Most Synths Sound The Same?

[David Carpenter Wind Core]

I would say try a different approach at controlling your synth and it will create new sounds. Not just how the patch sounds but how it sounds when using something other than velocity to create note on offs and amplitude.

[goldenanalog]

If the title of this thread were true, I coulda saved A LOT of money.

CURSE YOU, KVR...

[trimph1]

I'm always looking for new things to mess up sounds with....what else is new?

[Dean Aka Nekro]

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.

hakey good sir, I was just about to ask 'The Ear' to spill also, I can not wait

This very forum blessed with a pair of golden ears amongst us mere mortals? :

[munchkin]

I would say try a different approach at controlling your synth and it will create new sounds. Not just how the patch sounds but how it sounds when using something other than velocity to create note on offs and amplitude.

I think this would be made much easier if each developer demonstrated the unique features of their synth. What I mean by this is that some of the jargon/marketing speak about new features found on the websites of different synths is rarely demonstrated in action. If a synth has special filters what does this mean in practice? How does it make a difference to the sound compared to other synths? If it has special modulation features how can these be used to create unique sounds? What's so special about that new step sequencer/arp the advertising is promoting as a new unique feature?

It seems that such a lot is left to the customer to work out when the developer is the expert who included these features for a purpose which remains undisclosed or only marginally explained/demonstrated. Perhaps the phrase, "show, don't tell", might be helpful when marketing these synths in future?

For example why would an owner of Zebra (or a potential owner) want ZebraHZ? What do the DIVA filters add to Zebra in practice? Is it the 400 presets designed by the creator of the Batman sound track that are the main reason for wanting it or the new kinds of synthesis made possible by the filters? I'm not singling out u-He here because the point I trying to make could apply to any developer marketing a new synth or add-on.

[mcnoone]

Of course different synths can sound different, and can sound similar.
The sounds done using them can sound very similar, or sometimes exactly like others, but not always, and not all types of sounds.
Example...a moog bass patch on synth A, sounds "similar" to the same type of patch on synth B, but that patch on synth B sounds a slight margin more like the real moog than synth A...in some users opinion.
Therefore, if that extra better tone being sought out by the user is important, then synth A and B do sound different.
It's all relative to the needs of the user.
Something else, the synth with more variety of synthesis methods used, can be more useful in creating a greater variety of tones, than a synth with less features, or synthesis methods used.
I think this answers your question, in a direct, and understandable way.

[HanafiH]

All synths sound different. All synths sound the same.

[Lotuzia]

I have quite a few softsynths now and the more I buy the more they all start to sound the same. What I mean by this is that if it's an FM emulation then it invariably has an "analog" switch and visa versa.

Even the presets begin to sound the same. Either I have GAS fatigue or there really is less to distinguish between softsynths.

For example, I can tell there's a difference in sound between PolyKB II, Alchemy and Arturia MiniV when I play them on their own but the difference is so slight as to be indistinguishable in a mix. Especially when most modern mixes have loads of FX piled on top.

I listen to contemporary music and haven't a clue what synths have been used in a mix. They could even be mainly sample based - it's really hard to distinguish. But if I listen to John Foxx, Soft Cell, Rick Wakeman (ok that was a joke) or anything that was produced pre-mid 90's then I can usually tell what type of synth was used.

This isn't some pointless longing for the good old days nostalgia trip. The point I'm trying to make is that what is the point of buying emulations if they get lost in the mix and why have more than a couple of synths if they all sound so similar?

I'm thinking of buying Zebra and the latest expansion but what's the point?

I'd suggest you make just a small easy test to verify all that :

Just make a small track with 3/4 instruments, then make a render with the 3 synths you mentioned for this track.

You might then get really surprised by the differences between these three instruments.

Well, you'll tell us

[faun2500]

I can tell you, Synplant, BLUE and Minimonsta do not sound the same. But I hear a lot of other synths that basically do sound...well, like a synths.

[stonestreet]

[quote="munchkin"


It seems that such a lot is left to the customer to work out when the developer is the expert who included these features for a purpose which remains undisclosed or only marginally explained/demonstrated. Perhaps the phrase, "show, don't tell", might be helpful when marketing these synths in future?

[/quote]

Sounds similar to me with CAD software. The manuals give all the tasks that you can perform but do not tell you how to use the programme and what all the actions are for. The users have to find there own way around. Things become easier now there are forums to ask.

[myrna]

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.

hakey good sir, I was just about to ask 'The Ear' to spill also, I can not wait

This very forum blessed with a pair of golden ears amongst us mere mortals? :

if you mean "look how I can identify different plugins in a blind test" that is such a stupid thing, not for me, sorry. What I mean is: when i am composing MY MUSIC i am looking for different shades and i know every synth DOES sound different. If you can grasp this VERY SUBTLE difference, you have an ear. If not, you can however survive or thinking most synths sound the same, it is nothing tragic at all. Just this. It is like wine, guitars or flowers (or black cats). It is not a science, it's an art.

[osiris]

I don't think you've tried Blade or Razor, then....

[Albert.VST]

Example...a moog bass patch on synth A, sounds "similar" to the same type of patch on synth B, but that patch on synth B sounds a slight margin more like the real moog than synth A...in some users opinion.
Therefore, if that extra better tone being sought out by the user is important, then synth A and B do sound different.
It's all relative to the needs of the user.

For example why would an owner of Zebra (or a potential owner) want ZebraHZ?

Now we're getting to the heart of the question. Do we want to sound as [fill in any name], or use sounds like [fill in any name]? Or do we want to sound unique?

If I look around in my environment there are more musicians visibly active in cover bands than the ones playing new electonic styles (ok, also has to do with what the audience wants). So most want to sound like what is or was in the charts. Guess this also applies to the musicians that are not that much performing in public.

So what do synth and sound developers do? Provide products that sound as ... (= what you already know) as this is a way larger market.
Including even highly valued ones like DIVA, acclaimed for emulating the old analog synths (not that I'm against it, it's a very good product!).

Developments outside the mainstream, sound algorythm or GUI, are hardly accepted, e.g. Plex, Neuron, Nuklear.
Even the Korg Wavestation years ago failed, despite it then unique sound, to become a huge succes because it didn't have (initially) a piano preset.

IMHO the active KVR community at least partly is not mainstream but it is too small to develop a completely unique, never heard before, synth for.
And another part of it, as is clear from reactions on new products, does not want such a unique sounding synth at all, but only wants no more than a perfect emulation of analog hardware.

The only to give: use as much or little different synths as your comfortable with.

[Tricky-Loops]

Example...a moog bass patch on synth A, sounds "similar" to the same type of patch on synth B, but that patch on synth B sounds a slight margin more like the real moog than synth A...in some users opinion.
Therefore, if that extra better tone being sought out by the user is important, then synth A and B do sound different.
It's all relative to the needs of the user.

For example why would an owner of Zebra (or a potential owner) want ZebraHZ?

Now we're getting to the heart of the question. Do we want to sound as [fill in any name], or use sounds like [fill in any name]? Or do we want to sound unique?

If I look around in my environment there are more musicians visibly active in cover bands than the ones playing new electonic styles (ok, also has to do with what the audience wants). So most want to sound like what is or was in the charts. Guess this also applies to the musicians that are not that much performing in public.

So what do synth and sound developers do? Provide products that sound as ... (= what you already know) as this is a way larger market.
Including even highly valued ones like DIVA, acclaimed for emulating the old analog synths (not that I'm against it, it's a very good product!).

Developments outside the mainstream, sound algorythm or GUI, are hardly accepted, e.g. Plex, Neuron, Nuklear.
Even the Korg Wavestation years ago failed, despite it then unique sound, to become a huge succes because it didn't have (initially) a piano preset.

IMHO the active KVR community at least partly is not mainstream but it is too small to develop a completely unique, never heard before, synth for.
And another part of it, as is clear from reactions on new products, does not want such a unique sounding synth at all, but only wants no more than a perfect emulation of analog hardware.

The only to give: use as much or little different synths as your comfortable with.

I always love to hear new sounds and I'm open for every new synth that sounds totally different. I don't want to sound like anyone else... BTW, I hate cover bands, there are so much of them, and they all have the same kind of songs.

There ARE some synths which sounds totally unique - for example I think of the Xoxos synths. OTOH, it's difficult to make MUSIC with them, because the sounds are so strange that it's hard to fit them in the mix.

So what I want to say: The more extraordinary the synth sounds, the harder it is to make (good sounding) music with it!

[K-Bee]

I don't think synths sound the same. It's the people that uses them that make everything do so. Hence the wealth of "how do I make a [insert artist name here] bass/lead/whatever threads
Developers know that and many end up making similar sounding presets ultimately trying to cater for users NOT being creative. The fact that most synths can do practically what you want them to do doesn't mean that it's what people use them for