What is your "secret weapon" softsynth...

[Mint Invader]

Really tho all the synths sound the same as you can just import the wavetables into just about any thing nowadays

Eh??? wow i really don't agree...playing NI synths vs. G-force synths, just as one example, they have totally a different character to them. and uh, most synth aren't wavetable synths, so I'm not sure i get you there....

Im' Sorry. I said it the wrong thing ( I know the diff between wavetable and waveFORM) Now most synths have the ability to generate/import custom wave forms, which essentially gives you the same sound. Granted though you have a point about color. Some do have a different feel and sound to them, but very subtle in most cases.







Essentially these wave forms are all math generated. x+y=x+y and they interchange between the synths. If you were to strip a synth of all the artifacts that color its sound (Effects, Engine, Internal EQ) And you just played that waveform... no matter what... would be the same.

Im right... right? I think so but if not let me know about how wrong I may be... dont want to believe something thats not true.

[davepermen]

well, just to make all the "my synth is best, and analogue real gear > everything" and those happy, lets just say they wouldn't be identical, ever, even with same settings.

but you could get them so close to each other that the difference is negligible for the ear.

with operator, you can rebuild most noises and tones built by other synths, just as other synths can replace, again, nearly any others.. etc.

the question is just, how far do you understand YOUR synth of choice, to be able to squeeze out every tone that you like.

[leedsquietman]

MI - at a fundamental level, yes, you're right.

However, practically speaking, it's the artifacts and FX and conversions that are what can make sounds duller, warmer, phatter, thinner etc. There are synths which can sound very similar but I don't think any really sound 'the same'. For example, people point out the differences between Rapture and Massive, even though they are designed for a similar task. Even with the same wavetables loaded and parameters, they don't sound 100% the same and probably wouldn't null in a null test (you might get them to sound 95% the same, which would fool many people but not everyone).

The main reason why people love analogs is because of the distortions and random factors such as circuit decay and breakdown, tunings sometimes going wonky and creating more modulation FX that are brought on top of a sine wave or a sawtooth etc, which can even vary from one model in the same production batch as another from the same batch.

These are things which are not really quantifiable - physical modelling, especially Arturia's really in depth TAE modelling which tries to model an element of circuit decay and those random things, and has been designed to have a minimum amount of aliasing (something which affects many other synths), can sound close, but will never equal the analogue hardware. On the plus side, it doesn't go out of tune on stage, or suffer glitches which made gigging with analogue synths in the 70s precarious and often frustrating. Especially Mellotrons, it has now been realized that they sucked air in through the bottom of the unit (dry ice, a common stage stage effect being particularly bad), which would lead to the tapes degrading and then sticking. Some amount of this gives that 'character' which can't be emulated, but when it leads to total system failure, Keith Emerson once got so frustrated he smashed open his Mellotron, yanked out the tapes and set them on fire live on stage - to a machine which would have cost around 10 grand in today's money. (Yes, a Mellotron isn't an analog synth, but those random characteristics which affect analog synths, original Roland Space Echos, Mellotrons - wear and tear, electronic decay, etc are similar issues).

[Mint Invader]

MI - at a fundamental level, yes, you're right.

However, practically speaking, it's the artifacts and FX and conversions that are what can make sounds duller, warmer, phatter, thinner etc. There are synths which can sound very similar but I don't think any really sound 'the same'. For example, people point out the differences between Rapture and Massive, even though they are designed for a similar task. Even with the same wavetables loaded and parameters, they don't sound 100% the same and probably wouldn't null in a null test (you might get them to sound 95% the same, which would fool many people but not everyone).

The main reason why people love analogs is because of the distortions and random factors such as circuit decay and breakdown, tunings sometimes going wonky and creating more modulation FX that are brought on top of a sine wave or a sawtooth etc, which can even vary from one model in the same production batch as another from the same batch.

These are things which are not really quantifiable - physical modelling, especially Arturia's really in depth TAE modelling which tries to model an element of circuit decay and those random things, and has been designed to have a minimum amount of aliasing (something which affects many other synths), can sound close, but will never equal the analogue hardware. On the plus side, it doesn't go out of tune on stage, or suffer glitches which made gigging with analogue synths in the 70s precarious and often frustrating. Especially Mellotrons, it has now been realized that they sucked air in through the bottom of the unit (dry ice, a common stage stage effect being particularly bad), which would lead to the tapes degrading and then sticking. Some amount of this gives that 'character' which can't be emulated, but when it leads to total system failure, Keith Emerson once got so frustrated he smashed open his Mellotron, yanked out the tapes and set them on fire live on stage - to a machine which would have cost around 10 grand in today's money. (Yes, a Mellotron isn't an analog synth, but those random characteristics which affect analog synths, original Roland Space Echos, Mellotrons - wear and tear, electronic decay, etc are similar issues).

Ok there you go. I was half right. But you are totally correct. Analogue has the characteristics that can not be emulated. But now aren't most analogue synths built with digital engines?

[3dot...]

But now aren't most analogue synths built with digital engines?

..you mean digital controls/modulation right?..
yes...it's a great advantage... you don't need to 'tune' them mid-show if they get out of tune...cuz they won't

[mikemc]

my super secret weapon synth is a rack of synths, comprised of the Utenzil Mediocre Trifecta of Software Synthesizers (UMTSS). They are Windows only, which makes them even more exclusive.

but the super secret part is that I put them all in a rack, with their volume set at -4.5 db each.

You can find them at these super secret locations, they are

http://utenzil.com/vst/Hohlraum.dll (a simple synth with lots of pulse modulation options)
http://utenzil.com/vst/krapalon.dll (a simple synth with unison oscillators, very thick)
and
http://utenzil.com/vst/u-synth-minus-x4.dll (a simple synth with strange interactions and a self-oscillation mode)

a super secret trick is to record noises with these and them put them into simpler or sampler.

WAIT A SECOND... this isn't the *super* secret synth thread, this is just the "secret" synth thread...

FORGET YOU READ ANY OF THIS!

[3dot...]

...hehe .. secret weapon.. sounds like...
meh... my track is pretty lame... I think it might be time to whip out the SECRET WEAPON SOFT SYNTH...
the whole concept is ludicrous ..

[nathannn]

But now aren't most analogue synths built with digital engines?

..you mean digital controls/modulation right?..
yes...it's a great advantage... you don't need to 'tune' them mid-show if they get out of tune...cuz they won't

he might be talking about the "sound engine"
if thats the case the answer would be no.
new analog synths are still built with analog oscillators, filters, ect ect.
the only thing that is digital on a newer analog synth are the functions that dont effect sound, like storing of presets.


it also sounds like he is in the beginner phase of synthesis when they all sound the same.
this can be a very frustrating phase later on especially when you are using any synth and going for an analog sound.
after a while of mixing you might find yourself saying "why dont this synth fit well" why does it sound so cheap?

it happens often when you are using something that is not very convincing at producing analog sounds.


try something like this:

use any software synth ( im thinking reasons subtractor)

start of with an empty patch
now program the famous dual saws with one slightly detuned from the other.
use a 12db lp filter leave it 100 percent open and set the res at 0
program the filters attack time to 0 the decay around 5 sustain around 90 and release around 80
do the exact same with the asdr envelope's

now dl a demo of sylenth1, u-he's ace or something like arturia's pro-5 emu.
(i suggest just dl'ing sylenth one because it will be the easiest for this example)

program sylenth1 with the exact same settings as the cheapo synths..

now do an a/b test using live..
play a single high note over and over (maybe ten time's very quickly in a row)

almost every one should be able to tell the difference in the sound quality between el cheapo subtractor and sylenth1 (or u-he's ace, i actually prefer ace over sylenth1 but i figure sylenth might be easier to program)
.
what you should be hearing is wierd sounding overtones played on the hight notes.. almost like a comb filter effect is going on or notes being played on top of other notes.. its really not a pleasent sound when you are trying to get a classic synth sound going.. its actually very annoying and can completely mess up your mix. it kinda sounds like a bad mp3.

if you are going for purely new sounds than the aliasing effect really is not that big of a deal and can be what your after.


btw dont get sylenth1 confused with the el cheapo "synth1"

synth1 sounds and behaves a lot like subtractor.

the reason for aliasing happening usually has to do with sampled wave forms, or the wave form not being generated at a high sample rate.

[q.musgrove]

^ hey, that's a great piece of knowledge thank you!

[3dot...]

^ hey, that's a great piece of knowledge thank you!

check out Operator... it has 'antialiasing' mode.. (nice to have a choice..)
...and a 'tone' knob...
which can further filter out high tone nastiness...

[davepermen]

he might be talking about the "sound engine"
if thats the case the answer would be no.
new analog synths are still built with analog oscillators, filters, ect ect.
the only thing that is digital on a newer analog synth are the functions that dont effect sound, like storing of presets.


it also sounds like he is in the beginner phase of synthesis when they all sound the same.
this can be a very frustrating phase later on especially when you are using any synth and going for an analog sound.
after a while of mixing you might find yourself saying "why dont this synth fit well" why does it sound so cheap?

it happens often when you are using something that is not very convincing at producing analog sounds.


try something like this:

use any software synth ( im thinking reasons subtractor)

start of with an empty patch
now program the famous dual saws with one slightly detuned from the other.
use a 12db lp filter leave it 100 percent open and set the res at 0
program the filters attack time to 0 the decay around 5 sustain around 90 and release around 80
do the exact same with the asdr envelope's

now dl a demo of sylenth1, u-he's ace or something like arturia's pro-5 emu.
(i suggest just dl'ing sylenth one because it will be the easiest for this example)

program sylenth1 with the exact same settings as the cheapo synths..

now do an a/b test using live..
play a single high note over and over (maybe ten time's very quickly in a row)

almost every one should be able to tell the difference in the sound quality between el cheapo subtractor and sylenth1 (or u-he's ace, i actually prefer ace over sylenth1 but i figure sylenth might be easier to program)
.
what you should be hearing is wierd sounding overtones played on the hight notes.. almost like a comb filter effect is going on or notes being played on top of other notes.. its really not a pleasent sound when you are trying to get a classic synth sound going.. its actually very annoying and can completely mess up your mix. it kinda sounds like a bad mp3.

if you are going for purely new sounds than the aliasing effect really is not that big of a deal and can be what your after.


btw dont get sylenth1 confused with the el cheapo "synth1"

synth1 sounds and behaves a lot like subtractor.

the reason for aliasing happening usually has to do with sampled wave forms, or the wave form not being generated at a high sample rate.

it's somehow fun how all you explain is just a comparison of completely digital software synths. i get your idea, but your example does not have any hw synth in to show that difference. "if you're going for that analogue sound", and have a softsynth, then you're just getting some digital sound that sounds a bit different.

but if a softsynth (or effect, like a compressor) doesn't have "vintage analogue emulation" by now, then it's defined to be crap. even while none of these makes sense. no e-reader will ever be 'just like a book', even if you can virtually turn pages and such. it's still just software, doing a nice show for you.

in short, those awesome software synths are mostly marketing bla to make you buy them. each one does sound different, some sounds more like some real synth, some more like something on their own. but all that "it's vintage analogue style, so it's better" is crap to me.

[3dot...]

I thought we were talking about soft-synths...not analog vs. digital

[kb420]

I thought we were talking about soft-synths...not analog vs. digital

Anytime someone mentions the word synth, that's what the discussion turns into.

[davepermen]

I thought we were talking about soft-synths...not analog vs. digital

yes. but anytime anyone comes with "this softsynth is best, it has that great analogue feeling blabla" it's mostly just "the sound fits him, and the marketing got him".

somewhere in the time and space of the electronic music world, people learned "analog == good". which is fun, as we work mostly digital by now anyways. but at least we still have that "analogue feel", as it's 'so important'..

well.. bla.

i know now some will hate me

[kb420]

i know now some will hate me

I don't. I think you make a good point. I think the analog/digital argument is ridiculous at this point. To me, all that matters is that the music sounds good. Early sample playback romplers sounded crappy when you tried to make them sound like analog synths. Technology has come a long way since then.