Is Omnisphere 2 still worth it?

[Jac459]

In Omnisphere it is MUCH easier to mix and match built in sound sources to create your own. ......

.........

........a CPU hog compared to Omnisphere.

Thanks bro, that's very clear. I also have avenger by the way. I guess Omnisphere is using more samples, that may explain the lighter tool on cpu.

[yl0506]

If you want you can watch this video . The filter's section of Omnisphere is quite good. Perhaps those who don't own it will discover that Omnisphere is more complex than it first appears.

And there are two filters per layer and you can also add filters at the effect level, you could even put up to 4 more per layer (which would start to be a lot anyway).

So Omnisphere, as far as subtractive synthesis is concerned, has a lot to offer and has nothing to be ashamed of compared to the competition.

[Jac459]

Nice thanks! I will have a look!

[bmanic]

In Omnisphere it is MUCH easier to mix and match built in sound sources to create your own. ......

.........

........a CPU hog compared to Omnisphere.

Thanks bro, that's very clear. I also have avenger by the way. I guess Omnisphere is using more samples, that may explain the lighter tool on cpu.

No, Avenger just has way higher quality filters/effects etc. All of their processing takes a lot more CPU cycles than Omnisphere. I suspect it has to do with the age of the plugin too.. thus everything in Omnisphere is rather light on CPU.

If you have a monster computer then Avenger is definitely the "higher quality" system of these two. However, the Omnisphere sample library is vastly superior. It's so much beyond anything else on the market that it's completely it's own thing. Omnisphere is the only software synth, in my opinion, that truly feels just like the Roland/Yamaha/Korg workstations of yesteryear. 4 oscillators, HUGE immediately usable and awesome sounding sample "rom" content. Very easy to just get things going and sounding huge with virtually zero effort.

[vurt]

I don't care how good a sample library is, often it's not going to have the samples one wants and then you are SOL in Omnisphere.

This is very seldom the case..

Maybe speak for yourself. For example, my Kalimba has 24 tines on it.

ooh get you with your big kalimba

[bmanic]

So Omnisphere, as far as subtractive synthesis is concerned, has a lot to offer and has nothing to be ashamed of compared to the competition.

It's main downfall in terms of complexity (and thus expressiveness) is due to the rather limited modulation options. The basics are there but you can't easily modulate modulators that modulate other modulators etc. It's not possible to do complex nested modulation things.

Also it has a rather lackluster keyboard tracking. For instance you can't melodically track the filters with keyboard.. it's not tracking accurately enough (could be either keyboard tracking itself that is "wrong" or the filter that doesn't track accurately).

But as a "slightly more complex than a basic thing" it's rather nice and very quick to setup. It's still way simplified compared to things like Falcon, Avenger, Kontakt etc.. but it's not meant to be replacing these.

However, like I said in a previous post, I would love it if Spectrasonics did create a monster synth/sampler and include the Omnisphere library. It would be absolutely a no-brainer and could potentially conquer the whole market if done well.

[bmanic]

I don't care how good a sample library is, often it's not going to have the samples one wants and then you are SOL in Omnisphere.

This is very seldom the case..

Maybe speak for yourself. For example, my Kalimba has 24 tines on it.

ooh get you with your big kalimba

[vurt]

mine only has 12, i have kalimba tine envy

[LFO8]

mine only has 12, i have kalimba tine envy

Would you say that your kalimba is tine-y?

[pdxindy]

mine only has 12, i have kalimba tine envy

and does yours have a built-in mic and 1/4" input?

it does take a long time to tune all 24!

[vurt]

mine only has 12, i have kalimba tine envy

and does yours have a built-in mic and 1/4" input?

that i have! just less tines

not that it matters much, cant even play the bloody thing
nice for granular though

[yl0506]

So Omnisphere, as far as subtractive synthesis is concerned, has a lot to offer and has nothing to be ashamed of compared to the competition.

It's main downfall in terms of complexity (and thus expressiveness) is due to the rather limited modulation options. The basics are there but you can't easily modulate modulators that modulate other modulators etc. It's not possible to do complex nested modulation things.

As far as the complexity of the modulation in Omnisphere is concerned, appearances are rather deceptive. It's true that at first sight, the LFOs are less complex than those of Vital for example (which is a synth with many interesting ideas that can't be found elsewhere). But there are still 8 LFOs per preset, and 12 envelopes per preset too, 4 of which can be looped and whose speed can be modulated.

There are also 48 modulation slots per preset.

And contrary to what is claimed, it is very easy to modulate the parameter of a modulator by another modulator, and this in cascade up to a maximum of 12 nesting (and still if we restrict ourselves to the LFO and looping envelopes). Just right-click on any modulable parameter to choose which modulator it will be. It's just a habit to get into and it's done very quickly. There is also a general page that allows you to see 12 modulations per page. With already 3 to 4 levels of nesting, there is already enough to do, so with 12! I don't even know if this can give interesting audible results except a kind of programmed chaos.

It is true however that you can't draw the LFO waveform like with Vital (even if you can choose among 9 existing waveforms), on the other hand, you can draw the waveform of the 4 looping envelopes.

So that's it for the modulations in Omnisphere.

Have a nice evening

[bmanic]

As far as the complexity of the modulation in Omnisphere is concerned, appearances are rather deceptive. It's true that at first sight, the LFOs are less complex than those of Vital for example (which is a synth with many interesting ideas that can't be found elsewhere). But there are still 8 LFOs per preset, and 12 envelopes per preset too, 4 of which can be looped and whose speed can be modulated.

Oops, no you are right! I was totally wrong. EDIT: No, I wasn't.

No, you can not do nested modulation of destination depth (except using LFO's and Envelope's own depth knob but that means it only gets basically 1 level deep).

You can not modulate the modulators destination depth. This was what I meant.. thus not making it possible to nest every modulation source (except LFO and Env, which goes only 1 level deep if you use any other mod source like velocity, keytracking etc). This makes the synth a whole lot less powerful than it could be if it allowed modulating the 'amount' sliders in the matrix, but you can't.

So, for instance:

Keytracking -> Cutoff = 'amount'

'amount' can not be further modulated by anything else.

Still, having the depth knobs available for both LFO and Envelopes covers most of the common scenarios (velocity to depth for instance) but it's slightly annoying that you can't further modify the velocity amount to the depth with something else (like for instance keyboard tracking).

There are such a broad range of modulation options available that are interesting, like the Alternate modulation parameter but it's not very useful for more complex tasks as it doesn't have a depth control and you can't modulate the depth control in the matrix.

[dj ray]

Not gonna lie. I'd get it if it were ever on sale. All those sounds from the movies, and especially world music. Would be cool just to have 'em. Really all about the presets with this thing.

[pdxindy]

that i have! just less tines

not that it matters much, cant even play the bloody thing

Just play (and record) anyway... then move bits of audio around until it sounds interesting

If you record long enough, there is bound to be something interesting there