What synth do you actually USE the most in your own music????

[Passing Bye]

The Axel Rudi Pell track you selected reminds me a bit of any of those awesome tracks by Hardline.

Niceee

[codec_spurt]

...

[Teksonik]

i was (briefly) her studio assistant (a looong time ago); amazing stuff, and she owned (in the sense that she knew it) the buchla...

Now I'm totally jealous. Not only was Suzanne Ciani an early synth hero I had a huge crush on her as well.

[e-crooner]

Those things may have existed in 1980, but they were not widely used, yet.

The Synclavier was an early digital synthesizer, polyphonic digital sampling system, and music workstation manufactured by New England Digital Corporation of Norwich, Vermont. It was produced in various forms from the late 1970s into the early 1990s. The instrument has been used by prominent musicians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synclavier

Yes, but there were several generations of the Synclavier. The first generation was very exclusive and mainly sold to universities as it says in the Wiki link.
When you check the list of users, you will notice that the Synclavier only became popular from about 1984 onward. I actually remember how it started to be mentioned on more and more record sleeves from 1984 onward, like on Hall & Oates's Big Bam Boom, Anita Baker albums, etc.

[digitalboytn]

I am not separating music from sound, but ranking music above sound. When you have a good song, it will be good no matter which instruments are played (provided the musicians are good as well, of course).

I agree with you 100 %

Nobody says a Bösendorfer is crap just because it sounds like 100 years ago.

I am a big fan of Claus Ogerman's sound for instance.

Claus is a genius...The master of tonal colour...

Well, I consider it a challenge to program authentic emulations of real instruments. Sure, some synth strings are ok, but no match for the magical sound of a real strings section.

Well, I do invest a lot of time and effort in trying to emulate real instruments because I don't like samples.

Ahhh....and that is where da shit and da fan collide

The problem that many people will run into when they want to use a real ensemble,is that you have to write and arrange for it and that requires skills that are sadly lacking in the music that is produced these days...

The person doing the arrangement needs to have a solid understanding of harmony,counterpoint & orchestration, along with a creative spark that brings all of those elements together...

Turning a few knobs on a few synths and layering them all together with a sequencer and hoping for a good outcome is not going to cut it in that scenario...

That situation requires a different skill set and that skill set is much higher than what is required to program a few synthesizers

[Teksonik]

modern monstrous synths (Massive x, Rapid, Avenger, Pigments and more) all have a huge variety of sounds they can produce

The point being that every synth has it's own "flavor". Even though the examples I gave of Dune 3 and Hive 2 are somewhat similar in architecture they do each have their own character so owning both makes perfect sense to me so yes the analogy fits perfectly. Even VPS Avenger and Parawave Rapid both being very deep and feature rich synths each have their own flavors and not just because of the differences in sample content.......

[Hink]

Those things may have existed in 1980, but they were not widely used, yet.

The Synclavier was an early digital synthesizer, polyphonic digital sampling system, and music workstation manufactured by New England Digital Corporation of Norwich, Vermont. It was produced in various forms from the late 1970s into the early 1990s. The instrument has been used by prominent musicians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synclavier

Yes, but there were several generations of the Synclavier. The first generation was very exclusive and mainly sold to universities as it says in the Wiki link.
When you check the list of users, you will notice that the Synclavier only became popular from about 1984 onward. I actually remember how it started to be mentioned on more and more record sleeves from 1984 onward, like on Hall & Oates's Big Bam Boom, Anita Baker albums, etc.

The system evolved in its next generation of product, the Synclavier II, which was released in early 1980 with the strong influence of master synthesist and music producer Denny Jaeger of Oakland, California. It was originally Jaeger's suggestion that the FM synthesis concept be extended to allow four simultaneous channels or voices of synthesis to be triggered with one key depression to allow the final synthesized sound to have much more harmonic series activity. This change greatly improved the overall sound design of the system and was very noticeable. 16-bit user sampling (originally in mono only) was added as an option in 1982. This model was succeeded by the ABLE Model C computer based PSMT in 1984 and then the Mac-based 3200, 6400 and 9600 models, all of which used the VPK keyboard.

well perhaps what you really mean it wasn't widely used in your circles (nor mine) but this suggests to me it was widely used enough to really catch on with others

[tonedef71]

Not only was Suzanne Ciani an early synth hero I had a huge crush on her as well.

Suzanne Ciani and Kaitlyn Aurelia Smith: Masters of the Buchla
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5Xaw5r43n0

[BONES]

Most musicians just want to get the job done, not innovate.

Who aspires to be "most musicians"? As ambitions go, isn't that kind of sad? There is little or no innovation to be had any more but most artists want to move forward over time, not stay stuck in the same old groove for decades. Of course, a lot of established acts don't get much choice, they play what the punters want to hear, which is often the old stuff, but that doesn't stop the really good bands from moving forward. e.g. If you go and see Killing Joke they will play at least half their first album live but if you buy their latest (15th) studio album, it is a very modern take on what KJ have always done and, therefore, those new songs can sit alongside the old material and none of it sounds out of place. That, to me, is a band who have never stagnated, who have always wanted to push their art forward (or at least sideways). How can you not have more respect for a band like that than one who rests on their laurels and keeps reinventing the wheel?

In the 80s many people welcomed the new possibility of storing presets and reliable tuning. But the sound was fine before as well.

"Fine" in some ways but not in comparison to what's available today.

Meanwhile technical progress has long ceased to be about fixing problems, now it is just a kind of feature arms race.

I don't think that's true at all. Softsynths today sound way, way better than they did 12-15 years ago and what you perceive as a "feature arms race" is more about modern processors having the power to do things today that could not have been done in the past. In the world of hardware there are things like the Linnstrument and Roli's Seaboards that change the way we interact with out sounds, which in itself opens up new possibilities.

So, no, using the most modern stuff just for the sake of it, makes no sense to me.

I agree completely but nobody uses modern stuff just "for the sake of it". People use it because it's measurably better than the old stuff, cheaper, more reliable and readily available.

Why do you think so many developers make and customers buy authentic emulations of old hardware?

Because people, on the whole, are stupid and pathetic.

Because they like the sound of it.

And this is the "stupid" part of it - you can get all the same sounds without having to slavishly clone those old instruments. e.g. The Legend isn't a great synth because it can sound just like a Minimoog, it's great synth because it builds on what the MiniMoog was and offers all the modern convenience the original couldn't. But if you compare it to DUNE, you can see how much it is being held back because of what it is - an emulation. It's probably why both Synapse and U-He sell their emulations much more cheaply than their original creations.

And even the old synth makers have revived their businesses.

That, right there, should tell you how unrealistic this market is. Why are these old synth popular again today when nobody wanted them 30 years ago? They haven't magically gotten any better, have they, so why are their businesses viable today when they weren't 30 years ago?

Why would a classic pad sound be crap while other classic sounds are still appreciated and never age?

That's actually very obvious - with modern digital instruments, a pad can be so much more than was possible with analogue subtractive synths. Both the DX-7 and Roland's D-50 proved that in the 1980s and the bar for what they had to offer has been raised many, many times since. The old filter sweep pad still has it's uses but no-one could seriously suggest it is in the same ball park as what we can do today.

For instance the Jazz Bass sound or the Music Man sound or the Strat sound or the sound of a trumpet or acoustic guitar etc. etc. etc.?

All awful to my ears, the reason I wanted to learn synthesisers in the first place. I mean, you can make a Strat sound good with the right treatment but on it's own it doesn't really have much sound at all.

Nobody says a Bösendorfer is crap just because it sounds like 100 years ago.

Actually, I would because I do not like piano at all.

Countless millions of people listen to Classical music.

Yes and countless billions, probably including all of your group, believe in some kind of creator who will take them to a nice place after they die, if they behave themselves. Doesn't make 'em right, though, does it?

I would much rather listen to Mantovani than to EDM.

It would be a toss up for me.

One example of how a good song does not really depend on instrumentation: Mad World. Many people love Gary Jules' version and don't even know the original by Tears for Fears. The two versions sound very different, yet both are very good.

That's down to performance as much as anything, although I find Jules' voice really annoying and I don't like his version nearly as much as the original. (I miss the synth brass.) Another example would be Die Krupps' Tribute to Metallica, which they did specifically to showcase that Metallica's songs are really good and could work in a different genre.

Sure, some synth strings are ok, but no match for the magical sound of a real strings section.

I agree, which is why I use Nova Essentials a lot in our songs. Good luck emulating any of that in any synth.

Craftsman? Well, I do invest a lot of time and effort in trying to emulate real instruments because I don't like samples.

So you don't listen to recorded music, then? Because that's just samples. Or perhaps you just lack the vision to understand the possibilities presented by sample-based instruments? My DSS-1 was the best thing since sliced bread in 1985. It allowed me to do things I couldn't have dreamed of previously. The ASR-10 that replaced it was a quantum leap beyond that and today, Kontakt and HALion make those things seem like children's toys.

Often when there is a bass line, I just open one bass patch after another, but can't really decide which one to take as many of them sound good with that bass line. After all, there is no right or wrong patch. As long as it sounds good, it is enough.

I spent several hours last night making bass patches for one of our songs, to replace Wasp so I can bring it into Cubase. I tried the synths I thought might be up to the challenge - DUNE, Legend, ArcSyn and Pigments. In the end I got the latter two working well enough to do the job - not exactly like the Wasp patch but good enough in the mix - but I'm still not happy so I will try a few more tonight. I don't look for presets, I start by mimicking the settings in Wasp, then tweak it from there. I find I waste far too much time trying to find a preset.

[BONES]

People that like Mozart or Bach don't care about those using new tech back then. They don't even know usually. They just listen to it and like it (I personally don't, classical music sounds cold to me, no soul).

It is not something that works in any recorded medium, it must be experienced live. There is something very special about a full symphony orchestra that is lost when you try to can it.

Just checked a few videos from the two names you mentioned, horrible stuff, can't listen to that for more than 10 seconds. It offends my ears.

That was my reaction when I looked up some Maze on YouTube after you mentioned them. No wonder no-one has ever heard of them in Australia.

The problem that many people will run into when they want to use a real ensemble,is that you have to write and arrange for it and that requires skills that are sadly lacking in the music that is produced these days...
The person doing the arrangement needs to have a solid understanding of harmony,counterpoint & orchestration, along with a creative spark that brings all of those elements together...
Turning a few knobs on a few synths and layering them all together with a sequencer and hoping for a good outcome is not going to cut it in that scenario...
That situation requires a different skill set and that skill set is much higher than what is required to program a few synthesizers

Not higher, just different and with all the cheat tools around these days, probably much easier than you think.

[fisherKing]

i was (briefly) her studio assistant (a looong time ago); amazing stuff, and she owned (in the sense that she knew it) the buchla...

Now I'm totally jealous. Not only was Suzanne Ciani an early synth hero I had a huge crush on her as well.

ha! i was really young, really an intern; she worked out of a studio in midtown manhattan, surrounded by the buchla and other gear; i helped set up, etc. never really got to know her tho... and was more impressed after i worked with her, as others were impressed when i talked about it.

[digitalboytn]

The problem that many people will run into when they want to use a real ensemble,is that you have to write and arrange for it and that requires skills that are sadly lacking in the music that is produced these days...
The person doing the arrangement needs to have a solid understanding of harmony,counterpoint & orchestration, along with a creative spark that brings all of those elements together...
Turning a few knobs on a few synths and layering them all together with a sequencer and hoping for a good outcome is not going to cut it in that scenario...
That situation requires a different skill set and that skill set is much higher than what is required to program a few synthesizers

Not higher, just different and with all the cheat tools around these days, probably much easier than you think.

My "cheat tools" for arranging are a few sheets of manuscript paper,some 4B pencils and my brain...

Sometimes I might use a piano,but it is more interesting to just go direct to the paper

[BONES]

I couldn't tell you the last time I had a piece of paper or a pencil in my home. It would be well over a decade ago, possibly as long as 15 years.

[Ploki]

The problem that many people will run into when they want to use a real ensemble,is that you have to write and arrange for it and that requires skills that are sadly lacking in the music that is produced these days...
The person doing the arrangement needs to have a solid understanding of harmony,counterpoint & orchestration, along with a creative spark that brings all of those elements together...
Turning a few knobs on a few synths and layering them all together with a sequencer and hoping for a good outcome is not going to cut it in that scenario...
That situation requires a different skill set and that skill set is much higher than what is required to program a few synthesizers

Not higher, just different and with all the cheat tools around these days, probably much easier than you think.

My "cheat tools" for arranging are a few sheets of manuscript paper,some 4B pencils and my brain...

Sometimes I might use a piano,but it is more interesting to just go direct to the paper

- arranging is not composing
- turning a "few knob on a few synths and layering them and hope for a good outcome" is as reductionist as "pasting a few lines checking for ranges and hoping for a good outcome"

my cheat tools are sibelius and a lot of shortcuts and takes out a lot of manual labour from arranging and making sheets in general.
I don't need to copywrite parts by hand for the musicians and i can create a logical layout without rewriting half of the damn score.

if you write with paper and 4B pencils that's your own prerogative but it has 0 to do with reality, and i haven't used paper and pencil to write sheets since i was in music high school.
There are probably a few tricks that will allow you to make sheets even slower if you want to?

I've had a symphonic orchestra, big band, brass & ww orchestra and couple of smaller ensembles play my shit so i did a fair share of sheet music, it's not harder than making something fresh and decent with synths and it doesn't require more skills, it only appears so if you have no clue how to actually work with synths.

I don't get the demeaning attitude towards synths by some of you. If you don't understand something you don't need to bash it.

[rezoneight]

Why do you think so many developers make and customers buy authentic emulations of old hardware?

Because people, on the whole, are stupid and pathetic.

This is such a dick comment. Or maybe most people have different reasons than you for buying those authentic emulations of old hardware?

Because they like the sound of it.

And this is the "stupid" part of it - you can get all the same sounds without having to slavishly clone those old instruments. e.g. The Legend isn't a great synth because it can sound just like a Minimoog, it's great synth because it builds on what the MiniMoog was and offers all the modern convenience the original couldn't. But if you compare it to DUNE, you can see how much it is being held back because of what it is - an emulation. It's probably why both Synapse and U-He sell their emulations much more cheaply than their original creations.

Don't know about Synapse but U-He most definitely does *not* sell their emulations much more cheaply. Think you need to take a look at their product page again.

I'm all for having all of these options available. It's better for the customer and better for the developer if they can build and support these things. It has absolutely nothing to do with anyone being stupid.

And even the old synth makers have revived their businesses.

That, right there, should tell you how unrealistic this market is. Why are these old synth popular again today when nobody wanted them 30 years ago? They haven't magically gotten any better, have they, so why are their businesses viable today when they weren't 30 years ago?

Jesus man there are a ton of reasons. One, most of these hardware of software emulations still provide stuff the old ones didn't. Two, because people got digital fever and IMHO the business went in a bad direction (ie: terrible user interfaces). Thankfully that trend reversed as people realized that yeah, the "old way" was better.

Anyway, I'm happy that you don't feel the need for that stuff. There is no reason to pin it down to stupidity that others do want this stuff. It's wonderful we have a great market that supports everyone's needs.