As far as I understood it, he wanted to keep the cpu usage reasonable and these extras would have cost a fair bit at the time, so it was designed as a simple architecture with focus on the raw sound. I don't think being simple is a design flaw if it has a reason. I would agree that I'd very much like to see some of these added by now, but clearly development hasn't been much of a focus. We're lucky we finally got 64bit mac and the recent GUI updates. Hopefully some features will get added.pdxindy wrote:
Like I said, Sylenth was smartly designed. The flaws are fairly well hidden because it does not do much that reveals them. That is one of the reasons various features are not there. PWM, Sync, Ring Mod, Filter FM etc. Users asked and asked for them.
I agree about the reverb and about synths in general in the early years of VSTs. But you hit a point of diminishing returns in synth quality improvements where it starts to only make sense in achieving a specific goal like analog modelling. As far as a filter being pleasing to the ear, I think sylenth1's filter is very nice sounding and I know many agree because of the popularity of the synth. There won't be a time when a good sound becomes not good anymore because of new technology, regardless of "quality" improvements. Lexicon reverbs are a testament to this.pdxindy wrote: Filter designs are significantly better today. Drive/distortion and FX have all improved too. Look at the software reverbs available today vs 10 years ago. On basically every front, advances have continued. Synths are much better today. The consistent quality and diversity of sound under a wide range of situations is much better today. Look at the soft-sync you can get today vs 10 years ago. Etc.
This is exactly how I feel. Good is good. Older VST synths aren't worse because they are older. They are worse generally because they are just worse. In that people generally don't find them as pleasing to listen to. But it's all down to the actual design and algorithms. For example, the FM8 has the same basic sound as the FM7, but with a bunch of bells and whistles. People still like it and always will. The FM7 was a very early VST synth but the design is such that people will always like it. Older analog type VST synths not so much because they didn't do a great job at their aim, which was to replicate analog gear.fisherking wrote:you could make the same argument for analog synths, or any 'classic' equipment. yet people worship these things (not me, lol). outside of momentary trends (wobble bass, anyone?), a good sound is a good sound... and the music-makers will get to that, with whatever tool works for them... which is why i re-added sylenth1 to my setup after an absence of about 2 years. i liked it before, i like it now. just like i enjoy using newer tools (ie spire, serum). whatever works...pdxindy wrote: I remember when there were constant threads comparing various softsynths to the Virus. That has passed. Sylenth's day has come and is nearly gone too. In another year, two at the most, there will not be threads like this one. It will linger on with some sentimental value.
Also, it hasn't been that long since a thread about getting the virus sound. People still compare them to VSTs like Spire. That's another case of a sound that people will always like.
I don't know and care whether it does or not, just saying...
Not that i think Sylenth1 is bad for that, but, like you, i don't care much about how well it does analog sounds anyway. For me, it's rather the character of the filters, and the synth itself which is interesting.
