT is one of the best at doing acid basslines, and he is right into that stuff. I would definitely say that some synths are easier to get certain things from, which is why I like having a few different ones around, but with enough effort you can get most things from most synths.

That makes the argument of all synths should be able to use for all sorts of things a mute point.

FYI, the correct word is moot, not "mute".

Therefore it DOES become an issue of musical taste.

Actually, I think the issue is that too many dance style are focussed on the process and not the result. I hear it quite a bit, where someone will use an acid bassline in a song that would really work better with something different, but because in their head they are doing a particular, narrowly-construed, dance style, the acid-bassline is a mandatory element, whether it is what the song needs or not. OTOH, I'll use whatever the song needs, not what the genre might dictate.

Bottom line here, the Sylenth1 filter responds and reasonates in a way acidose and BONES feel isn't the way a filter should. Now there's nothing wrong with not liking how it sounds!

Those two things are not the same. I can get some great filter sounds out of Sylenth1, its just I have to screw myself over to do it, which limits how I can employ those good sounds. Synth1 might not sound nearly as good - objectively it actualyl sounds very ordinary - but it is very usable in a wide range of applications. To me that makes it a better synth.

but don't pass that off as meaning the filter is bad/poor or faulty, because the Sylenth1's filter is perfect for certain styles of music. For those it is excellent.

You're missing the point. aciddose said it best when he mentioned that being good at a narrow range of things doesn't make a synth great. In fact, it makes it limited and if I had to spend $200 every time I wanted to do something slightly different, I'd be in the poor-house. If I'm going to spend that kind of money, I would want an instrument that can work in any situation.

All I see (or hear rather) is filters that have their own character in different synths. If you only like a certain kind of filter, choose the synth that has it!, but don't try and convince others that the alternative filter type is somehow 'wrong' , because I'm sorry but that logic IS based on musical/sound preference.

Again, you're missing the point. Its like a TB303, I don't care how good that sound is for certain things because overall it is f**king useless for anything else. So the filter I will go for is one that can do a good acid bassline as well as a deep resonant bass and lively, velocity-sensitive lead lines and all of the other things I might want from it. That Sylenth1 doesn't pop or crackle or alias at high frequencies is ultimately of no consequence if I can't find any use for it in the first place. Those things only matter if I can first find a use for the instrument in a song and most of the time it is far easier to work around the limitations of a flawed but usable synth, than it is to try to get a technically sound synth to work in a place where it simply cannot go.

This from the same bloated goose who will sing the praises of John Foxx to Devo, much less dance like one at their 'one for the tax man tours' of Oz...the very artists who directly quote Kraftwerk as a major influence (even Mothersbaugh has)...Yes they hear something you in your sad fly goggles still don't get..

How is that relevant? I'd list Wire, The Sex Pistols, Buzzcocks [I've even done a cover of one of their songs] and the Stranglers as influences on me but that doesn't mean I'd expect anyone who likes what we do to necessarily also be into any of those bands. And why should you care anyway? People like what they like. I never said that Kraftwerk were useless or garbage, just that they have never connected with me. How can you have issue with that?

If you find the sounds boring and uninspiring then you have constructed some delusional political horseshit to delude yourself that many of those artists are not directly referencing Kraftwerk

Its not relevant. Its where they have taken those influences that matters. most punk bands would cite artists who I cannot stand listening to as their influences, that doesn't stop me for a second from enjoying what they do.

a crater sized hole in your understanding and appreciation of electronic music.

Well, that's an interesting thing because if you asked me if I like electronic music, I'd have to honestly answer no. But the whole truth is that I don't see music that way. Most of my favourite music includes guitars, including almost all of the Devo and John Foxx tunes that I really like, and trying to get that same vibe into what we do is probably the biggest thing that has shaped my/our sound over the years. And what Devo brought to their Kraftwerk influence was an energy that Kraftwerk lacked, which is why I like one and not the other.

What's the matter? Florian refused to sign your 'Front 242' t-shirt?

Never really been a huge Front242 fan. I take each release as it comes but I think they only have one good album. Great live band though, so I actually own more live/bootleg recordings than studio albums.

Thankfully, you clearly are comfortable making a baboon of yourself here

No, what would be stupid and ape-ish would be to like something simply because someone else likes it. Whislt it might be valid to explore the influences of your favourite artists, to say that you like all that stuff just because you appreciate the stuff that it inspired, would be the very definition of pretentious and shallow. in fact, it would tend to show that you don't really have teh same deep, abiding love for music that I do, because I can only like something if it moves me.

I'm as repulsed as the next person by mindless artist worship, but if you like any kind of electronic music at all, and can't find something to love and appreciate in the music of Kraftwerk, much less what they contributed to the language of it, then you are put together all wrong...

It shouldn't have to be so much hard work. If I put it on the stereo and it gets my foot tapping or makes me jump around my living room like a loon, then it works. If all it does is block out the noisy neighbours, then I'll give it a miss. I won't sit there and analyze it to death to find some merit in it, that would be stupid. Again, it comes down to seeing the big picture, not concentrating on the minutae of the process.

[hakey]

So, regarding your statement "Digital completely and utterly replaced analogue synths in the second half of the 80s.", shall I take your silence on this matter as an admition that you were in error Bones?

[Arksun]

That argument goes both ways. Say I want to do really nice acid type sounds or specific kinds of trance sounds that the Sylenth1 excels at, with your favourite synth edit synth that you like (or with WaspXT) I just can't.

Od course you can. In fact, guys like kriminal would probably tell you that WaspXT is one of the best at doing acid basslines, and he is right into that stuff. I would definitely say that some synths are easier to get certain things from, which is why I like having a few different ones around, but with enough effort you can get most things from most synths.

That makes the argument of all synths should be able to use for all sorts of things a mute point.

FYI, the correct word is moot, not "mute".

Therefore it DOES become an issue of musical taste.

Actually, I think the issue is that too many dance style are focussed on the process and not the result. I hear it quite a bit, where someone will use an acid bassline in a song that would really work better with something different, but because in their head they are doing a particular, narrowly-construed, dance style, the acid-bassline is a mandatory element, whether it is what the song needs or not. OTOH, I'll use whatever the song needs, not what the genre might dictate.

Bottom line here, the Sylenth1 filter responds and reasonates in a way acidose and BONES feel isn't the way a filter should. Now there's nothing wrong with not liking how it sounds!

Those two things are not the same. I can get some great filter sounds out of Sylenth1, its just I have to screw myself over to do it, which limits how I can employ those good sounds. Synth1 might not sound nearly as good - objectively it actualyl sounds very ordinary - but it is very usable in a wide range of applications. To me that makes it a better synth.

but don't pass that off as meaning the filter is bad/poor or faulty, because the Sylenth1's filter is perfect for certain styles of music. For those it is excellent.

You're missing the point. aciddose said it best when he mentioned that being good at a narrow range of things doesn't make a synth great. In fact, it makes it limited and if I had to spend $200 every time I wanted to do something slightly different, I'd be in the poor-house. If I'm going to spend that kind of money, I would want an instrument that can work in any situation.

All I see (or hear rather) is filters that have their own character in different synths. If you only like a certain kind of filter, choose the synth that has it!, but don't try and convince others that the alternative filter type is somehow 'wrong' , because I'm sorry but that logic IS based on musical/sound preference.

Again, you're missing the point. Its like a TB303, I don't care how good that sound is for certain things because overall it is f**king useless for anything else. So the filter I will go for is one that can do a good acid bassline as well as a deep resonant bass and lively, velocity-sensitive lead lines and all of the other things I might want from it. That Sylenth1 doesn't pop or crackle or alias at high frequencies is ultimately of no consequence if I can't find any use for it in the first place. Those things only matter if I can first find a use for the instrument in a song and most of the time it is far easier to work around the limitations of a flawed but usable synth, than it is to try to get a technically sound synth to work in a place where it simply cannot go.

Once again, you're confusing personal taste with filter quality. On the one hand you say I'm not getting your point, that apparently now the Sylenth1 IS good at something, but only a narrow range of something, yet on the other you claim that dance styles should be using something different to those types of filters (thats your personal view of what you feel is better and nothing more) AND, claim that the WaspXT can easily sound like the Sylenth1 filter.

I'm sorry but there are a lot of filters that sound in ways WaspXT could never recreate, Sylenth1 being one of them. I remember when you posted up some clips of filters which included the WaspXT and a synth edit one.

Now that particular synth edit one I really liked, good solid sound, different to Sylenths but good in its own way. I personally found the WaspXT clip the weakest and nastiest sounding of the clips.

But that's just my preference in sound. You prefer that (imho) more grimey lofi sound thats fine, but its still purely a taste thing

[hakey]

Once again, you're confusing personal taste with filter quality.

Yep, Bones consistently confuses his subjective opinion with objective fact.

the fact that a filter with a 12dB/oct slope will never cut it against a filter with 24dB/oct at higher resonance settings. Some things are obvious and, for the sake of keeping the discussion manageable, can be taken as read

obvious 'cos like 24db is twice as much as 12db you idiots

...well I made that last bit up, but that is pretty much the level of his argument.

[vicious_angel]

Silly arguements i must say.

I am not interested if its quite analog sounding or digital.
I dont care about how their filters or envelopes works.
I dont care if timbaland is using it.
I dont care if it's close to a virus TI or Omnisphere (lol can't resisted).

The only thing i care is: Is it SOUNDS GOOD at the end of the day?

This comparision you make here has no point (at least for me). Is like coffee, someone likes his coffee black and another one with milk. Prove to him that he is wrong? how he wants his coffee? Its a question of choice.

Now if you want to discuss the theory and maths behind it then ok go ahead but its a fanboyism thread.

Ps:I am also really close to press the buy button (my next opened firefox is there). It sounds good for my needs.

Ps: WaspXT its just awesome(not the presets).

Edit: And just bought it...

[BONES]

So, regarding your statement "Digital completely and utterly replaced analogue synths in the second half of the 80s.", shall I take your silence on this matter as an admition that you were in error Bones?

No, you gave us one example which I could easily have called the "exception which proves the rule", especially in light of the fact that Oberheim, like all the other US analogue synth makers, went broke and probably kept making the Matrix because they didn't have the money to create anything new. Meanwhile, the digital boys like Emu, Ensoniq, and later Alesis, went from strength to strength, as did the Japanese companies who were all over the digital thing. I mean, you only have to look at the best selling synths of all time - Korg M1 and Yamaha DX7, not a resonant filter between them. But I'm sorry if you felt ignored, I just thought your response was so pathetic that I didn't want to embarrass you further by pointing all this out.
Its also telling that when Roland realised they had lost the war to Korg and Yamaha, they went to digital emulations of their classic gear, rather than actually going back to making analgue synths. You'd have to say that's because in the overall market, people want the convenience of digital and that the number of people who want the real thing, whilst hugely over-represented here at KVR, is not enough to sustain a mass-market product. Korg has a master-stroke when they thought of putting a valve in some of their products, where everyone could see it, so that people got the feeling of analogue, without all the krap that goes with it. Brilliant marketing, don't you think?

Now that particular synth edit one I really liked, good solid sound, different to Sylenths but good in its own way. I personally found the WaspXT clip the weakest and nastiest sounding of the clips.

That's an excellent example because I was using just one of WaspXT's 6 filter modes. Unlike Sylenth1, they each offer something quite different, so I'm sure I could have used another Low-Pass mode that you would like. Its what flexibility should be all about, don't you think?

...well I made that last bit up, but that is pretty much the level of his argument.

Perhaps you might have served yourself better by actually refuting the point instead of making stuff up. If you understood how filters work, you'd know exactly what I meant by that comment. Just try it sometime, see how much easier it is to drive a 24db filter to self-oscillation than it's 12db equivalent. But its nice that you are putting so much effort into this thread, dredging up comments form old discussions just to make yourself look even more stupid.

[ATS]

Sylenth does sounds darn good for what it does but it is so one dimensional.

[aciddose]

you need to realize, before taking up the argument of subjectivity, that your initial statements which we are arguing against WERE THEMSELVES SUBJECTIVE STATEMENTS.

now who is the moron?

[BONES]

I think it might be easier to ask "who is not a moron".

[aciddose]

actually to call it "one of the best" or "the best" vsti it would need to equally impress just about anyone. my tastes are not what i apply when i'm judging a synthesizer, i judge the general quality of it as a relative term, comparing to other existing synthesizers and not only those that i like, but again, in general.

there is a top tier of quality where certain instruments sit - the dx-7 although it has terrible quality in terms of the noise and the dac sits near the top along with polysynths like the jupiter-8 and the prophet-5. other instruments up there include the mini moog, the d-50, the ms-20, the mono/poly and more modern instruments like the M1, the nord leads and the virus.

i hate some of these, and i mean hate with a passion yet i still judge them to be of the best quality of synthesizers out there.

using the same method of judgment, the output i hear from sylenth, even specific to it's "best performance category" of "trance" or whatever is simply below mid-grade. below average. <2.5 out of 5.

[glokraw]

actually to call it "one of the best" or "the best" vsti it would need to equally impress just about anyone. my tastes are not what i apply when i'm judging a synthesizer, i judge the general quality of it as a relative term, comparing to other existing synthesizers and not only those that i like, but again, in general.

there is a top tier of quality where certain instruments sit - the dx-7 although it has terrible quality in terms of the noise and the dac sits near the top along with polysynths like the jupiter-8 and the prophet-5. other instruments up there include the mini moog, the d-50, the ms-20, the mono/poly and more modern instruments like the M1, the nord leads and the virus.

i hate some of these, and i mean hate with a passion yet i still judge them to be of the best quality of synthesizers out there.

using the same method of judgment, the output i hear from sylenth, even specific to it's "best performance category" of "trance" or whatever is simply below mid-grade. below average. <2.5 out of 5.

Certain sound designers, gifted, driven, or both, can create excellent patches on seemingly every synth they create a bank for. So in some cases, shopping for the soundmaker, instead of the synthmaker, (no pun intended) may yield a better group of sounds to begin working with. Looking forward to that nice gray and aqua XHIP!

[FrankT]

using the same method of judgment, the output i hear from sylenth, even specific to it's "best performance category" of "trance" or whatever is simply below mid-grade. below average. <2.5 out of 5.

Very subjective. The output I hear is 10. Very subjective as well, of course.

[hakey]

So, regarding your statement "Digital completely and utterly replaced analogue synths in the second half of the 80s.", shall I take your silence on this matter as an admition that you were in error Bones?

No, you gave us one example which I could easily have called the "exception which proves the rule", especially in light of the fact that Oberheim, like all the other US analogue synth makers, went broke and probably kept making the Matrix because they didn't have the money to create anything new.

Now Bones you said digital "completely and utterly" replaced analog. In my book that means absolutely without exception! ("The exception that proves the rule" is a figure of speach that doesn't bear up to close scrutiny and certainly has no place in 'logical' arguments - I seem to remember you claiming to be a fan of logical argument?). Besides, and as I pointed out, it wasn't the only exception, Studio Electronics were producing the Midimoog from 88 onwards. The financial fortunes of Oberheim have only a tangental relationship to the point at issue here, namely whether digital 'completely and utterly' replaced analog - it is a matter of record that it did not.

If you had said that digital almost completely replaced analog, I would have agreed with you. The vast majority of new synths produced from the mid 80's onwards have been digital. In the late 80's if you wanted a new analog synth, your choice was indeed limitted and not 'everyone was happy with that', as you said - far from it. I produced a nice long list of artists that continued to use analog long after the 'digital switchover'. And, again as I said before ,the price of second hand analog synths in the UK increased markedly from the late 80's onwards - a sure indication of demand in the market place.

I would have loved to find a 303 or a sh202 in 92 for those prices....I was looking!!, but never came across one in a pawn shop. All my buddies from 90-93' were scanning the Dallas pawn shops for all Arp's, Prophet's, and especially older Roland gear.

... and it would seem that it was a similar situation on the other side of the Atlantic.

I can't see how I can really provide sufficient evidence of the fallacy of you arguments Bones. I suspect that you would argue that night is day if it suited you. All I can say is that I was there (rather, here in England, whilst it was all sort of happening, 'the second summer of love', acid house, warehouse parties etc. - yes I am an old git) and I distinctly remember analog synths being highly sort after and much prized at the time.

If you understood how filters work, you'd know exactly what I meant by that comment. Just try it sometime, see how much easier it is to drive a 24db filter to self-oscillation than it's 12db equivalent.

Look Bones, what you said was that it was 'obvious' that a 24db filter is better than a 12db filter at high resonance settings. Now, you didn't say in what way it was better, you didn't frame your terms of reference, so the statement is effectively meaningless. I could say that 'cats are better than cucumbers', but it doesn't mean anything, unless I add a qualifying statement such as 'cats are better than cucumbers at catching mice'. So, had you said that a 24db filter is better than a 12db filter at attenuating the frequencies above the cut off point, fair enough. If, though, what you meant was a 24db filter at hi res sounds better than a 12db filter at hi res, well I'm afraid that's your subjective opinion, not a statement of fact, or 'obvious', or indeed, something that can be 'taken as read'.

But its nice that you are putting so much effort into this thread

Don't mention it.

[BONES]

Now Bones you said digital "completely and utterly" replaced analog. In my book that means absolutely without exception!

You can argue semantics until you're blue in the face but it shows you to be a petty, little loser with no real opinion to add to the discussion.
BTW, you need to be more careful with your quoting, it makes things easier to follow. Its hard to know if you're getting stuck into me or someone who I though was basically agreeing with you.