Synthesizers. Is it really about new sounds these days..?

[muzines]

In the early days, synths were new, and opened up a whole new palette of sounds, that seemed potentially infinite.

As new technologies made better instruments and brought new synthesis techniques to musicians, at each step along the way whole new possibilities of sound opened up we'd never been able to explore before - FM, additive, S+S, wavetable, deep modulation matrixes, high quality sampling, resynthesis etc etc. And new musical genres were created as musicians used these new sounds and created new music.

If you wanted an FM synth, but didn't have one, you needed to buy one to get access to that sound palette. Same with a sampler, or an analog polysynth etc.

Now though, we have pretty well explored the available sound palette, and while the potential range of sounds has been infinite for a long time, it seems that the next new synthesizer isn't necessarily bringing a whole new palette to the table - just very similar technology we're had for a while, in a different package.

So, for the folks who keep buying new synths, which for the most part are really making the same sounds we've already had easy access to for decades - is it really about *new* sounds, doing things you couldn't previously do, creating sounds that are impossible to make with your existing gear, and expanding your available sound palette - or is it more about "this year's new toy", or "new things bring new inspiration".

Has synthesis become more "playing with synths" than "making music with a new sound palette"?

And if so, how long has this been the case?

(I think you can probably infer my views from the post... )

[Dave B]

"new" for a whole generation of people is going to be "cheesy old sounds we've heard before" for a bunch of old synth crusties. It doesn't invalidate it.

I am interested in the Korg OpSix as it should give a new lease of life to FM - it's quite an interesting take on it and might give us something more than the three usable patches that the DX7 had.

Likewise, their Wavestate builds on the old Wavestation in an interesting way and I can see myself with one of those at some points.

Will the sounds I make be new? To me, yes. Might not be to others.

[muzines]

"new" for a whole generation of people is going to be "cheesy old sounds we've heard before" for a bunch of old synth crusties. It doesn't invalidate it.

Yes, I'm aware there are a constant influx of new users buying their first synth, and maybe they haven't already downloaded a bunch of free synths plugins already. I addressed this in the first post, but then deleted the paragraph as I didn't think it was that relevant to the point - there are always people new to anything at any point, and that's a different thing really.

[Eddy Deegan]

A synth is much more than the synthesis engine at its heart. Take, for example, the Hydrasynth. There is nothing 'new' in it, not really. The mutants are a conveniently packaged method of modulating and shaping the sound but are in themselves just variations on a theme.

On the basis of pure specs there's not much to get excited about other than the poly-AT keyboard itself. It's sample-based, does a bit of wave-sequencing etc. but it's all stuff that's been done before.

But put together in the manner in which the synth is designed and you have a superb instrument with a huge range of sounds that's a joy to use.

The Arturia PolyBrute is another example (mine's not arrived yet but any day now hopefully). It's 'just another' polysynth but the addition of the morphing feature that smoothly transitions the parameters between two completely different patches in realtime gives it a (unique?) feature which significantly ups it's performance capabilities.

As always though, it's more about the people using them than it is about the synths themselves. And if you think synths are bad at reinventing themselves, look at the industry based on a couple of lumps of wood bolted together with some wires on them!

[muzines]

But put together in the manner in which the synth is designed and you have a superb instrument with a huge range of sounds that's a joy to use.

So, in this case at least, this is more about the fun and inspiration of playing with a new instrument (which we all understand of course), rather than being able to make sounds you couldn't otherwise make before?

My gut feeling says this is more where people are at with synths these days (excluding the new users to a certain degree, as the variables are a little different). "I want to see what I can do with this instrument", rather than "I'll be able to access sounds I just couldn't do at all otherwise"...

As always though, it's more about the people using them than it is about the synths themselves.

For sure.

[RichardT]

I think there are some technologies that are becoming more common now in synths, such as granular synthesis.

But I think modern synths tend to offer the ability to combine multiple synth and sampling technologies, and in some cases they are easier to use (on board screens etc).

[IAA]

Looking at all the synths I’ve owned/used I’ve got to a point where the synths I have in my studio now are there for 3 specific reasons. They sound good without FX are easy to program and feel like proper instruments when I’m playing them, that is they have nice keybeds and do modulation easily. I’m less of a sound designer more a player so where I need seriously strange sounds I have soft synths or sample libraries that get me there.
I still want to buy synths but invariably it’s less for a different sound palette, more for either nostalgia (ARP2600, SH09 etc) or it’s from a manufacturer whose sound inspires me sequential/Moog and they’re innovating (Moog One for eg)

So for me there are few sounds that I cannot produce given the software to hand, but I very rarely feel inspired sat staring at a monitor with a mouse to hand.
But in front of my Minimoog.......

[zenguitar]

And if you think synths are bad at reinventing themselves, look at the industry based on a couple of lumps of wood bolted together with some wires on them!

Hey!! If the fencing works, why change anything?

Andy

[ManFromGlass]

Fencing can be fun as this old chestnut reconfirms-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUL56vrK75I

[ManFromGlass]

I don’t buy synths, just plugins and apps. For me it doesn’t matter if the controller is a full size or mini keybed, drumpads, midi wind instrument or something off the wall. It is if the patch inspires before I do any tweaking. And just when you think you’ve heard it all somebody adds a nice little twist with some fx or controller routing that makes it fun.
When the deadline clock is ticking moments of inspired fun don’t come by that often.

All good points in your first post Desmond. It made me think of Omnisphere right away for some reason. Currently there are 4000+ patches in Omnisphere. In theory I should be able to find everything I need there but I don’t. I can’t really say why either.

[muzines]

Currently there are 4000+ patches in Omnisphere. In theory I should be able to find everything I need there but I don’t. I can’t really say why either.

Large libraries are a blessing and a curse, really. The larger a library, possibly the more likely there is to be a patch that's going to be in the ballpark of what you want, but it's also likely to be harder to find, regardless of what search/filtering tools there are as there is more stuf to wade through.

I find the most valuable synths are ones that are stocked full of my own sounds - because they are all sounds to my liking, and there aren't any that I dislike or are useless to my tastes. But then it's also useful to have sounds from other people that don't have your exact point of view as these can lead to surprises that you wouldn't necessarily have got to otherwise.

Curating a library takes time, but it's one of those things that I might do over time while listening to a podcast or having a break from something else - just choose the next category and bit by bit work through rating sounds, so you end up with a scored library where you can easily hide/ignore the sounds that are useless to you, and just focus on the good to great ones - which makes them more workable and faster when you're making music and looking for sounds...

[The Elf]

I can only speak for myself, but if a synth doesn't give me something unique it doesn't stay around for long. It earns its keep, or it's out the door.

Hydrasynth is a good example. That synth does genuinely take me places that none of my other synths do. Same with Peak. same with VC340, same with Pro Soloist, same with the reface CP... well, you get the idea. It depends on how 'different' a synth has to sound for one ear to hear 'unique'. Maybe I'm closer to it, but I owe it to anyone listening to my music that I've made the 'right' choices. It's like a golfer choosing a club; to an expert it makes a difference - the rest of us just hopes the ball doesn't end up in the trees.

[N i g e l]

I think that its not just about the sounds but the realtime control as well. There will be new methods of intelligently assisted parameter changing which leads to new styles of expression and seemingly new sounds.
Especially so, when the equipment is affordable and gets into the hands of youffs who are not hindered by the constructs of the past.

Im thinking of the 80s-90s dance scene when cheap analogue met cheap MIDI sequencers, leaving both hands free for parameter twiddling.

By the end of the 90s, FM & sampling were perhaps not so inovative, then along comes Scrillex in ~2010 and creates Dubstep, a whole new genre.

I like synths with "macros", i.e. turning 1 knob changes many parameters and perhaps the one knob "morphing" between patches too.

I am interested in the Korg OpSix as it should give a new lease of life to FM - it's quite an interesting take on it and might give us something more than the three usable patches that the DX7 had.

I was interested in the OP6 but recently went for the MODX.
8op FM+ via a 7" screen + effects, parameter sequencing and theres 8 parts of that.
[as well as the 128note AWM, user samples & PC integration]

[John Stafford]

I find new ways to manipulate the synth more interesting than new sounds per se.

I'd probably be fairly happy for the rest of my life with just a couple of old fashioned analogue synths. That's not to say I wouldn't love owning all kinds of synth.

I'm also interested in algorithmic composition, and making my own digital sounds from scratch. In my head it's like two different instruments.

[Martin Walker]

Large libraries are a blessing and a curse, really. The larger a library, possibly the more likely there is to be a patch that's going to be in the ballpark of what you want, but it's also likely to be harder to find, regardless of what search/filtering tools there are as there is more stuf to wade through.

I find the most valuable synths are ones that are stocked full of my own sounds - because they are all sounds to my liking, and there aren't any that I dislike or are useless to my tastes. But then it's also useful to have sounds from other people that don't have your exact point of view as these can lead to surprises that you wouldn't necessarily have got to otherwise.

Beautifully put desmond, and I agree 100%. There's nothing more rewarding than being able to use 'your own' sound in a project. However, as you rightly say, sometimes a different person's take on a sound can launch your music in a completely unexpected direction.

Martin

[Martin Walker]

I think that its not just about the sounds but the realtime control as well. There will be new methods of intelligently assisted parameter changing which leads to new styles of expression and seemingly new sounds.

That's a really important point N i g e l - one of the main reasons I bought my Prophet 12 keyboard a few years ago was that it offered a separate dedicated knob for almost every parameter. The icing on the cake for me were the two short ribbon controls, which along with the pitch and mod wheels, and a footpedal controlling my choice of real-time parameter tweaks, made it possible to easily get really expressive performances without having to first map controllers to parameters and suchlike.

All the above control movements also get sent out as MIDI controller data that you can capture in your DAW, so you could build up even more expressive performances via multiple passes.

The thought of having to manually map stuff like that is a real inspiration killer

Martin

[Eddy Deegan]

The subject came up on the SOS Online Meet tonight and we had a really good chat about it. It would have been good if you'd been there Elf!

When I last visited Martin I took the Hydrasynth up for him to try out. He really liked the ribbon controller and the poly-AT in particular but has decided he doesn't need one because his main synth fulfills all his needs and as an experienced sound designer as well as a musician he continues to get more and more out of the instrument to the point where he isn't tempted by anything else right now.

Rich Hanson mentioned he'd bought a couple of new synths lately and was finding that having a handful of them (it is 4 now Rich?) was adequate for his needs.

I was sitting in a room not entirely unlike Elf's toadstood insofar as I was surrounded by synths on all sides but was making noises to the fact that I've got another coming soon in the shape of the Arturia PolyBrute and am about 80% (and rising) of the way to adding an UDO Super 6 to the mix as well.

Dave B. asked me why I was thinking of buying the Super 6. After some discussion, it emerged it's all down to workflows at the heart of it. Martin creates music from sound sources and spends a lot of time crafting and programming in order to build, modify or create sounds using a relatively limited number of electronic sources (although his acoustic sources are many). For him, his current main synth from Dave Smith's Instruments is proving more than enough to meet this requirement.

The manner in which Rich creates music is such that having multiple synths works to a point but doesn't feel the need to replicate or overly-overlap too many specific technologies in order to achieve his results.

In my case, I am primarily a performer and I find having many keyboards to hand suits a workflow where I flit from one to another, finding inspiration as I go. I also like doing live jams in my environment and I am aspiring to increase the use of my primary hardware sequencer (a Squarp Pyramid) in these sessions.

Were I to work exclusively in a DAW I'd have no need of any more synths, indeed having more than I would need in that scenario, but in a situation where I'm doing more live jamming/composing using the Pyramid then each synth is effectively a channel in its own right, so more is better.

There are certainly strengths and weaknesses in any synth but assuming someone has one or two capable instruments already, the the answer to the question "why do you want/need another one?" comes down to workflow.

If it suits the workflow, it's valid. My synthesizers are my muses and each adds a voice to a choir of sorts. The more I can do live the merrier, and I know I'm not alone on that front!

[Rich Hanson]

Rich Hanson mentioned he'd bought a couple of new synths lately and was finding that having a handful of them (it is 4 now Rich?) was adequate for his needs.

...

The manner in which Rich creates music is such that having multiple synths works to a point but doesn't feel the need to replicate or overly-overlap too many specific technologies in order to achieve his results.

Take that 4, double it and add 2 for the drum machines (5 analogue monosynths, 2 digital polysynths and a string synth)

I think my point that I didn't adequately make last night, is that I don't really have a defined work flow, it's very much ad hoc - I don't have a given way of starting something off.

What I was wondering is whether I have the _need_ for those monosynths, given that I can cover most of their ground from the KingKorg. What I meant by me buying into the "myth" of analogue was solely that assuming that analogue automatically sounds "better" or "warmer" than digital - as somebody that used to own a Korg Delta I know that's bollocks!

I like the sounds of subtractive synthesis, and the KingKorg does that extremely well. My other love is for wavetable synths which is why I go the Argon8X - I could cover all the ground that I do already with just those two synths.

OTOH there's simply the joy of owning something for its own sake even if you don't have a need for it.

[BJG145]

Some interesting points; perhaps these days it's less about adding to the range of sounds that are technically possible, and more about adding to the ones that you're actually likely to use, and are fun to create/manipulate.

At some point I became more interested in collecting MIDI controllers than synths. (I still love hardware synths, though at the moment I only have a couple.) They all produce the same notes, but the way I approach music on a melodeon, say, is completely different to the way I approach it on a guitar. Likewise I could imagine wanting to explore different synths with their own engines/UI/workflow even if similar sounds were already possible with what I had. Just because it's achievable, it doesn't mean you're going to find it. Different approaches make different discoveries.

OTOH there's simply the joy of owning something for its own sake even if you don't have a need for it.

Guilty.

[Arpangel]

I think a lot of people have realised that it’s not sounds that make music, it’s music, that makes music.
We’ve had more than enough sounds and technology to express anything we want to say in our music for a very long time, the challenge now is trying to think of new ideas, in a world where ideas are getting thinner on the ground, the more we think of, the more difficult it gets to make new permutations.

[Rich Hanson]

I think a lot of people have realised that it’s not sounds that make music, it’s music, that makes music.
We’ve had more than enough sounds and technology to express anything we want to say in our music for a very long time, the challenge now is trying to think of new ideas, in a world where ideas are getting thinner on the ground, the more we think of, the more difficult it gets to make new permutations.

Very much this.

Certainly a new (to you) sound can certainly be inspirational, but you still need the ideas to turn it into something that is worth listening to.

OTOH there is definitely value in doing something just to please yourself.

[The Elf]

I don't agree. I think that the sounds are just as much the music as the notes being played.

I can't imagine 'Popcorn' would have grabbed the ear if played on a trumpet, or 'Tom Sawyer' had its impact without that synth growl. 'Switched on Bach' was *all* about the sounds being used - we'd had the music long before.

And for those of you creating soundscapes with modular systems - try doing one of those with a Stylophone and see how far you get.

[Rich Hanson]

Popcorn on trumpet? No, it wouldn't work. But... I can certainly imagine it working with percussive instruments, xylophone for instance.

Hmmm, I feel a project coming on...

[Arpangel]

I don't agree. I think that the sounds are just as much the music as the notes being played.

I can't imagine 'Popcorn' would have grabbed the ear if played on a trumpet, or 'Tom Sawyer' had its impact without that synth growl. 'Switched on Bach' was *all* about the sounds being used - we'd had the music long before.

And for those of you creating soundscapes with modular systems - try doing one of those with a Stylophone and see how far you get.

Sometimes the musical idea comes before the sound, sometimes they are conceived together, but both are nothing, without each other.

[ManFromGlass]

And today I bet somewhere in the world Popcorn is being played on a trumpet in some elevator or supermarket. That really tickles my fancy because it seems so subversive in it’s own way - rebelling against everything that Popcorn stood for within an easy listening construct.
I remember hearing Little Black Spot by the Police in an elevator played on marimba with the most fascinating godawful feel. It was horrible and yet I had to give it a hard listen.