UPDATE: Some people are making responses that are not welcome here. I am happy to have discussions, but I am not happy to have comments that seek to demean, esp those that pretend not to be hidden abuse. If you want to debate, do so but that means that you have to follow the rules of civilized discussion, not simply "my opinion" is right (so you are clearly silly) as that is childish and unproductive. I have no use for it. Moving forward, all comments will be MODERATED before posting. If you hope to be posted (and seen) please don't be a dick. 🙂
Love this! I am in the process of selling all of my hardware and with each piece I get rid of the more and more I am realizing I could have done everything I needed with Subtractor 20+ years ago. I think there is a little bit of magic with pushing analog and the beautiful ways it breaks up. I've overcome that with using re-amp boxes to run into stereo overdrive pedals. Every VST can now get a flavor of analogy-ness. Great video!
You are absolutely correct. Thank you for standing up and saying something about this. I've had the pleasure and demise of owning quite a lot of synths and realizing all are essentially the same, it's a matter of packaging and placement
Thanks yes, today I dipped into the new Korg Poly Pony (or whatever) at NAMM and all the fake fairy dust about it being a game changer. It sounds like every other synth DAW or otherwise for the last 3,000 decades (hyperbole kids). Great if it solves a real problem in your rig but otherwise DX-7 & Fairlight/Synclavier were game changers, this is just the game playing itself. :-)
I think from a sound designers perspective, synths are generally the same especially if they are the same type of synths. Alot of the differences with synths, people will over emphasize. From different filter technologies, to oscillator technologies, some of the differences are fairly subtle and can take a fairly trained ear. There are drastic differences in certain tech like FM vs Analog but i get what you are saying in terms of two Analog synths, you won't really be able to hear much difference. The big differences people talk about are the quirks which some people might use to benefit for certain patches but for more generic "Analog lead" sounds, almost anything could pull that off even a very "digital synth". I think a big truth is the majority of synth users are preset browsers and the sound of the synth is often dictated by those presets which alot of times is more dependent on the skill of the sound designer vs the capability of the synth itself. That said GUI differences can be a huge difference. After finally purchasing an Analog synth, the main benefit is just having the dedicated controls immediately available. Or some digital plugin synths might have a more inviting GUI vs a synth with buried menus and obscure workflows. I think for most songs the average user won't care if you used an OBX, Jupiter 8, or a Subtractor for you synth Brass patch. Great patches and horrible sounding patches can be programmed on all synths. All will have certain quirks though user can take advantage of but at the end of day you'd be surprised what the end user can't hear. Some times people will end up preferring the very digital synth.
thanks for understanding the mindset. Yes clearly a DX-7 can sound different from a Model D. And yet in many cases something that works (and listeners don't note or care) can be done in either. It is the obsessing over trivialism that I rail against :-)
Thank you for putting so much effort into making this simple but important point. I had an eye opening moment while watching a video that someone make on the topic "DAW x sounds better than DAW y because the makers have better programmers". He put a tiny music piece into multiple DAWs and did a .wav export. Shockingly even for me the output files where byte-identical. Oh and I would like to point out that 3x OSC in FL Studio is nothing less than a full-blown Minimoog clone. Just without the price tag and the thrilling look. Keep it up, man, love your content.
Very true. Except on the DAWs sound the same thing I am a bit less convinced. While that test is indeed true. I am not entirely convinced that is exactly the same with VST etc. However, even if one DAW has a sound that another does not, this doesn't mean that one is better than the other. I like that Reason is very clean with VST etc so i can choose the sonic footprint I want per track/album. Nothing worse than being stuck with Neve sound LOL
Well, Benedict, thank you for this video. I really appreciated the depth you went to to prove your point about these plug-ins - and yes it was quite uncanny how difficult (or, indeed, impossible) to tell the two apart. Your point was very well made! I will stick to what I said on FB, that hardware synths are inherently different by nature of their construction, aging etc. and therefore don't really fit into the remit of this video. Nevertheless, the discussion on FB has raised some really good points from different folk. Subbed.
Thanks. I'm not sure that I agree re hardware vs software as ultimately sound is sound is sound. Clearly, on the surface, the experience of an MO-DX will feel different from a Mini, from Europa on my Win 11 PC, BUT that doesn't immediately mean that there is not more essential similarity than difference. The same argument we (mostly) agree is correct with white people, brown people, green people... Because, as DM told us, people are people and we all have 7 arms, 43 legs, and spaghetti for brains (assuming we let AI draw us that is). :-)
Great video, Benedict. I stopped worrying about finding the Holy Grail of analog-modelled softsynths a long time ago. I agree it's "very easy to be fooled". Cheers!
nice one. a few people asked me about this subject too. I collect eurorack gear and im fairly certain the hardware sounds identical to VCV rack or whatever but I just like having the hardware the same way my phone tells the time but I like swiss watches. The problem comes when you think "the 8,000€ watch tells the time BETTER than the phone". Obviously the watch tells the time better because it's more expensive. Obviously the watch has a more "analogue" time value.
Thanks for dropping by. Yes it is like cars, a Hyundai and a Ferrari both drive you to the Kwik-E-Mart just dandy. Matter of fact the Hyundai is a lot easier in most cases. Altho less likely to get one laid of course. Synths are horses for courses but it does become silly when people blat on about how their synth is betterer and more Pro-ful than whatever everyone else owns. Spankery which leads people off-path once it becomes the zeitgeist. :-)
"Some people get by with a little understanding Some people get by with a whole lot more I don't know, why you gotta be so undemanding One thing I know, I want more, I want more" - Sisters of Mercy "More"
i would answer the question 'do you need more synths?' with yes, because of 2 reasons: 1. Routing: Unless you are using a really modular synth like phaseplant there'll be a lot of pre-defined routing in the signal chain of the synthesizer and you don't have to think about it, but just use it, which is cool. My favorite synth VSTi, Synth1 by Ichiro Toda even has an LFO that is already mapped to pitch by default, because the developer knew users wanna add vibrato fast. That is just nice and reasonable. Or what if you wanna have 2 Wavetable oscillators routed into a single filter? You'd use Serum, easy. 2. Workflow: Making music with synths is about being inspired, so you wanna make sure if you get a new synth it comes with a workflow that you haven't experienced before or that is improved by the synthesizer. For example when Synplant2 dropped and was hyped for the Genopatch feature that lets you interpret input samples as synth patches. That's a sick workflow and it replaces the attempt to recreate a sound manually in an elegant way.
@@Beatsbasteln Rather than me havin' to answer that, why not you take some time to research me and what matters. Otherwise, I fear we'll be talking apples and organic nuclear warheads. 🙂 BTW, you already know I like Europa.
@@BenedictRoffMarsh it's ok if you don't wanna tell me what you're looking for in a synth, but don't expect me to go search for the answer in your videos. i'm already following you for a while and you have some great topics, but your videos are too long and unedited for my average attention span, especially when i'm searching for a specific piece of information
I think the issue in so much whether things (the products) sound the same , but how much knowledge (time investment) and time you have or are willen to invest to get the result you desire. You may have to study twenty hours to get skilled enough to know how how to get Moog--like sounds from a plugin, or you may buy one that only requires pushing just one button. When that plugin costs you 80 buck, your 'wage' was 4 bucks an hours. That's the trade off you have to make. And that's dependent on how much money you have to spend and much much time you have to spend. So it's not only about the products. Apart of course of one ability to recognize/notice those differences.
Exactly. At no actual point was I suggesting as a total fact that Model D = DX-7 = Emulator. It is that if you understand what is happening in the Model D or DX, you can get close enough that the average fan will not care enough to care. Therefore, obsessing over whether your Derringer Jube 106 is cool enough to make you Pro is a shocking waste of time - that, as you rightly say, could be put to making what you have sing. :-)
When it comes to basic analog synths, with the regular ADSR and the same basic and pure waveforms then yes, they all sound the same. Where analog emulations of vintage hardware will start sounding different is when these waveforms are not perfect. The saw wave on an ARP 2600 is not a pure waveform, it's slightly overdriven. Also the way a filter will react to what note is being played will differ. Example, the 2600 by Arturia is very equal across the keyboard, but the Cherry Audio version is not, and is brighter on higher notes. Which is much like the original. So even emulations of the same synth sounds different. Yes, the basic waveforms are pretty similar, though still not exactly the same, but Cherry Audio wins that comparison. Also features will differ, like unison or having each oscillator play several slightly detuned notes for a bigger sound. Not all do that the same way and on some it sounds great, on others not so much. And then there are the different types of synthesis, subtractive, additive, FM, which do actually not sound the same at all. And even though Dexed and DX7-V are modeled on the same digital synth, they do not sound the same. The thought behind this video I can agree with, meaning you don't need a big arsenal of soft synths, you can do with a few main ones and get all the sounds you need if you know what you're doing. And of course, how fast you get there does matter. Sometimes a lot.
I deffo agree on unisons - some really sound naf. Most just sound meh. Dune I think added a "Swarm" which was different - at leat on first look. Probably easy to emulate, once one has that as a target. :-)
You are right. They are leading us by the nose. However how fast and easy you get to the sound matters to me. That's why I like Odin2. It doesn't put me off. I twist a knob and I get there while other synths may require twisting many knobs to get the same result. It even has velocity knob. I don't nave to go to modulation matrix looking to find what controls velocity. It's right there. One knob. One knob for analog emulation. I don't have to asign bunch of LFOs. One knob. Filter envelope-I always get confused what direction the filter envelope is going. With Odin2 I don't get confused. Besides it's very CPU friendly. And it has all the effects I need on board. Delay is pretty cool. For someone like me who wants to get going without getting bogged into sound design forever Odin2 is great.
Indeed, while different synths can have different implementations of features, what matters most is that we find the workflow that works for each of us as individuals. I have that in Reason in general and Europa as my first go-to. You may know, I did a huuuge walkthrough/discussion of Odin 2 when it came out - when Thor was my go-to. :-)
@BenedictRoffMarsh I remember testing Reason when I was looking for a DAW. The one thing I do remember well was the killer drums they had stock. I am also aware of Europa. It looks pretty straight forward and I like things that are easy on the eyes. Even I didn't end up using Reason these are two things that I would like to have. But tools are tools. The important thing is to find a way to finish tracks. Lately I've been using FL Mobile a lot. Part because it's my favorite tool, part because of pain. It allows me to make music when in bed. My last 20 pieces probably wouldn't happen if there was no music app on my phone. They were almost entirely recorded in bed. 🙂
@@aspirativemusicproduction2135 Sorry to hear you aren't well. That is exactly it, synths & DAWs are tools. No different from a spanner. (sane) People don't go on about their spanner, they come fix your thing or not. :-)
Coveting a true analog synth is a bit like guitarists coveting a 1950s Les Paul, and ends up biasing you towards making music with your eyes and not your ears, which might even stop you from making music altogether. Consider that there was a time when, in the early/mid-eighties, when analog went out the window completely. Sampling and FM synthesis were the future, and at that point your Moogs and Sequentials were considered barely better than firewood. An overreaction for sure, but it's worth remembering there was a time when analog was not only not the thing, but many musicians found it frustrating, because they couldn't conceive the sounds they desired with analog, Wendy Carlos being among them. At that point analog synths sounded drab, lacked the ability to create complex harmonic overtones, compared to the new tech. It's ironic that it was only with the creation of virtual analog that everyone started revering analog again in its own right. But unfortunately this triggered a whole new tedious conversation about "realness".
I have yet to hear any soft synth that sounds that close to a Moog Muse. If anyone can point to an example, please do. Especially if you watch Mylar Melodies video on the Muse. I feel like some soft synths come close to sounding like “analog”, but there’s definitely a difference. Watch Vulture Culture’s latest stream where he creates soundscapes inspired by Alien on a Korg Monopoly. I just haven’t heard a soft synth be able to sound quite like that.
This wasn't a VST vs Moog Muse thing. It was: With enough understanding (and patience) most synths can cover each other off adequately. Find the recent vid where a fellow uses a DX-7 to do the Big V's "Blade Runner" intro and it works a treat. Not exact, but not worth going to war over either. Often we can't conceive of a thing but once we break it apart sound is always sound so if you put the things that matter in similar spots, the results are good enough for knife fighting (except remember we aren't having a war - that is for frightened children) :-)
They sound different, envelopes, filters etc its different, but for avarage person not really. they cant say the difference. Take Diva and Serum. But it is woth to learn one, like havind them so many
Excellent video ! You have solved the age old problem, but there will always be people who think certain manufacturers have "secret sauce". In the case of digital,... trump would say NO ONE has seen NUMBERS LIKE THESE ! ! !
I think some analog synthesizers sound more distinct in the mix, while not using a significant volume level. If the sound is similar, it is not identical to such a concept as distinctness in the mix. Some parts do not need such properties at all. Some styles of music require completely different sound qualities. I think that using analog synthesizers is not necessary. An analog synthesizer is first of all an instrument. With this instrument, I can more easily solve certain problems. Can I achieve a similar result using other synthesizers? Probably yes. Will this sound have all the same qualities in the mix as the original instrument? Not always.
If I want qualities, I identify what they are and add them. I don't need to agonize over whether my Sharp Microwave is as pro-ful as my neighbor's Panasonic. Sure many sub-sub-genres specify that certain sounds must be used but that is not really music so much as Gatekeepery Totalitarianism (to amuse those with small expression pedals).
@@BenedictRoffMarsh I agree, everyone finds their own way. Most of us use completely different resources and methods. Each of us has our own arguments. My arguments are subjective. I am happy to share my experience and my opinion and am always grateful to those who do the same.
@@gresagroup Indeed. I loathe all this "thou shalt use only this" (with matching affiliate link) that has taken over DAWville. Everyone is obsessed with irrelevant technicalities like arguing about how their Booger 902 Rev 3567 OSC has more presence than the Derringer 901 Rev 987 Patchbay. This is always wrong. What is right is focusing on the Scene & Story of the Song (or piece of music). Sadly this is effectively verboten these days. No wonder music is so sucky as a general rule seeing it is not music but synth workouts by people showing off their gear to TokTuk followerz. :-(
@@BenedictRoffMarsh. I don't see everything as tragic as you, but I understand the essence of your comments well. I agree with you, today a lot of attention is paid to secondary topics. But it doesn't bother me. Everyone can highlight what they need. I myself sometimes think that I lack a certain sound, but often the problems are completely different. This is normal. It also happens that I use another instrument and the mix is magically corrected. I can't be categorical in this matter. Subjectively, I believe that each instrument has its own tone and character. Only my consumer can objectively judge the sound. For him, sound is not the main evaluation criterion. In 99.9% of cases, it is important to me but not to the listener.
@@gresagroup "sometimes think that I lack a certain sound, but often the problems are completely different". This is a lot of what I am trying to get at here. People feel that only if they get the Jupiter 5s80c, will they be Pro-ful. When in reality, they could write things that are just as good with (just about) any other synth, hardware, VST, whatever. Ownership of these objects of emotively inflated misplaced desire will not bestow magic that is not being accessed by the user already. Learning (or a Record Producer) would be a better investment most times. But that is not fashionable. And yes, I often paraphrase Gene Simmons saying how guitarists obsess about tone when in reality the kids don't care. The kids care if it rocks them. Therefore all this worry is counter to the real object - rocking the relevant fans. Any guitar and any amp will do if you get passion on tape. With that, you compare guitar tones from the 60s-90s to now and what was common then is now declared un-listenable. That is off. Today I saw one of those Amateur vs Pro mix things where the guy did a 'loser' mix based on all the things losers do and then compared it to a Pro mix. The pro mix sounded very modern but was horrid as Art. The supposedly wrong mix was way nicer and had me interested in the song, rather than reaching for the "I'm outa here" button.
Controversial. Genrally, I agree, when it comes to data and calculations, digital synths can all be made to sound the same. I think real hardware has a slight advantage of drift and aging of circuits that make any two next to each other sounds slightly different, not due to the machine, but the passage of time affecting its circuits. But your point to lusting after a XXX synth because its new and shiny when you have a huge collection of unused and unlearnt VST emulations is rather silly.
The initial synth here has a lot of drifts built in - I know because I built it. I emulated that in Europa. As I discussed around 02:26 I had a Slim Phatty and no one ever picks it in the mix. So sure every architecture will bring different results, once fully understood, unless the process is truly different eg FM, the results are commonly far more duplicable than most would like to admit. QED, lusting after 45,678,926,434 different devices is wasting cycles better applied to finishing music. And yes, a slightly provocative title ;-)
@@BenedictRoffMarsh I'm wondering if its more to do with the human psyche, or perhaps the artistry of having something tactile on hand that triggers biases towards the instruments sounding better or different. Theres definatly something to be said for just playing a genuine vintage piece of gear over the thought of having to wrestle with a digital plugin to copy it. My patience for messing with plugins is usually gone in the time I've spend deciding with one of my many I have to chose from to use. Your Europa patch sounds amazing btw, can you share it?
@@CybreSmee 100%. This is the whole subtext of this post (and many others of mine). We build these ivory tower fantasies. I had tape, cassette, hardware synths, mixers... Fine. But nothing ever came back as it went in. I noted that in the Alan Parsons interview with Beato, he said that Abbey Rd had a rule that all monitoring was done Off-Tape so you only heard what was on-tape, not the now-lost original signal. A wise idea indeed. As for wrestling: Hardware is/was always waaaaaay more struggle. What worked one day didn't the next. Often for no apparent reason as the day after it worked again. Digital is not like that at all. I can open a Reason project from 25 years ago and it is exact, Thor is in-tune and the patch hasn't changed at all, the mix is pristine (not glued to the capstan). Thanks on the patch. Clearly not saved. I think you'd have to pause the vid and recreate. TBH probably nothing that special, just movement. 🙂
I think there's a few important caveats that you've buried in here with throwaway lines, and your answer is not an absolute "Yes" so much as "Yes, if they implement the same synthesis approach and have the same features". The user interface and workflow also matters, some software and hardware synths and more inspiring sound design and performance tools than others, but to be fair your video is titled Do All Synths Sound the Same so that's not relevant to the argument you're making. For the particular type of producer that works in the box, has a particular sound already in their head, and doesn't mind taking their time mousing around over controls to get to it, I think you've made a compelling case that you don't need to waste your time and money comparing and collecting every individual synth on the market and instead select a handful of flexible and feature rich soft synths that cover the range of synthesis approaches that you want to use and learn them inside out. Option paralysis is a thing and when you have one go-to tool for, for example, all your subtractive synthesis needs you've already skipped a sometimes time consuming step of deciding which synth to start playing with. But there's no one right way to make music, and some of us are inspired by different tactile approaches or even just that one patch on that one synth. I learned this about myself when I bought my first hardware synths, a Yamaha MODX, expecting it to be the one synth to end all synths, and for the most part it is. But while it's flexible and powerful its workflow is slow and not inspiring (for me). I've since picked up a number of other synths and getting my hands on each of them takes me to different places and does get me inspired.
Filter ok, but there are very good videos comparing Model D Clones and they create multibel patches that are shpwing the different capabilitys of the Model D and tested this vst's and a Minimoog Model D directly next to each other. And when you can not hear a difference between the different vst's i think sound design is then maybe not the perfect profession. The difference was massive noticeable and also after adjustments did not help at all. PS: Didn't wanted to be rude, but there are clear differences. ruclips.net/video/S1h07ws--CM/видео.html
Wasn't my point, but thanks to you as well for the boost to my stats ;-) As for the pointed insult, you did say it. Trying to roll it back whilst leaving it in the post (even after editing) doesn't actually make it so. Actually, it makes it even worse (for you). But hey, again I got your view and this engagement, proving to the Algo how popular and relevant I am ;-)
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
UPDATE: Some people are making responses that are not welcome here. I am happy to have discussions, but I am not happy to have comments that seek to demean, esp those that pretend not to be hidden abuse. If you want to debate, do so but that means that you have to follow the rules of civilized discussion, not simply "my opinion" is right (so you are clearly silly) as that is childish and unproductive. I have no use for it. Moving forward, all comments will be MODERATED before posting. If you hope to be posted (and seen) please don't be a dick.
🙂
Love this! I am in the process of selling all of my hardware and with each piece I get rid of the more and more I am realizing I could have done everything I needed with Subtractor 20+ years ago. I think there is a little bit of magic with pushing analog and the beautiful ways it breaks up. I've overcome that with using re-amp boxes to run into stereo overdrive pedals. Every VST can now get a flavor of analogy-ness. Great video!
I love hearing this. With knowledge/understanding Sub alone can do just about anything you can imagine both "analog" and 'digital'. :-)
You are absolutely correct. Thank you for standing up and saying something about this. I've had the pleasure and demise of owning quite a lot of synths and realizing all are essentially the same, it's a matter of packaging and placement
Thanks yes, today I dipped into the new Korg Poly Pony (or whatever) at NAMM and all the fake fairy dust about it being a game changer. It sounds like every other synth DAW or otherwise for the last 3,000 decades (hyperbole kids). Great if it solves a real problem in your rig but otherwise DX-7 & Fairlight/Synclavier were game changers, this is just the game playing itself. :-)
I think from a sound designers perspective, synths are generally the same especially if they are the same type of synths.
Alot of the differences with synths, people will over emphasize.
From different filter technologies, to oscillator technologies, some of the differences are fairly subtle and can take a fairly trained ear.
There are drastic differences in certain tech like FM vs Analog but i get what you are saying in terms of two Analog synths, you won't really be able to hear much difference. The big differences people talk about are the quirks which some people might use to benefit for certain patches but for more generic "Analog lead" sounds, almost anything could pull that off even a very "digital synth".
I think a big truth is the majority of synth users are preset browsers and the sound of the synth is often dictated by those presets which alot of times is more dependent on the skill of the sound designer vs the capability of the synth itself.
That said GUI differences can be a huge difference. After finally purchasing an Analog synth, the main benefit is just having the dedicated controls immediately available. Or some digital plugin synths might have a more inviting GUI vs a synth with buried menus and obscure workflows.
I think for most songs the average user won't care if you used an OBX, Jupiter 8, or a Subtractor for you synth Brass patch. Great patches and horrible sounding patches can be programmed on all synths. All will have certain quirks though user can take advantage of but at the end of day you'd be surprised what the end user can't hear. Some times people will end up preferring the very digital synth.
thanks for understanding the mindset. Yes clearly a DX-7 can sound different from a Model D. And yet in many cases something that works (and listeners don't note or care) can be done in either. It is the obsessing over trivialism that I rail against :-)
Thank you for putting so much effort into making this simple but important point. I had an eye opening moment while watching a video that someone make on the topic "DAW x sounds better than DAW y because the makers have better programmers". He put a tiny music piece into multiple DAWs and did a .wav export. Shockingly even for me the output files where byte-identical. Oh and I would like to point out that 3x OSC in FL Studio is nothing less than a full-blown Minimoog clone. Just without the price tag and the thrilling look. Keep it up, man, love your content.
Very true. Except on the DAWs sound the same thing I am a bit less convinced. While that test is indeed true. I am not entirely convinced that is exactly the same with VST etc. However, even if one DAW has a sound that another does not, this doesn't mean that one is better than the other. I like that Reason is very clean with VST etc so i can choose the sonic footprint I want per track/album. Nothing worse than being stuck with Neve sound LOL
Well, Benedict, thank you for this video. I really appreciated the depth you went to to prove your point about these plug-ins - and yes it was quite uncanny how difficult (or, indeed, impossible) to tell the two apart. Your point was very well made! I will stick to what I said on FB, that hardware synths are inherently different by nature of their construction, aging etc. and therefore don't really fit into the remit of this video. Nevertheless, the discussion on FB has raised some really good points from different folk. Subbed.
Thanks. I'm not sure that I agree re hardware vs software as ultimately sound is sound is sound. Clearly, on the surface, the experience of an MO-DX will feel different from a Mini, from Europa on my Win 11 PC, BUT that doesn't immediately mean that there is not more essential similarity than difference. The same argument we (mostly) agree is correct with white people, brown people, green people... Because, as DM told us, people are people and we all have 7 arms, 43 legs, and spaghetti for brains (assuming we let AI draw us that is).
:-)
Great video, Benedict. I stopped worrying about finding the Holy Grail of analog-modelled softsynths a long time ago. I agree it's "very easy to be fooled". Cheers!
nice one. a few people asked me about this subject too. I collect eurorack gear and im fairly certain the hardware sounds identical to VCV rack or whatever but I just like having the hardware the same way my phone tells the time but I like swiss watches. The problem comes when you think "the 8,000€ watch tells the time BETTER than the phone". Obviously the watch tells the time better because it's more expensive. Obviously the watch has a more "analogue" time value.
Thanks for dropping by. Yes it is like cars, a Hyundai and a Ferrari both drive you to the Kwik-E-Mart just dandy. Matter of fact the Hyundai is a lot easier in most cases. Altho less likely to get one laid of course. Synths are horses for courses but it does become silly when people blat on about how their synth is betterer and more Pro-ful than whatever everyone else owns. Spankery which leads people off-path once it becomes the zeitgeist.
:-)
12:10 excelent advise but... I need more GEAR 🤣😂😇
"Some people get by with a little understanding
Some people get by with a whole lot more
I don't know, why you gotta be so undemanding
One thing I know, I want more, I want more"
- Sisters of Mercy "More"
@@BenedictRoffMarsh ha ha, good one :)
i would answer the question 'do you need more synths?' with yes, because of 2 reasons:
1. Routing: Unless you are using a really modular synth like phaseplant there'll be a lot of pre-defined routing in the signal chain of the synthesizer and you don't have to think about it, but just use it, which is cool. My favorite synth VSTi, Synth1 by Ichiro Toda even has an LFO that is already mapped to pitch by default, because the developer knew users wanna add vibrato fast. That is just nice and reasonable. Or what if you wanna have 2 Wavetable oscillators routed into a single filter? You'd use Serum, easy.
2. Workflow: Making music with synths is about being inspired, so you wanna make sure if you get a new synth it comes with a workflow that you haven't experienced before or that is improved by the synthesizer. For example when Synplant2 dropped and was hyped for the Genopatch feature that lets you interpret input samples as synth patches. That's a sick workflow and it replaces the attempt to recreate a sound manually in an elegant way.
Sadly both things I wouldn't really rate at all but a bit moot seeing I have and use several synths (in Reason).
:-)
@@BenedictRoffMarsh but what are you looking for in a synth? come on, you can't tell me it is just about the sound
@@Beatsbasteln Rather than me havin' to answer that, why not you take some time to research me and what matters. Otherwise, I fear we'll be talking apples and organic nuclear warheads. 🙂
BTW, you already know I like Europa.
@@BenedictRoffMarsh it's ok if you don't wanna tell me what you're looking for in a synth, but don't expect me to go search for the answer in your videos. i'm already following you for a while and you have some great topics, but your videos are too long and unedited for my average attention span, especially when i'm searching for a specific piece of information
@@Beatsbasteln Ok cool. Seems like you self-answered then. I like synths that are long and boring ;-)
I think the issue in so much whether things (the products) sound the same , but how much knowledge (time investment) and time you have or are willen to invest to get the result you desire. You may have to study twenty hours to get skilled enough to know how how to get Moog--like sounds from a plugin, or you may buy one that only requires pushing just one button. When that plugin costs you 80 buck, your 'wage' was 4 bucks an hours. That's the trade off you have to make. And that's dependent on how much money you have to spend and much much time you have to spend. So it's not only about the products. Apart of course of one ability to recognize/notice those differences.
Exactly. At no actual point was I suggesting as a total fact that Model D = DX-7 = Emulator.
It is that if you understand what is happening in the Model D or DX, you can get close enough that the average fan will not care enough to care. Therefore, obsessing over whether your Derringer Jube 106 is cool enough to make you Pro is a shocking waste of time - that, as you rightly say, could be put to making what you have sing.
:-)
Do all record producers sound the same : Yes
Do all whiny "I Can't finish my songs" non-Produca's sound sound da same? Hell yeah.
It makes them feel like they are part of something special ;-)
@@BenedictRoffMarsh Yes, just like YT "content creators".
When it comes to basic analog synths, with the regular ADSR and the same basic and pure waveforms then yes, they all sound the same. Where analog emulations of vintage hardware will start sounding different is when these waveforms are not perfect. The saw wave on an ARP 2600 is not a pure waveform, it's slightly overdriven. Also the way a filter will react to what note is being played will differ. Example, the 2600 by Arturia is very equal across the keyboard, but the Cherry Audio version is not, and is brighter on higher notes. Which is much like the original. So even emulations of the same synth sounds different. Yes, the basic waveforms are pretty similar, though still not exactly the same, but Cherry Audio wins that comparison. Also features will differ, like unison or having each oscillator play several slightly detuned notes for a bigger sound. Not all do that the same way and on some it sounds great, on others not so much.
And then there are the different types of synthesis, subtractive, additive, FM, which do actually not sound the same at all. And even though Dexed and DX7-V are modeled on the same digital synth, they do not sound the same.
The thought behind this video I can agree with, meaning you don't need a big arsenal of soft synths, you can do with a few main ones and get all the sounds you need if you know what you're doing. And of course, how fast you get there does matter. Sometimes a lot.
I deffo agree on unisons - some really sound naf. Most just sound meh. Dune I think added a "Swarm" which was different - at leat on first look. Probably easy to emulate, once one has that as a target. :-)
You are right. They are leading us by the nose. However how fast and easy you get to the sound matters to me. That's why I like Odin2. It doesn't put me off. I twist a knob and I get there while other synths may require twisting many knobs to get the same result. It even has velocity knob. I don't nave to go to modulation matrix looking to find what controls velocity. It's right there. One knob. One knob for analog emulation. I don't have to asign bunch of LFOs. One knob. Filter envelope-I always get confused what direction the filter envelope is going. With Odin2 I don't get confused. Besides it's very CPU friendly. And it has all the effects I need on board. Delay is pretty cool. For someone like me who wants to get going without getting bogged into sound design forever Odin2 is great.
Indeed, while different synths can have different implementations of features, what matters most is that we find the workflow that works for each of us as individuals. I have that in Reason in general and Europa as my first go-to. You may know, I did a huuuge walkthrough/discussion of Odin 2 when it came out - when Thor was my go-to.
:-)
@BenedictRoffMarsh I remember testing Reason when I was looking for a DAW. The one thing I do remember well was the killer drums they had stock. I am also aware of Europa. It looks pretty straight forward and I like things that are easy on the eyes. Even I didn't end up using Reason these are two things that I would like to have. But tools are tools. The important thing is to find a way to finish tracks. Lately I've been using FL Mobile a lot. Part because it's my favorite tool, part because of pain. It allows me to make music when in bed. My last 20 pieces probably wouldn't happen if there was no music app on my phone. They were almost entirely recorded in bed. 🙂
@@aspirativemusicproduction2135 Sorry to hear you aren't well. That is exactly it, synths & DAWs are tools. No different from a spanner. (sane) People don't go on about their spanner, they come fix your thing or not. :-)
Coveting a true analog synth is a bit like guitarists coveting a 1950s Les Paul, and ends up biasing you towards making music with your eyes and not your ears, which might even stop you from making music altogether. Consider that there was a time when, in the early/mid-eighties, when analog went out the window completely. Sampling and FM synthesis were the future, and at that point your Moogs and Sequentials were considered barely better than firewood.
An overreaction for sure, but it's worth remembering there was a time when analog was not only not the thing, but many musicians found it frustrating, because they couldn't conceive the sounds they desired with analog, Wendy Carlos being among them. At that point analog synths sounded drab, lacked the ability to create complex harmonic overtones, compared to the new tech. It's ironic that it was only with the creation of virtual analog that everyone started revering analog again in its own right. But unfortunately this triggered a whole new tedious conversation about "realness".
True. I bet George Benson could outplay us all on a $100 department store special (so long as it was in tune!!)
I have yet to hear any soft synth that sounds that close to a Moog Muse. If anyone can point to an example, please do. Especially if you watch Mylar Melodies video on the Muse. I feel like some soft synths come close to sounding like “analog”, but there’s definitely a difference. Watch Vulture Culture’s latest stream where he creates soundscapes inspired by Alien on a Korg Monopoly. I just haven’t heard a soft synth be able to sound quite like that.
This wasn't a VST vs Moog Muse thing. It was: With enough understanding (and patience) most synths can cover each other off adequately. Find the recent vid where a fellow uses a DX-7 to do the Big V's "Blade Runner" intro and it works a treat. Not exact, but not worth going to war over either. Often we can't conceive of a thing but once we break it apart sound is always sound so if you put the things that matter in similar spots, the results are good enough for knife fighting (except remember we aren't having a war - that is for frightened children)
:-)
They sound different, envelopes, filters etc its different, but for avarage person not really. they cant say the difference. Take Diva and Serum. But it is woth to learn one, like havind them so many
Excellent video ! You have solved the age old problem, but there will always be people who think certain manufacturers have "secret sauce". In the case of digital,... trump would say NO ONE has seen NUMBERS LIKE THESE ! ! !
ha ha yes my invisible numbers are more betterer than any opponent's invisible numbers
MSGA
:-)
I think some analog synthesizers sound more distinct in the mix, while not using a significant volume level. If the sound is similar, it is not identical to such a concept as distinctness in the mix. Some parts do not need such properties at all. Some styles of music require completely different sound qualities. I think that using analog synthesizers is not necessary. An analog synthesizer is first of all an instrument. With this instrument, I can more easily solve certain problems. Can I achieve a similar result using other synthesizers? Probably yes. Will this sound have all the same qualities in the mix as the original instrument? Not always.
If I want qualities, I identify what they are and add them. I don't need to agonize over whether my Sharp Microwave is as pro-ful as my neighbor's Panasonic.
Sure many sub-sub-genres specify that certain sounds must be used but that is not really music so much as Gatekeepery Totalitarianism (to amuse those with small expression pedals).
@@BenedictRoffMarsh I agree, everyone finds their own way. Most of us use completely different resources and methods. Each of us has our own arguments. My arguments are subjective. I am happy to share my experience and my opinion and am always grateful to those who do the same.
@@gresagroup Indeed. I loathe all this "thou shalt use only this" (with matching affiliate link) that has taken over DAWville.
Everyone is obsessed with irrelevant technicalities like arguing about how their Booger 902 Rev 3567 OSC has more presence than the Derringer 901 Rev 987 Patchbay. This is always wrong. What is right is focusing on the Scene & Story of the Song (or piece of music). Sadly this is effectively verboten these days. No wonder music is so sucky as a general rule seeing it is not music but synth workouts by people showing off their gear to TokTuk followerz. :-(
@@BenedictRoffMarsh. I don't see everything as tragic as you, but I understand the essence of your comments well. I agree with you, today a lot of attention is paid to secondary topics. But it doesn't bother me. Everyone can highlight what they need. I myself sometimes think that I lack a certain sound, but often the problems are completely different. This is normal. It also happens that I use another instrument and the mix is magically corrected. I can't be categorical in this matter. Subjectively, I believe that each instrument has its own tone and character. Only my consumer can objectively judge the sound. For him, sound is not the main evaluation criterion. In 99.9% of cases, it is important to me but not to the listener.
@@gresagroup "sometimes think that I lack a certain sound, but often the problems are completely different".
This is a lot of what I am trying to get at here. People feel that only if they get the Jupiter 5s80c, will they be Pro-ful. When in reality, they could write things that are just as good with (just about) any other synth, hardware, VST, whatever. Ownership of these objects of emotively inflated misplaced desire will not bestow magic that is not being accessed by the user already. Learning (or a Record Producer) would be a better investment most times. But that is not fashionable.
And yes, I often paraphrase Gene Simmons saying how guitarists obsess about tone when in reality the kids don't care. The kids care if it rocks them. Therefore all this worry is counter to the real object - rocking the relevant fans. Any guitar and any amp will do if you get passion on tape. With that, you compare guitar tones from the 60s-90s to now and what was common then is now declared un-listenable. That is off. Today I saw one of those Amateur vs Pro mix things where the guy did a 'loser' mix based on all the things losers do and then compared it to a Pro mix. The pro mix sounded very modern but was horrid as Art. The supposedly wrong mix was way nicer and had me interested in the song, rather than reaching for the "I'm outa here" button.
Controversial. Genrally, I agree, when it comes to data and calculations, digital synths can all be made to sound the same. I think real hardware has a slight advantage of drift and aging of circuits that make any two next to each other sounds slightly different, not due to the machine, but the passage of time affecting its circuits.
But your point to lusting after a XXX synth because its new and shiny when you have a huge collection of unused and unlearnt VST emulations is rather silly.
The initial synth here has a lot of drifts built in - I know because I built it. I emulated that in Europa. As I discussed around 02:26 I had a Slim Phatty and no one ever picks it in the mix.
So sure every architecture will bring different results, once fully understood, unless the process is truly different eg FM, the results are commonly far more duplicable than most would like to admit. QED, lusting after 45,678,926,434 different devices is wasting cycles better applied to finishing music.
And yes, a slightly provocative title ;-)
@@BenedictRoffMarsh I'm wondering if its more to do with the human psyche, or perhaps the artistry of having something tactile on hand that triggers biases towards the instruments sounding better or different. Theres definatly something to be said for just playing a genuine vintage piece of gear over the thought of having to wrestle with a digital plugin to copy it. My patience for messing with plugins is usually gone in the time I've spend deciding with one of my many I have to chose from to use. Your Europa patch sounds amazing btw, can you share it?
@@CybreSmee 100%. This is the whole subtext of this post (and many others of mine). We build these ivory tower fantasies. I had tape, cassette, hardware synths, mixers... Fine. But nothing ever came back as it went in. I noted that in the Alan Parsons interview with Beato, he said that Abbey Rd had a rule that all monitoring was done Off-Tape so you only heard what was on-tape, not the now-lost original signal. A wise idea indeed.
As for wrestling: Hardware is/was always waaaaaay more struggle. What worked one day didn't the next. Often for no apparent reason as the day after it worked again. Digital is not like that at all. I can open a Reason project from 25 years ago and it is exact, Thor is in-tune and the patch hasn't changed at all, the mix is pristine (not glued to the capstan).
Thanks on the patch. Clearly not saved. I think you'd have to pause the vid and recreate. TBH probably nothing that special, just movement.
🙂
@@BenedictRoffMarsh Yup, agree. Love your channel, keep up the interesting vids. More Reason stuff too :)
@@CybreSmee Thanks. What would you want to see? I get tired of videos I think people need but no one seems to value.
I think there's a few important caveats that you've buried in here with throwaway lines, and your answer is not an absolute "Yes" so much as "Yes, if they implement the same synthesis approach and have the same features". The user interface and workflow also matters, some software and hardware synths and more inspiring sound design and performance tools than others, but to be fair your video is titled Do All Synths Sound the Same so that's not relevant to the argument you're making.
For the particular type of producer that works in the box, has a particular sound already in their head, and doesn't mind taking their time mousing around over controls to get to it, I think you've made a compelling case that you don't need to waste your time and money comparing and collecting every individual synth on the market and instead select a handful of flexible and feature rich soft synths that cover the range of synthesis approaches that you want to use and learn them inside out. Option paralysis is a thing and when you have one go-to tool for, for example, all your subtractive synthesis needs you've already skipped a sometimes time consuming step of deciding which synth to start playing with.
But there's no one right way to make music, and some of us are inspired by different tactile approaches or even just that one patch on that one synth. I learned this about myself when I bought my first hardware synths, a Yamaha MODX, expecting it to be the one synth to end all synths, and for the most part it is. But while it's flexible and powerful its workflow is slow and not inspiring (for me). I've since picked up a number of other synths and getting my hands on each of them takes me to different places and does get me inspired.
Filter ok, but there are very good videos comparing Model D Clones and they create multibel patches that are shpwing the different capabilitys of the Model D and tested this vst's and a Minimoog Model D directly next to each other. And when you can not hear a difference between the different vst's i think sound design is then maybe not the perfect profession. The difference was massive noticeable and also after adjustments did not help at all. PS: Didn't wanted to be rude, but there are clear differences. ruclips.net/video/S1h07ws--CM/видео.html
Wasn't my point, but thanks to you as well for the boost to my stats ;-)
As for the pointed insult, you did say it. Trying to roll it back whilst leaving it in the post (even after editing) doesn't actually make it so. Actually, it makes it even worse (for you). But hey, again I got your view and this engagement, proving to the Algo how popular and relevant I am ;-)