Most Synths Sound The Same?

[lotus2035]

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?

Well if your goal is to write some kind of music then there is no point. If your goal is to piss about twiddling vitual knobs and comparing the sounds of virtual synths for the sake of it then go nuts, buy them all and have fun.
If your hobby is writing music, crafting songs, the difference between virtual synths and synthesis types is FAR less important no matter what the twiddlers will say.

[munchkin]

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.

This to me sums up the problem - the need to meet market expectations vs the need to be innovative.

Perhaps if KORG had spent more time explaining how musicians could use their synth in new creative ways then it might have inspired more people to use it in ways that pushed boundaries rather than trying to fit into the mainstream.

Synths with innovative features like Oxium, Cyclop, DCAM etc. could have more information and demonstrations about how to use them in new and exciting ways rather than the usual instructions on what each parameter does. They are selling musical instruments not Bluray recorders after all.

Stonestreet makes a useful comparison to CAD software that is marketed with functional information rather than creative information. Perhaps Adobe might be a good example of how to show new features in a creative way rather than just giving functional instructions. Their website is full of video demonstrations of how to use their software in creative ways. The same goes for most design/video plugin developers - even the small ones.

If the marketing is saying this synth is an analog emulation on steroids then we know that it isn't going to be breaking new territory but if it's claiming that its new features will bring new creative opportunities then demonstrate this - don't just post this on the website and hope that people who buy the synth will magically discover these new creative possibilities on their own without any help.

If synths are only for the golden eared uber programmers who can intuit new creative possibilities from even a lowly monosynth then most of the rest of us are f**ked. But if they are for the majority of musicians then show us how we can creatively use all these fantastic new features. Otherwise it's like buying a Lamborghini and only driving at 60 because you haven't downloaded the PDF manual to learn all the instructions. I mean, does anyone buy a Lamborghini without being shown how all the fantastic new features will open up new possibilities?

[munchkin]

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?

Well if your goal is to write some kind of music then there is no point. If your goal is to piss about twiddling vitual knobs and comparing the sounds of virtual synths for the sake of it them go nuts, buy them all and have fun.
If your hobby is writing music, crafting songs, the difference between virtual synths and synthesis types is FAR less important no matter what the twiddlers will say.

A very important point. I don't want to be a twiddler but that seems to be who synths are marketed at more and more these days. Yet the paradox is that all this new feature hype that acts as cyberporn for the twiddlers is rarely demonstrated in a musical and creative way for people who want to learn new creative possibilities to enhance their music.

[ew]

If synths are only for the golden eared uber programmers who can intuit new creative possibilities from even a lowly monosynth then most of the rest of us are f**ked. But if they are for the majority of musicians then show us how we can creatively use all these fantastic new features. Otherwise it's like buying a Lamborghini and only driving at 60 because you haven't downloaded the PDF manual to learn all the instructions. I mean, does anyone buy a Lamborghini without being shown how all the fantastic new features will open up new possibilities?

The problem with that is that a lot of times, the developer really doesn't know what the creative possibilities are until a user points them out. For example, when VirSyn's Poseidon first came out, I had mentioned in the forum that I was finding really cool wavescanning-like things to do with it. Harry liked the idea, so he put in a wavetable mode to make the process easier.

What works for me and what I think is cool might be the exact opposite for you; that's what makes synths fun. Put five people in the same room with the same fairly complex synth and tell them to make a cool patch with it; I'll bet that none of them will sound alike.

ew

[germancomponist]

Stonestreet makes a useful comparison to CAD software that is marketed with functional information rather than creative information. Perhaps Adobe might be a good example of how to show new features in a creative way rather than just giving functional instructions. Their website is full of video demonstrations of how to use their software in creative ways. The same goes for most design/video plugin developers - even the small ones.

+1

This is so very much important!

[munchkin]

If synths are only for the golden eared uber programmers who can intuit new creative possibilities from even a lowly monosynth then most of the rest of us are f**ked. But if they are for the majority of musicians then show us how we can creatively use all these fantastic new features. Otherwise it's like buying a Lamborghini and only driving at 60 because you haven't downloaded the PDF manual to learn all the instructions. I mean, does anyone buy a Lamborghini without being shown how all the fantastic new features will open up new possibilities?

The problem with that is that a lot of times, the developer really doesn't know what the creative possibilities are until a user points them out. For example, when VirSyn's Poseidon first came out, I had mentioned in the forum that I was finding really cool wavescanning-like things to do with it. Harry liked the idea, so he put in a wavetable mode to make the process easier.

What works for me and what I think is cool might be the exact opposite for you; that's what makes synths fun. Put five people in the same room with the same fairly complex synth and tell them to make a cool patch with it; I'll bet that none of them will sound alike.

ew

Well maybe we need to distinguish between creating specific sounds and demonstrations of how new features can be used in a creative way. The point you make about too many variations could apply to any software including Adobe's but that hasn't stopped them trying to show how to use their software creatively. Adobe and other design/video developers have webinars and all kinds of demonstrative marketing. Check out BorisFX for great examples of this kind of thing. The argument that we can't please everyone so we won't do anything at all isn't very helpful or realistic in today's market.

If a developer has put new features into their synth what was the reasoning behind this and what purpose do these new features serve in the creative process? The developer must have some idea about why they include some things and not others to make their instrument more musical or designed for a particular kind of sound/music. Why go to all that trouble and then not demonstrate this in action? Instead they fill a PDF manual with functional instructions about each parameter as if we are operating a digital toaster and not a musical instrument. This seems counter intuitive to the purpose of a musical instrument.

[Tricky-Loops]

Why go to all that trouble and then not demonstrate this in action? Instead they fill a PDF manual with functional instructions about each parameter as if we are operating a digital toaster and not a musical instrument. This seems counter intuitive to the purpose of a musical instrument.

+1, that's why people like Simon Cann came into play (with his how-to-use-this-and-that-synthesizer-books).

It would be great if developers would create another manual (or book) to show how to use the synthesizer musically and creatively. With this manuals they could even earn more money, and the musician would have a steeper learning curve without experimenting planless...

It's not that I couldn't make sounds without manuals, but sometimes some tips would be useful.

[Albert.VST]

The problem with that is that a lot of times, the developer really doesn't know what the creative possibilities are until a user points them out.

I agree the developper can't point out all creative possibilities.
Don't think the one who built the first guitar could imagine in his wildest dreams what Jimi Hendrix did with such a piece of gear.
It takes artists that go beyond the scope of a development to create really new use for instruments (of any kind).

[liquidsound]

How an Albino, Sylenth1, Malstrom sound the same?

[buttrock]

I don't think that Leo Fender told Jimi Hendri how to use a Stratocaster creatively. So maybe it's the users who have to find out how far a certain synth can be pushed into creative and unique territory. Therefore a well written and complete functional documantation is necessary but the "creative" part is up to the user.

[A.M. Gold]

Speaking of Fender, who can pick out a Precision bass from a Yamaha bass or a custom bass of some kind in most mixes?

[Lotuzia]

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.

This to me sums up the problem - the need to meet market expectations vs the need to be innovative.

Perhaps if KORG had spent more time explaining how musicians could use their synth in new creative ways then it might have inspired more people to use it in ways that pushed boundaries rather than trying to fit into the mainstream.

Synths with innovative features like Oxium, Cyclop, DCAM etc. could have more information and demonstrations about how to use them in new and exciting ways rather than the usual instructions on what each parameter does. They are selling musical instruments not Bluray recorders after all.

Stonestreet makes a useful comparison to CAD software that is marketed with functional information rather than creative information. Perhaps Adobe might be a good example of how to show new features in a creative way rather than just giving functional instructions. Their website is full of video demonstrations of how to use their software in creative ways. The same goes for most design/video plugin developers - even the small ones.

If the marketing is saying this synth is an analog emulation on steroids then we know that it isn't going to be breaking new territory but if it's claiming that its new features will bring new creative opportunities then demonstrate this - don't just post this on the website and hope that people who buy the synth will magically discover these new creative possibilities on their own without any help.

If synths are only for the golden eared uber programmers who can intuit new creative possibilities from even a lowly monosynth then most of the rest of us are f**ked. But if they are for the majority of musicians then show us how we can creatively use all these fantastic new features. Otherwise it's like buying a Lamborghini and only driving at 60 because you haven't downloaded the PDF manual to learn all the instructions. I mean, does anyone buy a Lamborghini without being shown how all the fantastic new features will open up new possibilities?

We will make aome video tutorials for Oxium. Expect them near the end of August/September.

This said like it has been mentioned we dont know yet exactly all the things that can be done with Le Masque for example. But in the tutorials we'll show the general workflow, possible ideas, etc.

With Oxium we have also introduced the first "intelligent" feedback info pane : The info pane shows you what modulators are used to modify this or that kore module of Oxium : If you hear some complex modulation on the filter, but dont know how its done, just open the info pane, and look at what actually alters the filter. It become very easy to decipher a patch, and you can learn a lot with it, without looking in despair at all the knobs and wondering : What knob is "active" ? What modulates what ? etc etc.

LtZ

[4damind]

If people listening not too much to the marketing crap from developers and their forum bots and trying more to listen with his own ears and demo the stuff, I think many of this newer synth would never be released at this early time.
Many developers don't have a real vision this days, name it a dream or something about a very good and new synth. Often it seems that's only "hmm, we must have something new... let us try to make some analog sounding thingy... people like such stuff".

But there is very often no innovation, no real good sound. Many of this stuff has bugs like hell, is sounding mediocre and the users are often more early adopters.

Many judging synth only because of the presets. Yes, this is not the best thing but there are a lot people without deep knowledge about synth programming or they are more focused to make music instead of tweaking sounds. There is nothing wrong with it.
There are a lot of guys naming themselves "sound designers". They have ideas about synthesis but they have no idea about sound design to make a good and new sound for a synth.
People listen to the presets and are frustrated because of the boring and often heard sounds. There is nothing new, nothing special. Often there are no "show room presets", such sounds where people saying "wow, what great sound" but everybody knows this is not a sounds usable in a own track because it's too much.
If some people have the feeling that all sounds the same, than in my opinion presets are often a part of this problem.

[Albert.VST]

Many developers don't have a real vision this days, name it a dream or something about a very good and new synth. Often it seems that's only "hmm, we must have something new... let us try to make some analog sounding thingy... people like such stuff".

But there is very often no innovation, no real good sound.

Many judging synth only because of the presets.

Absolutely true!
But on the other hand, where's the innovation in new manufacturers, or even new instruments from existing manufacturers, from lets say pianos, trumpets, guitars (and all other instruments)? They only try to make it slightly, but noticably, better than previous models.
So this happens with synths too. Although synth can and should be more challenging for innovation, that I must say. But it's not always the case.

But I like developpers that say, hey, I found this new algorythm, don't know what you can do with it, but let's put it in anyway and see.

How an Albino, Sylenth1, Malstrom sound the same?

No, but there is a (small?) range of sounds they all can make without much differences.

I don't think that Leo Fender told Jimi Hendri how to use a Stratocaster creatively.

Or was it Les Paul?

[Guenon]

Often it seems that's only "hmm, we must have something new... let us try to make some analog sounding thingy... people like such stuff".

But there is very often no innovation, no real good sound. Many of this stuff has bugs like hell, is sounding mediocre and the users are often more early adopters.

That pretty much sums up why I have loved Zebra 2 for years now (what, seven, six years?? Has it really been that long?). It's got that real and uncompromised vision, great sound, and it's rock solid.