upgrade from Ableton's standard synths?

[roringtonsmithe]

No question: ALCHEMY! 50% off now. Covers everything.
Though I still have mad love for operator and analogue.

[TomViolenz]

You can for example, place 2 instances of Operator in a rack and detune the two for that big sawtooth unison sound, then maybe chuck in a few M4L LFOs to modulate, well, anything, add filters where you like etc.

So you have a lot of what Zebra 2 has just not quite as conveniently placed together. You've got infinite oscillators via stacking, filters, LFOs, MSEGs (in clips), arpeggiating with the device itself or Push's note sequencer, etc etc, and you can combine them in any way you like.

I do prefer what I come up with in Zebra though...

Is that the same thing? These oscillators are not in the same signal path, so you are basicaly just mixing two different audio sources. What am I missing?

And all these modulation devices you mentioned are all M4L, so not only can only Suite owners use them, but they are not nearly as flexible as they should be and have a lot of quirks. I don't know how much of this is a limtation of M4L or because they are basically hobbyist projects, but I found 'em to be too buggy to use often.

[joefrost01]

Out of all the plugins being discussed in this thread I believe that Alchemy currently offers the best value for money and expansion capability to the OP now that it is on sale.

Massive can sound warm and very beautiful (check out the Massive Darkscore series of banks from The Unfinished) but it is not as flexible as Alchemy.

Zebra is great but currently costs almost twice the price of Alchemy's sale price.

Alchemy has not only a decent VA engine but can also use your own samples in a number of twisted ways. Camel also have many very good quality sound banks that sometimes also go on sale.

It's true that Live is a very flexible environment for sound design and that the built in devices in suite give you a lot but there are a few issues with some of the M4L devices (LFO's not recalling their rate when reloading the project for example). Also it can take an awful lot of work to achieve the same thing in Live that you would achieve with custom 3rd party devices. It would be difficult to recreate the capabilities and nuances of any of the 3rd party synths discussed above.

If you're in the market for a new plugin then buying it during the 50% off sale is an excellent idea. I tend to keep a list of things that I'd like to get hold of and pick them up when the sales come round.

This year it was Phosphor and Mangleverb from Audio Damage )

In summary I think that the OP should grab a copy of Alchemy while it's half price.

[tedlogan]

You can for example, place 2 instances of Operator in a rack and detune the two for that big sawtooth unison sound, then maybe chuck in a few M4L LFOs to modulate, well, anything, add filters where you like etc.

So you have a lot of what Zebra 2 has just not quite as conveniently placed together. You've got infinite oscillators via stacking, filters, LFOs, MSEGs (in clips), arpeggiating with the device itself or Push's note sequencer, etc etc, and you can combine them in any way you like.

I do prefer what I come up with in Zebra though...

Is that the same thing? These oscillators are not in the same signal path, so you are basicaly just mixing two different audio sources. What am I missing?

And all these modulation devices you mentioned are all M4L, so not only can only Suite owners use them, but they are not nearly as flexible as they should be and have a lot of quirks. I don't know how much of this is a limtation of M4L or because they are basically hobbyist projects, but I found 'em to be too buggy to use often.

Not it is not the same thing at all. All I'm saying is that Live can be used creatively to create a cumbersome to use but interesting modular synth DIY style. Either way, Zebra is where it's at for me. And as the poster below states, it is always $199, but I am very serious about my hobby, and will pay as much as I need to get what I think is the best workhorse synth. Quality and useability comes way before price. I don't earn that much, and easily managed £151 to purchase Zebra, which is already proving essential to my work, has improved my overall sound dramatically, and will last me forever with infinite possibilities, free upgrades, and zebra 3 for a mere $30, or around £22.

That being said, I don't want to say ZEBRA IS THE BEST YOU MUST BUY IT OR YOU ARE WRONG etc. Just that I am amazed by it, but I'm sure any capable synth for cheaper could be appropriate for the OP, or even maybe just Operator and Analog.

[Sional]

Massive is very good, better than Monark in my opinion and I own both, only problem is a value thing as it comes free with Maschine.
I would also suggest that you look at Steinberg's Halion Sonic 2; I own and have demoed a fair number of VST and hardware instruments and consider that Halion Sonic is fairly impressive. It is a good rompler as well as a good synth, not sure if it can be demoed though.

[deva]

Massive is very good, better than Monark in my opinion and I own both, only problem is a value thing as it comes free with Maschine.

Depends on how you measure good/better... Obviously Massive is far more versatile... Monark is way better as an analog emulation

[Sional]

Massive is very good, better than Monark in my opinion and I own both, only problem is a value thing as it comes free with Maschine.

Depends on how you measure good/better... Obviously Massive is far more versatile... Monark is way better as an analog emulation

Sure Monark is an excellent emulation of the Moog model D however, NI included the limitations of the original like it is monophonic and it does not respond to velocity. I like and use Monark but, given the choice, I would pick Massive first because of its versatility, which makes it far more useful. Of course if you really dig the Moog sound then Monark is the way to go.

[irrelevance]

You can for example, place 2 instances of Operator in a rack and detune the two for that big sawtooth unison sound, then maybe chuck in a few M4L LFOs to modulate, well, anything, add filters where you like etc.

So you have a lot of what Zebra 2 has just not quite as conveniently placed together. You've got infinite oscillators via stacking, filters, LFOs, MSEGs (in clips), arpeggiating with the device itself or Push's note sequencer, etc etc, and you can combine them in any way you like.

I do prefer what I come up with in Zebra though...

Is that the same thing? These oscillators are not in the same signal path, so you are basicaly just mixing two different audio sources. What am I missing?

And all these modulation devices you mentioned are all M4L, so not only can only Suite owners use them, but they are not nearly as flexible as they should be and have a lot of quirks. I don't know how much of this is a limtation of M4L or because they are basically hobbyist projects, but I found 'em to be too buggy to use often.

Not it is not the same thing at all. All I'm saying is that Live can be used creatively to create a cumbersome to use but interesting modular synth DIY style. Either way, Zebra is where it's at for me. And as the poster below states, it is always $199, but I am very serious about my hobby, and will pay as much as I need to get what I think is the best workhorse synth. Quality and useability comes way before price. I don't earn that much, and easily managed £151 to purchase Zebra, which is already proving essential to my work, has improved my overall sound dramatically, and will last me forever with infinite possibilities, free upgrades, and zebra 3 for a mere $30, or around £22.

That being said, I don't want to say ZEBRA IS THE BEST YOU MUST BUY IT OR YOU ARE WRONG etc. Just that I am amazed by it, but I'm sure any capable synth for cheaper could be appropriate for the OP, or even maybe just Operator and Analog.

Mixing two audio sources is just another sound design technique/s (layering and or hocketing) Viable techniques that can produce great sounding homogeneous patches.

Artistic needs change all the time and are sometimes contradictory and at odds with the needs you may well have had/expressed only a week ago lol! It's like that for me anyway. Use whatever gets the juices flowing

Buy it all. Use all of it some of the time, some of it most of the time or none of it all of the time! Dare to be different and remember...More has been created with a lot less than any of us have right now or that live ships with, even in it's most basic form.

[TomViolenz]

I like the opposite stance a lot more: take your time to find and develop your tool, and then LEARN how to use it!
Learn it so well, that it becomes an extention of your mind and fingers!

I think the big advantage of the digital world today is, that you can decide among an unlimited pool of possibilities what YOUR tool will be.
I think all the synths mentioned in this thread, could last even the most creative mind a lifetime. Say NO! to always wanting the new shiny, when what you have, is already great!

[irrelevance]

I'm not opposed to what you're saying actually my post was supposed to be a little toungue in cheek (need to work on that!) master one instrument or tool is great for sure but as a producers do we really have that luxury?

What I have found recently is that I have 'learned' to use certain tools in a certain way that I had actually forgotten how to really explore and experiment in other words be freely creative, as I was so used to the instrument. What was needed but may sound trite was a little 'unlearning' or re-learning finding a new way to use a certain instrument or sound source.

Another example to bore you with but has some relevance is the mappings for push that you have actually had a hand in (Big respect for that dude) have helped me greatly find a new perspective on the stock instruments as I now don't have to stare or fiddle with the ui I'm free to create.

[TomViolenz]

I'm not opposed to what you're saying actually my post was supposed to be a little toungue in cheek (need to work on that!)

And I am notoriously dense to detect this

master one instrument or tool is great for sure but as a producers do we really have that luxury?

I'm a dedicated hobbyist, I have the luxury to do what ever I want

What I have found recently is that I have 'learned' to use certain tools in a certain way that I had actually forgotten how to really explore and experiment in other words be freely creative, as I was so used to the instrument. What was needed but may sound trite was a little 'unlearning' or re-learning finding a new way to use a certain instrument or sound source.

This is actually a very good point! I usually alleviate that problem by doing something random and then go from there.
Many of the synths mentioned in this thread even have randomize functions to this end.

Another example to bore you with

I will never be bored by disscusions like this, that's why I like hanging out in the forums in the first place

but has some relevance is the mappings for push that you have actually had a hand in (Big respect for that dude) have helped me greatly find a new perspective on the stock instruments as I now don't have to stare or fiddle with the ui I'm free to create.

I'm really glad you like our work
And I agree, having almost ALL parameters of Lives devices mapped to Push, rivals the best digital hardware synths out there (IMO of couse ).
The big advantage of Lives devices in Push is that they show self chosen bank names and that parameters can be reused on different pages. This makes for really intuitive mapping possibilities!
Operator, Sampler and EQ8 have doubled in value to me because of this, and I don't think there is an equivalent experience in the market!