PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

in creamware forum there is a thread which says that we don't need another analog synth.. Someone said that he wanted "new" stuff other than analog vintage emulation and he mentioned lightwave and vectron which as i know are based on "analog" type synthesis (envelopes, lfo 's etc.).
What's your opinion on that? Does these people know how to use these kind of synths or they just need a thousand of sounds like these u get in a workstation keyboard like triton but they sound lifeless as u can't tweak them as far as u can in an analog one?
I beleive virtual analog synhesis is a very powerfull way of sound programming which gives u the ability to morph - shape-control like a sculpture the sound. I beleive that's the reason why companies continues to produce virtual analog's as there sonic posibilities are endless...
So i wan't more -new sophisticated virtual analog's

I like the sound quality of CW gear, but would like something different. There's dozens of "two oscillators, two ADSR envelopes and some LFOs" style of synths out there. As time goes on new synths of this traditional style have to have something really special to stand out - and I don't think many do. Both analog and digital emulations have been well covered. And for CW users the ModV2 can do all the basic "meat and potato" synths anyway.

So it's time to get creative and come up with new designs and variations.

The best of the new breed IMHO is Absynth. It's far from perfect but it is unique. It has features you just won't get on any other machine. Certainly no CW synth comes even remotely close.

Absynth's point of difference is its envelopes - dozens of breakpoints. Maybe some new CW synths could try this same technique, or perhaps look at new mass groupings of LFOs, some sort of new oscillator processing, or attempt to apply AI in there somewhere. Who knows? It needs more thought than five minutes typing at a PC keyboard!

But please, no more straight-virtual analog or retro emulations.

I agree with Spirit completely. I've seen enough subtractive synthesis.. even if hardware limitations keep things at that level, perhaps we could use a much more sophisticated, unique filter.. (because that's what carves the sound in the end anyway) Whatever it is, there's more better ways to use tech power than to spend it on emulating a moog, which has been done a so many times before, each saying "more close to the real thing than any before!". Who cares? If people saved all the money they spend on software moog clones, they probably could get a real one anyway.

It's also a matter of terminology too. So far, there are a coulple of terms: synth (pointing to triton type workstations I suppose), and VA synths.

VA is a very general term.. I mean, subtractive, additive, FM, sync.. these are just a few of what was covered during the analogue days.. There were a few sample playback machines too.. So basically, the difference between a triton-ish workstation and VA is pretty vague... They don't really cancel each other out in terms of synthesis techniques. And the tweakability is pretty vague too.. because digital sample playback synths like triton have basically the same structure as any VA.. there's the OSC, filters, and a couple of envelopes.. It's just not quite as obvious to the eye as an analogue synth.. Modern workstation synths have a much more complex EG than the plain ADSR of the analogue days so I don't think there's much that's lifeless about that. A lot of what make up the impression of analogue and VAs being ultimately "morphable" and etc. seems to be from successful maketing and repetitive "buzz" words that come up on every other brochure.

It sounds like VA has simply become yet another "buzz" word that stands for images such as morphing, sonic variation, unlimited versatility.. these are just images, ideas.. and doesn't have much to do with what virtual analogue is. Obviously, there are points where elementary waves pushed through a filter will fail in any of the above.

So the point is, the world of synthesis is facing a time of change. First, you got analogue.. the idea of signal processing is born. Then you got DSP based digital synths.. and the Triton/Yamaha Motiv/Roland Phantom seem to be at the edge of that. Then, ya got so much DSP that you can model analogue machines.. cool. Well, basically, the equation is that since we can now model analogue machines "more accurately than before", we can surely use that kind of processing power for something else that yields much more creative shock than something that's been around for quite a while, TWICE in the history of synthesizers.

I dunno, the whole idea of osc through filters and then effects becomes pretty obsolete when you think that FFT or STFT type of spectral synthesis can do all of that in one go.. And these types of synthesis are still in research phase so I guess it'll still be some time before we'll see them around. This is defintely the future of digital sample playback style synthesis.

So the best would be if the entire synth using community got some information about cutting edge technology and new synthesis methods that haven't even been used commercially yet. Then it'll be obvious how limited the entire VA PLUS digital signal playback synthesis is.

To sum it up.. YES, I think there are many, MANY people out there who are sick of VA simulations.

on topic: I use any synth I can get my hands on if I like it's sound.
No matter if outboard, native or on DSP.
In Pulsar Propack there's a lot of great devices and I've to agree that Mod2 can do any trick of sound if tweaked properly.
I like the Avalon by Wavelength for weird and spacey effects.
But to add different sound flavours there's also a Kawai K4, Yamaha QS300, 2 Casio toy samplers SK-1 and SK-8, a VL-1 and a serious FZ10M. Not to forget the famous midi-controllable C64 SID on an ISA board.
A GEM RealPiano expander, B4 and EVP88 are used for standard keyboard stuff.

off topic:
the 'no more analogue' and 'we need new synths' complaints aren't a technical issue imho.
Anybody here can afford such a lot of great gear (compared to a decade ago) that some seem to loose track of making music and instead keep searching for 'the ultimate' tool.
It's an expression of beeing oversaturated without (daring) to say so.
Our perception of (musical) sound is based on some common ground. That fisherman from an island in the middle of pacific ocean recently in a TV feature was singing quite harmonic and pleasing to my ears. Some traditional and certainly without musical education.
There is no such thing as a completely new sound aesthetics by a completely new way of synthesis - what should it be good for ?

The only completely new attempt that comes to my mind is from the early nineties.
It was an experimental synth based on neural network chips which was kind of inventing it's own music. But it wasn't intended as an instrument, but for the pleasure of it's builders. They were just curios what would happen if they let it alone doing it's way.
I'll have to search the mag, it's somewhere deep in some obsure box I guess.

cheers, Tom

off topic:
the 'no more analogue' and 'we need new synths' complaints aren't a technical issue imho.
Anybody here can afford such a lot of great gear (compared to a decade ago) that some seem to loose track of making music and instead keep searching for 'the ultimate' tool.
It's an expression of beeing oversaturated without (daring) to say so.

Well, searching for the "ultimate" tool and saying we don't need 2000 copies of the same product is a different thing I think.. So basically, I'm saying, we've got enough, let's move on. I don't mean for VA machines to become useless all of a sudden. And of course, making music is the given factor, that'll never go away. I'm just worried about the general direction of the market because it'll surely affect us composers in a very direct way.

Our perception of (musical) sound is based on some common ground. That fisherman from an island in the middle of pacific ocean recently in a TV feature was singing quite harmonic and pleasing to my ears. Some traditional and certainly without musical education.
There is no such thing as a completely new sound aesthetics by a completely new way of synthesis - what should it be good for ?

Each of the ways of synthesis has it's own set of aesthetics, though they all lie under a big musical one. You really can't know what it'll be good for 'till ya see one. So basically, you can't say a Fairlight or a Synclavier is cool, BECAUSE it's analog, since some of the technology still hasn't made it mainstream yet. Same goes for the rest of the technology behind the curtains. These are new ideas with new possibilities. It's hard to find a good reason why these are being overlooked. (other than "VA sells!")
Besides, there's so much more that a native, DSP, or other software based synth can do than what we're seeing right now. Perhaps it's not too dangerous to see atleast ONE synth that does something totally new.

I too, would like to see something different in synths. I would like moving synths…

Well… I don’t know how to explain. I can hear it clearly into my head, but don’t know how to explain it, I would rather describe it: the sounds I’m hearing internally, with my inner ear, are extremely movable going from one timber to another, from one EQ set to another completely different becoming suddenly a snare which rapidly transforms into a deep bass, immediately becoming a moogish percussive chord, braking into high harmonics and from there going to a deep kick bomb, then a flute comes out, there is a delay in one note only, and I can play all different sounds in different keys. That is to say, I can rapidly assign sounds to a virtual keyboard in screen. The sounds can fade in or out as I dispose, going to left or right, going up or down, braking into chords. Sounds I can control completely in their space intimacy, differently from each other; reverb becoming a movable thing I can control at every measure. Chorus becoming a variable structure I can play with, sounds fading in and out in reverse coming back to their place smoothly. In fact, I would like a cosmic synthesiser, a very, very cosmic, spatial, stars… alien synthesizer with about 60 or 70 built in mutable FXs. A single loop with something like that would be mind blowing. You actually could do something like that, but you would work for a couple of years to build up a single 3 minutes song…

I think the beginning of it is perhaps the big Creamware Vectron, at 298 Euros. I think this is already a great synth that offers new ways. It’s a mixture of the best of the old technology and a new born technology that rocks! Even the Vectron Player is already fantastic, being mono.

Nevertheless agree with the idea that getting too many things is frightening, bad for you. I sometimes connect two or three synths at the same time, using extreme settings getting completely new sounds I’ve never heard in my life with the same tools we all have from the Propack.

I’m sure Creamware will update the MV2 with new technology sooner or later, and so, will get a mixture of these powerful elements of old analogue power joint to some rather unusual synthetic completely revolutionary ways. It’s a matter of time.

i really agree with a alot of what been said above, I thing creamware have mastered the analogue emulation, and I would really like to see something new, especially as I am a big fan of wavetable sound, and S+S, and Reasons new Maelstrom really caught my interest.
Perphaps its becuase being young, I grew up with the digital revolution, longing for the big flash digital workstations as opose to minimoogs.

But Pulsar definetely gave me a bit of the analogue bug, so now I want the best of both worlds.