Well? Falcon vs. Omnisphere 2

[mostlyjustj]

omnisphere ~ is like a sonic playground.
alchemy ~ is like a sonic workshop.
falcon ~ seems like a sonic factory.

Sounds legit.

Yep. Pretty much nails it.

[trimph1]

I knew semantical arguments will show up.

Anyway. I like both of them. Awesome pieces of software.

[zerocrossing]

So, after a bit with both of these last night, I've come to the conclusion that it's figuratively splitting hairs...

Just kidding. There are really some major differences.

Wagtunes was right. While Omnisphere 2 is a plug in that you can more or less figure out what's going on after a few moments, I spent a manual free hour with Falcon and I couldn't find the filter. Shouldn't the default multi have a patch in it that makes a sound? It wasn't even clear to me how to initially bring up a preset. Some troll on GearSlutz cut down Omnisphere's UI in comparison to Falson, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Omnisphere is thoughtfully laid out and intuitive. Falcon... will need some study to use to it. No matter, I'm sure some quality time with the manual will reveal all, but if you're not that type, I'd pass on Falcon unless you just plan on using it as a preset machine.

The presets as many have mentioned, will be easier to fit into most mainstream musical contexts. There are less of them, but there aren't 762 variations of that wubwub dubstep bass.

Sonically they're on par, but my initial impression is that Falcon has the edge with better sounding "analog" style oscs, though I admit I didn't really do a naked oscillator a/b test. Falcon's reverb also sounds very good, like you might expect on a stand alone reverb plug in. (I know it's based on their stand alone reverb plug in) Omnisphere 2 has the interesting sample library though, and that is huge. Want a 500 year old lute filled with whipped cream sound? It's not in Falcon. It could be though, as you have access to the UVI libraries. How much would Falcon cost with a similarly sized factory content library? I can't say but it wouldn't be cheap. Complete Toy Museum costs more than Omnisphere 2, and how many cheap toy samples do you really need? They could leave little space for your victorian-lute-filled-with-Coolwhip samples.

Omnisphere 2 also has an incredible browser. This is a big deal when you're dealing with a lot of presets and different types of content. I found myself scratching my head a few times when browsing around Falcon's content. Their idea of "experimental" isn't that experimental to me.

Anyway, if you love hybrid synth/sample types of instruments, there's no doubt that both of these would be nice to have. It's also nice to have some competition for Omnisphere 2. If you think about what Spectrasonics did with v2 and no competition, imagine what they'll do now that someone's next to them in the race.

[otristan]

So, after a bit with both of these last night, I've come to the conclusion that it's figuratively splitting hairs...

Just kidding. There are really some major differences.

Wagtunes was right. While Omnisphere 2 is a plug in that you can more or less figure out what's going on after a few moments, I spent a manual free hour with Falcon and I couldn't find the filter

My advice would be to check the getting started video.
We will have other tutorial videos (Including a Synthesis 101 using Falcon) that will show up in the following weeks as well as a tutorial section in the manual.

[mostlyjustj]

They could leave little space for your victorian-lute-filled-with-Coolwhip samples.

Coolwhip? Seriously??? I would *never* purchase a sample library with a victorian lute filled with anything but hand-whisked cream from cows fed in pastures of organic gluten-free greens, thankyouverymuch...

But honestly, I'm not surprised that the two are (figuratively) two entirely different animals, but it's good to get some feedback on how much complexity seems to come along with the seemingly insane flexibility of Falcon. Since I already have my hands full with Reaktor in the RTFM department, I think I'll hold off on Falcon since yes, going the Omni-esque pre-set route with UVI would involve a fairly staggering financial commitment.

Still pretty tempting though, as I imagine the sounds and instruments you can derive from feeding it samples would be pretty amazing once you got your teeth sunk into it. I've got enough options on the synthesis front that make the synthesizer modules less exciting for me, although of course it's the ability to package all of these things together in single instruments with macros, scripts, etc. that really makes Falcon so potentially amazingly powerful in the right hands.

[zvenx]

............

Sonically they're on par, but my initial impression is that Falcon has the edge with better sounding "analog" style oscs, though I admit I didn't really do a naked oscillator a/b test...........

Hi Just to have a reference point, if you had to name your top three sounding software synths what would they be?
thanks
rsp

[wagtunes]

So, after a bit with both of these last night, I've come to the conclusion that it's figuratively splitting hairs...

Just kidding. There are really some major differences.

Wagtunes was right. While Omnisphere 2 is a plug in that you can more or less figure out what's going on after a few moments, I spent a manual free hour with Falcon and I couldn't find the filter. Shouldn't the default multi have a patch in it that makes a sound? It wasn't even clear to me how to initially bring up a preset. Some troll on GearSlutz cut down Omnisphere's UI in comparison to Falson, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Omnisphere is thoughtfully laid out and intuitive. Falcon... will need some study to use to it. No matter, I'm sure some quality time with the manual will reveal all, but if you're not that type, I'd pass on Falcon unless you just plan on using it as a preset machine.

The presets as many have mentioned, will be easier to fit into most mainstream musical contexts. There are less of them, but there aren't 762 variations of that wubwub dubstep bass.

Sonically they're on par, but my initial impression is that Falcon has the edge with better sounding "analog" style oscs, though I admit I didn't really do a naked oscillator a/b test. Falcon's reverb also sounds very good, like you might expect on a stand alone reverb plug in. (I know it's based on their stand alone reverb plug in) Omnisphere 2 has the interesting sample library though, and that is huge. Want a 500 year old lute filled with whipped cream sound? It's not in Falcon. It could be though, as you have access to the UVI libraries. How much would Falcon cost with a similarly sized factory content library? I can't say but it wouldn't be cheap. Complete Toy Museum costs more than Omnisphere 2, and how many cheap toy samples do you really need? They could leave little space for your victorian-lute-filled-with-Coolwhip samples.

Omnisphere 2 also has an incredible browser. This is a big deal when you're dealing with a lot of presets and different types of content. I found myself scratching my head a few times when browsing around Falcon's content. Their idea of "experimental" isn't that experimental to me.

Anyway, if you love hybrid synth/sample types of instruments, there's no doubt that both of these would be nice to have. It's also nice to have some competition for Omnisphere 2. If you think about what Spectrasonics did with v2 and no competition, imagine what they'll do now that someone's next to them in the race.

Enjoyed reading your analysis. Very well thought out and, for the most part, I agree with it. Forget about the manual though. It's okay but it really doesn't do Falcon justice.

Tree view. Best way to get around this synth. It's the best "mapped" view and makes it easy to find stuff. I wouldn't use anything else personally. It reminds me of the program flowcharts that I had to follow when i was writing code.

It did take me a couple of days but now I'm completely comfortable with Falcon. Next is to tap into my imagination, which is always the hard part.

[quantum7]

So, after a bit with both of these last night, I've come to the conclusion that it's figuratively splitting hairs...

Just kidding. There are really some major differences.

Wagtunes was right. While Omnisphere 2 is a plug in that you can more or less figure out what's going on after a few moments, I spent a manual free hour with Falcon and I couldn't find the filter. Shouldn't the default multi have a patch in it that makes a sound? It wasn't even clear to me how to initially bring up a preset. Some troll on GearSlutz cut down Omnisphere's UI in comparison to Falson, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Omnisphere is thoughtfully laid out and intuitive. Falcon... will need some study to use to it. No matter, I'm sure some quality time with the manual will reveal all, but if you're not that type, I'd pass on Falcon unless you just plan on using it as a preset machine.

The presets as many have mentioned, will be easier to fit into most mainstream musical contexts. There are less of them, but there aren't 762 variations of that wubwub dubstep bass.

Sonically they're on par, but my initial impression is that Falcon has the edge with better sounding "analog" style oscs, though I admit I didn't really do a naked oscillator a/b test. Falcon's reverb also sounds very good, like you might expect on a stand alone reverb plug in. (I know it's based on their stand alone reverb plug in) Omnisphere 2 has the interesting sample library though, and that is huge. Want a 500 year old lute filled with whipped cream sound? It's not in Falcon. It could be though, as you have access to the UVI libraries. How much would Falcon cost with a similarly sized factory content library? I can't say but it wouldn't be cheap. Complete Toy Museum costs more than Omnisphere 2, and how many cheap toy samples do you really need? They could leave little space for your victorian-lute-filled-with-Coolwhip samples.

Omnisphere 2 also has an incredible browser. This is a big deal when you're dealing with a lot of presets and different types of content. I found myself scratching my head a few times when browsing around Falcon's content. Their idea of "experimental" isn't that experimental to me.

Anyway, if you love hybrid synth/sample types of instruments, there's no doubt that both of these would be nice to have. It's also nice to have some competition for Omnisphere 2. If you think about what Spectrasonics did with v2 and no competition, imagine what they'll do now that someone's next to them in the race.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that needed a good while to find things on Falcon that were very easy to find with Omnisphere. Of course, if Falcon sticks around for as long as Omnisphere has I have a feeling things will vastly improve.

[zerocrossing]

They could leave little space for your victorian-lute-filled-with-Coolwhip samples.

Coolwhip? Seriously??? I would *never* purchase a sample library with a victorian lute filled with anything but hand-whisked cream from cows fed in pastures of organic gluten-free greens, thankyouverymuch...

But honestly, I'm not surprised that the two are (figuratively) two entirely different animals, but it's good to get some feedback on how much complexity seems to come along with the seemingly insane flexibility of Falcon. Since I already have my hands full with Reaktor in the RTFM department, I think I'll hold off on Falcon since yes, going the Omni-esque pre-set route with UVI would involve a fairly staggering financial commitment.

Still pretty tempting though, as I imagine the sounds and instruments you can derive from feeding it samples would be pretty amazing once you got your teeth sunk into it. I've got enough options on the synthesis front that make the synthesizer modules less exciting for me, although of course it's the ability to package all of these things together in single instruments with macros, scripts, etc. that really makes Falcon so potentially amazingly powerful in the right hands.

Believe it or not, Coolwhip actually works a lot better. It's got a denser molecular lattice which makes sound wave transmission happen a lot quicker and while your high quality whipped cream has already re-liquified, the Coolwhip will withstand lengthy sampling sessions. Also, it's hydrogenated nature releases small amounts of energy as the compound destabilizes which is thought to give the overall lute-whipped-topping system a more lively tone. So, I have to completely disagree with you. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that the only thing Coolwhip is actually good for is filling instrument cavities and perhaps poisoning vermin.

As to your other point, yup, there is nothing that Falcon does that you don't already probably have, or could make in Reaktor. The awesome thing about it does seem to be the way it's all in a nice little package ready to load into a project.

[zerocrossing]

............

Sonically they're on par, but my initial impression is that Falcon has the edge with better sounding "analog" style oscs, though I admit I didn't really do a naked oscillator a/b test...........

Hi Just to have a reference point, if you had to name your top three sounding software synths what would they be?
thanks
rsp

Top three!? Hell... there are so many good ones these days. Ones that cover what Falcon does... I like Diva... all the XILS synths for VA... Electra 2 and Serum for wavetable stuff... Kontakt for samples.. Polygon and Absynth for sample mangling... Padshop Pro for granular... Mpowersynth and Harmor for additive. Iris and Poseidon for resynthesis.

[zvenx]

............

Sonically they're on par, but my initial impression is that Falcon has the edge with better sounding "analog" style oscs, though I admit I didn't really do a naked oscillator a/b test...........

Hi Just to have a reference point, if you had to name your top three sounding software synths what would they be?
thanks
rsp

Top three!? Hell... there are so many good ones these days. Ones that cover what Falcon does... I like Diva... all the XILS synths for VA... Electra 2 and Serum for wavetable stuff... Kontakt for samples.. Polygon and Absynth for sample mangling... Padshop Pro for granular... Mpowersynth and Harmor for additive. Iris and Poseidon for resynthesis.

Sounding, regardless of its architecture......which three software synths would you say *sound* the best.
Not feature set, just sounding.

Like for me my whilst Kontakt would be in my desert island gear, I dont' necessarily know if I love 'its' sound...
a synth, or three synths you play and say, damn these sound fantastic...

For me, my three would be Diva, Omnisphere, Zebra 2.....Serum, Hive, and impOSCar 2 if I had to make it six... I am just trying to evaluate how similar are our sound quality palette.
But maybe your top three are in that list you posted, and it gives me a base.
thanks,
rsp

[wagtunes]

............

Sonically they're on par, but my initial impression is that Falcon has the edge with better sounding "analog" style oscs, though I admit I didn't really do a naked oscillator a/b test...........

Hi Just to have a reference point, if you had to name your top three sounding software synths what would they be?
thanks
rsp

Top 3? You can't be serious. There are so many excellent synths out there. I don't even know if I could make a top 10 in order of best to worst.

Without looking at my list of 80 plus synths (I've gotten rid of a lot of free ones that I knew I'd never use again) this would be a short list of synths that I wouldn't hesitate to go to for just about anything.

In no special order, just off the top of my head.

Zebra 2
Falcon
Omnisphere 2
Synthmaster
MUX Modular
Dune 2
MPowerSynth
Sonigen Modular (FREE)
Karma FX Modular
Kontakt

And then there are a number of synths that I would use for specific things

XILS 4 Modular
Bazille
Harmor
The Mangle
Diva
Serum
ImpOSCar 2
Syn'X 2
Reaktor (several synths)
Synth1 (FREE)
Spectral

That's 21 off the top of my head. I know I'm forgetting some very important ones.

Top 3?

Not if you put a gun to my head.

[zvenx]

you think all of those are the best sounding synths you have heard/own?
Or did you misread the question?

Ignore feature set/architecture.

sounding/acoustically pleasing to your ear/not sure how else to say it.

And I had specifically asked zerocrossing only because of his comment:
"Sonically they're on par, but my initial impression is that Falcon has the edge with better sounding "analog" style oscs, though I admit I didn't really do a naked oscillator a/b test"

So I was just curious if his palette of what is sonically on par coincides with mine......


rsp

[wagtunes]

you think all of those are the best sounding synths you have heard/own?
Or did you misread the question?

Ignore feature set/architecture.

sounding/acoustically pleasing to your ear/not sure how else to say it.

And I had specifically asked zerocrossing only because of his comment:
"Sonically they're on par, but my initial impression is that Falcon has the edge with better sounding "analog" style oscs, though I admit I didn't really do a naked oscillator a/b test"

So I was just curious if his palette of what is sonically on par coincides with mine......


rsp

Pleasing to my ear? Yeah, they're all pleasing to my ear.

Don't know how else to say it.

[zvenx]

you think all of those are the best sounding synths you have heard/own?
Or did you misread the question?

Ignore feature set/architecture.

sounding/acoustically pleasing to your ear/not sure how else to say it.

And I had specifically asked zerocrossing only because of his comment:
"Sonically they're on par, but my initial impression is that Falcon has the edge with better sounding "analog" style oscs, though I admit I didn't really do a naked oscillator a/b test"

So I was just curious if his palette of what is sonically on par coincides with mine......


rsp

Pleasing to my ear? Yeah, they're all pleasing to my ear.

Don't know how else to say it.

ok, if they are all equally pleasing to your ear.
but the question was directly solely at zerocrossing.
sorry.
rsp