Soft Synths Whose Presets Don't Do Them Justice

[cryophonik]

As for talking smack about Howard Scarr, I've done no such thing. I simply said I don't like Zebra's presets. That's my personal preference and I'm entitled to it just as people are entitled to not like the sounds that I design. I don't like the music that Kanye makes. That doesn't mean I'm talking smack about Kanye. I just don't like his music. I'm sure Howard Scarr is a great guy. I just don't like Zebra's presets, just like some people don't like a lot of things that are popular or even considered "good."

Perfectly stated. I said on page 1 of this thread that I'm also not terribly impressed by Zebra's presets. Yes, I recognize that Howard Scarr is a very successful and talented sound designer. That doesn't stop me from having an endless chain of "meh, meh, meh, meh, meh,..." as I flip through Zebra's presets. They just don't appeal to me, nor do they really show off Zebra's breadth IMO. To me, his style has always been a bit generic, albeit with great attention to detail and nuances, but the end result is too conservative for me in the case of Zebra's presets. Guess what? I probably don't like the same music that HS listens to, either. I also don't like Dave Matthew's music. I recognize that he is more talented and successful than I'll ever be, but many of my friends get offended when I say that his music just bores the sh!t out of me. They're offended that, as a musician, I don't like the work of a talented musician, but I'm even more offended that they have terrible taste in music.

[Apostate]

I'm mystified by your views on vsts. Of course they're "full instruments"...I'm curious as to what exactly your definition of a full instrument is. Is it something that one manipulates to use in a musical way?

Heh, if the thing can put out sounds that you can incorporate into a song, then it's a musical instrument, of course (no matter the actual form or purpose). Agreed

What I meant to say was something down this line: software instruments are so cheap (or free) and releases are so frequent that I just can't see myself investing more time into learning to use a software synth to its full extent - unless it's something really, really cool out of the box. I just test it briefly to see if there's already something in it that I can use, and move on. Maybe it's a case of minimal investment, minimal involvement, I don't know. When it comes to hardware, I usually spend many hours going through all the available info, videos, and so on, I try to test the thing in person and then shelling out the cash. And in that case I will put the instrument to its paces and will try to discover how I can use it to improve my skills. But with software... it's just so easy to grab something, giving it a spin and jumping to the next thing that gets released. I'm constantly shuffling through my vst synths and very few of them stand the test of time. That's why I tend not to go deep into VSTs.

Okay I get it, thanks. There really is only so much time. I'm one of the lucky whom have all day, practically every day.

[do_androids_dream]

I'm mystified by your views on vsts. Of course they're "full instruments"...I'm curious as to what exactly your definition of a full instrument is. Is it something that one manipulates to use in a musical way?

Heh, if the thing can put out sounds that you can incorporate into a song, then it's a musical instrument, of course (no matter the actual form or purpose). Agreed

What I meant to say was something down this line: software instruments are so cheap (or free) and releases are so frequent that I just can't see myself investing more time into learning to use a software synth to its full extent - unless it's something really, really cool out of the box. I just test it briefly to see if there's already something in it that I can use, and move on. Maybe it's a case of minimal investment, minimal involvement, I don't know. When it comes to hardware, I usually spend many hours going through all the available info, videos, and so on, I try to test the thing in person and then shelling out the cash. And in that case I will put the instrument to its paces and will try to discover how I can use it to improve my skills. But with software... it's just so easy to grab something, giving it a spin and jumping to the next thing that gets released. I'm constantly shuffling through my vst synths and very few of them stand the test of time. That's why I tend not to go deep into VSTs.

This is a curious post - you seem to be well aware of the downsides of software - too much choice - endlessly 'testing' - but you still fall victim to it. A bit confused! I guess you must to be too curious to pass things up? You don't HAVE to keep giving things a spin and jumping to the next thing - if you recognise that's it's probably going to be time wasted then surely you can bypass that and get with the music making with the tools you do deem worthy of spending time with?

[arkmabat]

You don't have to update right away when a new update comes out.

[arkmabat]

It is a danger of the times we live in. Instead of software being put on floppies and mailed out, companies can always be changing around their software and get people excited about new versions all the time.

[idfpower]

This is a curious post - you seem to be well aware of the downsides of software - too much choice - endlessly 'testing' - but you still fall victim to it. A bit confused! I guess you must to be too curious to pass things up? You don't HAVE to keep giving things a spin and jumping to the next thing - if you recognise that's it's probably going to be time wasted then surely you can bypass that and get with the music making with the tools you do deem worthy of spending time with?

To me software synths are nothing more than additional soundbanks. They're tools for a specific job - when you need that specific (type) of sound. Minimal tweaking, nothing beyond that. Because my working style is based around very fast realtime layering and on the spot choices. It's nothing planned (I never know how the song sounds until it's actually done), so I need available tools ready for instant song writing. And I know where to get them from. That's why I'm interested in new stuff and always dropping old vst instruments that either don't fit the rest or get replaced by better sounding stuff. And I do keep track of what I have - that's how I know where to get what from. Then I have to take into account my setup's limitations (especially CPU-wise - so I stay away from CPU hogs no matter how good they sound)... and so on. I'm not saying this is the way to go, but it works for me and that's all that matters

Yes, life is short and my free time is (nowadays) very limited. I can't afford spending more time fiddling with every single software synth that gets released and learning it in and out. I may be cynical, but my experience tought me that when it comes to software, if it doesn't grab me within the first hour or testing, is never gonna impress the heck out of me. It's either that striking from the get go, or not that much different from the crowd.

I'm not a keyboard player nor a preset maker so maybe that's why my perspective on it is different. And on the other hand I prefer spending the little free time that I have on my main instrument and my usual kind of music (which is not electronica). Messing around with synths and creating electronic tracks is just something on the side, a little luxury experimental moment within my hobby - which is making music So that is that

[Apostate]

This is a curious post - you seem to be well aware of the downsides of software - too much choice - endlessly 'testing' - but you still fall victim to it. A bit confused! I guess you must to be too curious to pass things up? You don't HAVE to keep giving things a spin and jumping to the next thing - if you recognise that's it's probably going to be time wasted then surely you can bypass that and get with the music making with the tools you do deem worthy of spending time with?

To me software synths are nothing more than additional soundbanks. They're tools for a specific job - when you need that specific (type) of sound. Minimal tweaking, nothing beyond that. Because my working style is based around very fast realtime layering and on the spot choices. It's nothing planned (I never know how the song sounds until it's actually done), so I need available tools ready for instant song writing. And I know where to get them from. That's why I'm interested in new stuff and always dropping old vst instruments that either don't fit the rest or get replaced by better sounding stuff. And I do keep track of what I have - that's how I know where to get what from. Then I have to take into account my setup's limitations (especially CPU-wise - so I stay away from CPU hogs no matter how good they sound)... and so on. I'm not saying this is the way to go, but it works for me and that's all that matters

Yes, life is short and my free time is (nowadays) very limited. I can't afford spending more time fiddling with every single software synth that gets released and learning it in and out. I may be cynical, but my experience tought me that when it comes to software, if it doesn't grab me within the first hour or testing, is never gonna impress the heck out of me. It's either that striking from the get go, or not that much different from the crowd.

I'm not a keyboard player nor a preset maker so maybe that's why my perspective on it is different. And on the other hand I prefer spending the little free time that I have on my main instrument and my usual kind of music (which is not electronica). Messing around with synths and creating electronic tracks is just something on the side, a little luxury experimental moment within my hobby - which is making music So that is that

I see what you mean, and I can sympathize with streamlining things. Hey, whatever works, right?

[wagtunes]

I don't even need an hour with a synth. I check the oscillator quality and the filter quality. If they don't meet my standards, I'm done. Sometimes it takes me all of 10 minutes to discard a synth.

[idfpower]

I see what you mean, and I can sympathize with streamlining things. Hey, whatever works, right?

Right

@wagtunes: I've settled on 1 hour testing timeframe back in the days of my MMO gaming mania But yeah, usually I can discard a synth way faster It's either gonna work along with my current arsenal right away or it gets the bin. I just load my dummy testing session with a song sequence and 2 other synths that I frequently use. If it sounds cool by itself and gels right with the rest, it stays. If not...next, please

[Apostate]

I daresay Nave's presets are very, very good. But mostly to inspire one to do better.

In that sense then, I'd say they did the synth justice.

[mutantdog]

I'm not all that keen on Zebra's presets either. Not to diss Howard's obvious talents but the factory set is somewhat underwhelming and doesn't go anywhere near showing off Zebra's potential. I mentioned this in another thread where i was met with some hostility, but I think they sound kinda dated. Yes, by that I mean "not very EDM" but sometimes it helps to hear a patch with more effects than necessary to fully appreciate it in isolation, i can always roll the reverb off later on when my mix is starting to fill up.

Another synth with a fairly average factory bank is Massive, a set of fairly generic sounds that again fail to show its potential or demonstrate its distinctive character.

The other, all too obvious, one would have to be Synth1. That is one awful factory set right there.

[zerocrossing]

I'm mystified by your views on vsts. Of course they're "full instruments"...I'm curious as to what exactly your definition of a full instrument is. Is it something that one manipulates to use in a musical way?

Heh, if the thing can put out sounds that you can incorporate into a song, then it's a musical instrument, of course (no matter the actual form or purpose). Agreed

What I meant to say was something down this line: software instruments are so cheap (or free) and releases are so frequent that I just can't see myself investing more time into learning to use a software synth to its full extent - unless it's something really, really cool out of the box. I just test it briefly to see if there's already something in it that I can use, and move on. Maybe it's a case of minimal investment, minimal involvement, I don't know. When it comes to hardware, I usually spend many hours going through all the available info, videos, and so on, I try to test the thing in person and then shelling out the cash. And in that case I will put the instrument to its paces and will try to discover how I can use it to improve my skills. But with software... it's just so easy to grab something, giving it a spin and jumping to the next thing that gets released. I'm constantly shuffling through my vst synths and very few of them stand the test of time. That's why I tend not to go deep into VSTs.

I hear that. I just plunked down, what's for me, a lot of money on a Prophet 12. I feel a huge responsibility to put it through its paces and scrutinize every aspect. I must "know" it.

At the same time, Omnisphere 2 came out and I shelled out $250 for the upgrade. I've fooled with it a few times and went through a dozen or so presets. Logically I know they're both very capable instruments, and Omnisphere is actually a deeper instrument, but I feel less of an urgency to have it be a great fit for my studio.

I know this is totally my own silliness, but I can't help it.

[Apostate]

I hear that. I just plunked down, what's for me, a lot of money on a Prophet 12. I feel a huge responsibility to put it through its paces and scrutinize every aspect. I must "know" it.

At the same time, Omnisphere 2 came out and I shelled out $250 for the upgrade. I've fooled with it a few times and went through a dozen or so presets. Logically I know they're both very capable instruments, and Omnisphere is actually a deeper instrument, but I feel less of an urgency to have it be a great fit for my studio.

I know this is totally my own silliness, but I can't help it.

I don't think you're silly. If I pay, or am demoing something I plan to buy, I'm going to go through it with a fine tooth comb. I might flip thorough presets in the hope of gauging potential, but I'm mostly looking to program. I'll be hitting the matrix (if there's one), the filters, LFOS, driving the yee-haw out of the oscs.

When I'm pretty sure I'm going to be paying for something, I'm going through the manual. I want to get all I can out of it. However, there are free vsts that have inspired similar behavior from me, the KX 16 and Modulad for instance (killer synths btw). There are others, too.

[Xenos]

Interesting discussion, here. Kinda confirms my belief that a large part of the difference between "good" and "bad" presets comes down to individual taste and genre preferences. EDM fans should check out Kevin Schroeder and Ayn Zahev. Their work in U-he Hive is highly impressive, particularly the lead sounds. Howard Scarr has a very "retro" style with an added experimental side, which I like a lot. He clearly knows sound synthesis really well and has many years of experience in it, but I can see how his style might not appeal to a lot of EDM producers or dubstep fans looking for wob wob basses. Ed Ten Eck and Micheal Adle really wowed me with their ambient soundscapes and sound effects/noise loops, but again, not everyone wants soundscapes and atmospheres.

I personally listen to a wide variety of different electronic music - ambient, underground dubstep, oldies, experimental soundscapes, trap, hard techno, etc. In theory, any sound can work in any style, but in practice, there is a strong tendency toward different conventions for different styles. Personal tastes goes beyond just genres, though. Most people have a preference for smooth and pleasing textures, but there is a subset who enjoy rough and noisy tone colors. You can't please everybody lol.

[Apostate]

Interesting discussion, here. Kinda confirms my belief that a large part of the difference between "good" and "bad" presets comes down to individual taste and genre preferences. EDM fans should check out Kevin Schroeder and Ayn Zahev. Their work in U-he Hive is highly impressive, particularly the lead sounds. Howard Scarr has a very "retro" style with an added experimental side, which I like a lot. He clearly knows sound synthesis really well and has many years of experience in it, but I can see how his style might not appeal to a lot of EDM producers or dubstep fans looking for wob wob basses. Ed Ten Eck and Micheal Adle really wowed me with their ambient soundscapes and sound effects/noise loops, but again, not everyone wants soundscapes and atmospheres.

I personally listen to a wide variety of different electronic music - ambient, underground dubstep, oldies, experimental soundscapes, trap, hard techno, etc. In theory, any sound can work in any style, but in practice, there is a strong tendency toward different conventions for different styles. Personal tastes goes beyond just genres, though. Most people have a preference for smooth and pleasing textures, but there is a subset who enjoy rough and noisy tone colors. You can't please everybody lol.

Great post, I've heard terrific sounds from all those names. Ayn is killer, plus Devine (I hope I spelled that right) has some really interesting presets to his name, in different synths.