synths playing up their strengths (vs trying to do it all)

[fisherKing]

i have owned a whole lot of synth plugins; am down to about 5% of what i've used over the last 9 years.

who uses just one synth? so why do so many developers feel they have to cover all the bases? (pun intended).

for example, am playing with a newly-released plugin; it has it's own character, and it's very good at... what it's very good at. yet the presets are littered with (really mediocre) brass simulations, bad pianos, terrible saxes... etc etc etc. and i don't get it; if i want a piano, i have pianos to choose from. i turn to my synths to find synth sounds.

it reminds me of the old hardware workstations; if something was called 'piano', you assumed it represented a piano (even tho it sounded unlike a piano). it's (almost) 2019, and software synths are still striving to be like the korg M1.

anyway, just my thoughts, but wish developers would stop trying to make any single plugin be an 'all-in-one'. so many bad sounds to scroll thru....

[wagtunes]

This should be an interesting thread, but basically it comes down to economics.

Some people do this for money but don't make enough to afford to get a specialty synth for each thing they need, so that get one of those "do it all" workstations because it covers all the bases, even if not particularly well. But for them it's good enough.

And it's been that way since I can remember.

[voidhead23]

i've said it before, but i would throw serious money at a monophonic or duophonic soft synth that was unashamedly digital but with the juicy low end of Zebra and the aggressive highs of Serum, and was just really good at basses and leads with a simple UI and basic modulation options (seriously...you can make music with one LFO). My favorite hardware synth was a Minibrute, just because it was so it's own thing. It wasn't trying to be a Moog or a Roland or a Sequential Circuits...simply laid out, basic, had its own character and sounded fantastic in a mix.

i feel like synths such as ArcSyn, Bazille, Thorn and Aalto are doing their own thing, but don't fulfill my dream synth criteria.

[fisherKing]

This should be an interesting thread, but basically it comes down to economics.

Some people do this for money but don't make enough to afford to get a specialty synth for each thing they need, so that get one of those "do it all" workstations because it covers all the bases, even if not particularly well. But for them it's good enough.

And it's been that way since I can remember.

i mean... who doesn't use a DAW these days? and what DAW doesn't come with it's own instruments? i doubt anyone, finances notwithstanding, expects one 3rd-party synth to be their only sound source.

anyway, it makes no sense (to me) that some developers are still trying to do an all-in-one... and (in many cases) failing miserably at it.

i love the synths i use, for what they do well. anyway, easy enough to not use the presets that don't work (and how subjective is so much of that anyway?)

[wagtunes]

This should be an interesting thread, but basically it comes down to economics.

Some people do this for money but don't make enough to afford to get a specialty synth for each thing they need, so that get one of those "do it all" workstations because it covers all the bases, even if not particularly well. But for them it's good enough.

And it's been that way since I can remember.

i mean... who doesn't use a DAW these days? and what DAW doesn't come with it's own instruments? i doubt anyone, finances notwithstanding, expects one 3rd-party synth to be their only sound source.

anyway, it makes no sense (to me) that some developers are still trying to do an all-in-one... and (in many cases) failing miserably at it.

i love the synths i use, for what they do well. anyway, easy enough to not use the presets that don't work (and how subjective is so much of that anyway?)

Well, you yourself said it. The M1 was, for the most part, pretty crappy sounding as far as "real" instruments go. But it was a huge seller because it offered everything that you could want at an affordable price.

As far as DAWs go, I can't speak for other DAWs but Cubase 7 didn't have anything worth using. HALion Sonic SE was okay but nothing I'd ever use on a recording.

But the point is, I was simply answering your question and offering an explanation as to why some developers do this. Whether or not you agree with their rational is irrelevant to my answer. I was simply explaining why they do what they do.

And with that, I don't really have anything else to say on this subject.

[pdxindy]

This should be an interesting thread, but basically it comes down to economics.

Some people do this for money but don't make enough to afford to get a specialty synth for each thing they need, so that get one of those "do it all" workstations because it covers all the bases, even if not particularly well. But for them it's good enough.

Uh huh... and then a few years later they all have dozens of synths

[deastman]

I’m pretty sure the Juno-106 came with at least one preset claiming to be a piano. It has always been this way.

[Elektronisch]

i have owned a whole lot of synth plugins; am down to about 5% of what i've used over the last 9 years.

who uses just one synth?

Alot of successful producers (at least when it comes to dance music) actually use just few synths (1-3). Also same with fx. They dont even use the latest version or even latest version of the daw.

[SoundPorn]

Yeah I get what you're saying that's why I love romplers still especially curated ones like alot of these Maize sampler made ones are.
The problem is a synth should be capable of producing all these sounds just by nature of it being a synth. That's what a synth is. What do you suppose these 2 oscillator, 1 sub oscillator, wavetable and fm synthesis capable instruments focus on?

What is the classic synth sound? A sign wave? The classic FM sound is a fake piano sound imo to begin with. Honestly most of my favorite piano sounds are synthesized. Synths make the best rhodes sounds.
I think alot of the names are used just so ur brain can reference a ball park of what the sound is and not necessarily what its trying to emulate.

[Aloysius]

This should be an interesting thread, but basically it comes down to economics.

Some people do this for money but don't make enough to afford to get a specialty synth for each thing they need, so that get one of those "do it all" workstations because it covers all the bases, even if not particularly well. But for them it's good enough.

And it's been that way since I can remember.

I'm a goldfish and everything's been that way it is since i can remember.

[TheSynthScientist]

I’m pretty sure the Juno-106 came with at least one preset claiming to be a piano. It has always been this way.

Good point.
And in reality no one expected the Juno could do an accurate piano.

Sometimes an approximation is OK and really doesn't have to be completely accurate.
A good example of this would be the music of Jean Michel Jarre whose music was full of sounds that were approximated (including the drums).

That is what made it interesting and people have tried to emulate those sounds ever since.

[Lotuzia]

I’m pretty sure the Juno-106 came with at least one preset claiming to be a piano. It has always been this way.

Good point.
And in reality no one expected the Juno could do an accurate piano.

Sometimes an approximation is OK and really doesn't have to be completely accurate.
A good example of this would be the music of Jean Michel Jarre whose music was full of sounds that were approximated (including the drums).

That is what made it interesting and people have tried to emulate those sounds ever since.

Spot on

Other examples : The M1 piano was terrible. But was used on countless House hit tracks back in the days. Analod drums are mostly terrible to emulate real drum sounds, but welcomed to make superb drumbeats nonetheless.

The purpose of 'semireal' instruments is actually to propose something else wich kind be played 'a la maniere de' real instruments, but sound different. Strings Machines, Mellotrons, TB-303 -Roland attempt at the real bass replacement for poor people when they released it-, Mellotrons and numerous analog/fm synth patches : Unique approach of generic sounds that will sound brilliant/wonder if you use them well, and less if you use them for what they are not.

Then, and it just works for me, I can see I use mostly specialised synths, and almost never 'generalist synths that claim to do it all' (Wich I have a few ones also) I guess I simply prefer synths that have a strong character ( for example, with my prefered WT synth, there's no built in wavetable editor -Yes, see how much of a NeanderthAlien I am- I would not mind if there was one btw. Otho ....... it sounds unique. I like that) Ymmv.

[imrae]

and what DAW doesn't come with it's own instruments?

REAPER

i've said it before, but i would throw serious money at a monophonic or duophonic soft synth that was unashamedly digital but with the juicy low end of Zebra and the aggressive highs of Serum,

How is this different from a digital synth with an EQ set to a smiley face? What does "juicy low end" actually mean?

[voidhead23]

What does "juicy low end" actually mean?

It means my subjective impressions about inherent qualities in the instruments i find pleasurable or disappointing to work with on a mathematically and objectively inconsistent basis, but which nonetheless determines my joy with or dismissal of said instruments. My sincerest apologies for being so flagrantly offensive with a comment both in praise of two instruments and disparaging of none.

Sheesh.