# Towards a "Philosophy" for Integrating One's Work Habits and Artistic Preferences with New Virtual Instrument Purchases



## outland (Jun 12, 2022)

Bee Abney wrote:

(BOQ)

I tend to use big, do-anything synths for presets, and more streamlined synths for making my own patches. But this is very much a matter of only having so much time to learn how the complex synths work. Since I work a lot with samples, though, Falcon and Pigments both see frequent use (MSoundFactory and Halion are really good too). Kontakt too, but that isn't a synth. For anyone that has Omnisphere but hasn't really tried to programme it, I'd say that it is actually pretty straightforward. It's just complicated a bit by having to go to various different screens. But a simple synth sound is actually really easy to programme on it.

(EOQ)

My question ( to get the ball rolling) has to do with a concern that has been at least an underlying consideration in several threads I've noticed. It's difficult to gauge accurately just how conscious or vague the issue is for each of us. Bee's comments above give a good sample of one person's understanding of her work process and some suggestions for the use of a synth many probably consider a bit formidable: there are limits for the use of some bigger be-all, end-all synths ("presets only"), but more use of direct programming on units that are "streamlined." Vito has noted what I think may be a similar approach as well (please forgive me if misunderstand, Vito.) So, I'm wondering: what do you tend to see as your preferred way of working and how does that influence (or does it influence) your purchasing habits of plug-in synths? 

I can give a bit of my experience regarding these considerations and how I resolve them ("resolve" almost seems too strong a word; I do get the impression I still do a lot of stumbling around.) At one level, however, I am the absolute worst person to attempt to say anything about this subject as I tend be a bit of a plug-in addict. I do have some idiosyncratic tendencies that may not be reflected in many others. My main electronic instrument is Yamaha WX5 rather than keyboard (though I play that as well.) I owned one of Bill Bernardi's (RIP) retrofitted Midi Wind Drivers based on the Lyricon II body and switched to a Yamaha WX7 as soon as that became available (I had a friend who was working at Bell Labs with people helping Yamaha on its design.) The upgrade to the WX5 was a no-brainer. The first synths that I used with the WX series were a Oberheim Matrix 6R and a Yamaha TX81Z (my Korg DW8000 was virtually useless for MIDI wind synthesis.) So, from the beginning, the ability to use continuous controllers for modulation was important; the more opportunities for modulation the better. If a given plug-in does not receive CC02 (breath control), buying it may not be a non-starter, but there should be enough strengths and a perceived plausible use to offset the constraint of that limitation (i.e., strengths in the area of producing great pads, or working well with MPE.) I find, unsurprisingly, that I do tend to program more leads and basses, followed by pads with inherent motion, polyphonic sounds, hits, and non-pitched stabs. I especially enjoy using MPE for moving pads and non-pitched atmospheric sounds. I never attempt to program realistic bread and butter instruments like acoustic pianos or acoustic basses; there are far too many options for these instruments that sound totally amazing and convincing, so, for me at least, that would be pretty much a waste of time. 

Anyway, I'm interested in your ideas on this and I've probably said enough already, I'm sure. I've got other thoughts about weighing off past experience versus being open to change, but that's certainly enough for now. 

Besides, it's after 2:30 AM here.


----------

