Synth1 ver1.13 beta3 for Windows

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Instruments Discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS
Synth1

Post

Two LFO's is enough when you think of real synth's way back when only having one (The Jupiter-8 springs to mind) The problem now with Vst's (IMHO) is you can add infinite features that are either never going to get used or will bewilder anyone who uses the thing. This is the same with the Arturia Jupiter-8, it has that many extra features bolted on, it distracts people from what the original machine actually was.

Synth1 is just right as it is, if it's not broken, don't fix it :)

Post

Kel wrote:I hope one day Ichiro adds more wave shapes.
There are tons of other VSTi for this.

The magic of Synth1 is that it can produce such a large variety of sounds with a limited
(and well choosen) set of parameters.

Chris

Post

Chris-S wrote:
The magic of Synth1 is that it can produce such a large variety of sounds with a limited
(and well choosen) set of parameters.

Chris
+1 for that :tu:

Post

Well I have to eat my words. xD

I was doing a saxophone emulation and couldnt get the tone correctly. I managed to do it using Sync... which isnt even Real FM.

The thing is, Oatmeal has got more parameters than synth1, and more filters and yet I CANT get the same sounds, not even near.

I think This has to do with the design of synth1, which must be miraculous. :D

Post

there are two softsynth from Japan is NI Massive and Synth1 take large interests and very popular in music-making community

i have a copy of NI Massive,but rarely use,it is a great softsynth,alots of cool knobs,features but too heavy cpu load,quite hard to use,understand :cry:

synth1 is my best friend forever,hope for more new stuffs,improvements in next version :tu:

the quality sound of synth1 is very good but consume little cpu power
meanwhile, many commercial softsynth like massive, sylenth overheat the cpu

i wonder why? :hyper:
My new synth1 bank "Star-nam"

available on kvraudio! Grap it!

Post

I have Massive and it doesn't "overheat the CPU". Sure, it used to back when we didn't have quadcores, but right now it's not that heavy on CPU with today's processors...

And it's really not weird why Massive uses more CPU than Synth1 - it offers much more features, better sound quality as far as filters and effects are concerned, semi-modular routing, and several oversampling settings.

Massive is also not really THAT hard to use. Everything is laid out in a simple way, especially modulation. And once you read the manual, you will know everything about it, so using it will become even easier.

Post

meanwhile, many commercial softsynth like massive, sylenth overheat the cpu
Yeah, they both are known to be really CPU killers.. :D
║▌║█║▌│║▌║▌█

Post

KoolKool wrote:the quality sound of synth1 is very good but consume little cpu power
meanwhile, many commercial softsynth like massive, sylenth overheat the cpu

i wonder why? :hyper:
Probably because Synth1 is absolutely ancient and needed to run on the machines people were using way back when.

Post

sjm wrote:
Probably because Synth1 is absolutely ancient and needed to run on the machines people were using way back when.
Ancient or Classic ? :wink: It seems to be a popular synth even now :)

Post

Maomoondog wrote:Ancient or Classic ? :wink: It seems to be a popular synth even now :)
It's obviously both ancient and a classic. I use it all the time, and was using it way, way back. Didn't something like 10 years pass before there was suddenly a new update a couple of years ago? My old computer running Windows 2000 still has an old version installed (1.7?).

Windows 2000 surely also qualifies as ancient if not as a classic...

Post

sjm wrote: Windows 2000 surely also qualifies as ancient if not as a classic...
I cut my software teeth on an Atari 1024 ST with Notator Software..Classic nightmare :hihi:

Post

Maomoondog wrote:
sjm wrote:
Probably because Synth1 is absolutely ancient and needed to run on the machines people were using way back when.
Ancient or Classic ? :wink: It seems to be a popular synth even now :)
Last time I checked, my old and modern guitars can sound ancient, classic,
and even event-guard on occasion :wink:
The differences between modern powerhouse synths, and Synth1, are largely mitigated
by using some extra synth1's, and being good with eq and fx. But it should also be fun
and awesome to run multiple instances of Massive, once familiar with it's capabilities
and presets.
Cheers

Post

Maomoondog wrote:I cut my software teeth on an Atari 1024 ST with Notator Software..Classic nightmare :hihi:
Pfft, I programmed my own DAW on a ZX81. Fitting everything into 1k was a mighty challenge. Left you with about enough memory for half a bar of music...

ZX81? Luxury. I remember having to use punch cards to program my first drum machine in COBOL. You'd have to wire up your own speakers to the mainframe and even then you only had a choice between beep and bleep sounds. Nobody had heard of waveforms back then...

A mainframe!?! We'd have counted ourselves lucky just to have a frame! I use to have to get Ada Lovelace to program Baggage's difference engine, and that was only a hypothetical machine. Still, we beat Cage to 4'33 by about a century.

Pffft, back in my day, we were lucky to have an abacus. And if you had one with beads on, then you were really privileged. Had to build it ourselves after 23 and a half days tilling t'fields. We sacrificed our only oxen and used the bones threaded on the tendons to make the abacus. Meant that from then on we were working 25 hours a day and had to pull the plough ourselves because we no longer had any oxen. But tell that to the kids today making their latest beatz on an iDevice and they won't believe you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

Post

When we first started out we had to actually play our keyboards, 90% of our debut album was played by hand, only the linn drum was programmed and a couple of bass lines done on a Roland MC4. In fact all of the alphaville albums / Single B sides I co wrote was all played by hand, even including the Salvation album in 1997. Why compose something and then let a machine replace you?

Post

Maomoondog wrote:Why compose something and then let a machine replace you?
I guess the cheap shot answer (which is also true in a lot of cases) is that playing an instrument requires skill, and that requires lots of practice and dedication. That's not for everyone.

But I think there's also something to be said for highly quantized music that kinda requires a computer to handle the machine-like timing.

Then there's the fact that the computer can fill in for a backing band or allow a single person to perform live outside of the singer/songwriter mould. Carter USM for example only consisted of 2 guitarists for most of their career. When they played live, the synths and drum machines made up for the lack of a backing band. Of course they also programmed the parts for their albums too. I also saw the Sisters of Mercy recently and assume that all the synth and drum parts are pre-programmed.

So different horses for different courses and all that. But yeah, at the base level I agree with your sentiment. It's like some DJs who when "performing" live do nothing more than turn the odd knob while playing back a recording of their songs.



---

Even more off topic: Love the fact that your sig says "I did a prostitute" ;)

Post Reply

Return to “Instruments”