KVR Audio

Synthbuilder · Post by **Synthbuilder** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 4:27 pm

I often play monophonically. Some things just sound better with proper legato slide and single triggered envelopes. A polysynth is a great thing but it should always have a monophonic mode. And that means it needs to handle legato playing and have well behaved envelopes that don't retigger on every new note. For example, DIVA does this well but Zebra does not. The latter, like so many soft and digital hardware synths, has envelopes that reset to zero on every new key press.

That said there aren't too many softsynths that handle glide as well as an analogue monosynth. Personally, I like a proper exponential glide shape which is neither variable time linear or some constant time linear response.

Tony

lectrixboogaloo · Post by **lectrixboogaloo** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 4:29 pm

A couple of points in defense of the analog monosynth as a lead instrument?

Reusing one envelope vs. cycling several in combination with the behavior of that envelope often being different from typical polys already (see moog or the ms-20 envelopes for well known examples), playing leads on a mono can be a different experience and the articulations will almost invariably change. How much of that is intentional or predicted by the performer, I guess, depends on his familiarity with the way the envelope actually works vs. how it may be expected to. I am aware that alot of polys have mono modes, but usually these still don't work exactly -or much at all- the same as some old school mono envelopes.

Also, the sonic character/filters of analog polys generally feels tweaked towards working better with polyphony. That's good, but it hasn't been my experience that you necessarily will get the same sort of thick/too fat sound or as much access to extreme filter settings. The former is debatable, of course, but the latter is more often than not the way it is.

lectrixboogaloo · Post by **lectrixboogaloo** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 4:31 pm

I guess synthbuilder kind of beat me to some of that. ..

Ingonator · Post by **Ingonator** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 4:39 pm

Synthbuilder wrote:I often play monophonically. Some things just sound better with proper legato slide and single triggered envelopes. A polysynth is a great thing but it should always have a monophonic mode. And that means it needs to handle legato playing and have well behaved envelopes that don't retigger on every new note.

Having a proper Mono mode with legato etc. and a Poly mode in the same synth, even if the synth originally is based on a monosynth, are not things that must exclude each other. If you als oadd poly legato or simly deactivate legato in Poly mode is another story. A Poly mode without poly legato IMO is still better than no poly mode at all.

Lotuzia · Post by **Lotuzia** » Sun Sep 25, 2016 12:32 pm

Synthbuilder wrote:I often play monophonically. Some things just sound better with proper legato slide and single triggered envelopes. A polysynth is a great thing but it should always have a monophonic mode. And that means it needs to handle legato playing and have well behaved envelopes that don't retigger on every new note. For example, DIVA does this well but Zebra does not. The latter, like so many soft and digital hardware synths, has envelopes that reset to zero on every new key press.

That said there aren't too many softsynths that handle glide as well as an analogue monosynth. Personally, I like a proper exponential glide shape which is neither variable time linear or some constant time linear response.

Tony

Yes

That's a part, one of the most immdediate, of the reflexion on monophonic synthesizers.

Lotuzia · Post by **Lotuzia** » Sun Sep 25, 2016 4:28 pm

Ingonator wrote:
Synthbuilder wrote:I often play monophonically. Some things just sound better with proper legato slide and single triggered envelopes. A polysynth is a great thing but it should always have a monophonic mode. And that means it needs to handle legato playing and have well behaved envelopes that don't retigger on every new note.
Having a proper Mono mode with legato etc. and a Poly mode in the same synth, even if the synth originally is based on a monosynth, are not things that must exclude each other. If you als oadd poly legato or simly deactivate legato in Poly mode is another story. A Poly mode without poly legato IMO is still better than no poly mode at all.

How would you define the rules for Polyphonic legato ? Are such rules the only way to do it ? ( But here we're talking mono synths trying to be polyphonic, wich is the opposite of 'Polyphinic synths playing mono', so it's just for the art of discussing this) )

Then, the possible problem UI/GUI wise, for synths that have both specific Monophonic and Polyphonic modes ( Most polysynths will play mono lines without specific rules atm), is that you'll end up with a bunch of toggles/switches/options on the GUI/UI. So a cluttered GUI. If this is not the case, you'll end up with a single switch, but with rigid rules deciding for the user what a monophonic mode should be, ie without giving user the options to get full power and expression on a monophonic synthesizer and decide himself of the options/variations. It's certainly better than nothing, and, until now, most synthesizers -that actually propose specific mono modes- propose more/less this kind of behaviour. It's however possible to implement monophonic play modes in more sophisticated ways. This, and much more. -imho-

Ingonator · Post by **Ingonator** » Sun Sep 25, 2016 4:45 pm

Lotuzia wrote:
Ingonator wrote:
Synthbuilder wrote:I often play monophonically. Some things just sound better with proper legato slide and single triggered envelopes. A polysynth is a great thing but it should always have a monophonic mode. And that means it needs to handle legato playing and have well behaved envelopes that don't retigger on every new note.
Having a proper Mono mode with legato etc. and a Poly mode in the same synth, even if the synth originally is based on a monosynth, are not things that must exclude each other. If you als oadd poly legato or simly deactivate legato in Poly mode is another story. A Poly mode without poly legato IMO is still better than no poly mode at all.
How would you define the rules for Polyphonic legato ? Are such rules the only way to do it ? ( But here we're talking mono synths trying to be polyphonic, wich is the opposite of 'Polyphinic synths playing mono', so it's just for the art of discussing this) )

Then, the possible problem UI/GUI wise, for synths that have both specific Monophonic and Polyphonic modes ( Most polysynths will play mono lines without specific rules atm), is that you'll end up with a bunch of toggles/switches/options on the GUI/UI. So a cluttered GUI. If this is not the case, you'll end up with a single switch, but with rigid rules deciding for the user what a monophonic mode should be, ie without giving user the options to get full power and expression on a monophonic synthesizer and decide himself of the options/variations. It's certainly better than nothing, and, until now, most synthesizers -that actually propose specific mono modes- propose more/less this kind of behaviour. It's however possible to implement monophonic play modes in more sophisticated ways. This, and much more. -imho-

Well, i am just speaking about a simple switch like that in e.g. the new The Legend synth.
There when switching to Poyl mode a few changes are done compare to teh Mono mode. This includes e.g. reducing the volume of single notes (so that around 3 voices will create teh same voluem as a single not in Mono mode) and legato is removed automatically (while in Mono mode legato is activated).

Theoretically something like poly legato would be possible but that really depends on teh synth and if it is posible to be implemented.

Anyway lie i mentioned earlier wit ha n emulation taht is based on a monosynth (Like The Legend is based on a Minimoog Model D) i prefer having an option for polyphony too even if this mean that the Poly mode has limitations like e.g. no legato.

In The Legend there seems to be a kind of "vectorized voices" as Richard explaned i na post ata forum so 4 voice polyphony (or 4 voice Unison, both wit hadjustable stero spread) uses only around the double amount of CPU than a single voice.

Anyway there are several synth that originally nased on a monsynth but involve polyphony too so this is by far not the only example.

crystalmsc · Post by **crystalmsc** » Sun Sep 25, 2016 8:02 pm

As a fan of the Korg Prophecy, I always love a great mono synth, especially with a great playability and innovation. It's a different way of playing and way of thinking, which will translate into quality, features and pricing. Especially since I own both the Prophecy and Z1 board in the Trinity Pro/Karma and the Prophecy board sounds better. I'm still gasing for the keyboard sometime, which is specifically made for a solo/mono synth purpose. Nowadays with what I already have, a great solo synth with a decent price is what I'm looking. If Korg ever release a sequel of the Korg Prophecy with a super modern engine coupled with the MS-20 analog Oscs/dual Filters and a more hands-on interface, it's going to be way more interesting to me compared to a feature packed synth like the JD-Xi. Also sometimes monophonic is perfectly what I need from a synth like the MS-20, it's my main lead machine and would like to keep it that way. One of the reason is that I'm so used to with the layout and way of thinking of using it as a mono synth, also to keep the price down and for being able to save the money to get another decent mono synth instead of buying a polyphonic version of that.

But maybe it's a bit different in the software world, where polyphonic will not reflect in pricing. I like to use the Legacy Cell in a more flexible way, but thinking to get the MS-20 controller if they upgrade the MS-20 engine to current standard and using it exclusively as a mono synth. But still I'm in the mood for a true innovative and great sounding solo synth (even a Prophecy Legacy as a solo synth, instead of the Z1 board), even if it will cost some CPU. The same with my all time favorite the Technosaurus Microcon II/Waldorf Pulse, really want a perfect emulation of those and would be happy to have it as a mono synth.

VariKusBrainZ · Post by **VariKusBrainZ** » Sun Sep 25, 2016 9:09 pm

The huge surge in Eurorack shows polyphony isn't a necessesity, but then the main draw is youre building a unique system that no one else will have with features you personally feel are exciting

pottering · Post by **pottering** » Sun Sep 25, 2016 9:46 pm

I can't play keyboards, and I'm pretty ignorant about music theory, so monophonic synths fit me just fine.

I do expect them to be cheaper, software or hardware.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Sun Sep 25, 2016 10:52 pm

pottering wrote:I can't play keyboards, and I'm pretty ignorant about music theory, so monophonic synths fit me just fine.

I do expect them to be cheaper, software or hardware.

Minimoog D (new) = $3500
Deep Mind 12 = $1000

VariKusBrainZ · Post by **VariKusBrainZ** » Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:47 pm

pdxindy wrote:
pottering wrote:I can't play keyboards, and I'm pretty ignorant about music theory, so monophonic synths fit me just fine.

I do expect them to be cheaper, software or hardware.
Minimoog D (new) = $3500
Deep Mind 12 = $1000

Monotron £30

pottering · Post by **pottering** » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:16 am

Well, I sure ain't buying that $3500 one anytime soon.

foosnark · Post by **foosnark** » Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:18 am

pdxindy wrote:Minimoog D (new) = $3500
Deep Mind 12 = $1000

Paying for a Moog, vs. paying for a Behringer.

MicroBrute ($250)
Bass Station 2 ($350)
MiniBrute ($400)
MS-20 Mini ($450)

etc.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Mon Sep 26, 2016 3:48 am

foosnark wrote:
pdxindy wrote:Minimoog D (new) = $3500
Deep Mind 12 = $1000
Paying for a Moog, vs. paying for a Behringer.

MicroBrute ($250)
Bass Station 2 ($350)
MiniBrute ($400)
MS-20 Mini ($450)

etc.

Arturia MatrixBrute = $2000
Deep Mind 12 = $1000

KVR Audio

The future of Monophonic Synthesizers ?

Your opinion about monophonic synths