Author Topic: Founder of Native Instruments New Hardware Synth  (Read 2326 times)

Ekstasis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
    • View Profile
Re: Founder of Native Instruments New Hardware Synth
« Reply #40 on: December 10, 2013, 05:19:51 AM »
Am I misunderstanding you? You would prefer that the output of a synth be pre-processed?

I'd want any synth (digital or otherwise) to be as clean as possible, without any colouring or processing. That's the whole point of outboard effects: to shape the sound exactly how the musician wants it. If the output of the synth is already processed, you lose a lot of flexibility.

I am not talking about effects talking about the synth without effects.
like the Moog for instance... it has a certain unique character and sound, and have interesting harmonics.
What do you mean with as clean as possible ? you mean without effects ?
Without colour the synth is colourless, of course you can add with sophisticated methods  such adding extern tube character, I think the color should be in the synth, again I am not talking about the effects. 

When I mean that it sounds "dead" I mean it has not interesting harmonics,  you can add those with tubes later on though..

so you can still make almost any synth sound good. The discussion here is that I complain that synth sounds good, and I bad and that every one is so fascinated and impressed with synths when you have to process it to give tone and character, again I am not talking about effects. I think any good synth should have a tone and unique character.

Digital synths today with digital OSCs sounds mostly lifeless no interesting harmonics to work with (again I generalize there is exceptions especially VA stuff) .  As long that synths sound lifeless and have no unique charchter I have all right in the world to have a negative opinion about synths.  As I said, the latest trend is to not pay attention to filters and OSCs at all, all focus is to compensate it with better effect section..I think in a good synth the good sound should be produced in the right end not in the end.. atleast that is not where the tone and charterer should shaped....if the sound is good at the beginning it makes so much easier to make a better sound even with external effects to improve it further..while if it is shit in the beginning it makes it harder to work with.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 06:19:19 AM by Immersion »

Julio Di Benedetto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Life is a privilege, not a right!
    • View Profile
    • Digtalvoices
Re: Founder of Native Instruments New Hardware Synth
« Reply #41 on: December 10, 2013, 06:52:36 AM »
So Far Immersion if I can sum up for you regarding the possible future of synthesis......classic vintage gear other than Moog sounds bad.  Current analog synths like the Prophet 12 sounds like bad soft synths and soft synths in general also sound bad except the one or two you use though they don't  really sound that good either according to you.  So actually the future is in processing.  The source is of no importance because its the processing that will make these dead synths come alive.  This is what I have come away with so far from your comments.

If you feel there is no future say so.....then say why you think so.....oh, you have already done that then why not offer some possible direction you hope it might go.



Ekstasis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
    • View Profile
Re: Founder of Native Instruments New Hardware Synth
« Reply #42 on: December 10, 2013, 08:41:01 AM »
So Far Immersion if I can sum up for you regarding the possible future of synthesis......classic vintage gear other than Moog sounds bad.  Current analog synths like the Prophet 12 sounds like bad soft synths and soft synths in general also sound bad except the one or two you use though they don't  really sound that good either according to you.  So actually the future is in processing.  The source is of no importance because its the processing that will make these dead synths come alive.  This is what I have come away with so far from your comments.

If you feel there is no future say so.....then say why you think so.....oh, you have already done that then why not offer some possible direction you hope it might go.

You sum it up wrong man. There is many synths I like with a distinct character and interesting harmonics.
Unfortunately all these have in common that they are expensive and also in many cases hard to get... The new Prophet 12 have an analog signal path but is ruined because of it's digital osc's,  besides the flexible use and a lot of great knobs and general design it sounds very average.

There is more then two soft synths I like.

Regarding the future is processing, not if I could decide the future, I did write, that you should begin in the right end, not make up bad osc's and filter with it's internal effects.  That is for me cheating and also trying to fool people.

The source does matter,  even with processing it is hard to beat a true analog synth, especially for pad sounds it is hard thing to do, but not impossible.  Tubes helps. atleast for me.

I did not say there is no future,  I am just talking about the trends, what the majority of the synth manufactures are working on, and because of digital processing these days shift has focus on refining the basic elements in the synth, instead they polish the "turd"  with effects to make it sound fat and whatever..of course these internal effects never sounds like external professional effects...

About my hope for the future, I am not alone in this, but I want more hybrid synths to be released with both analog and digital, that is what I want, but it is more expensive to produce and is more of an challenge to do so, business as usual.  There will always be a few however that will go against the stream and release anlog products or companies that will take the virtual analog code to the next level, virtual analog have a promising future, but todays cpus are not built for it,  but as processing power increases the limits of virtual analog will be taken to a new level, intel is the only threshold right now, if there was more processing power to use I would be a more bigger believer in plugins etc, right now to mimics all this advanced analog sound you require a lot of cpu power, all this extra magic you get with analog I simply miss in most digital synths and I know I am not alone.

With that said analog and digital synths can produce where different kind of sounds, there is certain type of sounds a analog sounds cannot not do and sounds that not a digital can do on the same level..so ultimately I want a hybrid synth with best of both worlds.  Andromeda A6 is a good example, but it is not a perfect synth, and not the most user friendly synth, and I doubt there will ever be a A
7. 

petekelly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 567
    • View Profile
    • LuminaSounds
Re: Founder of Native Instruments New Hardware Synth
« Reply #43 on: December 10, 2013, 09:18:18 AM »
Somewhat off topic, but I hope this synth's presets doesn't come liberally lavished with delays. Almost every (soft) synth I've tried has these ruddy things ! No need to ice the cake, so to speak ?

I hope it has some 'interesting harmonics' too :) (sarcasm off...)

mgriffin

  • Hypnos Founder
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6914
  • Life is a memory, and then it is nothing.
    • View Profile
    • www.hypnos.com
Re: Founder of Native Instruments New Hardware Synth
« Reply #44 on: December 10, 2013, 10:15:50 AM »
Any synth you can name that "sounds bad," a talented person can use to create something that sounds beautiful and amazing. This is true of ancient modulars, early analog mono synths, digital synths, samplers, ROMplers, soft synths or anything else.

Much of Eno's important work was made with pretty much nothing but a DX7 and a few basic effects.
[ Mike Griffin, Hypnos Recordings ] email mg (at) hypnos.com | http://hypnos.com | http://twitter.com/mgsoundvisions

Julio Di Benedetto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Life is a privilege, not a right!
    • View Profile
    • Digtalvoices
Re: Founder of Native Instruments New Hardware Synth
« Reply #45 on: December 10, 2013, 10:26:44 AM »
Thank you Immersion...this is what I was hoping for as a contribution to this thread.

Ekstasis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
    • View Profile
Re: Founder of Native Instruments New Hardware Synth
« Reply #46 on: December 10, 2013, 02:41:34 PM »
Any synth you can name that "sounds bad," a talented person can use to create something that sounds beautiful and amazing. This is true of ancient modulars, early analog mono synths, digital synths, samplers, ROMplers, soft synths or anything else.

Much of Eno's important work was made with pretty much nothing but a DX7 and a few basic effects.

I agree with you, but I would add "within" limits.  You can come very close... But there is a reason why Steve Roach refuse to abandon his oberheim synths.. in all honesty for the sound he makes it would be hard to find a replacement synth..  and if you did, you would have to do quite extensive processing... it is not impossible.. for sure..but not the most easy job.. if you want to have the same magic. 
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 03:39:27 PM by Immersion »

mgriffin

  • Hypnos Founder
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6914
  • Life is a memory, and then it is nothing.
    • View Profile
    • www.hypnos.com
Re: Founder of Native Instruments New Hardware Synth
« Reply #47 on: December 10, 2013, 04:37:51 PM »
Agreed, and I don't mean to say all synths are equal, or that a Casio CZ101 is just as good as an Andromeda or a Moog or a Matrix 12 or any of the "greats." I tend to think of all synths as having their own strengths. For some synths, like a CZ101 or my Roland SH101 (hey, my first two synths both had the number "101"...) one of the strengths is that they're straightforward and easy to learn, so maybe their value is more as learning tools which are limited in terms of practical usage.

Over the years I've seen so many people say "Oh, everybody knows FM synths like the DX7 are hard to program and boring sounding," or "Everybody knows Rom based synths like D50 and M1 sound good, but they're shallow and predictable." I think it's very easy to dismiss a synth this way, and also end up dismissing or ignoring the very great work some people are able to create with synths like these.
[ Mike Griffin, Hypnos Recordings ] email mg (at) hypnos.com | http://hypnos.com | http://twitter.com/mgsoundvisions

Scott M2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • View Profile
    • dreamSTATE
Re: Founder of Native Instruments New Hardware Synth
« Reply #48 on: December 10, 2013, 05:01:32 PM »
I'm very fond of many Roland digital synths - especially the JD-990, though I certainly use its internal effects. Access to both good analog and digital intruments is the very best IMO - and, of course, ones that you feel a special relationship with.

El culto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 347
    • View Profile
Re: Founder of Native Instruments New Hardware Synth
« Reply #49 on: December 10, 2013, 05:38:02 PM »
I'm very fond of many Roland digital synths - especially the JD-990, though I certainly use its internal effects. Access to both good analog and digital intruments is the very best IMO - and, of course, ones that you feel a special relationship with.

+1

Really like the D50

Julio Di Benedetto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Life is a privilege, not a right!
    • View Profile
    • Digtalvoices
Re: Founder of Native Instruments New Hardware Synth
« Reply #50 on: December 14, 2013, 05:39:33 AM »
Agreed, and I don't mean to say all synths are equal, or that a Casio CZ101 is just as good as an Andromeda or a Moog or a Matrix 12 or any of the "greats." I tend to think of all synths as having their own strengths. For some synths, like a CZ101 or my Roland SH101 (hey, my first two synths both had the number "101"...) one of the strengths is that they're straightforward and easy to learn, so maybe their value is more as learning tools which are limited in terms of practical usage.


This is very true Mike.....the learning is crucial and limited is good.  Without a decent amount of practical electronic synthesis knowledge one would have a hard time getting the most out of an Andromeda or M12.  They are very deep instruments and thus are a constant source of sonic surprises to the seasoned electronic musician. Im a much more knowledgeable programmer after spend time using a modular synth. 

I think a few different "limited" synths in one studio is just as good as using the some of the "greats" because as you suggest one becomes a master.