Native Instruments Massive X Synth - Sequel to Massive (Out Now!)

[statue]

You don't have to suck as a sound designer to have no interest in trying to coax a decent sound out of an instrument that just doesn't want to do it.

Well that is one weak argument against ones own incompetence.

Massive can still compete with contemporary synths (IMO).
It's just that nowadays people do not have the patience to get to know their tools properly, because a new "better" one gets marketed and hyped every two months.

[BONES]

It has bugger-all to do with patience, it has to do with the fact that a synth is nothing more than a tool for making songs. I make songs and having to program synths is something I don't want to spend any time or effort on if I don't have to. More to the point, if it is so feckin' good why do the factory presets not reflect that fact? Is it because NI want everyone to think it's not as good as the competition?

[aMUSEd]

You don't have to suck as a sound designer to have no interest in trying to coax a decent sound out of an instrument that just doesn't want to do it.

Well that is one weak argument against ones own incompetence.

Massive can still compete with contemporary synths (IMO).
It's just that nowadays people do not have the patience to get to know their tools properly, because a new "better" one gets marketed and hyped every two months.

The fact that I have had Massive since it came out means a) I know it inside out b) I have accumulated a lot of patches either of my own design or from some of my favourite sound designers (particularly biomechanoid, Mikael Adle, Matt Bowler and Jeremy Jansen) that I greatly value. In fact out of all my plugins I would say Massive is one that has some of the most high quality patches for the sort of music I like. In that sense its age is a positive.

[pixel85]

You don't have to suck as a sound designer to have no interest in trying to coax a decent sound out of an instrument that just doesn't want to do it. The reality is that Massive has been bested by a lot of newer synths, to the point where it is hard for it to keep up. Given that, why would anyone bother with it if they can get good sounds out of something else more easily?

Any half-decent synth can be used in every/any genre, it's not something that would sell a synth to me. What sells a synth to me are impressive sounding presets and good usability. If a synth doesn't have the first, and by today's standards Massive really doesn't, then I'll never get to the second part. I've used it a bit because we got it in a bundle but wherever we have used it for something prominent while we've been working on a song, we've eventually replaced it with something that can do that same thing much better, or at least with a lot less effort.

But you can get great sound from Massive instantly. Massive easily stands to the today's standards. But well... Hard to argue with someone who wrote so much bs about Moog filter

[pixel85]

When someone say that Massive is bad, thin sounding, digital or can't be used to create this or that sound I instantly know that person who wrote that simply suck as a sound designer

Jean Michel Jarre was pretty open about his hatred of the DX7 when it was released, particularly in that it was only good for imitating acoustic instruments.

He must suck as a sound designer...

Is Massive a DX7 emulation? That's something new to me. Tell me more

[AnX]

i think he may have been being sarcastic...

[jancivil]

You don't have to suck as a sound designer to have no interest in trying to coax a decent sound out of an instrument that just doesn't want to do it. The reality is..

Bullshit.
The reality is you have this subjective impression [out of little to no interest, it's right there] but you want to sound like you know everything, and in your quest you posture like you're stating objective facts.

[jancivil]

i think he may have been being sarcastic...

Someone said someone else's characterization of a synth as 'thin-sounding' meant they probably suck as a sound designer, being that they believe it can sound otherwise. THEN someone made the equivalence 'thin-sounding' with another synth and facetiously snarked how this other person thought a similar thing about that synth, but this other person can't possibly suck at being a sound designer because they think that person must be the master of all synth sound design.

You have to follow a thread of discussion as a thread.

[AnX]

i have no idea what you are talking about...

[Deep Purple]

When someone say that Massive is bad, thin sounding, digital or can't be used to create this or that sound I instantly know that person who wrote that simply suck as a sound designer

Jean Michel Jarre was pretty open about his hatred of the DX7 when it was released, particularly in that it was only good for imitating acoustic instruments.

He must suck as a sound designer...

Is Massive a DX7 emulation? That's something new to me. Tell me more

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or obtuse here.

My point is that all tools have their limitations. If you give a violinist a tuba, it would be reasonable for them to say they can't play an orchestral violin part - it's not reasonable to say they're a bad musician if they can't use a tool they're not completely comfortable with.

[Deep Purple]

When someone say that Massive is bad, thin sounding, digital or can't be used to create this or that sound I instantly know that person who wrote that simply suck as a sound designer

Jean Michel Jarre was pretty open about his hatred of the DX7 when it was released, particularly in that it was only good for imitating acoustic instruments.

He must suck as a sound designer...

Could be he didn't know how to program the DX7. One supposes you're equating it to Massive via "thin-sounding" but 1) they are't the same technology at all and 2) you're arguing w. a fallacious appeal to authority, since we can't really know this person is an authority on DX7 programming.

If I recall correctly, his dislike was on more of a philosophical level, and that the DX7 didn't suit his workflow in that it introduced presets that emulate real world instruments. I think he also forgave Yamaha for some of the later digital synths they introduced.

I replied because I don't think it's a valid statement to say that a person is bad at something because they don't like the character of the tool. If they blame the tool for bad results, that's something entirely different, but telling someone that "if x is true then you suck" is nothing more than a barely veiled insult for no good reason.

[aMUSEd]

When someone say that Massive is bad, thin sounding, digital or can't be used to create this or that sound I instantly know that person who wrote that simply suck as a sound designer

Jean Michel Jarre was pretty open about his hatred of the DX7 when it was released, particularly in that it was only good for imitating acoustic instruments.

He must suck as a sound designer...

Could be he didn't know how to program the DX7. One supposes you're equating it to Massive via "thin-sounding" but 1) they are't the same technology at all and 2) you're arguing w. a fallacious appeal to authority, since we can't really know this person is an authority on DX7 programming.

If I recall correctly, his dislike was on more of a philosophical level, and that the DX7 didn't suit his workflow in that it introduced presets that emulate real world instruments.

That doesn't make much sense to me, as I recall it was always the case that the factory banks of many hardware synths from that period and earlier would include a selection of 'real world' emulations such as brass, guitar, flute, drums, acoustic bass, bowed strings, clarinet/reeds etc. Not usually very good mind (except for proper physical modelling synths like the Yamaha VL and Korg Z1). Initially one of the premises of creating a synthesiser was to emulate a real orchestra (used effectively by Carlos and Tomita amongst others).

[jancivil]

I replied because I don't think it's a valid statement to say that a person is bad at something because they don't like the character of the tool. If they blame the tool for bad results, that's something entirely different, but telling someone that "if x is true then you suck" is nothing more than a barely veiled insult for no good reason.

I replied only because of the poor logic. Here your fallacy is the straw man argument.

When someone say that Massive is bad, thin sounding, digital or can't be used to create this or that sound I instantly know that person who wrote that simply suck as a sound designer

Now you appear to characterize that as something else, as a way to seem to improve the point. I didn't see any 'I don't like the particular character of it so I use something else', I saw what was written.

v1o wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:26 am
Massive is the most overrated VST of all time. It’s super tinnie and digital sounding. Pretty much only useful for making ambient music for film because of how thin and unremarkable it is.

You can do what you want with that but I don't think I'm reading anything into the exchange. I think the assessment they aren't very apt for synth sound design may not be a terrible stretch.
But by the time I chimed in to the shit talking, BONES had increased my irritation by maybe 7% with that bullshit.

I have really no interest in the "philosophy" or that kind of thing. You're a big fan, apparently of that individual Jarre; his music is not my bag, I could give a shit.

I spend a lot of time with that DX7 and recently was reminded how good of a fat synth brass tone you could get with it, and specifically how to. So you support a dismissive statement with another one, neither seems especially expert.

[jancivil]

Also, I wonder how 'ambient music for film' comports with "tinnie" or "digital sounding" whatever that is.
First time I trotted Massive out it was nice and "warm", and "rich". It's not my favorite interface, surely.
Objectively, it's a synthesizer.

With the DX7, I made a lot of weird shit, that had no model in the real world at all. I also learned the basics of Chowning FM as regards clarinet, horn, flute-like timbres etc, but it was more of a means to an end than an end in itself. It did a better xylophone than a subtractive analog synth would tend to, I guess.

So now I don't know what it has to do with dismissing Massive beyond somebody famous supposedly wasn't really into it.
I don't know why the famous name lends authority to the guy here's remarks. Maybe you don't like Massive, fine, ok.

[Deep Purple]

That doesn't make much sense to me, as I recall it was always the case that the factory banks of many hardware synths from that period and earlier would include a selection of 'real world' emulations such as brass, guitar, flute, drums, acoustic bass, bowed strings, clarinet/reeds etc. Not usually very good mind (except for proper physical modelling synths like the Yamaha VL and Korg Z1). Initially one of the premises of creating a synthesiser was to emulate a real orchestra (used effectively by Carlos and Tomita amongst others).

It was over 30 years ago, so I'll concede that I might not be quoting him anywhere close to verbatim, but he definitely voiced his dislike of the DX7 at the time of its release, and I'm certain I remember him saying he didn't like the fact that it tried to emulate real world instruments.

A quick Google search shows he has voiced his dislike of the DX7 even in recent years too.