What are your favorite instrument plugins?

[digitalboytn]

Zebra 3 is also getting a lot of love.

In the oven....

It's been baking for quite a while now

[BONES]

First and obvious thing to say is that it depends on the genre of music you're making with your synths. Different synths for different use cases, in the same way that a guitarist might think of different amps or guitars for different genres.

That makes no sense. If it was that, you'd be thinking of them in genre terms, not by types of synthesis.

Certain tools tend to fit certain styles and sounds.

Not true at all, that's just you restricting your thinking; "if I want to do this, I need that". Synths are much, much better than that, they are far more capable than you seem think they are.

Sure, if you're just using basic waveforms they can be interchangeable enough.

This is where you expose your ignorance. You can take two simple waveforms and cross-modulate them to create a virtually infinite number of different waveforms. That's how FM synthesis works but it's not a technique restricted to FM synths, it's available in the vast majority of V/As and vintage emulations, too.

To look at it from the other side, every wavetable synth I've ever seen includes basic waveforms and is thus capable of being the simplest of V/A synths if that's what you need. It is similarly easy to create simple waveforms in an additive synth.

for the specific sub-genres of Electronic Music that I make, certain synths are easier or known for having "the" sound I may be after

That's true of every kind of sound, there is always one instrument that will do it better than any other, or be faster to get to that sound. e.g. I have loads of instruments that do great strings but I always use Invader because it's just that little bit better at it, just that little bit easier to get the best from. If that kind of thing was an overarching need in your work, you'd just use sample-based instruments that have the sound you need pre-built for you, wouldn't you?

I think of something like a physical modeling synth as a completely different instrument from a moog style mono analog.

But you can use physical modelling to create a Moog-like synth. Component level modelling is just a form of physical modelling. Plus, of course, sample-based instruments can do most, if not everything, physical modelling can do, so why separate the two?

I don't think of a Guitar and Sitar as being the same, even though they both have frets and strings, because of both the way they generate sound, and the idioms of each tradition. I would not say they're interchangeable. Same with different types of synths.

No, it's not the same with different types of synths at all. That's complete bullshit. That's the whole f**king point of synths, that they aren't only capable of one kind of sounds, like guitar or a sitar. The fact you would attempt to conflate the two things only makes your ignorance even more obvious.

And I'm not picking on you, specifically, you were just the first one stupid enough to stick your head above the parapet. It's a nonsense I assume is propagated by the absurd ways sub-genres within EDM are defined. It makes no sense and it holds you back. With the conversations going on about AI and creativity at the moment, it beggars belief that people would cripple their creativity with this kind of thinking. In the immortal words spoken by Morpheus to Neo, "free... your... mind".

Just to finish the thought, take a synth like DS Thorn, how would you categorise that? It has spectral (additive) oscillators but it's otherwise a classic subtractive V/A synth. It doesn't have cross-modulation but the Harmonic Filter can do similar kinds of things to the sound. So is it a V/A, is it an additive synth or is it just a really good sounding synth that's really easy to use and capable of generating pretty much any timbre you might need, that it would be completely unfair to categorise?

I tend to categorise my synths by their level of complexity, which allows me to think of the simplest way to achieve any particular outcome. To me that makes at least some sense, in that it aligns with my workflow goal of keeping everything as simple as possible, not because I'm lazy but because it is a proven way of getting the best results.

[Examigan]

I have some favs at the moment:

Dune 3
Icarus 3
SynthMaster 3
Diva
OP-X Pro 3
Saurus

Sylenth1 doesn't get used as much, but it's still on the list.

[twal]

e.g. I have loads of instruments that do great strings but I always use Invader because it's just that little bit better at it, just that little bit easier to get the best from.

Synth sounds pretty amazing too for it being a small project for cheap. Simple interface. Look great. Big sound.

[twal]

I have some favs at the moment:

Dune 3
Icarus 3
SynthMaster 3
Diva
OP-X Pro 3
Saurus

Sylenth1 doesn't get used as much, but it's still on the list.

Dune 3 is always the one I end up using.

[BONES]

Dune is always my back-stop. If nothing else is working, Dune will always get the job done. I just don't particularly like working with it. I think the patch browser has made it a lot more usable but the workflow is still a bit clunky.

And yeah, Invader just sounds really big with no effort at all and it's so easy to work with.

Right now, though, the synth I find myself working with the most is Proxima. We put together a set a few weeks ago for a gig next weekend. We only get 45 minutes, so it's just 9 songs, but I reckon six of them have Proxima in them and in three it's the lead instrument. That thing is massive and dirty and completely wonderful. The interesting thing about it is that all the sounds we use are things I created when it was in early beta, before it had any factory patches, but when I submitted them for inclusion in the factory bank, Rich didn't choose any of them. I think that was a missed opportunity for Synapse, not because my patches are particularly wonderful, but because they show a side of the synth that's not represented at all in the factory bank. Honestly, if I hadn't been involved in the beta-testing, if I was just a punter playing with the demo version of a new synth, I don't think I'd have been interested in it. All of which is to say that if you haven't taken much notice of Proxima, I think it is a synth that's definitely worth looking at again (or for the first time) and going beyond the factory patches to explore.

[twal]

Dune is always my back-stop. If nothing else is working, Dune will always get the job done. I just don't particularly like working with it. I think the patch browser has made it a lot more usable but the workflow is still a bit clunky.

And yeah, Invader just sounds really big with no effort at all and it's so easy to work with.

Right now, though, the synth I find myself working with the most is Proxima...

It's one of the few I have my eye on right now. It really hit a sweet spot in sound and interface with the typical Synapse complete package. It's on the higher end of price. I 've a post right now offering a trade of Icarus 3 for Proxima as a matter of fact. I really like Icarus 3, but the type of sounds it creates which are big and nice, are not the type of sounds I really need for the music I make. Proxima is rather sexy and musical all in all with wonderful grit and again, musicality.

[mixyguy2]

Getting back to this...many, many VIs are not synths at all; they're sampled instruments. To call them all "synths" is simply incorrect.

[digitalboytn]

Getting back to this...many, many VIs are not synths at all; they're sampled instruments. To call them all "synths" is simply incorrect.

100 %

[cryophonik]

Pianoteq 9, the Softube “Model” synths, and Omnisphere are probably my most-used software instruments these days.

[BBFG#]

Getting back to this...many, many VIs are not synths at all; they're sampled instruments. To call them all "synths" is simply incorrect.

Maybe that's why the subject line is "What are your favorite instrument plugins?" and not synths.
And synths are instruments.

My current favorites are:
Pianoteq 9
The Zebra herd
Biotek 3

And non Linux additionally are:
RealRick (w/Axiom)
Pigments
Lounge Lizard EP-5

[DJDJ]

First and obvious thing to say is that it depends on the genre of music you're making with your synths. Different synths for different use cases, in the same way that a guitarist might think of different amps or guitars for different genres.

That makes no sense. If it was that, you'd be thinking of them in genre terms, not by types of synthesis.

Certain tools tend to fit certain styles and sounds.

Not true at all, that's just you restricting your thinking; "if I want to do this, I need that". Synths are much, much better than that, they are far more capable than you seem think they are.

Sure, if you're just using basic waveforms they can be interchangeable enough.

This is where you expose your ignorance. You can take two simple waveforms and cross-modulate them to create a virtually infinite number of different waveforms. That's how FM synthesis works but it's not a technique restricted to FM synths, it's available in the vast majority of V/As and vintage emulations, too.

To look at it from the other side, every wavetable synth I've ever seen includes basic waveforms and is thus capable of being the simplest of V/A synths if that's what you need. It is similarly easy to create simple waveforms in an additive synth.

for the specific sub-genres of Electronic Music that I make, certain synths are easier or known for having "the" sound I may be after

That's true of every kind of sound, there is always one instrument that will do it better than any other, or be faster to get to that sound. e.g. I have loads of instruments that do great strings but I always use Invader because it's just that little bit better at it, just that little bit easier to get the best from. If that kind of thing was an overarching need in your work, you'd just use sample-based instruments that have the sound you need pre-built for you, wouldn't you?

I think of something like a physical modeling synth as a completely different instrument from a moog style mono analog.

But you can use physical modelling to create a Moog-like synth. Component level modelling is just a form of physical modelling. Plus, of course, sample-based instruments can do most, if not everything, physical modelling can do, so why separate the two?

I don't think of a Guitar and Sitar as being the same, even though they both have frets and strings, because of both the way they generate sound, and the idioms of each tradition. I would not say they're interchangeable. Same with different types of synths.

No, it's not the same with different types of synths at all. That's complete bullshit. That's the whole f**king point of synths, that they aren't only capable of one kind of sounds, like guitar or a sitar. The fact you would attempt to conflate the two things only makes your ignorance even more obvious.

And I'm not picking on you, specifically, you were just the first one stupid enough to stick your head above the parapet. It's a nonsense I assume is propagated by the absurd ways sub-genres within EDM are defined. It makes no sense and it holds you back. With the conversations going on about AI and creativity at the moment, it beggars belief that people would cripple their creativity with this kind of thinking. In the immortal words spoken by Morpheus to Neo, "free... your... mind".

Just to finish the thought, take a synth like DS Thorn, how would you categorise that? It has spectral (additive) oscillators but it's otherwise a classic subtractive V/A synth. It doesn't have cross-modulation but the Harmonic Filter can do similar kinds of things to the sound. So is it a V/A, is it an additive synth or is it just a really good sounding synth that's really easy to use and capable of generating pretty much any timbre you might need, that it would be completely unfair to categorise?

I tend to categorise my synths by their level of complexity, which allows me to think of the simplest way to achieve any particular outcome. To me that makes at least some sense, in that it aligns with my workflow goal of keeping everything as simple as possible, not because I'm lazy but because it is a proven way of getting the best results.

JFC your pedantry is off the charts bro. You asked why I think of it the way I do. I told you why. You dont have to agree (obviously you dont), and you dont have to like it. But lets not confuse that for any one "right" way of understanding or categorizing synths. You write as if your way is the only way to understand it, and it's simply not. I respect that you have your opinion about this, but frankly, you seem to not understand that your opinion is simply yours and not a universal understanding. It's your truth at best. Do a favor and dont feign curiosity when the place you're coming from is a bad faith approach to the discussion. I could explain my position in depth, I could point out the places where you clearly dont understand what you're talking about as well. But that would require some sort of signal that you're sincere about communicating, and not just waving your opinions around. No thanks.

[mixyguy2]

Maybe that's why the subject line is "What are your favorite instrument plugins?" and not synths.
And synths are instruments.

Well duh. I guess you missed the part where there was some mention of "all instruments are synths." That is all I was addressing.

[mixyguy2]

I could explain my position in depth, I could point out the places where you clearly dont understand what you're talking about as well. But that would require some sort of signal that you're sincere about communicating, and not just waving your opinions around. No thanks.

You appear to be new to the Bones thing. Just do like the rest of us and utilize that ignore feature and you'll be fine.

[BBFG#]

Maybe that's why the subject line is "What are your favorite instrument plugins?" and not synths.
And synths are instruments.

Well duh. I guess you missed the part where there was some mention of "all instruments are synths." That is all I was addressing.

Yes. I missed that mention. Still not seeing "some mentioning" it. Not going through the whole thread to see what or who you were addressing.