# Newly Released Synths Compared to Softsynths



## Gerhard Westphalen (Nov 11, 2015)

I've noticed the Yamaha and Roland synths recently released with the low price tag that emulate their classic synths. Considering that these are digital, is there really a difference between getting one of these or using a software emulation (aside from having the hardware controls and portability)? These are essentially software emulations as well, correct?


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 11, 2015)

It just depends how it sounds really.
My software synths are excellent but they lack the sizzle of CV Analog circuitry.
Even my beloved Solaris with twice the power of UADs most powerful designs all processed internally @96k have snappy envelopes and a huge sound lack the Sizzle of real analog.
My low end drones need a buzz and precision so I always use an Analog synth.
Listen to the PitchMod preset drone underneath 4 parallel filters.
0s and 1s will never get this coverage of the frequency range.

Listen to Wormhole by Dyp #np on #SoundCloud


----------



## Astronaut FX (Nov 11, 2015)

Well, you can resell them for one thing. Number two, the "processing" happens in the hardware, not in your computer's RAM or CPU. You already mentioned portability.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 11, 2015)

Well a Linux based Receptor is rackable more portable than towers and slaves.
Since the OS is lean it functions better than a Mac or PC.
So its a good in between solution.
I prefer my rack as it has a 3 Oscillator analog synth, a 1U DAW and a DSP rack.
Since Native, DSP and Analog all have thier strengths why be without.
On really important jobs I drag along my Waldorf Microwave and Yamaha FS1r.
Very powerful 4U.
But Zebra2 HZ and Omnisphere 2.1 pretty much took the place of those 2 Gems.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Nov 11, 2015)

But these synths don't have any CV analog circuitry, right? So these new synths will lack the sizzle just as much as the software.


----------



## synthpunk (Nov 11, 2015)

Monark sizzles
http://www.native-instruments.com/en/products/komplete/synths/monark/

as can Eurorack if you build that sort of system.


----------



## blougui (Nov 12, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> Well a Linux based Receptor is rackable more portable than towers and slaves.
> Since the OS is lean it functions better than a Mac or PC.
> So its a good in between solution.
> I prefer my rack as it has a 3 Oscillator analog synth, a 1U DAW and a DSP rack.
> ...



But the Microwave and FS1r aren't really analog, are they ?


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 12, 2015)

No they are not.
Which is why they're easier to emulate.
The FS1r is incredibly powerful though and the Formant Filters are awesome.
To replace the FS1r it took Solaris and Zebra2 HZs excellent FMOs.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 12, 2015)

Monark doesnt sizzle. Like HZ it has really decent digital filters.
But those Dogs Dont Hunt in lower registers where true analog low end just shines.
It's not that softies can't sizzle. They lose precision even though they are mathematically correct.
Low end focus and precision belong to Analog.


----------



## bryla (Nov 12, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> Monark doesnt sizzle. Like HZ it has really decent digital filters.
> But those Dogs Dont Hunt in lower registers where true analog low end just shines.
> It's not that softies can't sizzle. They lose precision even though they are mathematically correct.
> Low end focus and precision belong to Analog.


The low end was what I first noticed when I got my first eurorack oscillator.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 12, 2015)

But these new Digital synths being released like Jupiters and others are great sucker synths.
Those who never played the real dinosaurs wont know the difference.
But thier legendary names have helped market them to the Sheep easier.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 12, 2015)

bryla said:


> The low end was what I first noticed when I got my first eurorack oscillator.


Yepp.
Which is why I am building a stage synth where the Filters EGs and VCAs are Analog.
Routing and Oscillators will be done in the box.
If it sounds too digital Oscillators from Modcan and Studio Electronics will be applied.

But after hearing a Modulus 002 I am almost convinced that Oscillators can be digital.
Never designed anything from the middle out.
Always top down or bottom up. Both were limited.
Middle out is my last option.
If I am wrong I end up with a 4 voice Eurorack style synth.
So success is 100% just hope Filters and EGs will be enough.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 12, 2015)

Back to the OP though.
I find that soft synths and new digital hybrids only differ in cost.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Nov 12, 2015)

I bought the Monark on a half price sale some time ago and can honestly say that I prefer it almost to a Mini Moog. I bought a Mini Moog to use on stage probably before just about anyone actually, and the Monark compares beyond belief if you want a Mini Moog sound. Alright, so there's no tactile feedback with the Monark but get it if you want that sound.


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Nov 12, 2015)

Baron Greuner said:


> and can honestly say that I prefer it almost to a Mini Moog.



according to JMJ: monark > moog voyager


----------



## synthpunk (Nov 12, 2015)

Sometimes Chim is the spokesman for technology on Mars, but we love you Chim


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 12, 2015)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> I've noticed the Yamaha and Roland synths recently released with the low price tag that emulate their classic synths. Considering that these are digital, is there really a difference between getting one of these or using a software emulation (aside from having the hardware controls and portability)? These are essentially software emulations as well, correct?



the difference: target market. 

its for kids who wanna go on stage or make some beats. 

its also fast knob tweaking which make them fun which makes them inspirational. 

sound will be about the same. but you can easily run them through guitar pedals etc which then opens up a cool layer for sound design and analog tones. 

besides that, its just plug out cool instruments.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Nov 13, 2015)

Gabriel Oliveira said:


> according to JMJ: monark > moog voyager




OK great and thanks for putting that up. Yes I can understand why he says that about the Monark. It's a bit of a phenomenon and almost one of those fortunate accidents actually because in my experience it's very rare that a software instrument really ever comes close to the real thing.

But the Monark really worked out for Native Instruments this time. It's probably imho about as good a buy as anyone could make that requires the Mini Moog sound without all the fuss of the real instrument.

I think also, that Jean-Michel Jarre gave a pretty good précis of synthesizer evolution through the last 5 or so decades. That said, you could get an opinion from quite few of the older players that were in there more or less at the start and they would give the same version probably but with lots of variations. for example, if you asked Keith Emerson he would talk a lot about big and small Moogs and Korgs. Rick Wakeman similar and so on. A lot of others really loved their CS80s etc. The list is endless.
There's also a big difference between studio synthesists and actual players on stage tour after tour. The studio guy has a lot more time on his hands, whereas the tour player flies by the seat of his pants when it comes to synthesisers, especially years ago as opposed to today, where today things are a lot more stable, especially consistent voltage supply while actually playing.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Nov 13, 2015)

gsilbers said:


> the difference: target market.
> 
> its for kids who wanna go on stage or make some beats.
> 
> ...




Hmm, perhaps too much of a generalization. I recently bought a JU-06. I'm 48, not a kid at all. I used to own a Juno 106 and regret selling it. I'm not willing to pay $1000+ for a vintage one that may have maintenance issues.

The JU-06 was inexpensive, small footprint, resellable, no added processing load on my computer. Lots of reasons to be appealing, none of which had anything to do with being a kid.


----------



## bryla (Nov 13, 2015)

My first synth was the V-SynthXT that I still use today. I have had no experience with analog before. Then I got into soft synths and liked what they did. Then I bought Omnisphere and was blown away by the sound quality. It beat everything I had ever tried.

Two years ago I bought a small set of Doepfer modules: I can just sit and listen to the pure oscillator, change it's range and pitch and just the physical electronic oscillation it makes is 100x more sexier to listen to than anything I have ever tried that now counts a lot of soft synths and VA keyboards I've performed with.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 13, 2015)

Hell I can make any synth sound like a MiniMoog.
I do it on Zebra2 HZ Omnisphere 2.1 Solaris and the Original DSP version from Creamware that Tangerine Dream uses still.
Softies are fine until you get down low. Thats all Im saying.
Trust me I A/B every softie next to the real thing and see no need for an ancient Analog Polysynth.
The parts are hard to come by. Its just another board taking up stage space.etc.
But you gotta have a 3 Oscillator Analog for a powerful low end or you're coming to a gunfight with a knife.
Lots of guys never need a ballsy low end. Midrange chordal work and solos.
But if you are required to drone with a live group where just a bassist landing on the root needs more balls like 70s progressive rock and poppy rock had no DSP hardware or native softie can do it.
All you get is a big ass full of boom. No precision what so ever.
I tried using all DSP and Native synths hoping somebody could nail it.
Those Dogs wont hunt.
In a studio where theres really no real bass or 3 osc to compare it to of course it sounds big.
On a stage full of powerful electronics that low end stereo mush is as weak as a stereo Native Kick drum.
Tried converting to mono and was even worse.
I compare this to Meldas excellent Rotary emulations.
They sound great but nobody even the developer can explain why on STOP it sounds like ass.
Only when theres a little motion in the doppler effect does the emulation approach realism.

Lets face it the imperfections of analog always has a pleasing sound.
The imperfections of perfection (native) sound like crap.

Only way around is the real thing.
Not an emulation of 3 osc low end filter sweeps.

Reverb still sounds like crap too so I lug around real hardware.
Tried using plugs but a Lexicon is an emulation of space with dedicated RAM.
Lexicon plug ins then are really an emulation of the emulation.
What do you think its going to sound like...?


----------

