Is it really sick to have 20 synthesizers?

[Aloysius]

Airy fairy

[vurt]

so wait, the wretch has been modelled close enough..
but the uno is irreplaceable in software?

ill just let that sink in...

[vurt]

Airy fairy

been called worse by better

[chk071]

I don't care about marketing, or whether a synth is modern or modeled, I really don't. It's whether I like the sound, period. My list of top ten synths right now:

1. Cypher 2
2. Falcon
3. Loom
4. Pigments
5. Hive
6. Diva
7. SEM V2
8. Synclavier V
9. Repro-1 5
10. Zebra 2

To each his own, but, i recently demo'd SEM V2, and was pretty disappointed. Just like with the other Arturia synths, the filter lacks some "balls". It neither has the amount of resonance a real analog synth has, nor does the synth in general have the amount of bottom end a analog synth has. I like Arturia controllers, but, neither their virtual nor their analog synths are very good.

[Aloysius]

Airy fairy

been called worse by better

That doesn't surprise me.

[vurt]

[Aloysius]

[pekbro]

What about 20 step sequencers? I seem to be more interested in those than synths currently.

Trying to talk myself out of an $800 one actually.

[BBFG#]

Much of hardware to me has to do simply with "presence" and that seems to be the hardest thing for software to emulate. Much easier for them to compare to the processed sound achieved on recordings. Sampling especially to me often uses that EP trick of pre-compressing that somehow often kills that presence. (JMO).
For myself, software that has its own presence is far superior to attempted emulations that some will swear to while others dismiss. The analogs I own over the years were Korgs, Moogs, ARPs, Sequentials, DCOs (Oberheim knock off). And yes, I get a moment of nostalgia whenever someone posts a picture or thread about them. But I haven't missed any of them enough to pursue since getting the U-he synths. (Bazille, DIVA, Zebra).
I think the number of synths that I own on purpose (not part of a superfluous bundle that rarely even get opened or that depends on samples), is five. And one of those is getting sold now. Not because it's bad, but because it's redundant.
Yeah, if you add the bundled synths, it comes in around twenty. But that's more of a financial reason than a 'must have' reason.

[martinjuenke]

Which sick dick has 20 synths? Life starts with minimum 50!

[machinesworking]

To each his own, but, i recently demo'd SEM V2, and was pretty disappointed. Just like with the other Arturia synths, the filter lacks some "balls". It neither has the amount of resonance a real analog synth has, nor does the synth in general have the amount of bottom end a analog synth has. I like Arturia controllers, but, neither their virtual nor their analog synths are very good.

Two things:
I don't think models of synths completely capture the synth.
I don't care.

I own an Oberheim Xpander, and the V Collection 6 from arturia.
I've used the Matrix 12 on quite a few songs. I'm not a purist, if it works it works. The less muddy sound of the Matrix 12-V worked well, there was no reason to try to replicate the sound in the real Oberheim.

I like the sound of the SEM, I don't own the real thing, and haven't really given much thought to whether it compares to it or not. That, has been my conclusion about Arturia in general, that the hype is a waste of time, but the synths are not.
I completely get people not liking them for their outlandish claims, but I simply end up using their synths on songs, even with owning two absolute classic poly analogs, that's all that matters.

Side note, claims of more bottom end in analog synths always puzzle me a bit. In my experience analog synths have a more unruly bottom end, not necessarily more bottom end. In the final mix I'm taming it with low cut EQ etc. There are definitely uses for a less 'tame' sound, but not as often as people seem to think.

[BONES]

If that was the case, why did you bother making more than one synth edit plug in?

Because I had no idea what I was doing and the early ones were shithouse and as I got better at it, the instruments got better, too. In any event, I made them as a means of driving traffic to our website, not because I ever intended to use them, so having fresh ones from time to time helped achieve that goal. However, as it turned out, they were eminently usable and feature prominently on our last three albums. (They won't be on the new one at all, because 64 bit.)

I mean with your logic one full featured soft synth covers it.

Taken to the extreme, sure, as the One Synth Challenge shows. But there will always be instruments that are easier for some things than for others, so having more than one can be handy. I made two albums with just two instruments - a Korg workstation (M1 for the first, 01R/W for the second) and a sampler (ASR-10 for both). Then, of course, there are newer instruments that simply do things better than old instruments ever could, or have features not found on other synths. The bar keeps being set higher and higher, which means you have to buy new things now and then if you want the best sound available or new features you haven't had in the past. In my hardware days, new synths completely replaced old ones but with software I have the luxury of keeping everything, which saves a lot of work getting old songs working in an updated set-up.

Except that's not your logic, you just hate hardware "purists" to the point of not even wanting to acknowledge that some hardware has yet to be modeled well.

You are completely missing my point, which is that modelling old hardware is pointless and largely a waste of time. Seriously, RePro-1 and RePro-5 sound amazing, for example, but Hive is way better overall because it doesn't have to slavishly stick to some ancient formula that is 30 years past its use-by date. It can be those synths but it can also be 100 other synths if it needs to be, too. RePro-1/5 are good but there is nothing special or unique in their sound that I'd be willing to pay full price for and the opportunities to deploy them are few and far between in comparison to DUNE or Hive.

What I hate is bullshit dressed up as reason. And I have more than enough current and previous experience with hardware to be in a good position to see bullshit for what it is. Currently I own more hardware synths than at any other time in the 38 years since I bought my first one so to suggest that I hate anyone just because they are into hardware is ridiculous.

Nothing in software sounds like the Wretch, it might be because no developer thinks people want a synth that sounds like an amplifier feeding back or tube bass head frying, but I do.

Are you serious? I just listened to half-a-dozen demos of it and I could probably belt out a few farts that would sound like that. With the right effects, any synth could sound like that. It's actually a good example of what I was saying before - some synths are easier to get certain sounds from than others.

You can have all the tantrums you want about it, it's just not going to happen as of now that I'm going to find any soft synth that covers that territory. I could make a chain of FX maybe that covered the current state, but it sure the hell wouldn't cover all the states.

I don't know what else to say but - bullshit. There is nothing remotely special about that sound. In fact, the first video that came up in my search results was one comparing it to an MS20 and an SQ10 and they all sounded enough alike to me that any of them would do if I ever decided to give up making music and just wanted to annoy the neighbours.

Good designs are good designs

Really? Do you think any 20 year old car could hold a candle to the version being sold today? No, they were good designs in their day but time and technology move on. People who buy vintage cars understand this, they don't even pretend that their old banger is actually any good, yet here in the world of synthesisers people cannot accept the same simple facts. I loved my ARP Axxe in it's day, as I did my ESQ-M and my O1R/W, but you couldn't pay me to take any of those things today. Their time has passed, things have moved on and so have I.

Some modern filter designs are thin as shit sounding.

Name one. Filters are meant to be thin, that's their job - to thin out the sound being passed through them. In any event, there are plenty of really ordinary hardware filters out there, too. e.g. Every Roland filter, every Moog ladder filter, all three filter types on the various ARP Odyssey versions.

In the end I only use modeled synths for basic sounds, but some sound like their own instrument, like Diva and Repro-1 which sounds nothing like a Pro 1 to me, which is great, I always thought that synth was overrated.

Yet two minutes ago you were arguing that until someone models the MemoryMoog, softsynths won't be any good. Do you not see the contradiction there?

[SJ_Digriz]

To each his own, but, i recently demo'd SEM V2, and was pretty disappointed. Just like with the other Arturia synths, the filter lacks some "balls". It neither has the amount of resonance a real analog synth has, nor does the synth in general have the amount of bottom end a analog synth has.

that's odd. I don't have an original SEM module, but I do have SEM Pro and the V2 sounds damn near identical including the resonance. There are a couple of niggles around the edges, but I am actually pretty surprised how close it is. I did sweep tests on the filter a long time ago and it was really good. The oscillators had some issues though. And the EGs are goofy. So you can't go 1 for 1 on the settings. But, it's not a huge difference in knob position.

[BONES]

Don't worry, he doesn't know either, he'll just be parroting something he read or saw in a YouTube video. It's where his opinions seem to come from.

The problem with BONES is he has the mentality of a child; I mean he actually sits there calling people names like "stupid", "f**king idiot", "fool". It also amazes me how he thinks he knows everything; just like a teenager would. I guess some people never grow up.

Most of the time I feel like the only adult in this room. Seriously, if you say stupid things and make yourself look like an idiot, why wouldn't you expect to be called out on it? But no, you expect to be treated like a child and told it's OK and everything will be alright. You need to grow up and start seeing the world the way it is, not the way you wish it was. Honestly, if you read that comment and didn't think it made that guy look like a f**king idiot, then the only conclusion I can draw is that you must be one, too.

As for "knowing everything", clearly that's not the case. I come here to learn and I ask lots of questions. That said, after 38 years, hundreds of live shows and seven albums, I think I have probably learned just a little bit more than most of the rest of you about those aspects of the various processes in which I have been involved. Whilst I realise that can't possibly compare to sitting in your bedroom watching YouTube videos made by people who've never done anything in their entire lives, it does embolden me to at least try to share some of the wisdom I have picked up along the way, even though I understand that all most of you really want is to have your preconceived notions reinforced, no matter how out of step with reality they might be.

Just report all of BONES' posts to the mods and he'll get banned.....again. He just has a pathological need to argue. To be honest I feel sorry for him. Must be a very lonely person. But I've got him blocked. I found the noise at KVR got much quieter after I did........

Tell me I just read what I think I just read, from the second-most argumentative person on this whole place (after kriminal/AnX). That has seriously made my day.

so wait, the wretch has been modelled close enough..
but the uno is irreplaceable in software?

Who ever said that? Uno is a lot of fun but it is eminently replaceable with pretty much any half-decent softsynth. If that were not so, we might have been tempted to use it on the album we just finished. But we weren't and we didn't so it's definitely not. In fact, the thought never even crossed my mind. Even Analog Keys couldn't mix it with DUNE or Hive so we ended up taking it off the one song we'd intended to use it on. In the end, software always wins.

[BONES]

Side note, claims of more bottom end in analog synths always puzzle me a bit. In my experience analog synths have a more unruly bottom end, not necessarily more bottom end. In the final mix I'm taming it with low cut EQ etc.

Claims like that just show the stupidity of the whole argument, as though it can be applied across the board. It just can't. e.g. The reason I used my Axxe for basslines and my SH101 for rhythm work is that the 101's bottom end was mostly non-existent. The Axxe had a huge bottom end that completely dominated the live sound but the 101 would be too easily lost in the mix if I used it for bass work. You can fix that to an extent these days, with modern EQ, but back then my little 8 channel Boss mixer's EQ was next to hopeless so you relied on what the instrument itself could do.

There are definitely uses for a less 'tame' sound, but not as often as people seem to think.

This is another aspect of the whole argument that doesn't hold water. Like condemning any softsynth filter that can't self-oscillate, as though self-oscillating filters where things everyone used in every song ever made. I'd never even heard of filter self-oscillation until it started to come up here as a means of justifying a preference for hardware.