Synapse Audio Minimoog emulation "The Legend" for VST/AU and RE released!

[nichttuntun]

I too do not think it is ridiculous. It's a further option to sculpture sound and it can add character to the instrument and it even can be a main character of an instrument.

I think an effect section shouldn't be the main part of the sound design process because the instrument alone should stand out with something special may it be it's own base sounds, filters or so. So I think a built in knob which disables all effects (even when changing presets) is a very useful feature to have to see what the basic instrument sounds like.

[recursive one]

I think the listener is not going to care if they hear the "basic instrument" or a patch decorated with tons of effects if it sounds good.

I think of effects as an integral part of the synth, especially in case you can have FX parameters as modulation targets which may be found in most modern synths. E.g. what if you want to have a phaser frequency controlled by the same LFO as the filter cutoff or a distortion intensity assigned to velocity? Ofc, if a synth doesn't have any effects, or they are basic or sound poor I will use external ones but this puts some restrictions on the sound design process so I prefer synths which come with variety of good effects.

[nichttuntun]

As mentioned I think it's a good addition and who knows. Maybe there are still people out there who haven't got outboard effects or plugins. Think of people who just play an piano emulation in live situation.

But in most cases I know presets effects are really annoying and you always have to tame them or disable them. Far too much delay and far too much reverb as the same time
Who uses such an constellation when he or she is recording all tracks before mixing? A further point for me its that it just distracts from the important parts of the base sounds and they can be so small and subtle. The presets effects just smear and wash out everything because they are ment to present the instrument fat and prominent in a crowded mix when demoing the synth.

It's like high tech home cinema gear. Its tuned for show rooms. At home you have to calibrate or for real and the first thing there is to disable all effects.

I do all sounds from scratch and bone dry. A sound should be great without any effect.. if you achieve that an effect polishes such a patch and let's it really shine. For me effects are the very last step to accent certain things. But I will do this in the mixing stage. They should be designed to the needs of the whole mix. They are totally worthless and hindering for me without the context of all parts. I guess everyone has a own kind off approach. Cheers.

[fluffy_little_something]

Yes it helps in certain situations...on the same level it can cause much misunderstandings (fail interpretations). Technically we all have the same abilities but our mindbased emotional reaction will be different. One can say 100 people hear 100 different things because 100 minds cause 100 different states within split seconds.

It depends. When it is a sound or song we already know, we often have memories associated with it. So it is more the memory we hear rather than the music as such, especially with strong memories (first love, birth of child etc.).
But with new sounds and songs I do think we all hear pretty much the same and interpret it more or less the same way, at least with people from the same culture. For instance I can't tell whether an Indian song is happy or sad because their music is so different and I don't understand the lyrics.

[wagtunes]

Yes it helps in certain situations...on the same level it can cause much misunderstandings (fail interpretations). Technically we all have the same abilities but our mindbased emotional reaction will be different. One can say 100 people hear 100 different things because 100 minds cause 100 different states within split seconds.

It depends. When it is a sound or song we already know, we often have memories associated with it. So it is more the memory we hear rather than the music as such, especially with strong memories (first love, birth of child etc.).
But with new sounds and songs I do think we all hear pretty much the same and interpret it more or less the same way, at least with people from the same culture. For instance I can't tell whether an Indian song is happy or sad because their music is so different and I don't understand the lyrics.

Wrong because of so many variables from person to person.

Hearing loss, especially in frequency ranges. For example, a harsh cymbal sound won't be interpreted the same by a person who has lost the upper frequencies as I have. That's why I have to consciously put an EQ on the upper frequencies of my cymbals out of habit because I know I'm not hearing that harshness.

Then there is how we emotionally identify with each instrument. You can't remove emotions from the equation of how we "hear" sound. We are not robots. If we were, everybody would love or hate the same songs the same way.

But again, taking emotions away, as even you yourself admitted plays a part in the "hearing" process, all our hearings are not equal. You have absolutely no idea what I hear and I have absolutely no idea what you hear. So to make a blanket statement that everybody hears things the same is just flat out wrong purely from a physiological standpoint.

Your ears and my ears are not the same.

[fluffy_little_something]

Wrong because of so many variables from person to person.

Hearing loss, especially in frequency ranges. For example, a harsh cymbal sound won't be interpreted the same by a person who has lost the upper frequencies as I have. That's why I have to consciously put an EQ on the upper frequencies of my cymbals out of habit because I know I'm not hearing that harshness.

Then there is how we emotionally identify with each instrument. You can't remove emotions from the equation of how we "hear" sound. We are not robots. If we were, everybody would love or hate the same songs the same way.

But again, taking emotions away, as even you yourself admitted plays a part in the "hearing" process, all our hearings are not equal. You have absolutely no idea what I hear and I have absolutely no idea what you hear. So to make a blanket statement that everybody hears things the same is just flat out wrong purely from a physiological standpoint.

Your ears and my ears are not the same.

I disagree, our ears and hearing are virtually the same, in all humans, just like our eyes and vision. (Problems such as color blindness, tinnitus etc. excluded, of course). If it were not, humans could not communicate and agree on anything. Actually, we would have died out early during out evolution.

Only the interpretation of what we all hear differs. But even that interpretation is often pretty consistent within a given culture.
To get back to topic, most people seem to agree that Legend sounds powerful. Sure, some will say it sounds thin. But when 9/10 say it sounds powerful, it does sound powerful. You know, when it walks like a duck...

[wagtunes]

Wrong because of so many variables from person to person.

Hearing loss, especially in frequency ranges. For example, a harsh cymbal sound won't be interpreted the same by a person who has lost the upper frequencies as I have. That's why I have to consciously put an EQ on the upper frequencies of my cymbals out of habit because I know I'm not hearing that harshness.

Then there is how we emotionally identify with each instrument. You can't remove emotions from the equation of how we "hear" sound. We are not robots. If we were, everybody would love or hate the same songs the same way.

But again, taking emotions away, as even you yourself admitted plays a part in the "hearing" process, all our hearings are not equal. You have absolutely no idea what I hear and I have absolutely no idea what you hear. So to make a blanket statement that everybody hears things the same is just flat out wrong purely from a physiological standpoint.

Your ears and my ears are not the same.

I disagree, our ears and hearing are virtually the same, in all humans, just like our eyes and vision. (Problems such as color blindness, tinnitus etc. excluded, of course). If it were not, humans could not communicate and agree on anything. Actually, we would have died out early during out evolution.

Only the interpretation of what we all hear differs. But even that interpretation is often pretty consistent within a given culture.
To get back to topic, most people seem to agree that Legend sounds powerful. Sure, some will say it sounds thin. But when 9/10 say it sounds powerful, it does sound powerful. You know, when it walks like a duck...

You can disagree all you want. You're just plain wrong.

Go tell your "facts" to an autistic person, or a person with dementia or Alzheimer's or any one of a number of diseases that affect the way we interpret things that have nothing to do with culture.

And now you can get back to the topic now that you've been corrected.

[fluffy_little_something]

I disagree, our ears and hearing are virtually the same, in all humans, just like our eyes and vision. (Problems such as color blindness, tinnitus etc. excluded, of course). If it were not, humans could not communicate and agree on anything. Actually, we would have died out early during out evolution.

Only the interpretation of what we all hear differs. But even that interpretation is often pretty consistent within a given culture.
To get back to topic, most people seem to agree that Legend sounds powerful. Sure, some will say it sounds thin. But when 9/10 say it sounds powerful, it does sound powerful. You know, when it walks like a duck...

You can disagree all you want. You're just plain wrong.

Go tell your "facts" to an autistic person, or a person with dementia or Alzheimer's or any one of a number of diseases that affect the way we interpret things that have nothing to do with culture.

And now you can get back to the topic now that you've been corrected.[/quote]

Autism might be among the exceptions whose existence I clearly stated (bold).

Alzheimer's is about the interpretation, though, an Alzheimer's patient can have perfect hearing and hear the same as everyone else, but their memories are gone, so they feel different things, or maybe nothing at all when they hear what they hear.

As usual you are in no position to say someone else is wrong...

[Stefken]

I disagree, our ears and hearing are virtually the same, in all humans, just like our eyes and vision. (Problems such as color blindness, tinnitus etc. excluded, of course). If it were not, humans could not communicate and agree on anything. Actually, we would have died out early during out evolution.

Only the interpretation of what we all hear differs. But even that interpretation is often pretty consistent within a given culture.

This is so very wrong on so many levels.
And we can communicate via intrapersonal consistency, not interpersonal consistency.
That is, person 1 might see a color we name "red" as such, as person 2 as something different.
But everytime person 1 sees that color, he sees it (pretty much) as the same color, so he calls that red whenever he sees it. Same goes for person 2, only he sees it differently. But they both call it red, and can communicate in such manner.

To demonstrate how we hear differently: everybody is 'shocked' to hear his voice on a tape the first time. That's because you hear your own voice also through the vibrations in your bone, not just from the vibrations through the air. When you hear it from a tape, it's just the vibrations through the air, so it sounds very different. The other way round is when you have a cold, then you mainly hear your voice through the vibrations in your bone.

Your ears also work as amplifiers/resonators and everybody's ear is different. The ear is as unique as a fingerprint.

I could go on for quite some time.... I haven't even started with the cognitive interpretation...

[fluffy_little_something]

I disagree, our ears and hearing are virtually the same, in all humans, just like our eyes and vision. (Problems such as color blindness, tinnitus etc. excluded, of course). If it were not, humans could not communicate and agree on anything. Actually, we would have died out early during out evolution.

Only the interpretation of what we all hear differs. But even that interpretation is often pretty consistent within a given culture.

This is so very wrong on so many levels.
And we can communicate via intrapersonal consistency, not interpersonal consistency.
That is, person 1 might see a color we name "red" as such, as person 2 as something different.
But everytime person 1 sees that color, he sees it (pretty much) as the same color, so he calls that red whenever he sees it. Same goes for person 2, only he sees it differently. But they both call it red, and can communicate in such manner.

To demonstrate how we hear differently: everybody is 'shocked' to hear his voice on a tape the first time. That's because you hear your own voice also through the vibrations in your bone, not just from the vibrations through the air. When you hear it from a tape, it's just the vibrations through the air, so it sounds very different. The other way round is when you have a cold, then you mainly hear your voice through the vibrations in your bone.

Your ears also work as amplifiers/resonators and everybody's ear is different. The ear is as unique as a fingerprint.

I could go on for quite some time.... I haven't even started with the cognitive interpretation...

I myself indeed hear my voice differently as I sing or speak for the reasons you stated, but when I hear it on tape, I hear what everyone else also hears. Now, whether they like my voice or not, will depend on the individual's taste and associations (if my voice sounds similar to that of someone the listener hates, they will not like my voice either).

I think your color example is wrong. Think of color blind people who confuse for instance red and green. There is a reason they are not allowed to work in certain professions such as piloting airplanes.

[EvilDragon]

The color example is absolutely correct (and we're not talking about colorblindness here). Certain nations have different outlooks on certain colors. For example, in Japan, for centuries they used exactly the same word for blue and green. It was the same color to them. There are studies about these things, go educate yourself a bit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue%E2%8 ... n_language

[fluffy_little_something]

The color example is absolutely correct (and we're not talking about colorblindness here). Certain nations have different outlooks on certain colors. For example, in Japan, for centuries they used exactly the same word for blue and green. It was the same color to them. There are studies about these things, go educate yourself a bit

That's a language thing, but the Japanese see exactly the same as Europeans do, the same frequencies etc., because their eyes are build the same way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ao_(color)

Bees however see different things because their eyes are different.

[EvilDragon]

Sure, but the distinction is still there. Their brains interpret what they see differently, and that reflected in the language. And Japanese are not the only ones.

[fluffy_little_something]

Sure, but the distinction is still there. Their brains interpret what they see differently, and that reflected in the language. And Japanese are not the only ones.

Exactly, I didn't say anything else, I clearly said that how we interpret what we see and hear also depends on the culture.

[wagtunes]

I disagree, our ears and hearing are virtually the same, in all humans, just like our eyes and vision. (Problems such as color blindness, tinnitus etc. excluded, of course). If it were not, humans could not communicate and agree on anything. Actually, we would have died out early during out evolution.

Only the interpretation of what we all hear differs. But even that interpretation is often pretty consistent within a given culture.

This is so very wrong on so many levels.
And we can communicate via intrapersonal consistency, not interpersonal consistency.
That is, person 1 might see a color we name "red" as such, as person 2 as something different.
But everytime person 1 sees that color, he sees it (pretty much) as the same color, so he calls that red whenever he sees it. Same goes for person 2, only he sees it differently. But they both call it red, and can communicate in such manner.

To demonstrate how we hear differently: everybody is 'shocked' to hear his voice on a tape the first time. That's because you hear your own voice also through the vibrations in your bone, not just from the vibrations through the air. When you hear it from a tape, it's just the vibrations through the air, so it sounds very different. The other way round is when you have a cold, then you mainly hear your voice through the vibrations in your bone.

Your ears also work as amplifiers/resonators and everybody's ear is different. The ear is as unique as a fingerprint.

I could go on for quite some time.... I haven't even started with the cognitive interpretation...

You're wasting your time. He's a stubborn mule who sees things the way HE sees them and he's right and everybody else is wrong.

There is absolutely no point in discussing things with people like him.