wich soft synth has the biggest sound

[kobal]

Omnisphere and Massive & Massive X in particular. They are always the first synths I'd use when I want to achieve consistent and powerful sounds, especially in the bass area. There is something about these synths that feels very balanced and smooth even when you push them hard without too much processing.

yes indeed for massive and massive X , not as phat as Diva from what i remember but they have some depth.. reaktor blocks can be very phat as well even more i think with the stock osc and filter blocks.

i would say reaktor blocks and diva are the 2 phatest sounding software i used.

often i reach for massive X as it s mroe or less pre patched and it won t be hassle to make a sound i m after, but if i was after no compromise in quality and if it can be done with block then reaktor all the way , massive X can sound like a "lofi" version even if it s alreay really good it s not on par to block

[DJErmac]

I’m afraid this thread might be endless...

[kobal]

but i thought everyone who own/onwed diva know what phat / thick sound mean? and there is no 50 software like this in my book but i could be wrong and maybe it s all placebo?

i said phat wihtout stacking voice and unisson and just one osc playing so it rule out all the thin sounding.

maybe i should do a blind test

[db3]

Synapse Legend is a phat boy

[DJErmac]

The thing is that I don’t think at all that Diva sounds fat, I really can’t guess where this thread is going to go...

When I think "big", I think of Spire, Dune3, Avenger, Viper... things that produce huge sounds, not smooth 80’s inspired ones...

We obviously don’t all have the same feeling when it comes to fatness...

With all respect of course. But I’m afraid it’s gonna be hard to define the word "big" sound in a thread...

[D-Fusion]

Disco dsp Ob-Xd.

[AnX]

.

to me phat it mean even the innit patch sound phat,dense ,thick, just a saw or square into a fully open filter , it s not about the programing it s mostly about the oscillator and maybe the saturation that happen at the filter and amp stage in a emulation or analog synth.

No init patch sounds fat/phat.... whatever that means...

[e-crooner]

.

to me phat it mean even the innit patch sound phat,dense ,thick, just a saw or square into a fully open filter , it s not about the programing it s mostly about the oscillator and maybe the saturation that happen at the filter and amp stage in a emulation or analog synth.

No init patch sounds fat/phat.... whatever that means...

The default patch (not sure if that is also the init patch) on Tal's J-8 sounds fat, but it uses two oscillators.

[DJErmac]

Warning : to all readers. This thread is going to become completely ridiculous soon. Prepare for a good laugh.

[kobal]

Warning : to all readers. This thread is going to become completely ridiculous soon. Prepare for a good laugh.

yes i didn t predict that , i should edit first post with more precision

[AnX]

Warning : to all readers. This thread is going to become completely ridiculous soon. Prepare for a good laugh.

Soon? It hit the mark on post #1

[Introspective]

Or, you know, just SOME SOUND EXAMPLES.

[HAL76]

"Fatness" is based on more than just one "qualities". I think that you can´t generalize that and should - as fist - evaluate a measure.

When thinking about a measure I immediately think of one hardware synth before all others: the Access Virus. It´s as big as can be and is said to be "hard to mix". Compare the VSTs to the Virus sound and filters. The stereo width. They´re all slim against this synth - as well as the analog hardwares available.

Historically Roland played has always been the company that focussed on a fat and energetic sound. I want to mention the Jupiter 8 as their flagship synth here (alt. TAL J8). But as you probably know the Jup8 has Unison as well as 2 Timbres / Layers and both are crucial for "that Jupiter sound".

In my experience there are three other crucial factors that should be mentioned: the quality of the filters, the FX and the waveform itself. Depending on the (type of) sound nearly any synth that fulfills the demands in one of these dimensions can sound "big".

The classic NI´s (Absynth, ...) have certain qualitys that really can let them stand out. But I´d also mention the OPS7 since it has qualities I have not yet experienced with other VSTs. But anyway - DUNE, Zebra, the MSF - they can all sound fat. Each one in its own way.

[kobal]

The thing is that I don’t think at all that Diva sounds fat, I really can’t guess where this thread is going to go...

When I think "big", I think of Spire, Dune3, Avenger, Viper... things that produce huge sounds, not smooth 80’s inspired ones...

We obviously don’t all have the same feeling when it comes to fatness...

With all respect of course. But I’m afraid it’s gonna be hard to define the word "big" sound in a thread...

but like i wrote on first post i mean phat wihtout unisson and/or stacking voice , any synth will sound phat with these.. but what if i want a thick one osc mono sound?

[DJErmac]

Warning : to all readers. This thread is going to become completely ridiculous soon. Prepare for a good laugh.

yes i didn t predicte that

The problem is that there are two defined lines of people here. The ones who think big means digital wavetables with multiple layers and everything modernity may offer, and the ones who think big means classic analog hardware.

Then, you’re after something else. Defining raw fatness of an instrument, without anything added.

I think this will become a huge KVR circus here.