can one synth really do it all ?

[vurt]

sampler is seperate to synth imo anyway
(even if some blur the lines)

I completely obliterate the line.....

synth.png


"The Synclavier, a digital synthesizer made with FM technology licensed from Yamaha, offered features such as 16-bit sampling".

"The Roland D-50 blended Roland's linear arithmetic algorithm with samples, and was the first mass-produced synthesizer with built-in digital effects"

"Korg released the M1, a digital synthesizer workstation featuring sampled transients and loops with over 250,000 units sold, it remains the bestselling synthesizer in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesizer

Simply put sampling is a form of synthesis. It may not be the most popular at KVR but a form none the less.

But isn't it great we live in a time where people can have simple subtractive synths if that's what they prefer and complex multi synthesis type instruments exist as well for those who prefer them.

This really is the golden age of synthesis.....

so you agree, it's just a mindset difference.
where you see lines obliterated, i see them blurred

the context was regarding "playback of realistic instruments" not sample based synthesis, such as granular or wavetable.

[jancivil]

clearly not.
examples abound, of uniqueness and of approaches that do not, will never be adopted or emulated at all by another synth. The cloud filter of Absynth is one; none of its effects page are going to travel. Skanner's MO, doesn't happen elsewhere...

based in my limited use of Trilian, I'd bet there is unique af sound design in Omnisphere one would be hard-pressed to recreate in a straighter synth, owing to its use of samples, for starters.

that said, I can get a nice analog synth bass out of Absynth (but! it won't be monophonic legato, SO...)

[fmr]

I don't consider a pure sampler a type of synthesizer.

Then your definition of "synthesizer" is incorrect.

Even the first affordable "pure sampler" the Ensoniq Mirage has a "Filter - Analog low pass with 5 stage envelope" and a "VCA - 5 stage digital envelope".

I think the problem is when so many people think of "sampler" they think of real instruments like Piano or Violin etc but anything that can be heard can be sampled. The range of possible sounds is theoretically infinite when using sample based synthesis.

One of the first things I did with my Mirage was sample my Roland Juno 60.

Yesterday I was working with Rapid and loaded up a multi-sample, applied 7 voice Unison, ran it through a Low Pass Filter with the Cutoff modulated by an LFO.

How is that not synthesis? Because it doesn't use a Saw, Square, Sine or Triangle wave?

So by your thinking a VSTi that uses sampled saw waves instead of generated saw waves is not a synth even though it has all the filters, envelopes, low frequency oscillators, etc as any other synth?

So a Wavetable synth that uses single cycle waveform samples is not a synthesizer?

Like I said sampling is a form of synthesis just as Subtractive, Additive, FM, PM, Wavetable etc are forms of synthesis.

Now I get it KVR is more in love with Analog synths but there was a time when no one wanted them and sample based synths like the Korg M1 were all the rage.

I definitely agree. What we are used to call "sampler" is, more exactly, a "sample based synthesizer".

[DaveClark]

I wouldn't want to try to use a synth that could actually do it all. It would be enormously complicated to use

What would be more complicated to use, five different synths each with their own form of synthesis or one synth under one interface with a unified workflow that could do five types of synthesis?

We don't know the answer to that question because that synth is yet to be built, but we have some examples to point us in the right direction. Which is more complicated to use for any special purpose: Amplitube or any one of five dedicated amp sims? A modelling amp or any one of five separate amps?

You are also presuming a "unified workflow" that is yet to be demonstrated. I expect something more like the opposite of this, at best a forced-fit or one-size-fits-all type of situation.

I would be more than happy to be proven incorrect, but that can't be done through mere argumentation. Build this magical synth and distribute it.

[fmr]

I wouldn't want to try to use a synth that could actually do it all. It would be enormously complicated to use

What would be more complicated to use, five different synths each with their own form of synthesis or one synth under one interface with a unified workflow that could do five types of synthesis?

We don't know the answer to that question because that synth is yet to be built, but we have some examples to point us in the right direction. Which is more complicated to use for any special purpose: Amplitube or any one of five dedicated amp sims? A modelling amp or any one of five separate amps?

You are also presuming a "unified workflow" that is yet to be demonstrated. I expect something more like the opposite of this, at best a forced-fit or one-size-fits-all type of situation.

I would be more than happy to be proven incorrect, but that can't be done through mere argumentation. Build this magical synth and distribute it.

I would say that both HALion and Falcon are very close to that. And if you want to consider Reaktor as a "synth" (I don't) then it is even closer. Even Kontakt, up to an extent.

[ecasasmusic2]

Falcon is capable of most synthesis modalities, and, unlike many other do-it-all synths, it allows unlimited layers. That makes it more powerful than some focused synths. For example, the FM engine may seem limited by its 4 operators, but you can make it an 8 or 12 or 16 operator FM synth by using several layers and combining the algorythms...

[e-crooner]

I don't consider a pure sampler a type of synthesizer.

Then your definition of "synthesizer" is incorrect.

Even the first affordable "pure sampler" the Ensoniq Mirage has a "Filter - Analog low pass with 5 stage envelope" and a "VCA - 5 stage digital envelope".

I think the problem is when so many people think of "sampler" they think of real instruments like Piano or Violin etc but anything that can be heard can be sampled. The range of possible sounds is theoretically infinite when using sample based synthesis.

One of the first things I did with my Mirage was sample my Roland Juno 60.

Yesterday I was working with Rapid and loaded up a multi-sample, applied 7 voice Unison, ran it through a Low Pass Filter with the Cutoff modulated by an LFO.

How is that not synthesis? Because it doesn't use a Saw, Square, Sine or Triangle wave?

So by your thinking a VSTi that uses sampled saw waves instead of generated saw waves is not a synth even though it has all the filters, envelopes, low frequency oscillators, etc as any other synth?

So a Wavetable synth that uses single cycle waveform samples is not a synthesizer?

Like I said sampling is a form of synthesis just as Subtractive, Additive, FM, PM, Wavetable etc are forms of synthesis.

Now I get it KVR is more in love with Analog synths but there was a time when no one wanted them and sample based synths like the Korg M1 were all the rage.

Well, by pure sampling I mean those huge libraries of sampled instruments, where you play them on your keyboard and it sounds just like real strings etc. I.e. without using envelope generators, filters etc., which are typical subtractive synth features of course.

[DrEntropy]

The one that can do all is called C++. The UI is unbearable, that is why a lot of people create user interfaces for it with the result that those cannot do all, but in exchange they are usable and some even inspiring…

Beat me to it, I was going to say "Juce!"

[digitallysane]

Falcon is capable of most synthesis modalities, and, unlike many other do-it-all synths, it allows unlimited layers. That makes it more powerful than some focused synths. For example, the FM engine may seem limited by its 4 operators, but you can make it an 8 or 12 or 16 operator FM synth by using several layers and combining the algorythms...

That's not 8 or 12 or 16 OPs FM, it's layered 4OPs FM.
I think Falcon's FM Oscillator is a great 4OP FM synth, especially in the context of Falcon's infinite modulation and sequencing options. But it's still just a 4OP FM with a limited number of algorithms.

[Examigan]

i just bought synthmaster and thinking of getting rid of one synth so i just have two

One do-it-all synth? Not sure at the moment, but maybe when Synthmaster 3 or Zebra 3 is released that will change.
I like using a few different ones to cover the bases I need in a track as each one can bring a different strength to the table.

[fmr]

Falcon is capable of most synthesis modalities, and, unlike many other do-it-all synths, it allows unlimited layers. That makes it more powerful than some focused synths. For example, the FM engine may seem limited by its 4 operators, but you can make it an 8 or 12 or 16 operator FM synth by using several layers and combining the algorythms...

That's not 8 or 12 or 16 OPs FM, it's layered 4OPs FM.
I think Falcon's FM Oscillator is a great 4OP FM synth, especially in the context of Falcon's infinite modulation and sequencing options. But it's still just a 4OP FM with a limited number of algorithms.

There never was a synth with more than six OP FM until FS1R. And that was a unique piece of gear, that (unfortunately) was abandoned pretty soon by Yamaha.

So, saying that a super-synth capable of infinite layers and A LOT of synthesis techniques is capable of "just a 4OP FM with a limited number of algorithms" is quinte an understatement. Most of the time, the six OP FM algorithms (and synthesis programming techniques) can be reduced to 4 + 2, or even 2 + 2 + 2, actually, which a two layer or three layer 4 OP is perfectly capable of.

[pdxindy]

There never was a synth with more than six OP FM until FS1R. And that was a unique piece of gear, that (unfortunately) was abandoned pretty soon by Yamaha.

There are a number of 8 operator FM synths... the new F'em is 11 operators

[FapFilter]

There are. Phase Plant is supposed to sport up to 32 or so if i'm not totally mistaken.
His point is (quite likely) still correct though, that there hasn't been more than 6OP FM synths before the FS1R.
At least F'em and Phase Plant definetly came later.

With more complex oscillators and additive capabilities, you don't really need as many operators as with purely sine operated FM synths anymore though.

[fmr]

There never was a synth with more than six OP FM until FS1R. And that was a unique piece of gear, that (unfortunately) was abandoned pretty soon by Yamaha.

There are a number of 8 operator FM synths... the new F'em is 11 operators

You should have read the whole sentence: "... until FS1R". That's what I wrote.

[ecasasmusic2]

Falcon is capable of most synthesis modalities, and, unlike many other do-it-all synths, it allows unlimited layers. That makes it more powerful than some focused synths. For example, the FM engine may seem limited by its 4 operators, but you can make it an 8 or 12 or 16 operator FM synth by using several layers and combining the algorythms...

That's not 8 or 12 or 16 OPs FM, it's layered 4OPs FM.
I think Falcon's FM Oscillator is a great 4OP FM synth, especially in the context of Falcon's infinite modulation and sequencing options. But it's still just a 4OP FM with a limited number of algorithms.

There never was a synth with more than six OP FM until FS1R. And that was a unique piece of gear, that (unfortunately) was abandoned pretty soon by Yamaha.

So, saying that a super-synth capable of infinite layers and A LOT of synthesis techniques is capable of "just a 4OP FM with a limited number of algorithms" is quinte an understatement. Most of the time, the six OP FM algorithms (and synthesis programming techniques) can be reduced to 4 + 2, or even 2 + 2 + 2, actually, which a two layer or three layer 4 OP is perfectly capable of.

This is what I tried to say. Most algorythms with 5, 8 or 11 operators can be done with several layers of 4 OP FM. At least when talking about useful algorythms with musical results.