I WANT to love it...

[BONES]

So it boils down to sweet spots in a synth. If it has many or the whole thing screams SWEET SPOT! then yeah. If it's halfway usable then I do.

For me it is always and only about what the song needs. The instruments are just tools and, just as when I am working on a car engine, there are some tools that seem to make the job easier, so those are the ones I tend to gravitate to. I get what you're saying about sweet spots, though, it always makes the process a lot easier. GR-8 is a great examle of that - good patches seem to just fall out of it every time I load it up.

[machinesworking]

Knifonium, Plasmonic, FM8 etc. are all specifically designed to do a few types of synthesis well, this has to count as one of the most idiotic holes you've dug for yourself.

OK, I'm not going to argue point by point, although I would say that FM8 is a development of FM7, which was a direct DX-7 clone, and the DX-7 was responsible for broadening the sonic palette of synth players more than any instrument in history and pretty much replaced every other synth out there. But...
... the only thing I need to prove the stupidity of your argument is One Synth Challenge. Every month people create release-quality music using just a single instrument for every part. Month after month, dozens of high quality entries, using just a single, nominated instrument. So by now they must have gone through hundreds of synths, comprehensively proving that any half-decent synth can do a credible job of any part you might need. Surely you can see how your argument falls to pieces in front of that simple reality?

OK I. get where you're coming from with your argument now but this is classic moving the goalposts. You don’t need but one instrument in general to make music, you don’t even need an instrument really. Being able to make a song with a limited pallet isn't really arguing your point.

In this thread you mentioned Pigments and we agree it has a sort of thin sound. You could of course use it to create an entire song, but you clearly don’t enjoy using it because you’re not satisfied with the results. You wouldn't like the sound of it. Since it has granular synthesis as one of its options, it of course can do things that OB-Xtreme cannot do, and visa versa.

So I think you haven’t made your point clear here, you’re coming across like the clueless person who thinks any synth can make any sound, though you admit you don’t like the sound of certain plug ins, but what you’re trying to say is that any decent synth you like should be good enough to write music with, we’re not in disagreement there.

Some things are just bully nonsense though, if someone like jamcat wants a certain set of hardware emulations to capture a sound of a classic time frame, then it shouldn't be anything to argue against, maybe on the merit of why would he want to in the first place? etc. but the logic is sound, if you're trying to emulate a 1978 sound, use synths from that era.

So yes, any decent synth can make a decent track. No, any decent synth can't replicate with upmost accuracy any sound from any synth, which is how you're coming across. So I think we skipped right by each other here in terms of what our points were, internet shenanigans.

[Gribs]

Halion 6. Steinberg’ s interface drives me crazy. Padshop Pro and FRMS are more my style for granular synthesis.

[BONES]

Being able to make a song with a limited pallet isn't really arguing your point.

Of course it is, given the quality we hear in OSC every month. If each of these instruments couldn't do good basslines and good leads and good pads and other things to a high standard, we wouldn't be hearing the quality of results we do.

I said for 15 years that we'd always need to keep using Orion because nothing else coudl do the basslines we get from Wasp but once I got off my arse and made the effort, I discovered that there were at least half-a-dozen synths that could do a creditable job. To be fair to Wasp, no one synth can cover everything Wasp was good at but we've got it all covered now, easily.

Since it has granular synthesis as one of its options, it of course can do things that OB-Xtreme cannot do, and visa versa.

Can it, though? I have several granular effects plugins I can run any synth through. And, let's be honest, granular synthesis isn't exactly useful. I've got Straylight and Quanta and Pigments but I can't say that I've ever found a use for any of them.

So I think you haven’t made your point clear here, you’re coming across like the clueless person who thinks any synth can make any sound

And by resorting to extremes like granular to try and refute it, you are making my point for me.

though you admit you don’t like the sound of certain plug ins

That hasn't stopped me using them, though, and is all about personal preference. There is a big, wide ocean between one particular synth being a little bit better than another in a certain situation and a synth only being useful for one specific thing. Hell, I've used The Legend for basslines and you know what I think of the steaming pile of shit it's based upon. But it's a good example of a synth that I don't rate because its filter stops it from benig as versatile as I expect a really good synth to be.

Some things are just bully nonsense though, if someone like jamcat wants a certain set of hardware emulations to capture a sound of a classic time frame, then it shouldn't be anything to argue against

Well, I'd argue that it's a dumbarse thing to want to do in the first place and that the thought that you have to have the original instruments used to do it is an equally dumbarse way of looking at it. To me it's making the conscious decision that you want your music to sound like shit, when it could sound a whole lot better.

but the logic is sound, if you're trying to emulate a 1978 sound, use synths from that era.

But it's not exclusionary, it doesn't mean you couldn't do the same thing with different instruments and/or a different approach to the same (absurdly low) standard. It's just the obvious, narrow-minded choice.

No, any decent synth can't replicate with upmost accuracy any sound from any synth

That's not what the argument is about. The argument stemmed from Jamcat's statement that "my view is every noteworthy synth is good at exactly one thing", which is clearly absolute bullshit, as evidenced by the monthly OSC.

[jamcat]

The argument stemmed from Jamcat's statement that "my view is every noteworthy synth is good at exactly one thing", which is clearly absolute bullshit, as evidenced by the monthly OSC.

I admit, my point isn't 100% flawless.
For example, the TB-303 is a noteworthy synth, and it's not good at anything.

[FapFilter]

even a Minimoog is also not a great Piano though

[SebAV]

OSC allows the use of external FXs… The tracks without FXs would a better reference to argue that every synth can make any sound.
The « sweet spot » argument is a good one. But those sweet spots aren’t the same for everybody so that’s why we don’t like using the same synths.
That and the UI

[BONES]

even a Minimoog is also not a great Piano though

Apiano is not a synth so I'm not sure I see your point. That said, I've used Olga to replace piano parts in a couple of Ultravox covers and if Olga can do it, so can any Model D emulation.

[jamcat]

Pianoteq is a synth

[FrogsInPants]

That's not what the argument is about. The argument stemmed from Jamcat's statement that "my view is every noteworthy synth is good at exactly one thing", which is clearly absolute bullshit, as evidenced by the monthly OSC.

Oh no, hyperbole. We can't have that, can we? Better counter that with the likewise hyperbolic claim that "any half-decent synth can do a credible job of any part you might need," which is clearly bullshit as evidenced by your own admission that, just for instance, "no one synth can cover everything Wasp was good at". OSC supports the idea that any half decent synth can do a credible job of a sufficient variety of parts to make a quality piece in a variety of genres. But that doesn't mean they can do anything, or that the synths were equally well suited for each part they could produce. OSC participants often put a lot of effort into overcoming the limitations of a synth, so the final results are not necessarily indicative of what the synth is good at. You can, for instance, produce a melodic pluck line with Bucket Pops, but few people would choose to do so with almost any alternative available.

Instead of making a fuss over the phrase "good at exactly one thing", you could read Jamcat's statement as expressing a preference for specialty synths that lead easily to the particular kinds of sounds in which their synthesis methods excel. That's not unreasonable.

Also, people like different things and find different things useful than you do. That's not narrow-mindedness or a conscious decision to sound like shit. It's just different preferences. Get over yourself.

[jamcat]

even a Minimoog is also not a great Piano though

Apiano is not a synth so I'm not sure I see your point. That said, I've used Olga to replace piano parts in a couple of Ultravox covers and if Olga can do it, so can any Model D emulation.

That depends on if it's a Moog Model D emulation or a Steinway Model D emulation.

[FAS122]

FM8. I like it a fair amount because the presets are good... but I find programming it a little finnicky so I can't love it. That isn't FM8's fault, it a great synth, I just don't think it works the way I like to work (if you know what I mean).

[BONES]

Oh no, hyperbole. We can't have that, can we? Better counter that with the likewise hyperbolic claim that "any half-decent synth can do a credible job of any part you might need," which is clearly bullshit as evidenced by your own admission that, just for instance, "no one synth can cover everything Wasp was good at".

Again, you are failing to grasp basic concepts. No-one is suggesting that every synth is equally capable of doing everything that every other synth can do, to the same standard. That would be even more absurd than what Jamcat said. It's the suggestion that Synth A is for basslines, Synth B is for leads and Synth C is for pads, etc. that is stupid and restrctive. To use Wasp as an example again, it may have been our go-to for basslines but we also used it for a lot of other things. Union might be the first thing I think of when I want a big, fat unison lead but that doesn't stop me trying it out in basslines or ethereal pads when the mood takes me. That's often when the magic happens - when you try things you might normally not think to. So restricting your thinking to this for bass and that for leads means you might miss out on something truly wonderful. Of course, you might also waste a lot of time doing things that aren't going to work but if you dont' try, you'll never know.

OSC supports the idea that any half decent synth can do a credible job of a sufficient variety of parts to make a quality piece in a variety of genres. But that doesn't mean they can do anything, or that the synths were equally well suited for each part they could produce.

Exactly.

OSC participants often put a lot of effort into overcoming the limitations of a synth, so the final results are not necessarily indicative of what the synth is good at.

"Good at" and "capable of" are two very different things.

Instead of making a fuss over the phrase "good at exactly one thing", you could read Jamcat's statement as expressing a preference for specialty synths that lead easily to the particular kinds of sounds in which their synthesis methods excel. That's not unreasonable.

Maybe not to you but it definitely is to me, for the simple reason, which I have stated a hundred times over the years, that if you listen to any song, you have almost no chance of working out what instruments were used to make it. For 99% of what any synth does, there are a dozen other synths equally capable of doing the same thing, to the same standard. It's those little one percenters that make the difference but most of the time we're not using that aspect of the instrument. e.g. If I recorded a strings patch from a dozen different synths, one at a time so you could hear them in perfect isolation, you wouldn't have the first clue which synths they were and, even if I gave you a list, you'd be hard pressed to match them. I could do the same with basslines and leads and everything else. That's simply the nature of the beast.

Also, people like different things and find different things useful than you do.

Yes, people are idiots, I know.

That's not narrow-mindedness or a conscious decision to sound like shit. It's just different preferences.

I'm sorry but in this case, it most assuredly is. Imagine where music would be today if everyone had that mindset. No innovation, nothing new. We probably wouldn't have synthesisers at all. Or the piano for that matter. Of course, everyone is free to do whatever they want but that doesn't mean that we all have to agree with or have any respect for those choices.

[machinesworking]

Being able to make a song with a limited pallet isn't really arguing your point.

Of course it is, given the quality we hear in OSC every month. If each of these instruments couldn't do good basslines and good leads and good pads and other things to a high standard, we wouldn't be hearing the quality of results we do.

I don't think a single soul goes into the OSC with a song in mind, the synth, and it's limitations in your DAW of choice tend to direct where you're going to go. Limitations are somewhat liberating to a degree, so no, your point isn't made at all by the fact you can come up with good material on a limited pallet.

I said for 15 years that we'd always need to keep using Orion because nothing else coudl do the basslines we get from Wasp but once I got off my arse and made the effort, I discovered that there were at least half-a-dozen synths that could do a creditable job. To be fair to Wasp, no one synth can cover everything Wasp was good at but we've got it all covered now, easily.

And there you go, no one synth is good at everything.

Since it has granular synthesis as one of its options, it of course can do things that OB-Xtreme cannot do, and visa versa.

Can it, though? I have several granular effects plugins I can run any synth through. And, let's be honest, granular synthesis isn't exactly useful. I've got Straylight and Quanta and Pigments but I can't say that I've ever found a use for any of them.

It's not your type of sound, I've always used samplers of every variety along with synths as a main source, since I started doing this. So to me granular is a natural progression and I get a lot of good things out of it. I've even processed boys choirs through it, chopped up the results and used the audio for a break in a song among other things.

And by resorting to extremes like granular to try and refute it, you are making my point for me.

You mean one of the latest types of synthesis? Yeah, it's not "extreme", it's again pointing out that one synth cannot do it all.

That hasn't stopped me using them, though, and is all about personal preference. There is a big, wide ocean between one particular synth being a little bit better than another in a certain situation and a synth only being useful for one specific thing.

Sure, but sting machines have been around forever, it's a weird argument you're making when confronted with the bigger picture of synths out there, FM synths are not that great at many many things, but they excel at quite a few. This list is endless really.

Well, I'd argue that it's a dumbarse thing to want to do in the first place and that the thought that you have to have the original instruments used to do it is an equally dumbarse way of looking at it. To me it's making the conscious decision that you want your music to sound like shit, when it could sound a whole lot better.

I'm not a classic rock person, but if I was I would use the Arturia etc. synths to get the sound I want. I wouldn't waste my time making Massive X sound like an Oberheim, that, would be stupid.

But it's not exclusionary, it doesn't mean you couldn't do the same thing with different instruments and/or a different approach to the same (absurdly low) standard. It's just the obvious, narrow-minded choice.

IMO it's silly to knock other people for wanting to work in an effective way instead of spending all their time getting the bass sound from a 70's song out of a modern EDM synth. It's not my thing at all to want to keep the sonic pallet of an era, but some people like that stuff, it's not any skin off my back to think they have a right to like it without being told they're narrow minded.

No, any decent synth can't replicate with upmost accuracy any sound from any synth

That's not what the argument is about. The argument stemmed from Jamcat's statement that "my view is every noteworthy synth is good at exactly one thing", which is clearly absolute bullshit, as evidenced by the monthly OSC.

Yeah I get that. FrogsInPants already pointed this out, but one hyperbole statement is not effectively countered by an equally limiting statement.

IMO and I think it's not a controversial opinion at all, most synths that are coded etc. well, have multiple sweet spots, hardly any cover everything 100%. You can get passable results in a DAW with any of them really, and most of use are ridiculous with the amount of synth plug ins we own, since something like 3-5 would cover all "holes" with little to no issues.

Now I would bet we're all the same in some ways, I work with 4-5 synths mostly, then supplement that with all the various random synths in my VST folder. Because like you I get bored with doing things the simple way, I will consciously use a synth that I don't think is good at something in a song to see if I can stretch it's capabilities. Pigments for a bass sound for instance, since the discussion was whether it was thin sounding or not when it came out. I mean this is all about getting different textures to keep it interesting, at least it is to me.

[jamcat]

That would be even more absurd than what Jamcat said. It's the suggestion that Synth A is for basslines, Synth B is for leads and Synth C is for pads, etc. that is stupid and restrctive.

So, as I've said, I'm not an electronic musician. I'll have one or two synth parts in a song, and it's almost always a string pad of some sort. Sometimes I want an Oberheim pad sound, or other times maybe I want a Roland HI STRINGS sound, or sometimes, it's a Solina I'm after. I'm not looking to reinvent the wheel. I'm just looking to get the sound I already have in my head, going in. So if I have a big Oberheim pad sound in my head, I'm going to load up a big Oberheim modeled synth.

Also, it should be noted, that when I was talking about each noteworthy synth being good at only one thing, I was talking about VCO and DCO hardware synths of the '70s and '80s. They were pretty limited because of size and cost, and every synth was known for a specific sound. Software synths don't have these physical limitations, so they can be designed to be jacks-of-all-trades. But they also tend to lack unique personality and aren't as fun to use. There's a finite number of good synth sounds out there, so I'd rather use a limited synth that can do that sound and not much else, than try to find a needle in an infinitely vast haystack with a synth that does everything.