No Synth For Me, But I'll Take the Presets

[_leras]

There is a reason Howard Scarr is well respected as a sound designer.

Is he? I have literally never heard of him.

He does a lot of Uhe synth presets, and wrote the Bazille cookbook, which is an amazing resource if you want to learn how sounds are made and/or learn the dark edges of Bazille.

https://dl.u-he.com/manuals/soundsets/b ... ReadMe.pdf

Definitely the guy is a great synthesist. He makes some fantastic sounds, and also manages to get great sounds out of the corners of synths.

It's no wonder people ask him to work on movie sounds.

[_leras]

I start nearly every track I write with the Korg Polysix preset FAT LINE BASS, just to get a groove going. I don’t know why, but there is just no other instant preset like it

Well, it's easy if you have a simple synth that sounds good. You can just dial something in and get going.

Presets to help cover the sonic area a synth can achieve are pretty useful I think. Some modern soft synths are really complicated and have so many options, no one can ever fully explore them.

[_leras]

Maybe you can explain why making an INIT patch is such an onerous task but making every other kind of patch is something you are happy to do. Is an INIT patch just too hard? Because I'd have thought it was just about the easiest patch to make

Your irony detector is quite tuned in here...

...but

If you take the wrong synth, and the wrong preset, I can imagine there's quite some list of tweaking and option switching needed to set it back to e.g. a simple one saw osc, one filter patch.

Gotta say, choosing a simpler preset would probably make the process less of an annoyance.

[_leras]

I prefer to have access to a full synth. I usually prefer to make my own sounds from scratch, but I don't mind using a preset if it sounds good (as long as it's not the feature of the track...).

Unfortunately I always end up tweaking any preset,
Sometimes I envy those who can just load a patch, apply some minimal tweaks, call it a day and focus their efforts on actual music making...

I would also always want full control..I'm sure people make great music only out of presets, but I would normally make at least some small tweaks if I have used a preset, if not when writing, then with mixing.

Sometimes I'll just spend time trying to make sounds e.g. sometimes trying to create the same sound on different synths, or trying to make a specific type of sound I think I want for a track.

Occasionally I'll just come across a preset that leads to an idea or immediately fits what I wanted. As long as it's nothing too obvious or too far fromy tastes, then I don't have an issue with using it unchanged.

I think it all comes down to taste, and what you're trying to achieve. I usually feel things need at least small tweaks, or that a sound, even my own made sounds, can be improved so I'll keep trying to tweak them, sometimes going back to earlier versions.

[BONES]

The thing is, it's not full control versus no control. Things like Analog Lab still give you enough control most of the time to make significant and meaningful changes to any preset. The presets are good enough that the 8 macro knobs are assigned to useful parameters, depending on the type of patch it is.

[zzz00m]

The Analog Lab macros will take you a good distance from the stock presets as far as performance needs. As will the macros in SynthMaster Player.

There are probably other synths that do this as well, but those 2 are the first to come to mind. The macros were assigned by the sound designers to be their interpretation of the most useful changes a player would need. No deep synth diving required!

Sadly, the AAS Player provides free presets from the sound banks of the various Applied Acoustic Systems synths such as Chromaphone, Ultra Analog, & String Studio, but there are no macro controls included, so it serves only as a sample of the full version instruments available.

[syntonica]

The only thing that bothers me with the majority of presets, is too much fx, mostly made to showcase the synth and cover its potential (or lack thereof…).

Agreed! That's one of the first things I do if really digging into a preset that I like, so I can hear what it sounds like dry. That can be a real eye (or ear) opener! Then add back FX as needed and appropriate.

Is that use of "appropriate" as an ajective or a verb?

By the time I'm done modifying a preset, usually nobody except maybe the original designer could tell where it came from. No need to "appropriate" it.

[BONES]

Clearly it's an adjective in that context.

[zzz00m]

Agreed! That's one of the first things I do if really digging into a preset that I like, so I can hear what it sounds like dry. That can be a real eye (or ear) opener! Then add back FX as needed and appropriate.

Is that use of "appropriate" as an ajective or a verb?

By the time I'm done modifying a preset, usually nobody except maybe the original designer could tell where it came from. No need to "appropriate" it.

Either would apply, but that was intended as an adjective in context.