can one synth really do it all ?

[AnX]

Ok. Show me how to make a contemporary wavetable dubstep sound with Tyrell6.

I don't need evidence as I know it can't be done. It was a rhetorical question to make a point.

An example would still be nice

He doesn't have one.

[Vortifex]

I'd be surprised if anyone with the remotest interest in electronic music hasn't ever heard any dubstep or the kind of sounds that Tehlord is talking about. If they haven't then typing 'dubstep' into YouTube's search box will bring them up to speed.

And he's right that Tyrrell won't make those sounds by itself. To make the signature dubstep growls you'll either need wavetable or a shedload of resampling and processing (which you still do with wavetable anyway).

[Guenon]

I'd be surprised if anyone with the remotest interest in electronic music hasn't ever heard any dubstep or the kind of sounds that Tehlord is talking about.

I mean more like, any particular examples when saying something "can't be done" ... It's often shorthand for "can't be done conveniently", hehe.

[Teksonik]

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.
You are also presuming a "unified workflow" that is yet to be demonstrated.
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.

You are also presuming a synth that can do it all "would be enormously complicated to use." Perhaps for some people but not necessarily for everybody. You say such a synth doesn't exist but you have already determined it would be too complicated for you to use.

Some people prefer simple synths but then have to load multiple instances of them so the complexity can be as much or more than using complex synths.

Let's take one current example of a synth that does more than one form of synthesis. Would it be more complicated to learn to use a Wavetable synth, a VA synth, a 3 OP FM synth or would it be less complicated to just learn DUNE 3?

That's what I mean by unified workflow. All those synthesis types are under one interface.

For example I can create a layered lead patch in DUNE 3 that uses the VA Oscs, Wavetable Oscs, FM Oscs, and the Sample Import OSCs or I can load several different synths each with their own synthesis method and then load several different patches. To me one synth that can do more is superior in terms of workflow to several synths that can do less but everybody makes different music and works in different ways so to each their own.

Does a synth that "does it all" or everything and does it all as well or better than any other synth exist right now? No but there are synths that can do a lot right now and all I can say for sure is I hope developers continue to work on and release mega synths.

[AnX]

I'd be surprised if anyone with the remotest interest in electronic music hasn't ever heard any dubstep or the kind of sounds that Tehlord is talking about. If they haven't then typing 'dubstep' into YouTube's search box will bring them up to speed.

And he's right that Tyrrell won't make those sounds by itself. To make the signature dubstep growls you'll either need wavetable or a shedload of resampling and processing (which you still do with wavetable anyway).

Unless I know exactly what he is talking about, I'm pissing in the wind.... he didn't say growl anyway.....hence the very simple request for an example

I mean, wavetable is a very vague description.....if its a wt scan sound, then no, you prob won't get close, but there isn't enough detail in the question to go on....but he seems to have got miffed about the request, so no point beating a deaf horse.

[chk071]

I'd be surprised if anyone with the remotest interest in electronic music hasn't ever heard any dubstep or the kind of sounds that Tehlord is talking about.

I mean more like, any particular examples when saying something "can't be done" ... It's often shorthand for "can't be done conveniently", hehe.

True, that might be. Or not. Depending on the sound.

BONES also claimed that you can do anything a wavetablesynth can do with a standard VA synth with ring modulator. Not really. It might resemble some sounds, but will be far away on others.

Anyway. Your point about convenience is a good one. Just like with bad synths, why would I work hard when I can easily achieve what I want to do with stuff which offer more features, or more capable synthesis forms? What's the point in even using a DAW? I mean, I could record it all to a tape recorder? The answer is, of course, convenience.

[Guenon]

Right tool for the job and all that, definitely. It piques my interest when ever something "can't be done" and it's always nice to see/hear concrete examples , yeah, it's often the convenience thing - and it naturally makes sense to use the (much) more convenient actually-meant-for-the-job tool, for whatever you are doing, for sure. Especially if doing it in an actual work scenario. (For example, to realize some wavesequences, you might really be able to do it, but using a significant number of synth instances for something that can be trivially made in just one instance of an actual wavesequencing synth. And so on.) And yeah, on some sounds it might very probably be just a crude approximation.

I enjoy stuff like that for a challenge, to keep skills/craftsmanship/listening chops fresh and all that. Actual examples are nice for that. But when ever actually working on material "for real", I usually don't do the... let's try to get the most unlikely stuff out of this one -thing. Unless maybe if generating some out there raw material to use later for something, eh.

[AnX]

.

Let's take one current example of a synth that does more than one form of synthesis. Would it be more complicated to learn to use a Wavetable synth, a VA synth, a 3 OP FM synth or would it be less complicated to just learn DUNE 3?

If the individual synths had exactly the same features as D3, it would be the same.

[AnX]

For example I can create a layered lead patch in DUNE 3 that uses the VA Oscs, Wavetable Oscs, FM Oscs, and the Sample Import OSCs

Can you route each of those to different fx, separate mods and automation?

[Teksonik]

.
Let's take one current example of a synth that does more than one form of synthesis. Would it be more complicated to learn to use a Wavetable synth, a VA synth, a 3 OP FM synth or would it be less complicated to just learn DUNE 3?

If the individual synths had exactly the same features as D3, it would be the same.

Learning one workflow from within one interface would be the same as learning three different workflows from within three different interfaces?

For example I can create a layered lead patch in DUNE 3 that uses the VA Oscs, Wavetable Oscs, FM Oscs, and the Sample Import OSCs

Can you route each of those to different fx, separate mods and automation?

Sure, within DUNE 3 we can choose between 2 different FX racks or both or neither. Mods and automation should be the same from within a DAW or at least easier than setting up four different mods.

Can you route the layers to different external FX ? No since D3 is not multi-out. Sadly.

But if you need external FX then use multiple instances. Still easier to me than using multiple instances of different synths to make the lead sound in my example. Like I said people advocate simplicity then give examples of complexity caused by using multiple instances.

I prefer everything to be contained in a single patch instead of having to load up multiple synths, then loading multiple patches, then assigning them all to one track or having multiple tracks, etc,etc.

With complex synths you can use multiple instances, with simple synths you must use multiple instances.

Even complex synths can be simple. INIT a patch in DUNE 3 and you're presented with a single VA Osc through a Low Pass Filter. Doesn't get any simpler than that but then there is still a ton of headroom to create more complex sounds. With simple synths you hit the wall quickly then must start reaching for other instances.

With complex synths you're not limited to using just one since all synths have different character. I've used Avenger, Rapid, and DUNE 3 in the same project. Using those three saved me from having to use a dozen synths. Much more efficient to me. YMMV.

Look I get it you like simple synths. I like complex synths. In the end neither of us is likely to change the other's mind.

[AnX]

.
Let's take one current example of a synth that does more than one form of synthesis. Would it be more complicated to learn to use a Wavetable synth, a VA synth, a 3 OP FM synth or would it be less complicated to just learn DUNE 3?

If the individual synths had exactly the same features as D3, it would be the same.

Learning one workflow from within one interface would be the same as learning three different workflows from within three different interfaces?

Which bit of "if they had exactly the same features" didn't you understand?

Even if they were just similar, it takes very little time to learn. And once you have, it's a piece of cake.

[AnX]

?

For example I can create a layered lead patch in DUNE 3 that uses the VA Oscs, Wavetable Oscs, FM Oscs, and the Sample Import OSCs

Can you route each of those to different fx, separate mods and automation?

Sure, within DUNE 3 we can choose between 2 different FX racks or both or neither. Mods and automation should be the same from within a DAW or at least easier than setting up four different mods.

So no then, you can't send the 4 different synthesis types to different fx, you are limited to 2, and any mods will affect all from a host. So not as versatile as using 4 synths, or 4 instances even

[AnX]

Look I get it you like simple synths.

I like simple synths, I like complex synths, I like in-between synths.... quality is the only preference I have

[AnX]

With complex synths you can use multiple instances, with simple synths you must use multiple instances.

Really? Can't say I've ever fallen into that trap

[egbert101]

I was hoping dubstep was dead, someone kill it please.