Most Synths Sound The Same?

[myrna]

Speaking of Fender, who can pick out a Precision bass from a Yamaha bass or a custom bass of some kind in most mixes?

again, it is not like "I can recognize this and that" as a listener. It is: "i am looking for that particular shade, i can find it in this synth because its approach to sound is different from the other one". This is where every synth sound different: in the "quid", the character, which is very very subtle. As in guitars, pianos... colors for a painter, wines and... black cats. Blind tests are for punters and gamblers, not for musicians.

[4damind]

Often it seems that's only "hmm, we must have something new... let us try to make some analog sounding thingy... people like such stuff".

But there is very often no innovation, no real good sound. Many of this stuff has bugs like hell, is sounding mediocre and the users are often more early adopters.

That pretty much sums up why I have loved Zebra 2 for years now (what, seven, six years?? Has it really been that long?). It's got that real and uncompromised vision, great sound, and it's rock solid.

But to be honest, it's a shame to have only one developer where most users will agree that there is a lot innovation, support and stuff?
I will not say that most new synth are crap or most developers having no idea what they are doing... but I think many users missing a bit some really new synth with new ideas, great and different sound etc.
Today a lot of people preferring always very old stuff, with no support and no further development like Sylenth1! It's funny isn't it

[Arksun]

That pretty much sums up why I have loved Zebra 2 for years now (what, seven, six years?? Has it really been that long?). It's got that real and uncompromised vision, great sound, and it's rock solid.

Couldn't agree more. The Zebra aproach was to be influenced by the best of what both analog and digital had to offer, and use that influence to create a new forward thinking synth in its own right. It is by far my favourite U-He synth and one of the best synths ever made.

[V'ger]

I also think what's the point of new synths as bass, plucks, leads sound much the same, but compare for example strings or pads and the difference can be marked in my opinion.

[highkoo]

Its EQs that are the same, not synths.
This is crazy to me. Sure, simple wav>filter is going to be pretty similar, but todays toys go a fair bit beyond that.

To be really honest, which has been getting me in serious trouble lately, I think this opinion comes from having clicked the 'next preset' button more than any other....
Im sure that will offensd someone who thinks Im being 'aloof' or that 'an ear' for soft synths is a myth.
And please, I think we all understand that some people dont have 'time' for synthesis, or are interested in songs rather than sounds. Yes. We get it. No beef.

And why event talk about this 'in a mix'?
Obviously a ton of the subtlety that the threads on KvR are about is lost 'in the mix'. Not worth mentioning imo. We are talking about synths, not tracks.

First, a sine is a sine. At a basic level everything should sound the same. A lot of synths are pushing a waveform through a filter....
And at even the most advanced levels, everything can sound simliar. In experienced hands, the pallettes are very wide, and overlap a lot. And, presets are made to sell the synth...

A blind listening test is not a very good test.
Link some soft synths to midi controllers blind and I bet the results are different. Its opening different filters on different wavs that will give you the 'feel' of a synth, if there is one.
Twisting the knobs is how you feel a difference, even midi knobs. Just listening to a preset someone else did kind of provides almost zero feedback necessary to make a judgement as far as distinguishing synths, unless you already know the synths in question really really well.
Hearing how a particular filter bites a particular wav, etc. You have to do it to know it.
This is another preset thread in disguise.

I would say try a different approach at controlling your synth and it will create new sounds. Not just how the patch sounds but how it sounds when using something other than velocity to create note on offs and amplitude.

I think this would be made much easier if each developer demonstrated the unique features of their synth. What I mean by this is that some of the jargon/marketing speak about new features found on the websites of different synths is rarely demonstrated in action. If a synth has special filters what does this mean in practice? How does it make a difference to the sound compared to other synths? If it has special modulation features how can these be used to create unique sounds? What's so special about that new step sequencer/arp the advertising is promoting as a new unique feature?

It seems that such a lot is left to the customer to work out when the developer is the expert who included these features for a purpose which remains undisclosed or only marginally explained/demonstrated. Perhaps the phrase, "show, don't tell", might be helpful when marketing these synths in future?

For example why would an owner of Zebra (or a potential owner) want ZebraHZ? What do the DIVA filters add to Zebra in practice? Is it the 400 presets designed by the creator of the Batman sound track that are the main reason for wanting it or the new kinds of synthesis made possible by the filters? I'm not singling out u-He here because the point I trying to make could apply to any developer marketing a new synth or add-on.

No offense, at all, but where is the sense of exploration? "Easier" is not a word I would associate, except in like an ergonomic way.
I understand wanting to know what something does, but I dont get the idea that those features are to be ignored or are not attractive until demonstrated.

It seems that such a lot is left to the customer to work out

Kind of. Its a paintbrush, not a painting.

For example why would an owner of Zebra (or a potential owner) want ZebraHZ? What do the DIVA filters add to Zebra in practice?

Someone who has really used the shit out of DIVA and Zebra can take a pretty good guess, kind of easily.
For someone who has never heard/used DIVA, I can see your point, but then they can go listen to the presets or the soundtrack.

[4damind]

I also think what's the point of new synths as bass, plucks, leads sound much the same, but compare for example strings or pads and the difference can be marked in my opinion.

True. But people are always interested to have something new and I think this is also a part of the big game. If all users don't buy new stuff and always using old plug-ins a lot of developers would quit the job. No further development, no new ideas and not support for upcoming DAWs and stuff.
But sometimes it would be easier also for developers to sell something, if they have some great stuff on the table instead of yet another average virtual analog

[bmrzycki]

To the OP: trust your ears. If something new sounds the same to you as something you already own -- don't buy it. You'll probably save more money that way.

[zerocrossing]

I find this can be true, but it's almost just as often that it's not. Some synths, like Zebra, have so many options that they become chameleons and cover a huge amount of ground. This might be confused with not having a "personality." I don't see it that way though. Enough of it's components have something special about them to keep my interest and truth be told, Urs gets top notch sound designers to do his presets for when I just want to choose a cool sound and get to playing. Urs gets it though, and released a more limited, but having a more distinct "personality" synth when he released Diva.

Some synths to me, like Dune... sound so generic I pass on them right way. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Dune sound bad at all, but there's nothing about it that excites me and they don't have the flexibility of something like Zebra, so I quickly lose interest. Then there are synths that sound very generic and I don't even think the sound very good, like Saurus. I feel the same way about the hardware Virus. Maybe it's that they became so ubiquitous because they're so good. They became icons. I'd rather have a quirky synth like Olga any day. Anyway, to me I hear a lot of subtle personality in good VSTs and pass on ones that don't grab me for what ever reason. That's the way everything is, isn't it? I'm currently sitting in front of 4 analog mono synths, each from a different manufacturer. Sure, I could get them all to make a sound that was very similar, but I tend to instead focus on what's different about all of them and exploit each one for those traits.

[munchkin]

Its EQs that are the same, not synths.
This is crazy to me. Sure, simple wav>filter is going to be pretty similar, but todays toys go a fair bit beyond that.

To be really honest, which has been getting me in serious trouble lately, I think this opinion comes from having clicked the 'next preset' button more than any other....
Im sure that will offensd someone who thinks Im being 'aloof' or that 'an ear' for soft synths is a myth.
And please, I think we all understand that some people dont have 'time' for synthesis, or are interested in songs rather than sounds. Yes. We get it. No beef.

And why event talk about this 'in a mix'?
Obviously a ton of the subtlety that the threads on KvR are about is lost 'in the mix'. Not worth mentioning imo. We are talking about synths, not tracks.

First, a sine is a sine. At a basic level everything should sound the same. A lot of synths are pushing a waveform through a filter....
And at even the most advanced levels, everything can sound simliar. In experienced hands, the pallettes are very wide, and overlap a lot. And, presets are made to sell the synth...

A blind listening test is not a very good test.
Link some soft synths to midi controllers blind and I bet the results are different. Its opening different filters on different wavs that will give you the 'feel' of a synth, if there is one.
Twisting the knobs is how you feel a difference, even midi knobs. Just listening to a preset someone else did kind of provides almost zero feedback necessary to make a judgement as far as distinguishing synths, unless you already know the synths in question really really well.
Hearing how a particular filter bites a particular wav, etc. You have to do it to know it.
This is another preset thread in disguise.

I would say try a different approach at controlling your synth and it will create new sounds. Not just how the patch sounds but how it sounds when using something other than velocity to create note on offs and amplitude.

I think this would be made much easier if each developer demonstrated the unique features of their synth. What I mean by this is that some of the jargon/marketing speak about new features found on the websites of different synths is rarely demonstrated in action. If a synth has special filters what does this mean in practice? How does it make a difference to the sound compared to other synths? If it has special modulation features how can these be used to create unique sounds? What's so special about that new step sequencer/arp the advertising is promoting as a new unique feature?

It seems that such a lot is left to the customer to work out when the developer is the expert who included these features for a purpose which remains undisclosed or only marginally explained/demonstrated. Perhaps the phrase, "show, don't tell", might be helpful when marketing these synths in future?

For example why would an owner of Zebra (or a potential owner) want ZebraHZ? What do the DIVA filters add to Zebra in practice? Is it the 400 presets designed by the creator of the Batman sound track that are the main reason for wanting it or the new kinds of synthesis made possible by the filters? I'm not singling out u-He here because the point I trying to make could apply to any developer marketing a new synth or add-on.

No offense, at all, but where is the sense of exploration? "Easier" is not a word I would associate, except in like an ergonomic way.
I understand wanting to know what something does, but I dont get the idea that those features are to be ignored or are not attractive until demonstrated.

It seems that such a lot is left to the customer to work out

Kind of. Its a paintbrush, not a painting.

For example why would an owner of Zebra (or a potential owner) want ZebraHZ? What do the DIVA filters add to Zebra in practice?

Someone who has really used the shit out of DIVA and Zebra can take a pretty good guess, kind of easily.
For someone who has never heard/used DIVA, I can see your point, but then they can go listen to the presets or the soundtrack.

I'm talking about musical instruments that are played and mixed together to create music not what each individual synth sounds like on its own. Even Jimi Hendrix played with other musicians and his distinctive sound was as much to do with his style as it was to do with the instrument and equipment he used. That's why it's easy to tell him apart from other guitarists without necessarily knowing what instrument he's playing. I'd be hard pressed to distinguish what synth David Guetta uses from those used in nearly every other synth based popular music. I'd like to know who can make these aural distinctions because unless they have an oscilloscope and the GUI in front of them then they must have ears like a bat.

I can tell the difference between the sound of Alchemy and Massive for example. Adjusting the filters creates a slightly different sound. Each synth is capable of making different types of sounds but I don't think that's really highlighted in the marketing. Which is what I'd like to see.

I don't believe that a musician should need to understand everything about synthesis to play a synth. This is the fundamentalist approach which is only accessible to a few. There is no need for a photographer, designer or an artist to understand exactly how a Photoshop plugin works to create a particular effect because such deep programming knowledge is a waste of time and does little to enhance creativity. Which is why Photoshop plugin developers keep the parameters to the essentials and offer walk-throughs to achieve specific results. They make a point of showing what is special about their plugin. This doesn't limit the creative flow - it enhances it. The same should apply to marketing musical instruments including synths.

[Aloysius]

Q: Most Synths Sound The Same?
A: Most Arturia Synths Sound The Same.

[Uncle E]

The comparison between SynthEdit and Oxium isn't the point. The point is that modern synths can sound as lush or as cold as each other with very slight variations that are insignificant in a mix. If you want to get up on stage and play Oxium on it's own and then a SynthEdit synth then possibly people will tell the difference if the PA system is good but this difference is soon buried in a mix.

So does your own appreciation for the sound factor in at all or do you only care about what the listener thinks? I can get the "in a mix" argument conceptually but I personally don't enjoy writing if I don't enjoy the sounds I'm working with. This goes for synths, guitars, drums, or anything else.

The reason I ask is because it will give a better understanding when to use one instrument rather than another to get a particular sound. Just like in the past when musicians chose a DX7 rather than a Moog to get a certain sound. Or a trumpet rather than a guitar.

Personally, I choose to use DIVA first because I can quickly program sounds on it that inspire me. Once I've loaded up a couple instances of DIVA and am running low on CPU power, I start digging through samples or FM8 presets, or I'll switch in some Soniccore synths if I'm on my desktop. After the track is written, I will often try out those parts through some Massive presets for variety. And there you have it, that's my whole process.

[Uncle E]

I think this would be made much easier if each developer demonstrated the unique features of their synth. What I mean by this is that some of the jargon/marketing speak about new features found on the websites of different synths is rarely demonstrated in action.

The DCAM presets are pretty wild. They certainly demonstrate DCAM's unique features. Unfortunately, I don't think they do a good enough job of demonstrating how good the basic sound.

[ATS]

I think this would be made much easier if each developer demonstrated the unique features of their synth. What I mean by this is that some of the jargon/marketing speak about new features found on the websites of different synths is rarely demonstrated in action.

The DCAM presets are pretty wild. They certainly demonstrate DCAM's unique features. Unfortunately, I don't think they do a good enough job of demonstrating how good the basic sound.

I think DCAM is a clear example how synths don't sound the same.

[fluffy_little_something]

Today more than ever what matters is what you make out of the synth you happen to use. Your own patches make you sound unique, rather than having a certain hardware. I mean, if you had a Mini Moog or DX7, everyone knew it from the sound. What was so great about that? Now it's about your skills as a programmer and musician rather than about the cash you can afford to pay for a Moog or Oberheim.

I used to have analog hardware synths. Sure, there was a certain charm about them, but then again, there are even free software synths these days that blow them away in almost any aspect, especially flexibility and sound potential. It's up to you what you make of it.

[munchkin]

Today more than ever what matters is what you make out of the synth you happen to use. Your own patches make you sound unique, rather than having a certain hardware. I mean, if you had a Mini Moog or DX7, everyone knew it from the sound. What was so great about that? Now it's about your skills as a programmer and musician rather than about the cash you can afford to pay for a Moog or Oberheim.

I used to have analog hardware synths. Sure, there was a certain charm about them, but then again, there are even free software synths these days that blow them away in almost any aspect, especially flexibility and sound potential. It's up to you what you make of it.

I agree that it's what we make of the synth as musicians that creates the distinctive sound rather than the synth itself but contemporary synths are able to cover many more areas of synthesis than the DX7, Moog etc. In a way, the limitations of earlier synths gave them their unique character.

What does make modern synths different are the new features specific to that synth which other synths don't have. I'd find it useful if the developer gave more examples of how these unique features could be used to create different sounds that other synths can't do. It probably won't happen but after reading the replies in this thread I think that's what would help distinguish the many, complex and very capable synths that are all trying to compete in the market.