Bee_Abney
How long have I been out?
Yeah, well, I'll have you know, that it's not the winning, it's the taking part!
Yeah, well, I'll have you know, that it's not the winning, it's the taking part!
It's like they say: if you can't play and you can't compose, patch with polyphonic FX per note.It’s what’s on the inside that counts.
.
.
.
.
polyphonic FX per note
Interesting that you pointed to sound. Are we talking about sheer audio quality here? Sampling technique? Instrument selection?Originally, I did not like the sound of Omnisphere, though it is very popular with others. But it has grown on me somewhat. With both Omnisphere and Falcon, if I want a more analog sound, then I will add some further effect as an insert. Neither of them quite do analog saturation to my taste.
"With Omnisphere, the user cannot create multisampled instruments in a straightforward way, and even using multis it runs up against limits in the number of oscillators/samples per program and the number of programs per multi. So I would certainly not recommend it for that. It's granular effect sounds very nice, though, so it is a good option if that is of interest to you."Falcon is the synth I know best, but I have created patches in both of the other two. Falcon is a lot like Halion to use, but with somewhat different options. Whether due to familiarity or otherwise, I find it very easy to use and very intuitive - but not everyone does! I largely learned synthesis on Falcon.
Falcon has more effects and really interesting ones too; it has great sequencing options too - which you can record and drag onto the timeline for use with other instruments, or for further editing.
Omnisphere is very simple and direct to use once you've found your way around. The sound is powerful and clear, and there are lots of options for shaping oscillators. The collection of samples it comes with are truly excellent, even if the library never seems to have what I want! It is harder to import samples than it is with Halion or Falcon.
Originally, I did not like the sound of Omnisphere, though it is very popular with others. But it has grown on me somewhat. With both Omnisphere and Falcon, if I want a more analog sound, then I will add some further effect as an insert. Neither of them quite do analog saturation to my taste.
I'm inclined to agree that Halion's basic sound is better than Falcon's. Both as a matter of taste, and also as a matter of blending into context. Halion is also better than Omnisphere in that latter respect.
I like to use Falcon for samples as a first port of call, but I'm considering learning Halion better and switching to that. I prefer both of them to Kontakt; though that has some very nice options of its own.
With Omnisphere, the user cannot create multisampled instruments in a straightforward way, and even using multis it runs up against limits in the number of oscillators/samples per program and the number of programs per multi. So I would certainly not recommend it for that. It's granular effect sounds very nice, though, so it is a good option if that is of interest to you.
Certainly, they are all different. Whilst they all have lots of options and create a huge variety of sounds, they cannot sound like each other. Their basic sounds are different. And that, more than anything, is the reason I'm happy to have all three.
I will just add that MSoundFactory is a serious competitor to the three you've mentioned. It is not good for presets, but it is great at creating patches, or even complete instruments for export and use in the free player (like Halion). So, you could always look into that if you want to make your life more complex. Obviously, there are other super synths; but MSoundFactory is great in the ways that Falcon and Halion are. And I don't think any synth can match its quality of effects.
I think it involves a great many factors working together. Not everyone is going to like the sound of all of them, but these are synths that have a pretty integrated realisation of the aesthetics of their makers. It has a lot to do with effects, time stretching, editing features, filters and modulation options all seeming to work together.Interesting that you pointed to sound. Are we talking about sheer audio quality here? Sampling technique? Instrument selection?
I push Halion to the MAX. I'm almost POSITIVE it calls home to Steinberg to complain! I will agree with a previous poster that it's a beast and I am almost POSITIVE I'm using it wrong!
Amadeus e.d.p.
I think that if Spectrasonics wanted to introduce deeper sampling options that they would have done so by now. I think it makes sense that they are not trying for Omnisphere to be all things, but just to be really great at a particular range of things that they have chosen to focus on."With Omnisphere, the user cannot create multisampled instruments in a straightforward way, and even using multis it runs up against limits in the number of oscillators/samples per program and the number of programs per multi. So I would certainly not recommend it for that. It's granular effect sounds very nice, though, so it is a good option if that is of interest to you."
Ok, this was MEGA on point and I thank you! Yeah that's a deal breaker. I sample a LOT. Like a LOT a LOT.
I'm wondering what Mr. Persing has on track for the next update. These mega synths are on a super slow update cycle. Except for UVI. Falcon gets new sweet stuff CONSTANTLY. I will admit that it make me a tad bit envious. Those demo sounds. Yikes and yikes with CHEESE! They kinda scare me off because of the quality.
Oh I almost forgot including Nexus.......well thinking of it....it's not really in that "Super Synth" category is it? I have no clue what the engines are in that synth. Great presets though!
Amadeus e.d.p.
It should have been here already IIRC. I think they originally announced some sort of developer tool.that could be coming.
That was a pretty high level explanation in my opinion. I think a lot of sound programmers go into the "deep end" of sound designing and I like to stay more on the shallow end if you will. Like I'm less into the "mathy" side of sound designing. I'm more concerned with can you actually PLAY the sound in a song.I think it involves a great many factors working together. Not everyone is going to like the sound of all of them, but these are synths that have a pretty integrated realisation of the aesthetics of their makers. It has a lot to do with effects, time stretching, editing features, filters and modulation options all seeming to work together.
In Falcon's case, there are also some IRCAM-developed algorithms for time stretching and granular processing. Those integrate well with the rest of the oscillators - both sample based and otherwise. I like the very clean, yet somehow shiny sound that IRCAM stretch can give to a sample. But it is definitely a matter of taste. Omnisphere's granular processing has a warmer sound. It can be clicky or smooth, but it doesn't have the same sharpness.
But, in the end, I'm reaching for metaphors as I don't know the details of what is actually being done in the programming.
I know that many people have speculated about the U-he sound, and Zebra in particular. There, it seems to have something to do with textural complexity and saturation that leads to a sound that is closer to one produced by real electronics rather than programming. But I couldn't say what they are doing for sure!
That used to be called “synth programming” or “patching”. These days people call any and all endeavours to create sounds “sound design”. But way back in the day sound design was a more involved process than merely programming synths. Think: pioneers such as Suzanne Ciani in the 1980s.But when you just want some basic horns, some basic brass, some nice round fat basses
That used to be called “synth programming” or “patching”. These days people call any and all endeavours to create sounds “sound design”. But way back in the day sound design was a more involved process than merely programming synths. Think: pioneers such as Suzanne Ciani in the 1980s.
I’d call Eric Persing a synth programmer and Ciani a sound designer, in accordance with the older “original” meaning of those terms.
I concur that many modern “synths” offer patches that are almost like entire cues on a single keypress. I like your focus on -what I’d call- synth programming.
Synth programming is just someone making a sound, a playable sound, on a synth - enabling a musician to perform or compose with it. In my book. It is still around of course, but the term itself is now “old school” imho. Noone calls themselves a synth programmer anymore, do they?Interesting,
So is "synth programming" kinda the "old school way? And sound designing is everything that we do now?
I think I'm a tiny bit unclear
Amadeus e.d.p.
You can't possibly be referring to Falcon's presets. Some of them are incredible and designed specifically to showcase the various capabilities of Falcon, as opposed to bread & butter presets available in numerous others. Each version includes update specific patches to illustrate new features. Deconstructing those complex presets is the best way to learn how to create your own.Except for UVI. Falcon gets new sweet stuff CONSTANTLY. I will admit that it make me a tad bit envious. Those demo sounds. Yikes and yikes with CHEESE! They kinda scare me off because of the quality.
Amadeus e.d.p.
That used to be called “synth programming” or “patching”. These days people call any and all endeavours to create sounds “sound design”. But way back in the day sound design was a more involved process than merely programming synths. Think: pioneers such as Suzanne Ciani in the 1980s.
I’d call Eric Persing a synth programmer and Ciani a sound designer, in accordance with the older “original” meaning of those terms.
I concur that many modern “synths” offer patches that are almost like entire cues on a single keypress. I like your focus on -what I’d call- synth programming.
It
I agree that the patches are usually very instructive, which is just what I want of them. But quite a lot of people seem to dislike them all the same.You can't possibly be referring to Falcon's presets. Some of them are incredible and designed specifically to showcase the various capabilities of Falcon, as opposed to bread & butter presets available in numerous others. Each version includes update specific patches to illustrate new features. Deconstructing those complex presets is the best way to learn how to create your own.
I think this is a good explanation.Synth programming is just someone making a sound, a playable sound, on a synth - enabling a musician to perform or compose with it. In my book. It is still around of course, but the term itself is now “old school” imho. Noone calls themselves a synth programmer anymore, do they?
The old use of the term sound design was reserved for a more elaborate process of designing sounds using synths and / or other means. For a game, a commercial, a movie, an operating system, a car UI. That type of deal. Now that terms covers basically everything, including the old meaning but also covering the “plain” synth programming. If I make 50 presets for Falcon, I am now a sound designer.
At least, that’s my interpretation of the world around me
Also: just a highly irrelevant observation at the end of the day.
Ha! I get it!Synth programming is just someone making a sound, a playable sound, on a synth - enabling a musician to perform or compose with it. In my book. It is still around of course, but the term itself is now “old school” imho. Noone calls themselves a synth programmer anymore, do they?
The old use of the term sound design was reserved for a more elaborate process of designing sounds using synths and / or other means. For a game, a commercial, a movie, an operating system, a car UI. That type of deal. Now that terms covers basically everything, including the old meaning but also covering the “plain” synth programming. If I make 50 presets for Falcon, I am now a sound designer.
At least, that’s my interpretation of the world around me
Also: just a highly irrelevant observation at the end of the day.
Is it difficult to go? It could be the sort of thing that you remember forever or regret missing forever.Suzanne is doing an intimate workshop here in November. I'm very tempted to go. Love her and her work and Buchla is my thing.
That reminds me of the one sound designer that was on the Lucas Film team. Blond buzz cut. She has been in the game a LONG time. Would love to get her perspective on a lot of things.Is it difficult to go? It could be the sort of thing that you remember forever or regret missing forever.
Not that that is such a big deal in itself; we can't make use of every opportunity.