U-he repro vs phase plant

[AnX]

Even something seemingly simple, like the recently added sample oscillator, was in beta for around 6 months.

yep, that def fits into the Swiss army knife definition

[BONES]

I always think of it as being a synth with multiple sound engines, different forms of synthesis. So a Korg M1 wouldn't qualify but a Trinity with the MOSS board would. DUNE qualifies because of the 3-op FM, not because of the wavetables or sample oscillator. Pigments 2 would qualify because of its new granular engine but the original wouldn't. ULTRAkILLER qualified because it had a Spectral (additive) engine, a standard V/A engine plus a Phase Distortion engine (I think, I never actually used it for anything, it was just a giveaway on our 3rd CD).

BTW, don't go looking for it, I've taken all that shit down after all the links broke and nobody noticed for more than a year.

[SLiC]

By definitions suggested, the term ‘Uber Synth’ seems to cover the software synths I like most, so I guess I am an Uber Synth Lover.

[Peraqsha]

I gotta admit that I can't tell any synths apart. I can't tell a moog from a prophet etc.

Why would anyone choose repro over diva or diva over phase plant etc.

To me they all sound like....... Synths.

Good thing they sound like synths and not kazoos!

If the fine art of synth obsession is lost on you i suggest you keep it that way. It’s a thankless hobby that often ruins many things.

[ghettosynth]

By definitions suggested, the term ‘Uber Synth’ seems to cover the software synths I like most, so I guess I am an Uber Synth Lover.

Different people like to work differently. I posted my categories in another thread, they are so broad that they will definitely include things that people don't classify in the same way. It's a useful classification for me.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

So that covers a lot of ground. We're just going to have to disagree. I think that Phaseplant and Zebra are ubersynths, full stop.

I know what you mean, but the terminology could still get you in trouble. Ubersynth sounds like a term someone could use when he means a synth is superior in sound quality. Focused versus open and multifaceted would work a little better for me and still reach out for the swiss army knife metaphor. It is a good one, including the notion of compromizes. Workhorse connotes workstations, and to qualify for that an M1 would do: A multimbral rompler with drum track, an 8+ track sequencer and a couple of send effects. Pretty outdated concept compared to the many features and synthesis forms Zebra, Synthmaster and Phaseplant are embracing to qualify for the Workhorse title.

[SLiC]

By definitions suggested, the term ‘Uber Synth’ seems to cover the software synths I like most, so I guess I am an Uber Synth Lover.

Different people like to work differently. I posted my categories in another thread, they are so broad that they will definitely include things that people don't classify in the same way. It's a useful classification for me.

The same debate came up in the 'what is the best wavetable synth' thread....when is a WT synth actually an uber synth that just happens to have WT as one type of oscillator (I think the term on that thread was 'super' synth). It was never resolved, there is no universally agreed definition, the arguments seem to be 'focused, simple, high sound quality (perhaps best in class)' synths Vs 'modular, multiple synths types, complex sound's orientated ' etc.

There is no right/wrong, just personal preference, in my case I have the 'focused, simple, high sound quality' covered by my subtractive analogue hardware synths. The really complex stuff seems better suited to software than hardware (and I say that as someone with a lot of Eurorack!)

[ghettosynth]

So that covers a lot of ground. We're just going to have to disagree. I think that Phaseplant and Zebra are ubersynths, full stop.

I know what you mean,

Good.

[Urs]

I don't mind the category of Ubersynth even though I have that German sensitivity for all things "Uber" being a really bad kind of name (there's a history of calling certain people "Uber", so I guess I don't like the connotation anywhere - also because a recent post made clear that me being German puts me under extra scrutiny when using terminology that's subject to that kind of history). To me the category itself would rather describe synths of a certain complexity, and maybe modular in particular. Such that, I internally translate the word to "modular" or "semi modular/complex" synthesisers, a categorization that's neutral in my thinking. I think Monster Synths was used a lot around here in the past, which sounds a lot more fun to me than Uber

Anyhow, I'd surely prefer to distinguish between synths that amass options in a fixed layout (dozens of generators, but only one or two at a time, dozens of filter mechanics, but only one or two at a time), synths that amass few types of modules in a vast number of otherwise identical layers and synths that amass options by free connectivity (modularity). I have a suspicion that latter category falls into the Ubersynth category easier than former two, even if the actual number of different elements may be smaller. Therefore, one person's idea of an elegant design may be someone else's idea of a clumsy one - and vice versa.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Usual choice, we can discuss the functionality or drown ourselves in semantic discussions until no one can remember what we were talking about, and the words for it have no meaning anymore. Urs' distinctions are practical and technical, no wonder when he actually has to turn the ideas into realities. It is all cool with me as long as we know what it means in practise.

[SLiC]

+1 for Monster Synths (and Monster Trucks)

Modularity (no defined architecture) is often a feature of Monster Synths, but I think there is still a tendency to put synths like Omnisphere in that category as well (even though it is actually relatively simple and well defined in structure). Then you have real modular synths like Reaktor and even CA Voltage Modular that are rarely if ever referred to as Uber/Monster synths!

In my mind those fixed architecture synths (that we emulate so often in software) were designed by people who knew what they were doing and that sounded great and had massive sweet spots. The synths will less defined architecture may be more flexible, but the price for that is they require more work/understanding to get to get what you want out of it. UVI Falcon is a good example of that, very flexible but in my opinion not a joy to work with...Phase Plant (to keep on topic!) I found very easy to work with despite its flexibility, no manual required!

Someone should get this definition on Wikipedia and end all future arguments

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Repro is focused to me, Zebra multifaceted, the Swizz Army Knife, but what is HIVE, then? I could for a change use ubersynth about this, because it is a highly flexible wavetable synth and to me, superior in sound quality within its category compared to what I have heard and know so far. However, the flexibility does not exactly make it a Workhorse the same way as Zebra's modular approach or what? Even though it can do lot of jobs. I bought it because it also shows abilities in the physical modeling department as far as reaching for accoustic-like instrument and percussion.

[BONES]

Pretty outdated concept compared to the many features and synthesis forms Zebra, Synthmaster and Phaseplant are embracing to qualify for the Workhorse title.

Again, I see it completely differently. The synths you name are far too complicated for me to consider as "workhorse" synths. My workhorse synths are the really simple ones I can get sounds from very quickly. Synths like JP6K and Union come to mind when I hear "workhorse" because you will find them in pretty much every song I do, often on more than one part. I only get the big boys out, even Thorn, when I can't get what I want from one of the workhorses.

[SLiC]

'Uber' probably feeds the confusion as the English use of the word is generally meaning 'the best' (a superlative) rather than 'complex and flexible' which is I think what some people are referring to (including me). The 'Swizz Army Knife' analogy does imply 'lots of pretty basic tools', 'jack of all trades' which isn't necessarily true, particularly with synths Like Zebra (and I would also argue Phase Plant)

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Again, I see it completely differently. The synths you name are far too complicated for me to consider as "workhorse" synths. My workhorse synths are the really simple ones I can get sounds from very quickly.

I think I understand this conception too, though communication about it could be a little fuzzy because people generally mean something else. However, the benefits of starting out with something simple that just works instead of reading a novel of a manual to make a simple bass sound, I recognize.

Besides, In terms of a complex workshorse synth, we would need a synth that can deliver all the accoustic flavors of synths like Korg Prophecy, Yamaha MU100/VL70, Technics WSA-1, Reason Studios Friktion + rompler/sampleplayers + refills besides from a wide scope of synth sounds. In that respect, I do not think we shall ever see a Workhorse synth for us, so I stick to horses for courses. I do not mind having a good deal of gear as long as it is in use. Do not like synths as decoration only and redundancy. I need no single Workhorse. That was something I needed in the late 80s and prime 90s in form of Workstations, not at least because poor musicians like me could not afford much more.