How much do you use presets? [Poll]

[idfpower]

Suit yourself. While I don't mind people using presets in general. In this specific case (preset + arp with distinctive riff), I think you are being lazy.

Is that your "elegant" way of saying that I've somehow ripped Vangelis off or something? Oh my Seriously: while I do understand your point of view, you're way off. Presets are made to be used.

[ariston]

I don't like the "preset" - "instrument" analogy. It seems faulty to me - a "real" instrument doesn't have "presets", its sound is determined to a large degree by sometimes rather subtle differences between players. Synth presets, on the other hand, are static by comparison - pitchbend, velocity, aftertouch and what have you notwithstanding. Let's be real here: no synth preset can offer the subtlety of expression of a real instrument. It can certainly approximate it, but it's not the same thing, which is why, to my mind, the initial sound/timbre is so much more important. A synth can't sound and be played like a guitar, but a guitar can't sound like a synth either. I think it's important to cater to the strengths of each, and not attempt to compensate for their weaknesses.
Which brings me to presets again: a self-made preset CAN be a big part of what you're trying to express musically. If an existing preset does it for you, great, but it's been my personal experience that most presets made by others don't get me where I want to go. That's why I really NEED to make my own, but it's just as viable if you find what you need in 3rd party banks. And why shouldn't it be? There's no need to climb onto a high horse here. Conversely, there's also no need to accuse those who like to roll their own of being arrogant.

Some may have caught a case of "preset envy".

[Lotuzia]

I don't like the "preset" - "instrument" analogy. It seems faulty to me - a "real" instrument doesn't have "presets", its sound is determined to a large degree by sometimes rather subtle differences between players. Synth presets, on the other hand, are static by comparison - pitchbend, velocity, aftertouch and what have you notwithstanding. Let's be real here: no synth preset can offer the subtlety of expression of a real instrument. It can certainly approximate it, but it's not the same thing, which is why, to my mind, the initial sound/timbre is so much more important. A synth can't sound and be played like a guitar, but a guitar can't sound like a synth either. I think it's important to cater to the strengths of each, and not attempt to compensate for their weaknesses.
........:

Well just an example : Just take a real Rhodes and a [Good] Dx7 Rhodish preset.

Differences there are, but both are as playable, as reactive under your fingers, as subtle with velocity, as complex in timbre, as gorgeous.

Two instruments. Simple.

Same with nicely designed presets. If you cant be inspired except by yourself, then its your thing. No problems with that. To each his own.

LtZ

[Nielzie]

Just an example : Just take a real Rhodes and a [Good] Dx7 Rhodish preset.

Differences there are, but both are as playable, as reactive under your fingers, as subtle with velocity, as complex in timbre, as gorgeous.

Two instruments. Simple.

Same with nicely designed presets. If you cant be inspired except by yourself, then its your thing. No problems with that. To each his own.

LtZ

Good point and well said

[ariston]

Differences there are, but both are as playable, as reactive under your fingers, as subtle with velocity, as complex in timbre, as gorgeous.

No, they're NOT, and that totally missed what I was trying to say. You're trying to tell me that a synth preset that offers 128 levels of velocity is just as expressive as an electromechanical instrument? That's plain wrong. And even if it had been correct, it would've still missed my point entirely.

[Lotuzia]

Differences there are, but both are as playable, as reactive under your fingers, as subtle with velocity, as complex in timbre, as gorgeous.

No, they're NOT, and that totally missed what I was trying to say. You're trying to tell me that a synth preset that offers 128 levels of velocity is just as expressive as an electromechanical instrument? That's plain wrong. And even if it had been correct, it would've still missed my point entirely.

An instrument is something global. To me your answer juts sounds like if I would have told you " What ! you can't tune the bell in your real Rhodes to your liking like I can do in my DX patch, and you say me a Rhodes is as expressive as a DX7 Rhodish preset ? It's not ( Bold font and underlined for a good visual effect ) "

How does that sound ? Stupid ?

yes probably. Thats why I did not said it.

There are a number of circumstances where I would prefer a Rhodes over a DX. And an equally number of tracks where I would choose the DX Rhodes patch isntead. It depends on what I would like to express. because music is all based on expression. And that's what, in my book, instruments are made for. Express yourself. End of ( Due to the overall tone of your answer )

[chaosWyrM]

I don't like the "preset" - "instrument" analogy. It seems faulty to me - a "real" instrument doesn't have "presets", its sound is determined to a large degree by sometimes rather subtle differences between players. Synth presets, on the other hand, are static by comparison - pitchbend, velocity, aftertouch and what have you notwithstanding. Let's be real here: no synth preset can offer the subtlety of expression of a real instrument. It can certainly approximate it, but it's not the same thing, which is why, to my mind, the initial sound/timbre is so much more important. A synth can't sound and be played like a guitar, but a guitar can't sound like a synth either. I think it's important to cater to the strengths of each, and not attempt to compensate for their weaknesses.
Which brings me to presets again: a self-made preset CAN be a big part of what you're trying to express musically. If an existing preset does it for you, great, but it's been my personal experience that most presets made by others don't get me where I want to go. That's why I really NEED to make my own, but it's just as viable if you find what you need in 3rd party banks. And why shouldn't it be? There's no need to climb onto a high horse here. Conversely, there's also no need to accuse those who like to roll their own of being arrogant.

Some may have caught a case of "preset envy".

that makes sense...but if youre going that way...id say i dont like the synth - instrument analogy. i mean the way most of us work the daw is the real instrument, and the subtle difference you speak of are in how we use the daw, and not in how the synths/samplers/effects whatever sound individually. the static nature of the presets (which i dont think i agree with) extrapolate a step up to the static nature of the synths themselves regardless of if the sound it produces is a preset or a patch someone made from scratch.

i dont think anyone is saying people who make their own patches are arrogant, but it does seem that a few people think that those who use presets are somehow "less than".

[idfpower]

i dont think anyone is saying people who make their own patches are arrogant, but it does seem that a few people think that those who use presets are somehow "less than".

+1

[Tricky-Loops]

I was thinking about buying a real Rhode but there were no presets...

[Sendy]

i dont think anyone is saying people who make their own patches are arrogant, but it does seem that a few people think that those who use presets are somehow "less than".

Yes, that may be the case. But let's put things in perspective. The synth programming crew are absolute geniuses. All of them. Being lesser than them is a bit like being lesser than a demi-god. Sure, it's not something you'd want to dwell on, but in the cosmic scheme of things it still gives you room to be pretty high up.

[Lotuzia]

I was thinking about buying a real Rhode but there were no presets...

Sorry forn the brutal landing ( But its good for muscles, especially when you rehearse 5 times a week )

[Frantz]

Is that your "elegant" way of saying that I've somehow ripped Vangelis off or something? Oh my Seriously: while I do understand your point of view, you're way off. Presets are made to be used.

I think we should agree to disagree on this point. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

[idfpower]

I think we should agree to disagree on this point. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

I was about to say the same thing It's ok

[Aiynzahev]

i dont think anyone is saying people who make their own patches are arrogant, but it does seem that a few people think that those who use presets are somehow "less than".

Yes, that may be the case. But let's put things in perspective. The synth programming crew are absolute geniuses. All of them. Being lesser than them is a bit like being lesser than a demi-god. Sure, it's not something you'd want to dwell on, but in the cosmic scheme of things it still gives you room to be pretty high up.

When I hear a really good track, it may or may not have particularly good or clever sound design. It just has to sound nice. Or if there are clever bits it may be nothing to do with synthesis and more with arrangement and sample manipulation.

There is so much to do in a track that I'd never say "well of course it sounds good, it's a preset"

I mean, getting the right sound source is just the first step, you do actually have to make music after that.

[Tricky-Loops]

Just an example: Your car is broken. You know the usual patch attempts like oil, coolant or tire change, but there seems to be some damage in the engine.

If you go to a mechanic, are you an incompetent car owner? Should you be able to do it all yourself? Should you learn for years how to repair your engine (assumed you haven't enough time)?

The same applies to presets. If you use a complex, modulated preset that sounds good, why should you make a sound from the scratch if there are other sound designers who can help you to achieve exactly this sound?