I WANT to love it...

[BONES]

Sometimes I want an Oberheim pad sound, or other times maybe I want a Roland HI STRINGS sound, or sometimes, it's a Solina I'm after.

To me that is a completely meaningless description. I can make a Roland synth do strings like an Oberheim and I can make an Oberheim do strings like a Roland. They don't have their own distinctive sound, it's just an association you have made in your brain. You've decided that this is an Oberheim string sound and that is a Roland string sound but it's completely arbitrary. Again, I could record a dozen different strings patches and you wouldn't have the first clue which was made by what.

I'm not looking to reinvent the wheel. I'm just looking to get the sound I already have in my head, going in. So if I have a big Oberheim pad sound in my head...

Again, I don't even know what that means. What distinguishes a big Oberheim pad from a big Roland pad or a big Korg pad or a big Sequential Circuits pad or a big Yamaha pad?

Also, it should be noted, that when I was talking about each noteworthy synth being good at only one thing, I was talking about VCO and DCO hardware synths of the '70s and '80s. They were pretty limited because of size and cost, and every synth was known for a specific sound.

By whom? In my experience, people used whatever synth(s) they could afford for every kind of sound they needed. Very few of us could afford to have a synth for just one specific sound, we had to get as much out of them as we possibly could. People like Rick Wakeman had a huge bank of synths on stage because they didn't have patch memory, so they were programmed with just a single patch in mind, maybe with a few variations that he could manage during a gig. It had f**k-all to do with them only being useful for that particular sound.

For myself, my ARP Axxe was my bass synth because it was connected to the sequencer that had all the bass parts programmed into it. That didn't mean it was only useful for bass parts, it was just a necessary limitation on how I could use it, imposed upon me by the limits of the technology I could afford at the time.
[quoter]Software synths don't have these physical limitations, so they can be designed to be jacks-of-all-trades.[/quote]
I think it's the opposite - because we can have 50+ VST synths, we can afford to use them for specialist things. It's a luxury I have today that I never had in my hardware days because the expense and set-up difficulty would never have allowed it.

But they also tend to lack unique personality and aren't as fun to use.

Here again, I disagree completely. GR-8, for example, has more personality/character than any hardware synth I ever owned. Olga, Proclethya, even OB-Xtreme, are all bristling with their own character. If old hardware had personality, it was because of all the things it did badly, not the things it did well. e.g. The filter in a Minimoog may have given it a distinct personality but it also made it a very ordinary synth with serious limitations.

There's a finite number of good synth sounds out there, so I'd rather use a limited synth that can do that sound and not much else, than try to find a needle in an infinitely vast haystack with a synth that does everything.

This makes no sense in the face of reality. A synth as simple as JP6K is capable of nailing a stupidly broad range of timbres, you don't need to go to complex synths that "do everything".

[jamcat]

Sometimes I want an Oberheim pad sound, or other times maybe I want a Roland HI STRINGS sound, or sometimes, it's a Solina I'm after.

To me that is a completely meaningless description. I can make a Roland synth do strings like an Oberheim and I can make an Oberheim do strings like a Roland. They don't have their own distinctive sound, it's just an association you have made in your brain. You've decided that this is an Oberheim string sound and that is a Roland string sound but it's completely arbitrary.

Well no, I think “the sound” that people associated with a synth was based on certain presets that ended up getting used in a lot of songs. People started seeking out those synths for those sounds and it just reinforced itself. I tend to use the original factory banks in Arturia synths for the same reason.

The fact that you even said you can make a Roland synth do strings like an Oberheim, and an Oberheim do strings like a Roland gave you away, and you in fact do know exactly what an “Oberheim string” sounds like compared to a “Roland string.”

[BONES]

The fact that you even said you can make a Roland synth do strings like an Oberheim, and an Oberheim do strings like a Roland gave you away, and you in fact do know exactly what an “Oberheim string” sounds like compared to a “Roland string.”

Not at all, I'd definitely need someone to supply examples for me to copy. It's honestly not something I have ever been conscious of. If you say Roland Strings sound different to Oberheim strings, I'll take your word for it but I've got so many different string patches for so many different synths that the distinction really makes no sense to me. And why would you want to use a patch that has already been used to the point that it's recognisable? Why wouldn't you want to use your own sounds?

[jamcat]

Because I’m a musician, not a technician or a sound designer. It’s the same reason people write for piano and organ and string quartets. It’s the same reason people play Les Pauls through Marshalls and use the Large Wood Room preset on the 480L.

[darkinners]

To add one more to the list,
SurgeXT
This could be my ultimate synth.

- No bullshit UI, single page navigation no tabs but actually have a 2nd window for mod matrix, nice!
- Comprehensive but not cluttered, every module is thoughtfully layout, and great ergonomic.
- Free and open source, support CLAP
- Effects are not something to write home for but definitely more than good enough.

The only gripe I have with SurgeXT is the sound. It's not super edgy and crisp like Spire or Serum but it's also not soft and warm and phat like Diva or Dune. It sound kinda bland and flat?!
Still one of my fav soft synth, it's very close to perfect for me.

[BONES]

So the only gripe you have is the most important thing. Great! How do you expect to do yoru best work with a synth that doesn't sound any good?

[FrogsInPants]

Oh no, hyperbole. We can't have that, can we? Better counter that with the likewise hyperbolic claim that "any half-decent synth can do a credible job of any part you might need," which is clearly bullshit as evidenced by your own admission that, just for instance, "no one synth can cover everything Wasp was good at".

Again, you are failing to grasp basic concepts. No-one is suggesting that every synth is equally capable of doing everything that every other synth can do, to the same standard.

Except for where you're literally presenting the OSC as evidence that any half-decent synth is capable of providing any part you might need, and have been very clear that the only thing you care about in this is the final product, and you specifically note that you can't tell one synth from another in the top OSC tracks from one month to another. One might even call this "doing everything that any other synth can do, to the same standard."

OSC participants often put a lot of effort into overcoming the limitations of a synth, so the final results are not necessarily indicative of what the synth is good at.

"Good at" and "capable of" are two very different things.

Indeed. And yet, to counter Jamcat's statement about synths that are good at one thing, you presented OSC as evidence that any half-decent synth is capable of doing a credible job of any part you might need. Strange, that. It's almost like there's some relationship between them, some kind of scale of facility. I wonder whether what a synth is good at could have any bearing on what a person likes using it for...

Instead of making a fuss over the phrase "good at exactly one thing", you could read Jamcat's statement as expressing a preference for specialty synths that lead easily to the particular kinds of sounds in which their synthesis methods excel. That's not unreasonable.

Maybe not to you but it definitely is to me, for the simple reason, which I have stated a hundred times over the years, that if you listen to any song, you have almost no chance of working out what instruments were used to make it.

Except that this is about preferences. You say you only care about the final product, but I think that's just convenient rhetoric for you at the moment. Synthesis methods, workflow, and UI affect the user experience in using a tool, and are therefore relevant to how well someone likes using it.

That does not conflict in any way with the idea that you can use synths in other ways and find great and unexpected results. Or with the idea that you can get enjoyment from this process. Or with the idea that you can achieve acceptable results with many other tools, or almost any half-decent tool with enough effort. It's just the simple and rather obvious observation that often people prefer working with the tool that will get them closest to the sound they want with as little fuss as possible. If you can't accept that, that's your hangup.

That's not narrow-mindedness or a conscious decision to sound like shit. It's just different preferences.

I'm sorry but in this case, it most assuredly is. Imagine where music would be today if everyone had that mindset. No innovation, nothing new. We probably wouldn't have synthesisers at all. Or the piano for that matter. Of course, everyone is free to do whatever they want but that doesn't mean that we all have to agree with or have any respect for those choices.

Except we don't live in that hypothetical world. That's not how people work. We live in a world in which people do in fact have different tastes and interests, and some people with a preference for styles and sounds which don't push technological innovation are not standing in the way of innovation, either. Rather, it makes the world a richer place of varied musical styles. Honestly, if you can't see how absurd this hypothetical scenario is, I think we're done here.

[FrogsInPants]

So the only gripe you have is the most important thing. Great! How do you expect to do yoru best work with a synth that doesn't sound any good?

Shouldn't you be defending Surge as at least a half-decent synth that can do a credible job at any part you might need? It has after all been a One Synth Challenge subject multiple times, with some very high quality entries.

[darkinners]

So the only gripe you have is the most important thing. Great! How do you expect to do yoru best work with a synth that doesn't sound any good?

Well it does not sound terrible just not as good as some other competition on the market. still It’s perfectly usable.
There are tons of things you can do to enhance sound .
Just wish it sounds better right out of the box without further processing outside of SurgeXT itself.

And I don’t think sound quality is the most important thing to me. Unless we talking about the far end of the extremes, things that sound so bad that’s unsalvageable.

Each people have different requirement, to me sound quality is almost the least of my concern now when choosing what to use. Almost every offering on the market right now have at least usable sound quality with them.

To me workflow is the most important aspect for a synth. I can’t stand sluggish and distracting UI, unreadable small text, multiple tabs back and forth.
That’s why I never like to use Vital and Serum (tabbed mod matrix sand effects) despite they sounds great.
Those elements makes me feel frustrating hence kill my vibe and lose desire to make music with them.

[BONES]

Why bother? Why not find something else that sounds better and doesn't require so much effort? There are plenty of other synths around.

Except for where you're literally presenting the OSC as evidence that any half-decent synth is capable of providing any part you might need, and have been very clear that the only thing you care about in this is the final product, and you specifically note that you can't tell one synth from another in the top OSC tracks from one month to another. One might even call this "doing everything that any other synth can do, to the same standard."

I'm not saying I can't, I'm saying nobody can, including you. It's something we can put to the test any time you like. Let's start with something easy. See if you can identify any of the instruments used here. We'll call the parts Drums, Bass, Strings 1, Strings 2, Piano and Lead. The guitar is VG-Iron 2, so you don't have to worry about that. Off you go, then, what are the others -


https://soundcloud.com/user-365521/i-re ... ernoon-wip

Indeed. And yet, to counter Jamcat's statement about synths that are good at one thing, you presented OSC as evidence that any half-decent synth is capable of doing a credible job of any part you might need.

Which would fall under "capable of", rather than "good at". The difference likely being how much time you might need to spend, not any difference in the quality of the result.

Instead of making a fuss over the phrase "good at exactly one thing", you could read Jamcat's statement as expressing a preference for specialty synths that lead easily to the particular kinds of sounds in which their synthesis methods excel. That's not unreasonable.

Yes, it is, especially in the expanded context he later supplied, where he explained that it was down to familiarity with certain presets, rather than anything to do with the capability of the instrument. So when he says he's after an "Oberheim strings sound", that just means he has a particular Oberheim patch in mind, not that it's a string sound that only an Oberheim synth would be capable of creating.

You say you only care about the final product, but I think that's just convenient rhetoric for you at the moment. Synthesis methods, workflow, and UI affect the user experience in using a tool, and are therefore relevant to how well someone likes using it.

Not necessarily. TRK-01 Bass, for example, has five different synth engines and each is as easy to use as the others. The same is broadly true of DUNE or Pigments. You may get more options with a wavetable oscillator than with a simple waveform but you aren't automatically required to deal with that extra complexity.

Except we don't live in that hypothetical world. That's not how people work.

That's exactly how Jamcat works, did you not read his posts? He wants his music to sound like it was made in the 70s and he spends a fortune on emulations of studio gear sane people threw away decades ago.

Shouldn't you be defending Surge as at least a half-decent synth that can do a credible job at any part you might need? It has after all been a One Synth Challenge subject multiple times, with some very high quality entries.

Why? As with people, not every product has value. I don't think Surge is any good at all and the fact it's now open source probably ensures it never will be.

[Igro]

Surge XT is amazing and sounds nice too. So many improvements have been added by the new team. Very good and intuitive GUI. Easy to use. No harder to use than Vital or Pigments (I own both).

[BONES]

I have tried both and dismissed them. Not my kind of things at all, for various reasons.

[MJACau]

Modo Drums and the high CPU usage, running a 5900x with 64mb of ram. Maybe I will love it again when I upgrade to Zen 4.

When I read reviews like these, it's the reason why I don't bother upgrading my laptop's 16GB RAM to 32 or 64. It doesn't matter.

On ram it just really depends what your doing, I'm even thinking of going 128gb it can be helpful for photo editing.

[zzz00m]

Modo Drums and the high CPU usage, running a 5900x with 64mb of ram. Maybe I will love it again when I upgrade to Zen 4.

When I read reviews like these, it's the reason why I don't bother upgrading my laptop's 16GB RAM to 32 or 64. It doesn't matter.

On ram it just really depends what your doing, I'm even thinking of going 128gb it can be helpful for photo editing.

Once you have "enough" RAM (and/or cores) for your tasks, it's all about CPU speed.

[Halonmusic]

kHs ONE. It's a good bread and butter synth but i rarely use it. The biggest reason is no parallel filters.