Best soft synth for beginners? Reaktor 6/Dune 2/Omnisphere/Zebra 2?

[ruud07]

Sylenth 1 would be my first choice. It sounds great, it's relatively easy to program and is great for EDM.

If you want to learn to program your own sounds then the Thor Demystified tutorials by Gordon Reid are highly recommended. You can use the demo version of Reason. For non Reason owners Thor is available now for iPad too and you can save your patches.

https://www.propellerheads.se/blog/thor ... oscillator

[DJ Warmonger]

I'd also recommend Sylenth1 to beginners. Simple and straightforward, industry standard Dune 2 is similiar, just bigger.

Certainly NOT Reaktor 6, not even Blocks. To use it you need to know the basics first and aslo spend some time designing patches.

[LFO8]

If you are a true beginner then you might as well dive straight into Zebra and understand all synths after learning that one. It can be setup a simple or complex as need be.

[ghettosynth]

If you are a true beginner then you might as well dive straight into Zebra and understand all synths after learning that one. It can be setup a simple or complex as need be.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Zebra has a fairly complex interface. It's also a very polarizing interface and so if you don't get on with it, it will slow down your learning. I hate it's interface, I think that it puts the fug in fugly. It's not smooth or functional at all.

I don't agree with Sylenth either, it is expensive and offers nothing in terms of pedagogy over any number of free synths. I would argue that it's the kind of synth that you buy when you know that you want "that" sound.

[fmr]

Certainly NOT Reaktor 6, not even Blocks. To use it you need to know the basics first and aslo spend some time designing patches.

NOT Reaktor 6 why? What's so difficult about loading an ensemble in it? Even a 5 year old kid can learn easily how to do that.

And you say "not even Blocks", as if Blocks was the easiest part in there to learn. It isn't. Far from it. The easiest way to use it is loading an Ensemble from the library, and using it (it's what we do when we load Monark or Razor).

To learn, the easiest way is to open a simple Ensemble, like the one that Ghettosynth showed, and "disassemble" it, or use the templates, and start from there. You clearly don't know Reaktor.

[LFO8]

If you are a true beginner then you might as well dive straight into Zebra and understand all synths after learning that one. It can be setup a simple or complex as need be.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Zebra has a fairly complex interface. It's also a very polarizing interface and so if you don't get on with it, it will slow down your learning.

But when you are a blank slate regarding the architecture of synths, it does not matter as you will have no frame of reference.

[bmrzycki]

If you are a true beginner then you might as well dive straight into Zebra and understand all synths after learning that one. It can be setup a simple or complex as need be.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Zebra has a fairly complex interface. It's also a very polarizing interface and so if you don't get on with it, it will slow down your learning.

But when you are a blank slate regarding the architecture of synths, it does not matter as you will have no frame of reference.

It was my first synth to really learn synthesis and the UI. It's very simple to me now. I fact I'm usually more annoyed with other products because I can't quickly see the routing. I'm not saying I'm right: I merely mention this as a counter-example to ghettosynth's claim of complexity.

[wagtunes]

If you are a true beginner then you might as well dive straight into Zebra and understand all synths after learning that one. It can be setup a simple or complex as need be.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Zebra has a fairly complex interface. It's also a very polarizing interface and so if you don't get on with it, it will slow down your learning.

But when you are a blank slate regarding the architecture of synths, it does not matter as you will have no frame of reference.

It was my first synth to really learn synthesis and the UI. It's very simple to me now. I fact I'm usually more annoyed with other products because I can't quickly see the routing. I'm not saying I'm right: I merely mention this as a counter-example to ghettosynth's claim of complexity.

Everybody's brain is wired differently. I don't really "love" synths with just a few knobs, like The Legend, which sounds great don't get me wrong. I was just never a big Minimoog fan. I'm like "This is all I can do with it? Half dozen waveforms? Two filters? Not even a high pass? I mean hell, even the MS-2o gave me a high pass filter."

When I look at a "simple" synth I feel constricted, like there's no air to breathe. I mean how many different square waveform patches can you make?

This is why I prefer modular synths over all others, especially if they come with a world of different modules, which is why Softube is frustrating the hell out of me. At the rate they're coming out with things, I'll be dead long before there is what I would consider a complete system. I'd go the Eurocrack route if I wasn't so dead set against getting into hardware again. Those days were expensive as hell and space consuming to the point where I had to dedicate a whole room to my addiction. No more. Now my whole world is in a 2x4 hole. And that's the way I like it.

Point is, just because person A is most comfortable with a 3 knob synth doesn't mean person B is going to feel the same way, which is why threads like these, while not totally pointless, are futile when trying to give advice to a person who we have no clue if they're person A or B or something in between.

But yet everybody's got the answer as to what the best course of action is for the OP. And yeah, I allowed myself to fall into that trap as well as I'm pretty sure I offered my own 2 cents on this subject. But the truth is, my advice is no better or worse than anybody else's in this thread.

In short, it's pretty meaningless unless we know how the OP's brain is wired.

Good luck with that when he probably doesn't even know himself.

[ghettosynth]

If you are a true beginner then you might as well dive straight into Zebra and understand all synths after learning that one. It can be setup a simple or complex as need be.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Zebra has a fairly complex interface. It's also a very polarizing interface and so if you don't get on with it, it will slow down your learning.

But when you are a blank slate regarding the architecture of synths, it does not matter as you will have no frame of reference.

It was my first synth to really learn synthesis and the UI. It's very simple to me now. I fact I'm usually more annoyed with other products because I can't quickly see the routing. I'm not saying I'm right: I merely mention this as a counter-example to ghettosynth's claim of complexity.

As I said, it's polarizing. I don't find it difficult, just ugly and ineffective. Again, this comes down to what the actual goals are, but, to argue that you might as well use X because you don't have any reference is nonsense. Use what makes sense with respect to your goals. Even without a reference, some things are easier than others. Ask a complete non-musician to play Mary Had a Little Lamb on a piano, a guitar, and a saxophone, and you will quickly see how, even without a state of reference, that U/I matters.

It's trivial to see the routing in a fixed architecture synth because, wait for it, there's only one routing. Zebra isn't a simple synth. You can't have it both ways, it cannot be both powerful and at the same time simple without the ability to fix the presentation to the user.

The difference between synths defined in Reaktor and using something like Zebra is that a development environment that allows you to define a U/I gives you the ability to hide the power behind a simple U/I.

The previously discussed 2-Osc is a basic fixed routing synth. It's not unlike Synth-1, Charlatan, or any number of other synths described in this thread. There is no equivalent in Zebra. You cannot explore Zebra's patches with respect to a fixed architecture, as you load each new patch, it's associated architecture will also be loaded.

I'm not advocating Reaktor or Kontakt because I like them, I'm advocating because they are flexible and open and will support many different tastes and directions. If your goal is actually learning, then nothing will compete with Reaktor, nothing. Even the comparable products like Max, Pd, or SynthEdit cannot compete (I own all of them, FYI). There is no other product that allows average users with a bit of motivation to fairly easily dig down into the heart of a synth and understand what's going on. Moreover, once you get there, you can change it, easily.

With something like Reaktor, if your tastes turn to FM, Granular, Additive, whatever, there are multiple choices there for you to explore.

Arguably, my first soft synth was the Nord Modular. It is powerful, useful, and flexible, but it suffers from the same issue that Zebra has, it has a very limited hierarchical structure to contain its complexity. This makes it (more) difficult to explore patches because each time you look at a new patch you have to learn the new architecture.

This was a common complaint with the Nord, people want to contain complexity and give it structure. Reaktor allows for this beautifully. Max actually does a better job there, but, it has its own issues that IMHO, gives the edge to Reaktor.

So, to be clear, my argument is for a simple fixed architecture synth on day one. Something like Synth 1, or 2-Osc. If it's free and you're ready to move on, no big deal, just get the next thing, but, if it costs money, this will be a never ending quest to figure out what interests you and you will have to spend more money before you figure this out. Zebra and Sylenth are expensive. That's going to suck if by day three you realize that, like me, you are a filter snob.

That's the bottom line here, you don't know, and I don't know, and even the OP doesn't know what they're going to like.

If you start with Reaktor, you can explore as you learn at no additional cost because there are hundreds of excellent choices that can compete with some of the best commercial synths in many, if not most, ways. It's not perfect, by a long shot, but it really is a fantastic exploration lab.

[Howard]

OK, I disagree with most of the above (unsurprisingly). However, it was the following contradiction that got me seriously scratching my balding pate:
"You cannot explore Zebra's patches with respect to a fixed architecture, as you load each new patch, it's associated architecture will also be loaded...I'm not advocating Reaktor or Kontakt because I like them, I'm advocating because they are flexible and open and will support many different tastes and directions."
Huh?

[ghettosynth]

OK, I disagree with most of the above (unsurprisingly). However, it was the following contradiction that got me seriously scratching my balding pate:
"You cannot explore Zebra's patches with respect to a fixed architecture, as you load each new patch, it's associated architecture will also be loaded...I'm not advocating Reaktor or Kontakt because I like them, I'm advocating because they are flexible and open and will support many different tastes and directions."
Huh?

While that wasn't very clear, it isn't a contradiction and you're smart enough to know that. Instead of thinking that it is, think about how it isn't and you will then get what I'm talking about.

In any case, Zebra isn't "open" in the same way that Reaktor is, it's not even close in any dimension whatsoever. At the same time, Zebra isn't anywhere near as constrained and focused as, for example, the 2-Osc synth that I posted earlier.

That synth, like all Reaktor ensembles and instruments, has its own patches. Of course you know this. Loading a patch into an ensemble won't change the architecture of that synth. You know that as well.

[wagtunes]

OK, I disagree with most of the above (unsurprisingly). However, it was the following contradiction that got me seriously scratching my balding pate:
"You cannot explore Zebra's patches with respect to a fixed architecture, as you load each new patch, it's associated architecture will also be loaded...I'm not advocating Reaktor or Kontakt because I like them, I'm advocating because they are flexible and open and will support many different tastes and directions."
Huh?

While that wasn't very clear, it isn't a contradiction and you're smart enough to know that. Instead of thinking that it is, think about how it isn't and you will then get what I'm talking about.

In any case, Zebra isn't "open" in the same way that Reaktor is, it's not even close in any dimension whatsoever. At the same time, Zebra isn't anywhere near as constrained and focused as, for example, the 2-Osc synth that I posted earlier.

That synth, like all Reaktor ensembles and instruments, has its own patches. Of course you know this. Loading a patch into an ensemble won't change the architecture of that synth. You know that as well.

Well, there are two ways of looking a Reaktor.

1) A kind of DAW where you load whatever synth you want to play, create presets for, whatever. Just like you would any other synth with the exception that with Reaktor, the kinds of synths you can load are limitless.

2) A synth creation platform like Synthedit, just better.

The problem with recommending Reaktor, IMO, is that if you're not upgrading from 5 to 6 and are getting it for the first time, you're spending $200.

Now, for everything you're getting, $200 is a ridiculous steal. Zebra 2, which costs the same amount, doesn't do all that Reaktor does.

However, if all you're going to do is pull up synths and play presets, because you have no desire to learn how to create your own ensembles, then you are overspending for what you are ultimately using.

That's why Reaktor will be the last synth I'd recommend to somebody just starting out. You have no idea if they have any inclination or the necessary brainpower to use more than 10% of what Reaktor offers.

That's why something like The Legend is a great value. It's only $99 and it's so simple to program you'd have to be brain dead not to be able to.

Of course, if you're going to go for something that simple, no sense in spending money. There are a number of free synths that are simple to program that will serve the same purpose, learning how to program synths.

When I first started ITB, I already had over 30 years working with synths so I immediately knew what I wanted. I didn't know what was available. That was my handicap. Eventually, through research, I discovered what was available. I also discovered that, even though I was looking for mostly open ended synths, that if I wanted to get some classic sounds for certain genres I had to also get some simple synths. Of course this was long before I ultimately ended up making this a business of buying synths just to make sounds. But for making music, I discovered, much to my surprise, that there wasn't a synth to rule all that would give me everything possible.

Eventually, the OP will figure that out too. But until then, and more importantly, until he figures out how his own brain is wired, it's probably best not to commit to a $200 purchase that he might use all of 10% of what it offers.

[ghettosynth]

That's why Reaktor will be the last synth I'd recommend to somebody just starting out. You have no idea if they have any inclination or the necessary brainpower to use more than 10% of what Reaktor offers.

...

That's why something like The Legend is a great value. It's only $99 and it's so simple to program you'd have to be brain dead not to be able to.

So, let's see if I get this. Reaktor + 2-OSC is difficult to program, but The Legend isn't?

Of course, if you're going to go for something that simple, no sense in spending money. There are a number of free synths that are simple to program that will serve the same purpose, learning how to program synths.

Right, I agree. I even said that above. If you're going to spend even $99, Reaktor, even at $200 is far better value and can be just as simple as The Legend, and will be a learning lab for years to come.

But to even consider Zebra and Reaktor in the same breath at the same price is just absurd. Even if you never use anything but the factory ensembles there's very little competition there. The only thing interesting about Zebra in that comparison is that for many sounds Reaktor will use more CPU than Zebra for the same polyphony.

I also discovered that, even though I was looking for mostly open ended synths, that if I wanted to get some classic sounds for certain genres I had to also get some simple synths.

All of this is available in Reaktor. Simple synths, classic sounding synths, weird sounding synths. IIRC, you only recently upgraded and were lamenting what you thought was difficult about Reaktor. I really don't think that you're the right guy to ask about Reaktor.

That said, I don't agree with you at all about any requirement for "simple synths." There's nothing intrinsic in a "simple synth" that can't be accomplished in many more complex synths. Don't get me wrong, I use simple synths all of the time. Especially ones that I whip up in Reaktor, but it isn't to get "classic sounds", whatever that is supposed to mean. It's almost always about using specific technology.

That said, if one is going to commit to buying synths, what those of us advocating Reaktor/Kontakt have been saying is that Komplete is just a great place to start in terms of value. IMNSHO, there is still no better value on the market overall.

[Aleatoriac]

DIVA.
It's the best virtual analog synth ever made. f**k it. It's the best synth ever made. I love it so much I want to have a virtual body made and I will call her (or him) DIVA and I *WILL* make love to HER (OR HIM!).

It's better than Omnisphere 2.

Then there's a yawning chasm.

Then there's everything else.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Get Reaktor. Why? Because, at some point you will likely want to buy it anyway.

It will give you as simple as you can conceive, and scale up as and when you are ready. Also, unlike some might have you believe, just the included library, alone, can easily justify the asking price (Moreso, now they have slashed the cost of admission)