why are most soft synths and effects so expensive?

[beej]

For me, the whole purpose of a synth is "a musical instrument that can make interesting sounds" - sounds with which I can make music.

if it comes with loads of good, crafted, inspiring presets so I can make music and find something inspiring straight away, it's value to me is higher. For my music, I don't generally start with a raw sawtooth and tweak - my process comes from playing.

So, while I enjoy making sounds from time to time, my main utility for a synth is to provide me with sounds to help me create music. If i have to make all my sounds before I can begin, then it's not aiding me in the process.

I do think though that you get much more out of a synth if you can learn it and make your own patches, providing you are skilled enough at it to make usable ones! It's like finding your voice - an instrument becomes more personal and more rewarding that way. So I do sit down outside of making music to make sounds - virtually always from scratch, so that I have some new ones for future sessions. And gradually you build up your own library that way. 100% loaded with sounds you like.

So, if a synth comes with weak presets, or ones that are not suited to my taste, then I will feel I am getting less value for money. Definitely. And it therefore influences any purchase decisions.

I feel that the strongest instrument developers at the moment have excellent instrument design skills *and* excellent sound design skills. But I'm not going to talk about Spectrasonics, they get enough love from me elsewhere

You just have to look at the effort that the larger companies like RolaKorgamaha take into voicing their instruments to know that they consider presets *vital* to an instruments success (slightly different market I know, but the principle is the same).

[shamann]

Except that the number of people posting to this thread would not begin to support the plug-in market.

I'm not suggesting the number of posts in this thread, but rather the numbers of sales the average VST generates that have been suggested here.

Given the small market, given the modestly technical nature of both the market and music made with synthesizers, statiscally speaking it doesn't hold sway that users who prefer presets, and who aren't technically-minded (you don't have to be a "tweaker" to be technically-minded) are naturally the majority because they often are elsewhere in the world. It is such a small niche market, that it is feasible that any random factor could be what drives it.

I agree presets are a selling feature, no question, I just have seen no evidence ever other than assumptions that suggests presets are the key factor in sales.

[eduardo_b]

I agree presets are a selling feature, no question, I just have seen no evidence ever other than assumptions that suggests presets are the key factor in sales.

The evidence, I think, is 1) the presence of presets, often many of them, in all commercial synths and many effects, 2) the bonus of additional presets and banks from developers to registered users and 3) the additional presets and banks on this site and others. I simply refuse to believe good presets don't increase sales.

I think the post by beej represents the majority of buyers of synths, who do not want to have to learn each synth first in order to create music. The use of presets is a starting point -- so important that high quality presets can make the sale. Read the comments in some of the developer sections and you'll see just how much presets matter to typical buyers and users.

Conversely, the lack of quality presets or banks, or the presence of mediocre ones, could be enough to sway a buyer toward another synth with presets that sound too cool. It simply works. Don't you think some plugs get sold on the basis of the gui, in addition to other aspects of the instrument or effect? Of course they do. It may seem superficial to some, but marketers know how effective selling the "sizzle," not the "steak," can be.

[eduardo_b]

...I just have seen no evidence ever other than assumptions that suggests presets are the key factor in sales.

In fact, presets are so valuable in helping sell that some developers seeks out "brand name" sound designers, such as Tim Conrardy, to increase the perceived value of the presets.

Hey, what can I say. I love a good preset.

[BONES]

ON the preset debate, I think good presets are essential but a large number of presets is a deterrent to me. I found when I went through all the Pentagon I presets when it was released and saved the ones I liked as native ORION presets that I ended up with a dozen or so patches that were very slight variations on two different themes. i.e. It would have been just as convincing to me with 32 presets as 256, rather than the endless theme and variation that large preset banks invariably contain.
But its interesting - the Zebra 2 demo has only a few presets and there is only one that I find even half-interesting yet they make it perfectly obvious that it is a very good sounding instrument. Interesting.

Hmmm, but you spend endless hours in SynthEdit.

Actually I don't spend nearly as much tim ein SE as I probably should. The average synth I use takes around 3 or 4 hours to actually create. I spend much more time in Xara designing its GUI and considerably more time creating patches for it. But its a great point because SE is my complex synth and it costs $20 which is just another reason why I cannot justify $200, even on somethign as nice as Zebra 2.

Well, I'm not sure if we've got the same definition of "average KVRist" here. I'm not even sure if KVR is the common denominator of all people who use computers in music and thus might be interested in using plugins.

My point, exactly.

I observe that many people need ready-to-use patches while others love to tweak. And a few people love to dig a synth in depth.

That's very true and probably accounts for the fact that it is so easy to pick out virtually unaltered presets in a surprising amount of commercial music.

For those who love to tweak, some (but not all) developers spend a lot of time on making things as accessible as possible. That's why there are concepts like easy-edit-pages for otherwise complex synths.

None of which I have ever found in any way useful. They seem more oriented to performance rather than sound design.

Those who want to dive deeply into it have no need for yet another simple synth.

But the rest of us, who must surely be in the majority, have to put up with it for their sake.

Why not develop different versions of the same thing to cater for each of these segments? What is the point/value in trying to create a one-size-fits-all synth? For me, the negatives always tend to pile up much more quickly than the positives.

So I wouldn't exactly say that "we" are ignoring anyone. I'd rather say that you are ignoring the fact that you argue against your own needs. It's you who's using a complex synth to fullfill your needs. I wouldn't be surprised if your needs were as fullfilled with i.e. Tera if you had taken the time to learn that one rather than spending all those hours on SE.

The thing with working the way I do is that I can compartmentalise different kinds of tasks so that when I'm doing the important stuff, everything I need is accessible. e.g. If I bought Zebra 2, I would build a couple of different patches with all the things I need and then I'd create sounds from those set-ups so that I could quickly incorporate them into an arrangement. It would work really well for me. As it is, I can build a few different things to put in my VST folder that I can grab and bend to my will quickly and easily whilst I am in the thick of it, instad of having to drop out, go into another mode to drag a sound I need out of something like Tera and then try and get back into the groove that I was in. Its the death of creativity, as is scrolling through endless reams of presets to find what I want.
I enjoy each part of the process but, in the end, I need them all to work together, not for one process to interfere with another.

Interestingly, Virsyn seems to have just done that... Ohm Force also did that sort of thing with Symptohm PE.

In both those cases all they have really done is obfuscate the complexity rather than reduce it. It remains a complex synth, its just the user no longer has access to it. I look at synths like z3ta+ and Albino which are made complex by having 20 of everything, even though 95% of the presets use around 10% of it. So to my mind 95% of those patches could be created on versions of those instruments which only had one or two of everything but retained their basic structure. It would make them much easier to deal with, especially if the result could fit on a single page GUI.

presets are NOT the way to judge a synth....

But they are a pretty good start. If a thing doesn't have decent presets, it doesn't get more than about 2 minutes in my VST folder.

If for nothing else but to stir things up; they probably don't do that because almost 2 seconds after releasing it, there's the inevitable barrage of requests to add things "why can't it do unison?" "What about osc sync?" "why can't I access the mod routings?"

But I'm talking about niche version of the uber-synth. So if you want the whole nine yards you buy the full version, if you just want a million presets and a few knobs to twiddle you buy the SX version and if you want a less complex synth with the same sound you get the LX version. The patches would be interchangable [except maybe from full to LX], they woudl have a similar GUI theme, etc, etc. So it would be easy to develop the variants from the main code-base and you might even get people who start out with one of the lightweight versions who eventually upgrade to the full when they get sick of the limitations of what they bought. Its just like cars - different spec levels for different budgets and needs.

[eduardo_b]

But I'm talking about niche version of the uber-synth. So if you want the whole nine yards you buy the full version, if you just want a million presets and a few knobs to twiddle you buy the SX version and if you want a less complex synth with the same sound you get the LX version. The patches would be interchangable [except maybe from full to LX], they woudl have a similar GUI theme, etc, etc. So it would be easy to develop the variants from the main code-base and you might even get people who start out with one of the lightweight versions who eventually upgrade to the full when they get sick of the limitations of what they bought.

I shouldn't be surprised if developers might balk at having multiple variants to sell, upgrade and support. Just managing the serial numbers or keys for different versions could be a full time job. Or there would have to full versions plus demo versions of each one, plus keeping track of the updates. It's the practical day-to-day stuff like this that often decides the case. I suppose it might be possible to code one version as a demo that becomes a specfic variant on the basis of the key used to unlock it. That way, a new key for a more complete version could be purchased as an upgrade. I don't think we'll see any of this soon.

[BONES]

That would totally defeat the purpose I had in mind as everyone would have the complexity of the full version getting in their way, even if they were locke dout of most of it. As for support, having multiple products based on the same code-base would be a much more efficient way of growing your business than having several different products with no commonality.

[LiteOn]

As for support, having multiple products based on the same code-base would be a much more efficient way of growing your business than having several different products with no commonality.

Here I do agree completely. Even more, building a product family around/upon a well designed core-'product' (which might rather be a technical framework) could be the only feasible way to get a return in the middle/long run for a maybe huge initial investment.

cheers,
LiteOn

edit: edit

[diverdee]

But I'm talking about niche version of the uber-synth. So if you want the whole nine yards you buy the full version, if you just want a million presets and a few knobs to twiddle you buy the SX version and if you want a less complex synth with the same sound you get the LX version. The patches would be interchangable [except maybe from full to LX], they woudl have a similar GUI theme, etc, etc. So it would be easy to develop the variants from the main code-base and you might even get people who start out with one of the lightweight versions who eventually upgrade to the full when they get sick of the limitations of what they bought. Its just like cars - different spec levels for different budgets and needs.

Good idea BONES.
I'm all for simplicity for the most part.
Some hosts do this - SX & Sonar etc.

[shamann]

In both those cases all they have really done is obfuscate the complexity rather than reduce it. It remains a complex synth, its just the user no longer has access to it.

Yeah, that's about it on both counts. I tried out miniTera today and have to admit I was fairly unimpressed. It's a shame, because I like the layout, which is unusual because I can't stand the layout of any other Virsyn product, and had hoped that it was simply a cut down version that still gave you full control over whatever bits the left. As it is, it'll only be useful to people with the full version or people who really have no interest in programming synthesizers, even modestly.

Oh well, hopefully someone considers the market of which you speak. Urs has to an extent with Zebralette, too bad its magazine ware (come to think of it, magazine ware is often the domain of useful cut-down versions of synths).

[Urs]

But its interesting - the Zebra 2 demo has only a few presets and there is only one that I find even half-interesting yet they make it perfectly obvious that it is a very good sounding instrument. Interesting.

Of course I should argue that many presets are IMHO really great, but in this case I will just say: Thanks

Urs

[Sascha Franck]

Bah - what's all that talk about presets?
I could've thrown away any of my guitars when I should've only used their "presets" in one song decades ago. The same goes for pianos.

What sort of presets are we talking about?
Sure, there's those "one preset makes a song" thingies, which are getting pretty common since multi-breakpoint, host-tempo-synced envelopes became popular.
But then, did you ever try to start them in a 16th off? Or not have them run all through their cycles but just throw in the occasional 4th note of them?
Many people just don't seem to do so.
IMO, even with those complexed presets it's still what you make out of them.


However, a bit back on topic: To me it seems that these days, especially on KVR, there's a fashion/trend to own *all* VSTis out there. Of course, in that case, a multitude of $100-300 synths will make up for quite some expense.
But, do you really need to own them all?
Back in the days when there were no virtual instruments, as an ambitioned hobbyist you just had to decide on 1-3 instruments. There's been nothing such as freeware either.
In addition, even the cheesiest of them all (in my case a SoundCanvas) would still cost heaps more than the most expensive soft synths out there.

Seriously, with a combination of a synth such as Zebra2 (you may insert anything else instead, just that this one has me going since a while) and a sampler such as Kontakt (again, you may insert any other sampler) I could find myself doing new and fresh sound until the rest of my life allready.

So, do I like having a bunch of others in addition though? I sure do.
But then, there's allways the occasional freebie that I may end up using a lot, there's the occasional cheaper synth I may end up buying. Nothing stretching my financial capabilities too much at all.
And then there's those I feel a "need" to have - such as an e-piano (which, apart from my guitars) seems to be my main compositional tool. In that case, if I really *need* it, it surely would be worth 2-300, no? And heck, there's even cheap alternatives in that particular case (MrRay).
I paid TONS more for my guitars and amps.

As said before, the "worth" of an instrument is pretty much defined through your personal valuation scheme. An instrument not being worth 200? Sure, I can perfectly understand - but then, just don't buy it. Easy. Just don't ask for things being cheaper, they are quite cheap allready!

Oh yes, I would really love to see more developers offering educational discounts, and (probably even more) I'd also like to see them offering "location" discounts. Obviously, for someone living in, say Ghana (or any other random 3rd world or developing country), 200 bucks mean a LOT more than for the average european or USA citizen.
Unfortunately, such location discounts would make up for a lot of abusement.
But then, this isn't bound to VSTis. Being a student in Ghana you most likely won't be able to afford a car either. Or a proper computer. Or any hardware synth.
Might be sad, but that's what things are like.

However, considering the amount of money I spent for quite some things, I seriously can't see VSTis being too expensive in general at all.

[eduardo_b]

However, a bit back on topic: To me it seems that these days, especially on KVR, there's a fashion/trend to own *all* VSTis out there. Of course, in that case, a multitude of $100-300 synths will make up for quite some expense.
But, do you really need to own them all?
...Seriously, with a combination of a synth such as Zebra2 (you may insert anything else instead, just that this one has me going since a while) and a sampler such as Kontakt (again, you may insert any other sampler) I could find myself doing new and fresh sound until the rest of my life allready.

Maybe we want to own many of them just because they're there? Or maybe we're afraid we'll miss out on a plug that will jump-start our creativity?

I don't know, but it certainly seems like too much of a good thing. Research shows that too much choice actually prevents decison making, so perhaps it comes down to our own sense of self-discipline. Instead of jumping from plug to plug, maybe forcing ourselves to work with one synth, one reverb, one whatever will help focus on getting something interesting out of them. That's certainly the direction I'm trying to head toward. Still trying.

[diverdee]

hear hear eduardo
With all the free stuff it's bloody hard disciplining oneself though.
That's why i'm slowly trying to replace free gear with payware - that way the monetary investment will (hopefully) force me to stick to what i've bought.

[Sascha Franck]

I don't know, but it certainly seems like too much of a good thing. Research shows that too much choice actually prevents decison making, so perhaps it comes down to our own sense of self-discipline.

I'm sure that's true.

Instead of jumping from plug to plug, maybe forcing ourselves to work with one synth, one reverb, one whatever will help focus on getting something interesting out of them. That's certainly the direction I'm trying to head toward. Still trying.

I'm trying the same.
While I'm still trying out a lot of plugins, I became pretty much rigid when it comes to throwing them out again.
One little helper has been some trick: I don't pull the DLL into my main hosts (Logic or Cubase) vstplugin directories anymore. I just use them via Energy XT - which keeps my main VST folder clean and tidy. Just the most important things are in there.
And, as said, I throw away almost everything these days. I may probably sample the most interesting bits before, but others than that, I simply don't feel inspired by a multitude of different GUIs, all feeling completely different. Btw, one of the reasons I still love Logics internal plugins so much... consistent GUI layout, adjust one, know them all.