I just want to make sure I understand this. If an artist doesn't endorse a synth or it's not listed on some site or whatever, that synth is underestimated?chk071 wrote:Well. Judging based on trends here, and on other sites. Artist endorsements from here: http://equipboard.com/ or on other sites, or the artists Facebook, or whatever pages. Articles im magazines. I think you can quickly figure out what is popular, and mostly recommended, and what not, when you browse several sites, read magazines, and see what artists are using, or recommending. If that's not enough for you, or anyone, then i don't know what is. Plugin developers will hardly reveal sales figures, if they don't feel, or have to.
Okay, question. Isn't it possible that the synth...
1) Can be fairly new.
2) Is made by a small company without a lot of advertising dollars
But here's the most important one.
3) Isn't all that good.
Granted, # 3 is entirely subjective. But then so is this whole thread.
Point is, just because a synth isn't talked about doesn't mean it deserves to be talked about. Maybe it's been superseded by a newer synth.
See, using your same argument that the great synths are talked about, we can just as well say that the crappy synths are not talked about and thus not underestimated.
It works both ways. You can't argue the one side of the coin without acknowledging the other.
What do I think the most underestimated synths are?
I have no clue. I don't know what people use. I look at my own sales figures for libraries and sometimes I'm totally baffled at what synths are selling and what synths aren't selling. Some of my own data, to me, makes no sense at all.
So all of this, IMO, is just guess work based on not a heck of a lot.
