Most Synths Sound The Same?

[kmonkey]

every synth sounds different. It is like human voice: every person has a different voice. They of corse are similar, but every one has got a unique character. It is like faces, cats, cars, flowers, wine, beer, football players, cheese, perfumes, etc. Some are similar, some others very similar, but they are never identical.

I think your analogy is not good at all. He is speaking about digital synths which all use more or less same type of synthesis and or algorithms used to create that synthesis. Surely not all are same but add to that element of technology limit etc. etc. and with that in mind i simply can't accept that digital synths variety should be considered as human or human voice variety.

For example in a mix he could easily pick and distinguish your voice over mine or vice versa. Very bad analogy imho.

Other then creating waves and pushing air with it i don't think there is much analogy between us and synths..

[munchkin]

every synth sounds different. It is like human voice: every person has a different voice. They of corse are similar, but every one has got a unique character. It is like cats, cars, flowers, wine, beer, football players, cheese, parfumes, ettc. Some are similar, some others very similar, but they are never identical. The more one has AN EAR, the more you recognize the character of a synth (or every other instrument, of course).

Exactly. Laurent/Lotuzia asked me how close Oxium sound to a Jupiter 8 (i had owned a real one and also made Jupiter 8 presets for U-He Diva) and i told him that it could sound close but there is still a difference. I then compared my Moog Slim Phatty and found that with a few presets i could come close with Oxium but with some it was not really possible.
With analog synths the biggest differences are usually with the filters and the envelopes but sometimes also with the oscillators (one Sawtooth does not sound exactly like another one...).

You should also be able to hear the difference of a simple SynthEdit synth and one of the new analog emulations like e.g. Oxium, Synthix, Diva or Saurus.
If not maybe all synths really sound the same for you but the problem does not seem to be with the synths then...


Ingo

The comparison between SynthEdit and Oxium isn't the point. The point is that modern synths can sound as lush or as cold as each other with very slight variations that are insignificant in a mix. If you want to get up on stage and play Oxium on it's own and then a SynthEdit synth then possibly people will tell the difference if the PA system is good but this difference is soon buried in a mix. What makes Oxium unique sound wise compared to Zebra, Cyclop, DCAM for example?

The reason I ask is because it will give a better understanding when to use one instrument rather than another to get a particular sound. Just like in the past when musicians chose a DX7 rather than a Moog to get a certain sound. Or a trumpet rather than a guitar.

[myrna]

every synth sounds different. It is like human voice: every person has a different voice. They of corse are similar, but every one has got a unique character. It is like cats, cars, flowers, wine, beer, football players, cheese, parfumes, ettc. Some are similar, some others very similar, but they are never identical. The more one has AN EAR, the more you recognize the character of a synth (or every other instrument, of course).

People who claim they have "an ear" often can't guess the sound of a plugin correctly. There was the embarrassing example on the UAD forum of people choosing an IK Multimedia plugin over an UAD emulation for accuracy awhile back and on Gearsluts similar comparisons catch many people out.

If a synth has a distinctive sound in some way then surely this is a selling point but that's not coming across when I view many of the tutorials for them. Unlike a human voice which is a billion time more complex then a software synth and can't be reduced to such a mechanical comparison the developers of these products could do more to show us what makes their synth distinctive. The golden ears argument just doesn't cut it in an era where most synths can emulate each other.

it does not work like ths, actually. Human faces and human voices (they are million, uh?) are "all similar" but everyone can recognize even the most little differences among them. Because our brain can do that. It is not something "we want" to do, it is somethng "we can do", because of our brain. For instance there are people who cannot recognize the difference among human faces and voices, due to organic brain disease. Regarding wine, perfumes and synths, you have to learn it, our brain is not so interested in recognizing these differences. Just this.

[myrna]

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

... "synthagnosia" ?

[xx JPRacer xx]

Hearing a synth alone and in a mix is different also.

[munchkin]

every synth sounds different. It is like human voice: every person has a different voice. They of corse are similar, but every one has got a unique character. It is like cats, cars, flowers, wine, beer, football players, cheese, parfumes, ettc. Some are similar, some others very similar, but they are never identical. The more one has AN EAR, the more you recognize the character of a synth (or every other instrument, of course).

People who claim they have "an ear" often can't guess the sound of a plugin correctly. There was the embarrassing example on the UAD forum of people choosing an IK Multimedia plugin over an UAD emulation for accuracy awhile back and on Gearsluts similar comparisons catch many people out.

If a synth has a distinctive sound in some way then surely this is a selling point but that's not coming across when I view many of the tutorials for them. Unlike a human voice which is a billion time more complex then a software synth and can't be reduced to such a mechanical comparison the developers of these products could do more to show us what makes their synth distinctive. The golden ears argument just doesn't cut it in an era where most synths can emulate each other.

it does not work like ths, actually. Human faces and human voices (they are million, uh?) are "all similar" but everyone can recognize even the most little differences among them. Because our brain can do that. It is not something "we want" to do, it is somethng "we can do", because of our brain. For instance there are people who cannot recognize the difference among human faces and voices, due to organic brain disease. Regarding wine, perfumes and synths, you have to learn it, our brain is not so interested in recognizing these differences. Just this.

I agree with you that we can often distinguish the slightest difference in audio and visual stimuli when attuned to these differences but I don't think softsynths are yet complex enough to offer the complexity of the human voice nor have we adapted enough yet to distinguish the quite insignificant sound differences between most synths. In which case it needs to be made more obvious.

[Albert.VST]

Lots of synths have roughly the same architecture; oscillators, filter, amplifier, enveloppe generators for filter and amplifier, one or more lfo to modulate.
So there is a certain overlap in sounds all these synths can make.
Getting back to the Moroder/Numann example, they search(ed) for the limits of the synth possibilities and that gave them their own sound. If you do this with modern softsynths you can also get an own sound out of most of them. But who wants that, as there are lots of people that 'want to sound as a Virus' or 'want the Roland Supersaw'. They search for the sounds now already used by many chart producers.
If you search for it I'm sure you can find a different, own sound. But be prepared you will not sound mainstream, and you yourself and other listeners will have to get familiar with that different sound style. It may take a while (and maybe a massive chart hit) for people to start liking it.

[myrna]

I agree with you that we can often distinguish the slightest difference in audio and visual stimuli when attuned to these differences but I don't think softsynths are yet complex enough to offer the complexity of the human voice nor have we adapted enough yet to distinguish the quite insignificant sound differences between most synths. In which case it needs to be made more obvious.

sorry, maybe i am not clear enough: you have to learn, training your ear. Like tasting different wines and understanding the subtle differences and shades. It is a very difficult art, not for everyone. Just experts can do that. Take this as your limitationl then. Because you cannot grasp the difference between a synth and another, does not mean they make the same sound. They make of course VERY SIMILAR sounds, almost identical. The difference can be heard by an expert. Like pianist with different pianos, which, i guess, for you "sound all the same"

[4damind]

IMO many synth using only standard algorithms and the difference between this synth is more the GUI and the additional features. But sometimes the additional features are important to make a completely different sound! Some having very great Unison support, some a different combination of oscillators/filters to create different sounds also when the basic algorithms are similar.

But it's true, for a typical VA synth I don't need 20 different synth because there is not really a big difference. Often it makes more sense to pick one or two with good features, good support and learn how to use it.

And to be honest, if I see some of the newer released synth I cannot find many synth where I would say that they are different enough to buy it. The last synth where I had the feeling "this is something really different and I must own it" was Diva...

[Ingonator]

every synth sounds different. It is like human voice: every person has a different voice. They of corse are similar, but every one has got a unique character. It is like cats, cars, flowers, wine, beer, football players, cheese, parfumes, ettc. Some are similar, some others very similar, but they are never identical. The more one has AN EAR, the more you recognize the character of a synth (or every other instrument, of course).

Exactly. Laurent/Lotuzia asked me how close Oxium sound to a Jupiter 8 (i had owned a real one and also made Jupiter 8 presets for U-He Diva) and i told him that it could sound close but there is still a difference. I then compared my Moog Slim Phatty and found that with a few presets i could come close with Oxium but with some it was not really possible.
With analog synths the biggest differences are usually with the filters and the envelopes but sometimes also with the oscillators (one Sawtooth does not sound exactly like another one...).

You should also be able to hear the difference of a simple SynthEdit synth and one of the new analog emulations like e.g. Oxium, Synthix, Diva or Saurus.
If not maybe all synths really sound the same for you but the problem does not seem to be with the synths then...


Ingo

The comparison between SynthEdit and Oxium isn't the point. The point is that modern synths can sound as lush or as cold as each other with very slight variations that are insignificant in a mix. If you want to get up on stage and play Oxium on it's own and then a SynthEdit synth then possibly people will tell the difference if the PA system is good but this difference is soon buried in a mix. What makes Oxium unique sound wise compared to Zebra, Cyclop, DCAM for example?

The reason I ask is because it will give a better understanding when to use one instrument rather than another to get a particular sound. Just like in the past when musicians chose a DX7 rather than a Moog to get a certain sound. Or a trumpet rather than a guitar.

The OP brought up Alchemy and PolyKB II for comparison. Two synths which are not even really comparable IMO. If you compare only the VA engine of Alchemy to PolyKB II you get maybe only 10% of the sounds which Alchemy is able to do.
Same if you would use e.g. Waldorf PPG Wave 3.V or Largo only to create typical VA sounds and totally ignore the wavetable synthesis.
You could emulate lots of VA sounds using FM synths like e.g. NI FM8 but you could create tons of totally new sounds with it too.
Another example is ElectraX. You could use it as a "standard" VA synth but then you miss the additional features like e.g. sample import, Resynthesis, wavetable synthesis, FM synthesis (basic one) etc. which it is possible to do and also the many different filter types it includes (e.g. Vocal and Comb filters).

My conclusion is that not all synths sound the same but you could create similar sounds with most of them. How many people actually really tried to explore what could be really done with e.g. FM synthesis or additive synthesis? Not too many as programming them is quite complex.

An interesting approach is to create sounds using your own waveforms like in e.g. Cableguys Curve or with the new Wave Designer tool from DNR Collaborative (for which you'll need a synth where to import them).

There is also a number of spectral synths like e.g. Iris or Alchemy which seem to deliver interesting results in a quite easy way.

So the fault is not in the synths IMO but in the people who use and/or program them maybe. Another possibility is that there are already tons of interesting sounds for a specific synth but a certain user does not know where to find those or just is too proud (like "i only use my own presets...") to purchase 3rd party presets.
In the case of e.g. Alchemy there are tons of presets available for which you could spend 1000 or more Euros.

Usually if o program presets for a VA synth of course there are the "typical" analog sounds which have to be covered but usually i try to make use of the specific features of a certain synths so even two comparable sounds never sound exactly the same in two synths (except if that is the goal i want to achieve like when trying to reprogram a certain preset from e.g. a hardware synth).
With e.g. Saurus and Oxium i also made some presets which sound like they have been done with a wavetable synth or a sampler.
Anyway there is a limit of sounds which are possible with a standard analog emulation as you are usually limited to a few waveforms like e.g. Saw, Square, Triangle, Sine and Pulse. This changes if you have additional waveforms (e.g. wavetable synth) or even could import your own ones.


Ingo

[hakey]

you have to learn, training your ear. Like tasting different wines and understanding the subtle differences and shades. It is a very difficult art, not for everyone. Just experts can do that.

Presumably you're an expert?

Please give a list of synth plugins that you're confident you'd be able to identify in a blind test.

[myrna]

IMO many synth using only standard algorithms and the difference between this synth is more the GUI and the additional features. But sometimes the additional features are important to make a completely different sound! Some having very great Unison support, some a different combination of oscillators/filters to create different sounds also when the basic algorithms are similar.

But it's true, for a typical VA synth I don't need 20 different synth because there is not really a big difference. Often it makes more sense to pick one or two with good features, good support and learn how to use it.

And to be honest, if I see some of the newer released synth I cannot find many synth where I would say that they are different enough to buy it. The last synth where I had the feeling "this is something really different and I must own it" was Diva...

My personal "trick" is this: 101 presets for each synth I own. I mean, apart spectrasonics omnisphere and samplers, in every other softsynth after n.100 the patches start to repeat, sounding similar. So, I avoid to have, for instance, 30 "supersaws" (when 1 or 2 are more than enough): in this way you can grasp the difference among synths and perceive their own "character", understanding their "sound". 100-150 presets for synth: the rest is a "changing parameters" work.

(Sorry for sound designers reading )

[ghettosynth]

IMO many synth using only standard algorithms and the difference between this synth is more the GUI and the additional features. But sometimes the additional features are important to make a completely different sound! Some having very great Unison support, some a different combination of oscillators/filters to create different sounds also when the basic algorithms are similar.

But it's true, for a typical VA synth I don't need 20 different synth because there is not really a big difference. Often it makes more sense to pick one or two with good features, good support and learn how to use it.

And to be honest, if I see some of the newer released synth I cannot find many synth where I would say that they are different enough to buy it. The last synth where I had the feeling "this is something really different and I must own it" was Diva...

Exactly. I "need" one plugin, Reaktor. Carbon2 will do 99% of the VA sounds that I "need" and, given enough time, I can get the remaining 1%. But, the attention to detail in Diva makes it a standout and the desired sound to effort ratio is much higher than with Reaktor for the 1%. Similarly, ACE is my go to synth for audio rate modulation.

Recently I installed the Dune Freebie. Now, I don't think that I "can't" get Dune sounds with other synths, certainly it's possible with Reaktor, but, I find it very immediate, like Tal Bassline, it makes for fast programming.

So, do I need it, no, does it sound "generic" as some other poster claimed, certainly, in the same way that pretty much every subtractive synth is generic.

The point here is that workflow can differentiate synths. If you're expecting dramatic differences between similarly designed synths, you're expecting too much from a subtractive architecture. Given that you want a particular sound, and it's not a preset, how long does it take to go from inspiration to sound? The answer to that question can help you identify why synths are different.

[mellotronaut]

there are simply too many patches for the usual suspects: trance, techno, house dubstep and derivative remnants and also too many bread and butter sounds. when i tried Saurus' demo for the first time, i was so bored, but now i discover the synth and get a lot of interesting sounds out of it.
The Dark Zebra sound set shows extremely well, there are so many sound possibility in a good softsynth, when the right people work with it.
unfortunately a lot of people always want the same stuff and the sound designers want to earn some money and they want to prove, they can do a thousend wobbles.

[munchkin]

My conclusion is that not all synths sound the same but you could create similar sounds with most of them. How many people actually really tried to explore what could be really done with e.g. FM synthesis or additive synthesis? Not too many as programming them is quite complex.

I completely agree with you about this but I don't think developers do enough to show how their synths are different from other competing synths. In fact they create presets that very often sound very similar to others out there.

Perhaps this is because they are under pressure to reach the biggest market possible so they load the synth up with friendly, versatile and generic presets. But I don't think they do enough to show off what makes their synth different. I would really welcome it if they did this because it would expand my understanding and help me as a musician to choose the right instrument to create a certain sound. It would be focusing on the strengths of one synth over another for the purposes of educating us as musicians.

Of course, it could just be that, as 4damind pointed out, the differences between many new synths is pretty superficial and not really presenting that many new options. I tend to think this is closer to the truth as time goes on.