wich soft synth has the biggest sound

[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.

I've done direct Jupiter 8 factory patch comparisons of J-8 to Arturia Jup-8 V4, and Arturia is hands down the winner for sound quality and thickness. J-8 sounds thin and phasey compared to Jup-8 V4, which sounds full and round.

I don't know the Arturia thingy, so I can't comment.
Phasey sound might be the result of oscillator beating, so you might detune a bit.

[DJErmac]

I have to agree on some point : equalization is everything here.

I didn’t hear any fatness at any time in any point in this Moog video, just a muffled sound, unprecise, undefined, blurried and like dying trying to make its way trying to create the right wave, showing 70’s sounding leads. That’s why I said nobody will ever agree on what a big sound is.

This is what a big sound is to you, to some of us, a pure digital wavetable wave, raw sounding, without any flaw, will sound much bigger.

Defining what a big sound is depends on your tastes, your experience through music listening, your age...

[kobal]

I have to agree on some point : equalization is everything here.

I didn’t hear any fatness at any time in any point in this Moog video, just a muffled sound, unprecise, undefined, blurried and like dying trying to make its way trying to create the right wave, showing 70’s sounding leads. That’s why I said nobody will ever agree on what a big sound is.

This is what a big sound is to you, to some of us, a pure digital wavetable wave, raw sounding, without any flaw, will sound much bigger.

Defining what a big sound is depends on your tastes, your experience through music listening, your age...

yes agree it s on the fondamental and harmonics balance, equalization . when boosting the fondamental everyhting sound more phat.. even more if you reduce the highs at same time.. it s not something subjective to me it s science

thickness come from the low mids and low balance compared to the medium highs. everyhting that is know to sound phat does tend to emphasis the low mids, neve stuff, moog stuff ect

a saw with huge low end will sound more phat than a brittle bright one to anyone, it s not about taste to me. i suspect some guys don t have good monitoring so in that case it s hard to judge also

[DJErmac]

I have to agree on some point : equalization is everything here.

I didn’t hear any fatness at any time in any point in this Moog video, just a muffled sound, unprecise, undefined, blurried and like dying trying to make its way trying to create the right wave, showing 70’s sounding leads. That’s why I said nobody will ever agree on what a big sound is.

This is what a big sound is to you, to some of us, a pure digital wavetable wave, raw sounding, without any flaw, will sound much bigger.

Defining what a big sound is depends on your tastes, your experience through music listening, your age...

yes agree it s on the fondamental and harmonics balance, equalization . when boosting the fondamental everyhting sound more phat.. even more if you reduce the highs at same time.. it s not something subjective to me it s science

thickness come from the low mids and low balance compared to the medium highs. everyhting that is know to sound phat does tend to emphasis the low mids, neve stuff, moog stuff ect

a saw with huge low end will sound more phat than a brittle bright one to anyone, it s not about taste to me. i suspect some guys don t have good monitoring so in that case it s hard to judge also

Yes, monitoring is everything also.

My Event Opal changed a lot of things I thought were real.

[Introspective]

Defining what a big sound is depends on your tastes, your experience through music listening, your age...

...which is exactly why I was pushing so hard for him to give us a sound example. Without it: dancing about architecture.

...I don't think you needed to be quite as insulting about how his definition wasn't the same as yours, but otherwise I agree.

[Bulbizarre]

You can recreate most of those Subsequent sounds almost 1:1 with The Legend or Diva and a bit of saturation with say Kelvin or Decapitator. And maybe some additional low pass with a very gentle slope. Equalization is a bad idea because the sound is only going to work within one bit of the spectrum.

[DJErmac]

Defining what a big sound is depends on your tastes, your experience through music listening, your age...

...which is exactly why I was pushing so hard for him to give us a sound example. Without it: dancing about architecture.

...I don't think you needed to be quite as insulting about how his definition wasn't the same as yours, but otherwise I agree.

I really, really didn't mean to be offensive, only to emphasize how much each perception can be different.

[kvotchin]

When it comes to just raw oscillators and filters, The Legend is the phattest I’ve tried. There might be others of equal phatness that have been released since. No idea.

Phattest in the classic “analog” sense.

But, indeed, it depends what you mean. If you take into account unison, eq, effects, etc. ... well, there would probably be a heckton to choose from. “Phat” is pretty easy at that point.

[StrangeSatellite]

Repro is thicker and punchier than Diva. Dune is more flexible and easier to use than either, and is in the same league in terms of sound. I really wish someone would take a truly great sounding osc/filter combination and build it into something more like Pigments in terms of UI and flexibility, but for now, Dune wins for me.

[StrangeSatellite]

Or, you know, just SOME SOUND EXAMPLES.

first link i found, there is already the density of a phat synth there https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grItRCJ5wUM

diva can sound very similar

some synths you guys ymentioned in this thread sound very light with no density.. they need stacking many voice to get some phatness... it s exaclty what i call thin sounding synth

I love Diva, but it comes nowhere near that level of phatness. Not even close.

[cryophonik]

As a Sub37 owner, I have to agree that it’s got a pretty thick raw sound. Maybe I’ll do a side-by-side listen with The Legend and a few others this evening…

[sQeetz]

Obsession can be really "fat" if "bassy" is what you define as "fat"
My favorite bass synth
I'd still add some Softube Eden to it to make it even fatter if needed.
The least "bassy" synth I have is the one supposed to be a bass synth: TAL Bassline. It has its purpose, but "fat" is not an attribute I would attach to it. again: it can be "fattened"

If you just mean overwhelmingly big, and almost impossible to fit in a mix without proper filtering and EQing, DUNE.

[AnX]

I have to agree on some point : equalization is everything here.

I didn’t hear any fatness at any time in any point in this Moog video, just a muffled sound, unprecise, undefined, blurried and like dying trying to make its way trying to create the right wave, showing 70’s sounding leads. That’s why I said nobody will ever agree on what a big sound is.

This is what a big sound is to you, to some of us, a pure digital wavetable wave, raw sounding, without any flaw, will sound much bigger.

Defining what a big sound is depends on your tastes, your experience through music listening, your age...

yes agree it s on the fondamental and harmonics balance, equalization . when boosting the fondamental everyhting sound more phat.. even more if you reduce the highs at same time.. it s not something subjective to me it s science

thickness come from the low mids and low balance compared to the medium highs. everyhting that is know to sound phat does tend to emphasis the low mids, neve stuff, moog stuff ect

a saw with huge low end will sound more phat than a brittle bright one to anyone, it s not about taste to me. i suspect some guys don t have good monitoring so in that case it s hard to judge also

You keep moving the goal posts.... so now it's not about the raw osc sound, it's about eq/filter and monitoring

Make your mind up.....

[Kinh]

It don't matter none

[audiouser720]

You can recreate most of those Subsequent sounds almost 1:1 with The Legend or Diva and a bit of saturation with say Kelvin or Decapitator. And maybe some additional low pass with a very gentle slope. Equalization is a bad idea because the sound is only going to work within one bit of the spectrum.

No you can’t. Please don’t fool people. If you understood how the saturation/overdrive works in Subsequent OSC,MIXER level, or how most Moog oscillators behave, you would know that whacking some saturation plugins on a soft synth will do f**ck all. You might have convinced your self and that is fine, but I can reassure you no vst sounds like your Subsequent l, you are just confusing yourself. Learn your synth!

In terms of Legend, I would opt for Monark in terms of phatness and raw OSC quality.