Does Massive sound dated?

[BONES]

It doesn't sound like anything so it's hard to say dated or not dated. That said, it could have been extracted from the soundtrack to Eraserhead.

Once you see how to route an envelope or performer to things you're most of the way there.

Yep, that's exactly why I needed to RTFM. It has some nice presets but whenever I tried to make my own patches, they usually ended up sounding very harsh and digital, if you know what I mean. When we first got it, we used it quite a lot but when we made the switch from Orion to Cubase to Studio One, I gradually replaced it with other things.

[jancivil]

how the af does a sound “date”? Is it a fashion item, a fad, to become passe once a received perception of novelty fades? Even actual physical instruments that were long ago superseded, ie., period instruments, can be used uniquely or techniques arrived at since their day employed.

No, if yez believes that’s a thing, tell us what it entails. I used Massive extensively in one piece, 2017. I bet there’s someone that’ll say it was already old hat by then.
It sounds fantastic, it haz teh analog warmth and evvythang. wait, was that a fad too?

it reminds me of trading baseball cards when I was like 8. I had Gaylord Perry, a legend, and this card out of a pack of Topps was a lucky draw. I thought it was worth (I’m sure it was actually).
“Aw, that old heel?”

[jancivil]

Why do these threads always bring up non-digital instruments of the past? Digital instruments sound dated when they are dependent on older technology where significant improvement has been made.

One point I just made regards instruments that saw technological advances over an epoch.

This post confounds the specific with generalities in more than one way. Specifically, does NI Massive sound dated? Why would it? Surely there were some technological advancements since 2006? Is the argument all “digital instruments” coded for the less-than-our-current-optimal-state of the software realm produce a sound, per se, we objectively know from? Or is perhaps a more proper goalpost ‘certain things’ are noticeable to a certain subset of KVR Forum inhabitants owing to familiarity with their (own highly subjective) use or even coding platform?

Is a Minimoog bass a fad? Gee, one may wonder if Moog represented an impossible-to-improve-upon state of the art ca. 1972. It’s limited by its tech, or isn’t it? I would say its potential is not quite used up.

A clavichord is limited by its design, and went far out of style, for centuries. Yet it was unique, and people found ways to exploit it an aeon hence. <The action of the clavichord is unique among all keyboard instruments in that one part of the action simultaneously initiates the sound vibration while at the same time defining the endpoint of the vibrating string, and thus its pitch. Because of this intimate contact between the player's hand and the production of sound, the clavichord has been referred to as the most intimate of keyboard instruments. Despite its many (serious) limitations, including extremely low volume, it has considerable expressive power, the player being able to control attack, duration, and volume, and even provide certain subtle effects of swelling of tone and a type of vibrato unique to the clavichord.>

let alone its use by Keith Jarrett, Paul McCartney, Tori Amos, Bjork…

And slap some pickups on a solid body clavichord and we got a clavinet. Now a guy stuck a whammy bar on there, it’s amazing.
Pickups, whammy bar, all old hat too, I guess.

an instrument is an instrument is an instrument. The analogy is not fallacy, however mistaking general for specific is per se.

[jancivil]

“sounds dated” is subjective, and it seems possible the result that’s received as dated by an audient may in some ways be a product of the instrument’s user’s personal technical or imaginative limitations.

else, we’re headed towards <all things made by older technology can’t sound as good as all that is new>. That’s fallacy of hasty generalization, leaving alone the specificity of “does Massive…”.

[martinjuenke]

I used the Legacy Synths in Logic Pro the first time yesterday.
Boys, these sound dated!

[digitalboytn]

The problem I have with the newly released synths is that they all sound too modern

[Biome_Digital]

delete

[Echoes in the Attic]

Why do these threads always bring up non-digital instruments of the past? Digital instruments sound dated when they are dependent on older technology where significant improvement has been made.

I bring it up because it's a valid analogy in my view (but i do realize that nuance is becoming extinct) . Why would a digital instrument (which by it's nature be incredibly flexible sound dated? If you mean old digital HW with 8,12,14 bit converters and older code then i would say yes, sounds dated as in i can somewhat place in time when it was produced. However if we are talking "dated" meaning it sounds so xxxx more because of the fashion of the times, then i stand by my comments. So, once again, old digi HW yes, i understand. Software played at 24bit and 44.1 or above, no, not dated unless you mean fashion. So No, Massive doesn't sound dated. imo of course~

Many synths from even only a few years ago don't have modern filters and sound bad when you push the filters, especially with fast modulation. I think that we can divide the synths into pre-Diva and post-Diva (After Diva? AD), even though ACE has ZDF filters and core was in Reaktor 5.0.

So, there are plenty of synths from well into the late to mid 2000s that, to me, sound dated because of that. As long as you keep the filters in the tame zone it's ok, and they may have other redeeming qualities, e.g., Tassman comes to mind here.

So "does X sound dated?" well, often yes if you push the filter, and no if you don't. So again, this is the main reason that digital synths sound dated, they are using technology of the time that has not been updated to newer technology. Note, even new synths can sound dated, dated to when their technology was new. Create any synth with the standard SE or Reaktor modules only and it will sound dated. Often described around here as "that plasticy sound."

I don’t agree that in was such a divide. Plenty of pre-diva synths sounded great. Sylenth1, oddity, imposcar etc.

Although there certainly are some earlier vst synths attempting to emulate analogs that sound dated as an emulation, I don’t think it makes sense to think of any synths as dated at this point unless they are poor analog emulations, since digital synths have been around for decades that are pleasing sonically and very versatile. They are in guitar/piano territory now where they will always be usable for some kind of music.

[zerocrossing]

Why do these threads always bring up non-digital instruments of the past? Digital instruments sound dated when they are dependent on older technology where significant improvement has been made.

I bring it up because it's a valid analogy in my view (but i do realize that nuance is becoming extinct) . Why would a digital instrument (which by it's nature be incredibly flexible sound dated? If you mean old digital HW with 8,12,14 bit converters and older code then i would say yes, sounds dated as in i can somewhat place in time when it was produced. However if we are talking "dated" meaning it sounds so xxxx more because of the fashion of the times, then i stand by my comments. So, once again, old digi HW yes, i understand. Software played at 24bit and 44.1 or above, no, not dated unless you mean fashion. So No, Massive doesn't sound dated. imo of course~

Many synths from even only a few years ago don't have modern filters and sound bad when you push the filters, especially with fast modulation. I think that we can divide the synths into pre-Diva and post-Diva (After Diva? AD), even though ACE has ZDF filters and core was in Reaktor 5.0.

So, there are plenty of synths from well into the late to mid 2000s that, to me, sound dated because of that. As long as you keep the filters in the tame zone it's ok, and they may have other redeeming qualities, e.g., Tassman comes to mind here.

So "does X sound dated?" well, often yes if you push the filter, and no if you don't. So again, this is the main reason that digital synths sound dated, they are using technology of the time that has not been updated to newer technology. Note, even new synths can sound dated, dated to when their technology was new. Create any synth with the standard SE or Reaktor modules only and it will sound dated. Often described around here as "that plasticy sound."

I don’t agree that in was such a divide. Plenty of pre-diva synths sounded great. Sylenth1, oddity, imposcar etc.

Although there certainly are some earlier vst synths attempting to emulate analogs that sound dated as an emulation, I don’t think it makes sense to think of any synths as dated at this point unless they are poor analog emulations, since digital synths have been around for decades that are pleasing sonically and very versatile. They are in guitar/piano territory now where they will always be usable for some kind of music.

I totally agree with you. I think it’s fair to look at a synth’s feature and make a call about how good the results from it are, but it’s a bit silly to decide something is “dated.”

I recently dug out Absynth 5 after having not used it for a really long time. I was making sounds that need a lot of envelopes, and Absynth is great in that respect. I made a sound very quickly that would have taken three instances of most synths. It came out great. Did the filters sound “analog.” No, but they did the job, and there are a whole bunch of fun tricks it does that I don’t think you’ll easily find in other instruments… maybe Zebra. It’s a huge shame they let it die.

When people say “dated,” I think it often means, “this had a bunch of presets that everyone used for a while and I’m sick of them.” There’s a guy who is a wizard at taking the old E-MU ROMplers and making them sound amazing. Balma something… I forget. Turn those suckers on and run though the presets and they sound very dated. Listen to his sounds from it, a totally different experience.

[ghettosynth]

Why do these threads always bring up non-digital instruments of the past? Digital instruments sound dated when they are dependent on older technology where significant improvement has been made.

I bring it up because it's a valid analogy in my view (but i do realize that nuance is becoming extinct) . Why would a digital instrument (which by it's nature be incredibly flexible sound dated? If you mean old digital HW with 8,12,14 bit converters and older code then i would say yes, sounds dated as in i can somewhat place in time when it was produced. However if we are talking "dated" meaning it sounds so xxxx more because of the fashion of the times, then i stand by my comments. So, once again, old digi HW yes, i understand. Software played at 24bit and 44.1 or above, no, not dated unless you mean fashion. So No, Massive doesn't sound dated. imo of course~

Many synths from even only a few years ago don't have modern filters and sound bad when you push the filters, especially with fast modulation. I think that we can divide the synths into pre-Diva and post-Diva (After Diva? AD), even though ACE has ZDF filters and core was in Reaktor 5.0.

So, there are plenty of synths from well into the late to mid 2000s that, to me, sound dated because of that. As long as you keep the filters in the tame zone it's ok, and they may have other redeeming qualities, e.g., Tassman comes to mind here.

So "does X sound dated?" well, often yes if you push the filter, and no if you don't. So again, this is the main reason that digital synths sound dated, they are using technology of the time that has not been updated to newer technology. Note, even new synths can sound dated, dated to when their technology was new. Create any synth with the standard SE or Reaktor modules only and it will sound dated. Often described around here as "that plasticy sound."

I don’t agree that in was such a divide. Plenty of pre-diva synths sounded great. Sylenth1, oddity, imposcar etc.

All of those sound dated to me for exactly the reason that I described. In particular, because those synths create sounds that are heavily dependent on the filters. Now, people like to bring up Absynth. I still use Absynth, and FM8, but I think that both of those synths are able to create a wider variety of sounds that are not dependent on the filters. In fact, I think that in order to create great sounds with either synth you cannot push the filters hard. This is especially true in Absynth which has shit filters that sound terrible when you turn up the resonance.

Dated to me is a function of what can't be changed. Romplers can't have their samples or their technology changed so it's easy for them to sound dated. Closed source synths from the PD era that have not been updated will almost always have filters that sound like they were made before the significant improvements of the last decade.

[vurt]

carbon is dated

[ghettosynth]

carbon is dated

That's because it's no longer the best choice for filters.

[VitaminD]

carbon is dated

Zing!

[vurt]

thanks

im here all week, try the fish!

[thallisthall]

Absolutely not!