5 ms·

Yes and cheaper still is to just use the computer you already have to be your synth. I don't think there are any advantages today of using an analogue synth. So

Yes and cheaper still is to just use the computer you already have to be your synth. I don't think there are any advantages today of using an analogue synth. Software synths can not only do all those "fat" sounds but can do a really good job of synthesizing real instruments such as an acoustic piano. (see Pianoteq, for instance, which does not use sampling to create instrument sounds) I find analogue synths pretty fascinating but if you are just using them to make music (as opposed to a hobby in themselves), there are far better ways, here in 2022. Not to take anything away from Dave Smith, he was brilliant and his synths were the best you could get, in their day.

tbatchelli 4y ago
I see where you are coming from, but one of the things that I didn’t understand until recently, when I got an OB-6, is how much these synths are music instruments (vs. something you can use to make a track). They are closer to a guitar or a violin than they are to a any of the VST. I love playing the ob-6 way more than any other digital thing that I have owned, but I don’t feel like sequencing it as much. From the music producer perspective, your point of view sounds very true to me. Sometimes these synths are harder to get in the mix than a digital one, or a VST, as they take too much space! And using them is less convenient than a plug-in. But playing a VST feels much less exciting than one of these analogs. And I am saying this while owning a Virus, a digitone keys and Ableton Live.
- ushakov 4y ago
  have you compare OB-6 to others? how does it sounds compared to Prophet 6?
  - i_am_proteus 4y ago
    OB-6 sounds very good compared to Prophet 6. Prophet 6 sounds very good compared to OB-6. :)
  - tbatchelli 4y ago
    I have played others, yes. Architecturally, OB-6 and Prophet 6 are very similar as they share a lot of the same circuitry. They are both great synths, and I am sure I'd love a prophet 6 if I had one. But I always perk up when I hear the Oberheim sound, more so than the prophet sound, and I do like very much the state-variable filter, which is not found in the P6. I enjoy making pad sounds with a notch filter, and be able to modulate it's shape towards a LP and a HP filters. Compared to the Virus, the OB-6 sounds more alive when played with a keyboard. It's nuanced when played like this, sometimes like an old piano, where the Virus sounds equally full but very precise, which is great when sequenced and you want a bassline that sounds pristine, for example. I find the Digitone a bit in-between, as you can get pretty creative with the FM algos, and it also sounds very hi-fi.
- bitL 4y ago
  Virus is all you need ;-) I have a Virus 2 and Nord Lead 4 as my primary instruments, and their combination is just perfect. Though I think all a regular person needs to explode with joy is just a single Novation Circuit...
  - blackmilk 4y ago
    Anyone whith a passion for the Viruses and the Nords Leads may be interested in this project that is reverse engineering and emulating the Motorola DSP563xx https://dsp56300.wordpress.com/ https://dsp56300.wordpress.com/
dietrichepp 4y ago
If you're serious about making music with keyboards, there are a lot of reasons why you would be spending anywhere from $800 to $3,000 on gear just for your basic setup. At these price points, you have the option to get analogue gear, and the tradeoff is that the analogue gear is less flexible (it's not more expensive). I'm not trying to pick on people for using inferior gear, but explain that the people who spend more money on a keyboard are making very rational decisions. Just to pick your Pianoteq example, once you pair a $150 Pianoteq license with a $500 decent quality weighted MIDI keyboard, you're already in a price range where you could get good analogue gear if that's what you want. Once you're spending $1k, $2k, $3k on gear, your main questions are going to be about things like ergonomics, personal taste, capabilities, etc. Not everyone is okay with using a laptop, getting a good laptop for use on stage has its own problems, and laptops add to the price. This isn't really that different from the amount of money you'd spend to get into other instruments, and is actually kind of cheap when you compare it to something like a concert violin--you'll even see high-school students with $5k violins, and I'm not talking about kids with rich parents, either. Again, I'm not saying that there's something wrong with going for a $100 keyboard and your $180 license for u-he Diva. That's an excellent combo. Just trying to explain that there are reasons someone would want to spend much more money in the first place (ergonomics, portability, keyboard feel, etc.) and at those price points, analogue is an option.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
throw_m239339 4y ago
> I don't think there are any advantages today of using an analogue synth. It's funny. Dave Smith worked on the very first software instruments in the early 90's. He thought it wasn't really fun to use so he went back to creating analogue synths, his first product with his new company was the Evolver, the rest is history. Turns out a lot of people don't find plugins very fun to use or inspiring, it's as simple as that. Smith was right since some people are willing to pay almost $5000 for a new Prophet 10 Rev4 in retail.
- jb1991 4y ago
  And if you have an actual Prophet sitting in your studio, you’re gonna get sounds out of it that you’ll never get from software.
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    Of course the reverse is also true.
    - jb1991 4y ago
      Also, a paper airplane is not the same a 747.
jb1991 4y ago
As someone who spent thousands of dollars over the years on software instruments as well as analog and digital hardware synthesizers, I can very comfortably say that software does not get the full sound that hardware does. Additionally, hardware offers much more creative control in general, a tactile interface customized for the specific way it creates sound. The only downside is the hardware is it takes up so much space. To get the same benefits of hardware in software, it requires a significantly different (for me, much less creative ) workflow, a very large investment of time, and you still will not quite get there in sound quality. But, at least you can take your whole studio with you on a laptop.
iostream24 4y ago
Physically modeling a Rhodes somewhat accurately is beyond the computing capabilities of your typical laptop computer, so such models are always highly reductionist, deliberately so. Source: I work with 2D meshes to models and even a single physical object can get almost infinitely deep and complex if you want to make it so. A Rhodes has a set of metal tines that get plonked like a ruler on a table edge, rather like the tines on music boxes, and there’s a set of two tines, each with its own pickup for EACH NOTE on the keyboard! https://www.fenderrhodes.com/service/tine-settings.html https://www.fenderrhodes.com/service/tine-settings.html https://www.vintagevibe.com/blogs/news/history-of-rhodes-pickups https://www.vintagevibe.com/blogs/news/history-of-rhodes-pic... Of course, you can use a sampled Rhodes and it’s only noticeable to either the player or if it’s not buried in a mix of a zillion other tracks, there is a notable lack of depth to it. Like most things on computers: “good enough” wins the day. I switched to purely virtual synthesis in 1999, and have spent the last 5 years revisiting physical musical instruments as I lament the electronification of music I was such a fan of for 20-30 years
- ushakov 4y ago
  Timbre-Transfer with Machine Learning (see: magenta) will allow to play exact digital copies of instruments on your typical laptop computer Keith Bloemer of GuitarML has already done this with guitar amps (https://github.com/guitarml https://github.com/guitarml)
- jalk 4y ago
  So ie pianoteq models are very cpu intensive and/or not very “accurate”? (genuine question)
  - netr0ute 4y ago
    Pianoteq now isn't meaningfully CPU intensive because our CPUs have gotten so fast (read: Alder Lake and Zen 3)
    - dietrichepp 4y ago
      I routinely hit 100% of a core on Pianoteq on a 3 GHz i5 from a couple years ago (keep in mind it uses multiple cores). Pianoteq is definitely CPU-intensive. Diva hits around 50% and it's also considered CPU-intensive.
wheels 4y ago
This is mostly true for the sound of the instruments – the emulations are very good these days – the folks writing them often sit with the original instrument and an oscilloscope and adjust the software until the outputs are the same. But there are two things primarily that you get with physical instruments: - A bunch of limitations. You're more likely to dive into deeply understanding your instrument if it can only do a well-defined set of things. This is counterintuitive, but absolutely true. If you're using VSTs, you should similarly force yourself to use only a small set of them, and to swap them out very rarely. - A tactile interface. Generic MIDI controllers just don't do as well. There is a gap in playability between the two. That said, I usually explore on a physical synth and often end up using a soft-synth in finished tracks. A physical synth is a lot more fun to jam on than a MIDI controller. It may be possible to build a physical controllers or modular controllers that captures more of that feeling (and a lot of high-end physical synths these days are just ARM systems running real-time Linux), but the run-of-the-mill MIDI controllers are not that. (Reference: have worked for two companies that produce VSTs, including the biggest of them)
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  Exactly this. Physical synths are more fun to play with, explore, learn. You can feel you fully understand them (I challenge anybody to say they fully understand every feature of every module of native instruments and arturia v collection, which together cost as much as a single mid range hardware synth :-). They are great for hobby and creativity, playing around and having fun, and in some ways for performance. They are tactile and immediate and physical. (Note that I am empathically not claiming "superior sound" in that list ;) Daws are practical for actually making and producing music. In reality though they can complement each other nicely. You can sketch on hardware and even integrate it into a daw. ---- My personal thought on superiority of sound is same as records and film - if you feel a particular specific past sound (or image) is the pinnacle of possibilities, soft synths will indeed asymptotically recreate it and may or may not ever recapture whatever "feel" it is that makes that specific sound superior to you. I came into this late and without preconception so all sounds are equally valid with no absolute framework and all synths CAN produce interesting cool useful and usable awesome sounds - I'd rather marvel at creativity and variety than endlessly try to recapture something previous (which even my favourite companies are sometimes stuck doing - how many ways can roland and others re re re re re create the Jupiter 8 sound?? Same for Moog etc) My 100 Croatian lipa and no more :-)
EricE 4y ago
>I don't think there are any advantages today of using an analogue synth. There is a huge one - unique sounds! You will see that comment over and over from pro's who make their living creating sounds for TV/movies - this guy's channel is fascinating if you really want a peek "under the covers" https://www.youtube.com/c/NeilParfittMusic https://www.youtube.com/c/NeilParfittMusic Found him for the Mac Pro review when it was rare and new, stayed for the fascinating insight into the pro music world and the mind of an ultra audio geek!
teilo 4y ago
I have plenty of software synths. I just bought a Hydrasynth Deluxe (which now sits below my Novation Summit). It's 100% digital, and could easily be implemented as a plugin. Yet it is a vastly better and more rewarding experience for sound design and performance than any soft synth can ever be. As yet, no one has managed to create a controller for soft synths that is sufficient to give them this versatility. (IMO: They would need an OLED display on every control, and a traditional keyboard with poly-aftertouch, and a template and control standard to reconfigure it for common soft-synths. NKS doesn't even come close.) I'm sure it will happen, but so far it has not.

tbatchelli 4y ago

I see where you are coming from, but one of the things that I didn’t understand until recently, when I got an OB-6, is how much these synths are music instruments (vs. something you can use to make a track). They are closer to a guitar or a violin than they are to a any of the VST. I love playing the ob-6 way more than any other digital thing that I have owned, but I don’t feel like sequencing it as much. From the music producer perspective, your point of view sounds very true to me. Sometimes these synths are harder to get in the mix than a digital one, or a VST, as they take too much space! And using them is less convenient than a plug-in. But playing a VST feels much less exciting than one of these analogs. And I am saying this while owning a Virus, a digitone keys and Ableton Live.

ushakov 4y ago
have you compare OB-6 to others? how does it sounds compared to Prophet 6?
- i_am_proteus 4y ago
  OB-6 sounds very good compared to Prophet 6. Prophet 6 sounds very good compared to OB-6. :)
- tbatchelli 4y ago
  I have played others, yes. Architecturally, OB-6 and Prophet 6 are very similar as they share a lot of the same circuitry. They are both great synths, and I am sure I'd love a prophet 6 if I had one. But I always perk up when I hear the Oberheim sound, more so than the prophet sound, and I do like very much the state-variable filter, which is not found in the P6. I enjoy making pad sounds with a notch filter, and be able to modulate it's shape towards a LP and a HP filters. Compared to the Virus, the OB-6 sounds more alive when played with a keyboard. It's nuanced when played like this, sometimes like an old piano, where the Virus sounds equally full but very precise, which is great when sequenced and you want a bassline that sounds pristine, for example. I find the Digitone a bit in-between, as you can get pretty creative with the FM algos, and it also sounds very hi-fi.
bitL 4y ago
Virus is all you need ;-) I have a Virus 2 and Nord Lead 4 as my primary instruments, and their combination is just perfect. Though I think all a regular person needs to explode with joy is just a single Novation Circuit...
- blackmilk 4y ago
  Anyone whith a passion for the Viruses and the Nords Leads may be interested in this project that is reverse engineering and emulating the Motorola DSP563xx https://dsp56300.wordpress.com/ https://dsp56300.wordpress.com/

dietrichepp 4y ago

If you're serious about making music with keyboards, there are a lot of reasons why you would be spending anywhere from $800 to $3,000 on gear just for your basic setup. At these price points, you have the option to get analogue gear, and the tradeoff is that the analogue gear is less flexible (it's not more expensive). I'm not trying to pick on people for using inferior gear, but explain that the people who spend more money on a keyboard are making very rational decisions. Just to pick your Pianoteq example, once you pair a $150 Pianoteq license with a $500 decent quality weighted MIDI keyboard, you're already in a price range where you could get good analogue gear if that's what you want. Once you're spending $1k, $2k, $3k on gear, your main questions are going to be about things like ergonomics, personal taste, capabilities, etc. Not everyone is okay with using a laptop, getting a good laptop for use on stage has its own problems, and laptops add to the price. This isn't really that different from the amount of money you'd spend to get into other instruments, and is actually kind of cheap when you compare it to something like a concert violin--you'll even see high-school students with $5k violins, and I'm not talking about kids with rich parents, either. Again, I'm not saying that there's something wrong with going for a $100 keyboard and your $180 license for u-he Diva. That's an excellent combo. Just trying to explain that there are reasons someone would want to spend much more money in the first place (ergonomics, portability, keyboard feel, etc.) and at those price points, analogue is an option.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

throw_m239339 4y ago

> I don't think there are any advantages today of using an analogue synth. It's funny. Dave Smith worked on the very first software instruments in the early 90's. He thought it wasn't really fun to use so he went back to creating analogue synths, his first product with his new company was the Evolver, the rest is history. Turns out a lot of people don't find plugins very fun to use or inspiring, it's as simple as that. Smith was right since some people are willing to pay almost $5000 for a new Prophet 10 Rev4 in retail.

jb1991 4y ago
And if you have an actual Prophet sitting in your studio, you’re gonna get sounds out of it that you’ll never get from software.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  Of course the reverse is also true.
  - jb1991 4y ago
    Also, a paper airplane is not the same a 747.

jb1991 4y ago

As someone who spent thousands of dollars over the years on software instruments as well as analog and digital hardware synthesizers, I can very comfortably say that software does not get the full sound that hardware does. Additionally, hardware offers much more creative control in general, a tactile interface customized for the specific way it creates sound. The only downside is the hardware is it takes up so much space. To get the same benefits of hardware in software, it requires a significantly different (for me, much less creative ) workflow, a very large investment of time, and you still will not quite get there in sound quality. But, at least you can take your whole studio with you on a laptop.

iostream24 4y ago

Physically modeling a Rhodes somewhat accurately is beyond the computing capabilities of your typical laptop computer, so such models are always highly reductionist, deliberately so. Source: I work with 2D meshes to models and even a single physical object can get almost infinitely deep and complex if you want to make it so. A Rhodes has a set of metal tines that get plonked like a ruler on a table edge, rather like the tines on music boxes, and there’s a set of two tines, each with its own pickup for EACH NOTE on the keyboard! https://www.fenderrhodes.com/service/tine-settings.html https://www.fenderrhodes.com/service/tine-settings.html https://www.vintagevibe.com/blogs/news/history-of-rhodes-pickups https://www.vintagevibe.com/blogs/news/history-of-rhodes-pic... Of course, you can use a sampled Rhodes and it’s only noticeable to either the player or if it’s not buried in a mix of a zillion other tracks, there is a notable lack of depth to it. Like most things on computers: “good enough” wins the day. I switched to purely virtual synthesis in 1999, and have spent the last 5 years revisiting physical musical instruments as I lament the electronification of music I was such a fan of for 20-30 years

ushakov 4y ago
Timbre-Transfer with Machine Learning (see: magenta) will allow to play exact digital copies of instruments on your typical laptop computer Keith Bloemer of GuitarML has already done this with guitar amps (https://github.com/guitarml https://github.com/guitarml)
jalk 4y ago
So ie pianoteq models are very cpu intensive and/or not very “accurate”? (genuine question)
- netr0ute 4y ago
  Pianoteq now isn't meaningfully CPU intensive because our CPUs have gotten so fast (read: Alder Lake and Zen 3)
  - dietrichepp 4y ago
    I routinely hit 100% of a core on Pianoteq on a 3 GHz i5 from a couple years ago (keep in mind it uses multiple cores). Pianoteq is definitely CPU-intensive. Diva hits around 50% and it's also considered CPU-intensive.

wheels 4y ago

This is mostly true for the sound of the instruments – the emulations are very good these days – the folks writing them often sit with the original instrument and an oscilloscope and adjust the software until the outputs are the same. But there are two things primarily that you get with physical instruments: - A bunch of limitations. You're more likely to dive into deeply understanding your instrument if it can only do a well-defined set of things. This is counterintuitive, but absolutely true. If you're using VSTs, you should similarly force yourself to use only a small set of them, and to swap them out very rarely. - A tactile interface. Generic MIDI controllers just don't do as well. There is a gap in playability between the two. That said, I usually explore on a physical synth and often end up using a soft-synth in finished tracks. A physical synth is a lot more fun to jam on than a MIDI controller. It may be possible to build a physical controllers or modular controllers that captures more of that feeling (and a lot of high-end physical synths these days are just ARM systems running real-time Linux), but the run-of-the-mill MIDI controllers are not that. (Reference: have worked for two companies that produce VSTs, including the biggest of them)

NikolaNovak 4y ago
Exactly this. Physical synths are more fun to play with, explore, learn. You can feel you fully understand them (I challenge anybody to say they fully understand every feature of every module of native instruments and arturia v collection, which together cost as much as a single mid range hardware synth :-). They are great for hobby and creativity, playing around and having fun, and in some ways for performance. They are tactile and immediate and physical. (Note that I am empathically not claiming "superior sound" in that list ;) Daws are practical for actually making and producing music. In reality though they can complement each other nicely. You can sketch on hardware and even integrate it into a daw. ---- My personal thought on superiority of sound is same as records and film - if you feel a particular specific past sound (or image) is the pinnacle of possibilities, soft synths will indeed asymptotically recreate it and may or may not ever recapture whatever "feel" it is that makes that specific sound superior to you. I came into this late and without preconception so all sounds are equally valid with no absolute framework and all synths CAN produce interesting cool useful and usable awesome sounds - I'd rather marvel at creativity and variety than endlessly try to recapture something previous (which even my favourite companies are sometimes stuck doing - how many ways can roland and others re re re re re create the Jupiter 8 sound?? Same for Moog etc) My 100 Croatian lipa and no more :-)

EricE 4y ago

>I don't think there are any advantages today of using an analogue synth. There is a huge one - unique sounds! You will see that comment over and over from pro's who make their living creating sounds for TV/movies - this guy's channel is fascinating if you really want a peek "under the covers" https://www.youtube.com/c/NeilParfittMusic https://www.youtube.com/c/NeilParfittMusic Found him for the Mac Pro review when it was rare and new, stayed for the fascinating insight into the pro music world and the mind of an ultra audio geek!

teilo 4y ago

I have plenty of software synths. I just bought a Hydrasynth Deluxe (which now sits below my Novation Summit). It's 100% digital, and could easily be implemented as a plugin. Yet it is a vastly better and more rewarding experience for sound design and performance than any soft synth can ever be. As yet, no one has managed to create a controller for soft synths that is sufficient to give them this versatility. (IMO: They would need an OLED display on every control, and a traditional keyboard with poly-aftertouch, and a template and control standard to reconfigure it for common soft-synths. NKS doesn't even come close.) I'm sure it will happen, but so far it has not.