What's new

Halion VS 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.
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! :dancedance:

Amadeus e.d.p.
 
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.
"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.
 
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! :dancedance:

Amadeus e.d.p.
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!
 
Last edited:
"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.
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.

I think that Nexus is actually a ROMpler rather than a full synth or sampler. You buy their sounds and use them with some (probably great) tweaking options.

For multisampling with potential for velocity layers and round robins, I think that Kontakt, MSoundFactory, Halion and Falcon are the major options. Though there are plenty of other options - creating Decent Sampler instruments, or creating a stand alone plugin via something like HISE or JUCE. Maybe Reaktor, too; although I don't think it lends itself to really deep sampled instruments. It's amazing for physical modelling, though.

Soundpaint doesn't allow users to create velocity layers and round robins yet, but that could be coming.
 
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 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.

A LOT of the sound design that comes with most synths these days don't seem to be geared towards actually making music right out the box. They have some AMAZING sounds, no doubt. But when you just want some basic horns, some basic brass, some nice round fat basses...it's really harder to find in my opinion.

Anyway, my opinion. At this rate it's not worth much! o_O

Amadeus e.d.p.
 
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.



 
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.




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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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 fondly remember the 'Additional synthesizer programming by...' credit on album sleeves. 'Additional' because the artistes naturally did some of it themselves; but they still knew that it was worth calling in an expert.

I really appreciate the extra nuances that a really good synth programmer can bring to a sound. I remember watching Gaz and Nick (I can't remember their full names) from Sonicstate reviewing a synth together and trying different things out. It was Gaz's synth, but Nick has a lot more experience as a programmer and he was quickly able to nudge a few parameters to bring out amazing nuances.

Thank heaven's that I also like really confuddled noisy messes, or I'd have nothing to bring to the table!
 
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 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.

I think that the various UVI Falcon Expansions are largely great, though; even if you may have to simplify them (turn off a layer or sequencer here and there) in order to use them in an ongoing work. But you could also take them as an inspiring starting point. In fact, I've often started with Falcon presets while writing a piece and then, bit by bit, replaced most of them by the time of the finished version by which time I've broken things out for different instruments each with simpler parts.

Anyway, cheese is a good thing, right? I like cheese - chedder, brie, camembert, Wendsleydale with dried apricots, ... And I also like a big, bold, creamy FM or string machine patch from time to time.
 
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.
I think this is a good explanation.

I tend to look at synth programming as a subcategory of sound design.
 
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!

Yeah, our tools give us so many options just bog standard it's hard not to "sound design" by proxy. At least in the box.

I would say that I for one am a little over so many emulations and re-hashes of stuff we did 50 years ago. Bring on the next EX5! With FDSP3! Improved VL. Nice FAT NEW VA. No workstation features. Just a pure raw SYNTH with LOTS Of DSP POWA!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry. I got carried away with myself.

Amadeus e.d.p.
:emoji_grimacing:
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.

Yeah, I think Sound Design is an overarching term and then you get specialized inside of it. That's the way I have seen it. Yes, I'm a sound designer...I design sounds with my Synthesizer SkyFall. I don't go out recording moose and elk but it's still sound designing.

Interesting take and this wasn't push back. Just interesting thought.

Amadeus e.d.p.
 
Top Bottom