I've been using synths for half the time you have, which is still long enough to have gotten to a point where I don't feel strung out or overwhelmed when looking at a complex interface, and I consider myself fairly well-versed in sound design as well.Machinesworking wrote:The one thing I can safely say without it being lame ass bragging is that I'm a pretty advanced sound designer, so in the sense that if too many choices overwhelm you, the suite works, but it works not because of the actual sound design capabilities, but because for someone like you it makes sense.Nick the Zombie wrote: With all due respect to Machinesworking, the improved workflow and simplicity have a LOT to do with the quality of the resulting sounds (for me, at least). I have tried lots of feature-laden synths that fell totally flat in the inspiration department.
I've been messing with synths for 20 years now, so I get instantly bored with a limited pallet, so I would MUCH rather use Absynth, Kontakt, or Zebra, than Analog or Sampler etc. Zebra is the most straight forward and powerful out there I believe. I like the lay out better than the Live synths. People get strung out on it when they don't think about it in simple terms and start small.
That being said, I think you are right to say that it really does depend on the kind of person you are. Also, you are absolutely correct in saying that the way you think about an interface has a LOT to do with how well you will get on with it. Modular thinking is important. Starting small with it and looking at the elements on their own as well as how they relate to one another is key. The opposite approach is to look at an interface as an insurmountable wall of complexity and interdependency, and then to immediately give up. This is NOT why I prefer Sampler to Kontakt, etc. I simply enjoy the interface more; the workflow fits my natural way of going about sound design. If I need more tools, I think modularly about the situation and use effects racks, etc. combined with Sampler to get the job done. In this way, I build up each instrument/sound design with only the parameters that are necessary for that particular application. It's not the only way to think about it, but it IS a viable alternative that deserves to be considered along with other "more powerful" pieces of software.
Again, it comes down to who you are. I certainly do not get bored with a limited palette as Machinesworking does. I get inspired by situations like that, figuring out how to make an idea work through limitations. Through that process, I usually end up with an idea that is strengthened by virtue of thinking through it in a non-obvious way.
By the way Machinesworking, you have clearly been at this for a much longer time than I have, and I respect that. I hope you don't take my difference of opinion as a veiled insult toward you. I just think it's useful for people to see different perspectives on this matter.