IK Syntronik 2 is out (looks like 'MAX' version required to get new synths)

[BenfordLaw]

Should I call you the apples & oranges master? Again, that this should be modeled instead of sampled is your opinion. You can have that opinion but saying "5000 presets for 200GB isn't enough because in my opinion they should model synths instead of sampling them" is a textbook example of a strawman argument.

That you have the opinion that sampled libraries aren't cutting it, isn't an objective truth. It's your opinion and an opinion in this can't be refuted, since what sounds better is completely subjective. Plenty of people prefer sampled libraries to modeled ones because to them only samples can get the full analog sound.

Spectrasonics is creating a synth made from samples. You might have heard of it before. Remind me, how well are they doing?

How large is the Omnisphere STEAM folder? 56GB. How many presets does Omnisphere have? I can't remember because it keeps increasing, 4,000? 6,000? How much more powerful is the synth in Omnisphere than in Syntronik 2? By the way, I don't think Omnisphere should be using samples of synths either - there are 300MB pad presets, why aren't they made using the built in synth? Because its built in synth obviously isn't capable of doing it, otherwise why waste time sampling a real synthesizer and putting a 300MB sample into Omnisphere?

We don't know how well Spectrasonics are doing, Omnisphere isn't a synth made from samples (whatever that means), it has a large sample library but also allows relatively powerful synthesis. IKM are doing 'well' too, presumably, because a lot of people don't get to hear opposing points of view about them... LOL.

[SLiC]

Basically I can't see any reason anyone should care about disk space usage for sample libraries nowdays

I agree, in the studio with a desktop its no issue, but quite a lot of people are making their music on small light SSD based laptops like Macbook Airs or Surface Pros etc...this space is very limited unless you start 'tethering' hard drives which is defeating the object in many case.

A modelled VST synth has a smaller footprint and is more 'programmable', so if you are using a sample based synths it needs to sound a lot better than the VST equivalent (if one exists) in my opinion to justify the space/load times etc, or perhaps give a similar sound with less CPU usage.

There is certainly a case for sample based instruments (realist or are hard top synthesise etc) but in many cases 'samples' synths are just simple oscillators that can easily be reproduced algorithmically. These sampled oscillators are then often put through a generic filter...I am less convinced there is a need for this and often modelled VSTS also model the specific filter an fx that were connect to the sound of the original hardware. There is nothing wrong with Syntronk 2, it delivers far more than V1, but in my opinion not as much as the 'modelled' equivalent of many of the included synths.

[Scotty]

There is nothing wrong with Syntronk 2, it delivers far more than V1, but in my opinion not as much as the 'modelled' equivalent of many of the included synths.

I do have Juno 60 here and the V Collection 8. The Syntronix 2 presets that are in Syntronix CS 2 release sound excellent to my ears. It sounds more like the hardware to me (just ears on test with no waterfall spectrum analyzers or oscilloscopes used) but the overall synth engine of course is not as flexible as the Arturia. The effects engine though is really excellent. Pros and Cons for sure. I have been messing with the arpeggiator, sequencer and really liking what it does. When the wallet has recovered I'll look for another sale down the road. The Cato will rip your ears off and that is high praise.

If you can manage the hard drive space I think there is a lot of room for this product category.

[dbender]

What I'm wondering about is the new feature of having up to four oscillators and the ability to choose different oscillators. In Syntronik 2 CS, there's only one oscillator in the list, so you really don't know how many oscillators you have to choose from and what it's like selecting different oscillators and how that sounds. There's still no video about that new feature. It is the main point of interest to me for upgrading from the original Syntronik to the new Syntronik 2.

[dmbaer]

Can you look in the "Instruments" folder for one of the Syn2 synths and post how many .st4i and st3i files are present?

Will do just that later today and report back by tomorrow (not at my DAW at the moment).

[DarkStar]

What I'm wondering about is the new feature of having up to four oscillators and the ability to choose different oscillators. In Syntronik 2 CS, there's only one oscillator in the list, so you really don't know how many oscillators you have to choose from and what it's like selecting different oscillators and how that sounds. There's still no video about that new feature. It is the main point of interest to me for upgrading from the original Syntronik to the new Syntronik 2.

It took a while to fund an example in Syntronik 2 CS
-- load the "Stereo TIme Traveler" preset from the GS-V synth,
-- open the Edit panel,
-- click on "empty" in Osc 4,
-- double-click one of the sets in the "Osc and Load Wave Set" panel on the right,
-- enable Osc 4, by clicking the small grey waveform.

[Gadget Fiend]

A modeled VST synth has a smaller footprint and is more 'programmable', so if you are using a sample based synths it needs to sound a lot better than the VST equivalent (if one exists) in my opinion to justify the space/load times etc, or perhaps give a similar sound with less CPU usage.

There is certainly a case for sample based instruments (realist or are hard top synthesize etc) but in many cases 'samples' synths are just simple oscillators that can easily be reproduced algorithmically. These sampled oscillators are then often put through a generic filter...I am less convinced there is a need for this and often modeled VSTS also model the specific filter an fx that were connect to the sound of the original hardware. There is nothing wrong with Syntronk 2, it delivers far more than V1, but in my opinion not as much as the 'modeled' equivalent of many of the included synths.

This is all wrong. Sampled synths typically sound far more authentic than their modeled counterparts because you are capturing a recording of the actual synth. The flaw in your logic is that the synth will be sampled with the filters wide open and then rely on a "generic" digital filter to provide the filter dynamics. But a far better and more realistic approach is to sample the source synth (if it has velocity to filter dynamics capabilities) at multiple velocity layers. Sure, this is not as smooth as the source synth which has contiguous control over the velocity to filter cutoff envelope contour. But it sounds WAY more authentic than even the best filter modeling.

[SLiC]

A modeled VST synth has a smaller footprint and is more 'programmable', so if you are using a sample based synths it needs to sound a lot better than the VST equivalent (if one exists) in my opinion to justify the space/load times etc, or perhaps give a similar sound with less CPU usage.

There is certainly a case for sample based instruments (realist or are hard top synthesize etc) but in many cases 'samples' synths are just simple oscillators that can easily be reproduced algorithmically. These sampled oscillators are then often put through a generic filter...I am less convinced there is a need for this and often modeled VSTS also model the specific filter an fx that were connect to the sound of the original hardware. There is nothing wrong with Syntronk 2, it delivers far more than V1, but in my opinion not as much as the 'modeled' equivalent of many of the included synths.

This is all wrong. Sampled synths typically sound far more authentic than their modeled counterparts because you are capturing a recording of the actual synth. The flaw in your logic is that the synth will be sampled with the filters wide open and then rely on a "generic" digital filter to provide the filter dynamics. But a far better and more realistic approach is to sample the source synth (if it has velocity to filter dynamics capabilities) at multiple velocity layers. Sure, this is not as smooth as the source synth which has contiguous control over the velocity to filter cutoff envelope contour. But it sounds WAY more authentic than even the best filter modeling.

I just don't think this is true anymore for simple analogue oscillator synths, the circuit modelling used on synths like Legend etc is to me more realistic and 'alive' (more like my analogue hardware) than sample based versions especially when modulated.

Sampled synths capture the sound of that particular synth as it was set up on the day with a specific mike/line and console combination...this may in some cases sound great (Syntronik sounds pretty good to me!) but your ability to change the raw sound is limited and to me that takes some of the fun from synthesis (but it doesn't mean it isn't useful for production and song writing)

[Scotty]

What I'm wondering about is the new feature of having up to four oscillators and the ability to choose different oscillators. In Syntronik 2 CS, there's only one oscillator in the list, so you really don't know how many oscillators you have to choose from and what it's like selecting different oscillators and how that sounds. There's still no video about that new feature. It is the main point of interest to me for upgrading from the original Syntronik to the new Syntronik 2.

I agree, I am wondering about that as well... and then the next logical question would be... can we borrow a waveshape from another synth? That would be interesting.

[SLiC]

Or FM a wave shape, fold a wave shape, distort a wave shape... all common stuff pre filter

[turtletooth]

---
delete me

[Scotty]

Good to know. That opens up the possibilities nicely.

[dmbaer]

Can you look in the "Instruments" folder for one of the Syn2 synths and post how many .st4i and st3i files are present?

Will do just that later today and report back by tomorrow (not at my DAW at the moment).

Here's a count of all st3i and st4i files, searching from the topmost S2 directory:

st3i: 2706
st4i: 3562

[dbender]

What I'm wondering about is the new feature of having up to four oscillators and the ability to choose different oscillators. In Syntronik 2 CS, there's only one oscillator in the list, so you really don't know how many oscillators you have to choose from and what it's like selecting different oscillators and how that sounds. There's still no video about that new feature. It is the main point of interest to me for upgrading from the original Syntronik to the new Syntronik 2.

It took a while to fund an example in Syntronik 2 CS
-- load the !Stereo TIme Traveler" preset from the GS-V synth,
-- open the Edit panel,
-- click on "empty" in Osc 4,
-- double-click one of the sets in the "Osc and Load Wave Set" panel on the right,
-- enable Osc 4, by clicking the small grey waveform.

Thanks man.

Those four waves sound pretty similar in that preset.

And, we don't know and CS version doesn't really give us an idea of how many Syntronik 1 and 2 patches have multiple oscillators, what they sound like, and how many oscillators you get to choose from in presets. I'm hoping IK releases a walkthrough type video that shows this. Haven't yet seen any youtube videos showing this.

[HM]

This topic makes me realise why not to upgrade to Syntronik 2

(so does the upgrade-price)

How comes that every new release, (ST again and again), and now this, needs to be a pain ?

Just installed some of the heavy EW-stuff, not a problem, Presonus, never a problem