# What Mr. Zimmer wrote re: synths



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 22, 2012)

When Hans Zimmer speaks about synths, I take it _very_ seriously. ( Actually when Hans Zimmer speaks about anything sonically, I take it _very_ seriously, even when ultimately I decide I don't agree.)

Recently, he wrote about software synths: "I got rid of most VstIs and just work with the ones who's audio engines have real depth and quality, like Zebra and Diva, or the Virus."

I have been using a bunch of them for years comprising of: Omnisphere (of course); Linplug's Crono X, Albino, and Octopus; Arturia Moog Modular and Minimoog;ReFX Plastic CZ; and the Logic synths, which RedOne says is mostly what he uses for Lady Gaga records. 

Where my confusion lies is in his description of "audio engines have real depth and quality". 

Can someone educate me on this and the real world consequences of it? I presume it is cumulative.


----------



## Ed (Oct 22, 2012)

He has also said that others have gotten a lot out of synths he cant.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 22, 2012)

The virus is a hardware synth, not software (although that's what runs it, of course), unless he meant an emulation. There are a number of quality software synths, although Diva is blowing so many out of the water. I think that the magic also lies in the programming, IMHO. When I think of depth, I think of modulation matrixes, like in Omnisphere, or the semi-modular aspect of Zebra. Reaktor, of course, is crazy deep, but the quality of the filters, etc, can't compare with Diva. Still, I consider Reaktor a must-buy for any synth lover.

PS: I think that there's also much to be said for having Howard Scarr create a bunch of stellar patches, so good, in fact, that one could use just that set of patches for an entire soundtrack (the synth parts only), and have no need of other softsynths. He could make Steinberg's Neon deep! Now, as for quality...

PPS: A wall of Moog modulars... that's DEEEEEP! :shock:


----------



## wst3 (Oct 22, 2012)

I'm not Hans, so I have no idea what he is referring to. But I can make an educated guess.

There are VST synthesizers that just seem to have more life, or depth, or quality, or whatever word you want to use.

It may be that they are working with 24 bit audio instead of 16 bit audio (once you get rid of the pesky analog world some of those bits are more than just marketing bits!).

Maybe they do all their calculations with floating point math?

Maybe they are just better programmers?

At the risk of being flamed, I think that the WayoutWare ARP 2600 sounds more 'lively' than the Arturia. Splitting hairs? You bet! Can I hear the difference in a mix? Not in my room!

Some other plug-ins share that same shortcoming... they just seem less 'real' when compared to a couple of the newer models.

I don't think I could tell the difference in a mix, and in some cases even when they are exposed the differences are so subtle I can't swear that they are real.

BUT the science of digital signal processing has progressed a lot in the last 10 years. And the horsepower available to programmers has doubled several times in that same period.

So it seems to me far more unlikely that the plugins haven't gotten better.

Make sense?


----------



## José Herring (Oct 22, 2012)

Imo depth means sonic depth. Quality means sonic quality. Too many of our softsynths sound flat and two dimensional. Same with other plugins. So you want something that also imparts space not just a virtual flat picture of what you're emulating.

Too many even good vst synths just sound flat as a pancake. And adding that depth is next to impossible.

Imo opinion it would be the same as evaluating a violin. Many violins sound like violins, but few have the sonic depth and richness and the quality of sound of a Guarneri or Guadagnini.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 22, 2012)

Here is what I am not clear on. If i.e. you held a note on a straight sine wave would there be a difference? If you then turned on a filter to the same frequencies would their be a big difference?

That is what i assume "audio engine quality" would be about but maybe that is not what Hans really meant.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 22, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Oct 22 said:


> Here is what I am not clear on. If i.e. you held a note on a straight sine wave would there be a difference? If you then turned on a filter to the same frequencies would their be a big difference?
> 
> That is what i assume "audio engine quality" would be about but maybe that is not what Hans really meant.



Yes there is. Try it yourself. There's a big difference in a saw tooth wave generated by Alchemy as there is with Reason's Thor. Big difference in the filters too. Though I've used both.

The greatest difference is when you start to processes sounds with other plugs. Some synths just disappear. >8o


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 22, 2012)

josejherring @ Mon Oct 22 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Oct 22 said:
> 
> 
> > Here is what I am not clear on. If i.e. you held a note on a straight sine wave would there be a difference? If you then turned on a filter to the same frequencies would their be a big difference?
> ...



So if Idid this with Zebra or Diva as opposed to i.e Albino I would hear a significant difference? And presumably with 12 instances, it gets even more noticeable, correct?

I did try it with Zebralette and I could not hear much difference from Logic's Es2 but hen, I have old tired ears


----------



## Ed (Oct 22, 2012)

What i want to know is in what sense did Hans use his big ol' crazy wall synth vs Zebra in Batman and Inception, because it seems to be all Zebra, yet in interviews ive seen it implied that he used that the big one.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 22, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Oct 22 said:


> josejherring @ Mon Oct 22 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Mon Oct 22 said:
> ...



Post the examples. Also logic synth is pretty good. Mark Isham used it in his Score to Crash along with Atmosphere.

Later today I'll do the same with some sythns that I have. You'll notice a big, big difference.


----------



## Rctec (Oct 22, 2012)

Let me try me use my 'best words' here at describing what I mean: the NI stuff seems to be build on rather old code, that - while efficient- have a strang sort of 'warble' in their sound and a brittle, Fuzzy mid and top end (that's my best description) The Logic synth - though limited- are fabulous, but something happens when you combine a lot of tracks that becomes a little ugly. The Aruria stuff I had the highest hopes for. But, quite honestly, it takes as long to make a great patch on a real system 55 as it takes on the Arturia, and you never get that last bit of raw intensity and satisfaction and beauty out of the Arturia models. The Access TI is still a favorite and keeps getting better, as is Zebra2. I prefer Urs's philosophy regarding quality versus CPU power.: push the quality over the edge of what's possible at the time of design, because by the time it comes to market, the CPU power will hopefully have caught up.
.... And before you all tell me , quite correctly, that each Mini Moog that ever left the factory sounds different, I hasten to agree with you. We had 5 minis here at the studio and took the one we liked best for Urs to destroy in his investigations. That became a part of "Diva"...
I have no business relationship with Urs beyond that it will be his turn to pick up the tab at "Borchards" ( he doesn't even like that place) next time I'm in Berlin.
But he makes instrunents that at their core have all the sonic riches and quality I need. And then Howie comes along and together we come up with pretty good things. I love programming, I studied programming the way other musicians study Ravel's orchestrations (and it takes about as long), but Howard has a magic sense when it comes to sound.
But I'm not a scientist. The way the code is written is paramount to the quality of the synth. The game of condensing the code to have it run more efficiently,and by that , compromising sonic quality, is not really making me happy.
When you build an analogue system, the sound travels through the components at an instant speed. Every calculation in a soft synth takes time and cycles through the CPU and taxes the CPU. The closer you get to a straight wire approach (and a million other voodoo things), the closer you get to true real time and no phsey bits, the better.
One more thing about Zebra2: I never get bored or frustrated. I can always come up with something appropriate for my ideas. Is it perfect? Thank god, no! There are a lot of ideas to make it better still floating around in Urs' head...
So, sit down and have a good wiggle. It's better than being at the mercy of 3000 presets. Ravel and Stravinsky did a lot of wiggling too...that's how they got all those fab colors and textures that made a simple tune extraordinary.
My 10 cents

Hz


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 22, 2012)

Rctec @ Mon Oct 22 said:


> Let me try me use my 'best words' here at describing what I mean: the NI stuff seems to be build on rather old code, that - while efficient- have a strang sort of 'warble' in their sound and a brittle, Fuzzy mid and top end (that's my best description) The Logic synth - though limited- are fabulous, but something happens when you combine a lot of tracks that becomes a little ugly. The Aruria stuff I had the highest hopes for. But, quite honestly, it takes as long to make a great patch on a real system 55 as it takes on the Arturia, and you never get that last bit of raw intensity and satisfaction and beauty out of the Arturia models. The Access TI is still a favorite and keeps getting better, as is Zebra2. I prefer Urs's philosophy regarding quality versus CPU power.: push the quality over the edge of what's possible at the time of design, because by the time it comes to market, the CPU power will hopefully have caught up.
> .... And before you all tell me , quite correctly, that each Mini Moog that ever left the factory sounds different, I hasten to agree with you. We had 5 minis here at the studio and took the one we liked best for Urs to destroy in his investigations. That became a part of "Diva"...
> I have no business relationship with Urs beyond that it will be his turn to pick up the tab at "Borchards" ( he doesn't even like that place) next time I'm in Berlin.
> But he makes instrunents that at their core have all the sonic riches and quality I need. And then Howie comes along and together we come up with pretty good things. I love programming, I studied programming the way other musicians study Ravel's orchestrations (and it takes about as long), but Howard has a magic sense when it comes to sound.
> ...



Thanks Hans, that makes it clear for me. I think I see Zebra and Diva in my future


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Oct 22, 2012)

I have to agree with Hans.

When I first heard about Diva, I was using Omnisphere a lot. Its a great synth with some crazy possibilities. 

But, Diva's quality is top-notch. When I started using Diva, I also making a lot more sounds from scratch (as with Omnisphere). 

I dont know what they are doing behind the synth with the code, but yes, Diva sounds better than almost everything that I have tried.

I dont use NI synths anymore (actually stopped using them a couple of years back).

I just like Diva a lot better now. It almost destroys my CPU but use it on the highest quality, print all the the time. 

The sonic character and the depth is incredible. 

I used it all over my recent score to Rush and I was immensely pleased with the sound quality. I was not able to achieve this earlier. 

I cannot claim to fully understand analogue sound (born in 1984 after all) but I can tell when the sound is really good and pleasing. 

You must try the demo, its a monster synth with enormous possibilities. 

Still learning....about 50 scores to go....


Tanuj.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 22, 2012)

Lots of good info as usual. Now I know why not all synths are the same.

I did a little test. Funny thing is that the one that sounded the best to me, was a freebee I've never used that's a copy of the Jupiter synth. Sounds close to my Diva demo I tried. But, I didn't demo Diva waves because I don't know it well enough to strip it down to just the raw wave.

So here's the raw sawtooth of 4 synths that I have. I'll leave it posted for just a little while.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5R9OghYcycsaGxSRFNaaUhTWjg (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5R9Og ... FNaaUhTWjg)


----------



## José Herring (Oct 22, 2012)

Being one that's studied Ravel orchestration for the last 20 years, I'd like to know how one studies synthesis as an in depth study. I've already started but, I often just run into contradiction after contradiction.


----------



## stonzthro (Oct 22, 2012)

The virus is a hardware synth, but the software for the TI models makes them function like a VST. It does indeed sound great! You can even bounce in realtime without needing to pre-render.


----------



## Rctec (Oct 22, 2012)

Well, Jose, it's not that different: combination of soundgenerators, dynamics, perspective, stacking up harmonics in weird and wonderful ways...and making sure that it's just at the edge of playabillity  and 2 harps are really the same as 2 arpeggiators, a High Pass filter can move things a bit more towards a sul pomt sound...It's really about knowing your "orchestra" and what you can do with it!

Oh, and the big synth on "TDKR"...we found original (new) Moog circuit boards and front panels, put new components in and had Gert ar MoonModular build a routing/mixing/ switching system so it became a "modern" Moog Modular that was stable as if it had just left the factory. When ever we had a cool sound, we'd just sample it at all pitches and velocities..."for Later"...
Hz


----------



## givemenoughrope (Oct 22, 2012)

Thanks Hans and Jay. Great topic that I was actually thinking about starting a thread for. 

Is it my imagination or does Massive sound much different (louder, clearer) than all of the other older NI synths? I never really pulled it up for more than a second but I've tried to build some simple patches in it recently and the jury is out overall. 

I'm using some Reaktor patches today (Swarmatron, etc.) and I'm trying to get it to jive sonically with my Juno 106. Might try reamping to add some grit and air.


----------



## zvenx (Oct 22, 2012)

(pretending I am not gushing like a school girl with a crush ),,, I must say I have always been surprised that Omnisphere was never in your very short list....

rsp


----------



## José Herring (Oct 22, 2012)

Cool. Yeah I had mentioned that to another composer. I said studying synths was a bit like starting over and studying counterpoint from the beginning. But, I had no idea what that actually meant. Thanks for confirming that I'm at least moving in the right direction.


----------



## Kralc (Oct 22, 2012)

I always get excited now when I see a topic with Mr Zimmer's name in the title... no execptions here.

I like the idea of "synthestration", seems almost logical now. 
Ugh, why does there have to be so much stuff to study!!?


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 22, 2012)

josejherring @ Mon Oct 22 said:


> Being one that's studied Ravel orchestration for the last 20 years, I'd like to know how one studies synthesis as an in depth study. I've already started but, I often just run into contradiction after contradiction.



Jose,

in the 80's I worked as a programmer and built many many sounds for Yamaha, Casio and Roland synth's, new and familiar sounds. And, when you have to programm a well known sound, then you learn how you have to use this and that parameter. You get a very good understanding of all that envelopes, filters e.t.c. and you quickly hear the smallest differences between different synths.

Have you listend to my experiment where I had used only one taiko drum sample in Kontakt-Sampler, to built well known sounds from the 80's only with this one sample? 

Listen to my result: https://www.box.com/s/fb81d8e193ec920d62ec

@Hans: Very well explained this theme! You may talk quietly even more out of your sewing box.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 22, 2012)

I like what I hear coming out of and about Xils Lab, and Lennar Digital's Sylenth 1 is really very good, IMHO.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 22, 2012)

Jose,

RE: synthestration (somebody ™ that quick!), I used to teach synthesis a few decades ago, and there was a lot of emphasis on understanding the basics of sound, the types of synthesis, then a period of analysis using hear training (e.g.: do you hear the amplitude modulation or is it pitch modulation?) and reproducing a pre-recorded sound using a Prophet 5 or JD-800 (like I said, decades ago!). I might play something mixed and ask them to identify the synth parts - the same way as one might get orch students to identify the wind lines or take apart the strings. Finally, the students would be asked to create a piece using a variety of different-sounding synths.

FWIW, I think I've been studying synthestration for +25 years now, and there's still so much to learn!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 22, 2012)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Oct 22 said:


> Jose,
> 
> RE: synthestration (somebody ™ that quick!), I used to teach synthesis a few decades ago, and there was a lot of emphasis on understanding the basics of sound, the types of synthesis, then a period of analysis using hear training (e.g.: do you hear the amplitude modulation or is it pitch modulation?) and reproducing a pre-recorded sound using a Prophet 5 or JD-800 (like I said, decades ago!). I might play something mixed and ask them to identify the synth parts - the same way as one might get orch students to identify the wind lines or take apart the strings. Finally, the students would be asked to create a piece using a variety of different-sounding synths.
> 
> FWIW, I think I've been studying synthestration for +25 years now, and there's still so much to learn!



Ned, have you considered teaching an online class? Or you, Gunther?


----------



## Ian Dorsch (Oct 22, 2012)

Great thread, and as always, so awesome to see Hans taking the time to contribute here. I've yet to try out Zebra or Diva, but it sounds like I need to investigate.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 22, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ 22/10/2012 said:


> Ned, have you considered teaching an online class? Or you, Gunther?



Ask me again in 15 years.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 22, 2012)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Oct 22 said:


> Jose,
> 
> RE: synthestration (somebody ™ that quick!), I used to teach synthesis a few decades ago, and there was a lot of emphasis on understanding the basics of sound, the types of synthesis, then a period of analysis using hear training (e.g.: do you hear the amplitude modulation or is it pitch modulation?) and reproducing a pre-recorded sound using a Prophet 5 or JD-800 (like I said, decades ago!). I might play something mixed and ask them to identify the synth parts - the same way as one might get orch students to identify the wind lines or take apart the strings. Finally, the students would be asked to create a piece using a variety of different-sounding synths.
> 
> FWIW, I think I've been studying synthestration for +25 years now, and there's still so much to learn!



Thanks Ned.

Yeah, If I turn back the clock. I can hear what Hans is talking about. The inherent phasiness and smearing of the older synths back then led to really dated scores. Funny thing is that I still like the the old synth scores and I'm trying to find a way to recreate those older synths sounds using what we have today.

Even though I went to an "elite" music school, I'm basically a self taught composer. I didn't compose much until I got out of school. At the time there was a fork in the road. There was Zimmer getting big, and the days of Vangelis were coming to a close. John Williams and Goldsmith were looming larger than life and I kind of fell back on what was familiar to me sonically and neglected the synth side of life. I think that was a mistake. I could have taken both roads.

So I play catch up now. And, I really do appreciate guys like you, Gunther and Hans kind of putting in your advice now and again.

I remember a few years back you were feeling kind of out of place hear amongst some of the orchestral composers. Glad you stayed aboard. The synth is back bigger than ever baby! I can't even get a job any more with the orchestral stuff. My next job I got purely on a synth demo the director really loved. Weird thing is that the film will probably use mostly orchestral(samples that is). But it wasn't until he heard the synth work that he offered me the job.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 22, 2012)

Ha! Congratulations on the gig! And yeah, what goes around comes around (for those of us who stick around, that is). In 10 yrs, nobody will want synths anymore. Meanwhile, I say thank you Hans Zimmer, Trent Reznor, Daft Punk, Deadmau5 and others for making synths 'hot' again.


----------



## zacnelson (Oct 22, 2012)

givemenoughrope @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Is it my imagination or does Massive sound much different (louder, clearer) than all of the other older NI synths? I never really pulled it up for more than a second but I've tried to build some simple patches in it recently and the jury is out overall.



I am also interested if anyone else has a comment on Massive. I personally only own all the Native Instruments synths, and I endeavour to learn more about `synthestration' (awesome new word!!) and will probably one day buy one of the synths discussed in this thread. However I definitely notice a difference in the `depth' or `three -dimensional sound' of Massive compared to any other software synths I have, including Avid's Hybrid, FM8, Absynth etc.


----------



## IFM (Oct 22, 2012)

I'm glad to see synts got again too. I love Zebra (use it all the time) and will check out Diva. I also use FM8 and PPG synths a lot. I was using a lot of Logic synths too but tend to use Zebra much more...the sound depth is never ending! 

Chris


----------



## cc64 (Oct 22, 2012)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Oct 22 said:


> And yeah, what goes around comes around (for those of us who stick around, that is). In 10 yrs, nobody will want synths anymore. Meanwhile, I say thank you Hans Zimmer, Trent Reznor, Daft Punk, Deadmau5 and others for making synths 'hot' again.



Yeah +1000 on the synth revival love fest! I started out plodding through piano lessons when i was 9 and was a bit bored 'till i saw this guy playing a Lowrey organ on the Mike Douglas Show and literally had goose bumps. That was my epiphany. I told my father "that's what i want to do dad, play that thing that does all the instruments, not just Piano(Yawn)". A week later, i was taking organ lessons on a...uhmm.. Farfisa...My father didn't exactly have the budget for that Lowrey organ that guy had on the Mike Douglas Show...(I swear to you that Farfisa Oboe '8 preset did not sound like any oboe you've ever heard) :mrgreen: 

When i started playing professionally in the mid '80s with Cirque du Soleil, synths where still cool, but 4 or 5 years later i began accompanying pop acts that loathed anything close to synth sounds, so i had to resort, for the following 10 years, to playing fifths on the Korg CX-3(B3 emulation) going through an overdriven Leslie, wich can be a lot of fun, but believe me trying to compete with 4 Marshalls gets old pretty fast ; )

Fast forward to 2012, these days i'm doing a documentary series about Indian sightings of aliens in the great white north ~o) and i just sent in a few cues wich comprise of 90% Alchemy and Omnisphere and the producers are completely into it. Just 3 or 4 years ago i would have gotten fired! 

Best,

Claude


----------



## Cruciform (Oct 22, 2012)

givemenoughrope @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Thanks Hans and Jay. Great topic that I was actually thinking about starting a thread for.
> 
> Is it my imagination or does Massive sound much different (louder, clearer) than all of the other older NI synths? I never really pulled it up for more than a second but I've tried to build some simple patches in it recently and the jury is out overall.
> 
> I'm using some Reaktor patches today (Swarmatron, etc.) and I'm trying to get it to jive sonically with my Juno 106. Might try reamping to add some grit and air.



Massive is perfect for certain styles (dupstep, industrial, modern pop, etc) but even then I get frustrated with the sonic quality. I still run it through multiband distortion, filters etc to get a sound that pleases me. Same with Reaktor. Absynth on the other hand is stunning out of the box. Where M and R have a thin/brittle quality, A is lush and deep, the only thing needed to improve it IMO is a bit of 3rd party reverb.

I've tried making dubstep patches in Zebra and I keep returning to Massive. It does excel for certain sounds.

My 2c.


----------



## JPQ (Oct 22, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon 22 Oct said:


> Here is what I am not clear on. If i.e. you held a note on a straight sine wave would there be a difference? If you then turned on a filter to the same frequencies would their be a big difference?
> 
> That is what i assume "audio engine quality" would be about but maybe that is not what Hans really meant.



i made tests with sine just few days ago and made soon more closely but current feeling is
Rob Papen Blue and Linplug Albino have one overtone which is 42db more quiet than actually note what you play. if i rember value correctly.
but NI Absynth,NI FM8,and Logic ES2. dont have it and i dont remeber i tested NI Massive. I found it with Voxengo Span and look thing someday soon. and in sawtooth there can be much differencies and first two synths even have few different sawtooths. and my favorite ones are Rob Papen Blue,Linplug Albino,Logic ES2,Cakewalk Z3ta2+ and i dream get someday Omnisphere maybe only one synth what i really need now. i actually dont care much NI synths. Now still more than about year 2008 when i dont like them at all. I say dream i need so not of things things when i compare money income. is not so fast get them...


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 23, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Oct 22 said:


> Ned, have you considered teaching an online class? Or you, Gunther?



Maybe when I'm sixty four... . o/~ 

Without joking: In the winter months I might write an article where I describe the relationships of the various oscillators, envelopes and also explain the importance of the first few milliseconds of a sound. 

If I remember correct, Nick B. wrote a book about synthesizers some month ago. I am sure that there is much good information.

Gunther


----------



## lux (Oct 23, 2012)

Pretty interesting topic, nice.

Personally I still use Absynth a lot. It has a discrete presence in the mix and often has fashinating sonic results using the morph randomizer, which is something I like a lot in a synth. In general a good parameters randomization is a plus for me, as I love getting unpredictable results which leads me to inspiration. Its like a cascade effect.

When it comes to analog timbres with charachter and strength surely U-He stuff and Xils are just unbeatable.

I also have an unconfessed love for the Nexus 2 rompler, most of all because it has an incredible attitude when it comes to layer and push sounds together in a wall of sound. It just let me slam things one on top of another like crazy and the mix still sounds nice and fat.

Luca


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 23, 2012)

OK, here we go...

First off, it's obviously twenty stages beyond cool that Hans is taking time out here to talk us through his approach, and I've nothing but admiration and respect for the fine fellow. I guess that can lead to a problem - Hans is so far up the food chain from anyone else on this board that any contrary views seem slightly ridiculous. But hey...

In fact, mine isn't necessarily a contrary view, just an alternate perspective. Here's what happens. Every time I read something glowing about Zebra - especially from Hans - I rush over to the U-he site and re-listen to the demos to see what I missed. Every time I think "wow, it's really cheap to buy" - and this time additionally marvel at how well regarded it is, for that price, next to a custom massive Moog Modular which must now be worth in the hundreds of thousands. And every time the same thing happens - I don't hear anything in the demos that makes me want to buy it.

Now, that doesn't mean it sounds bad - it doesn't, it sounds terrific. I don't even know what I'm listening for, to be honest. What I mean is - I don't hear it doing anything that is fundamentally different to what I get with Omni (and the very occasional forage into some of the NI synths). Maybe it's the web streaming (I doubt it), but I certainly don't hear any fundamental difference in sonic quality between it and Omni.

As a number of people have said, the best synth is the one that inspires you, and you can work with - and I think that's the key to it. Hans obviously has a terrific working relationship with U-he and, as he's patiently explained before, he's taken the time to really get to know the synth. I seems to me like that's the right approach - better to master one good synth than buy 10 synths and not learn any of them to any depth. Of course there's a limit to how you can apply that - if your one synth really is limited, or if on the other hand you have the time and brianpower to master 10, then fill your boots.

I have a workflow with Omni that makes sense to me, I can work quickly and it delivers the goods that I need. I think it's weakest area is FM. I've only recently got FM8 so I don't know it from a programming perspective at all, but I do hear it produce tones that Omni would struggle with.

So I read a brilliant thread like this, and think too conflicting thoughts. One - "wow, I really must be missing out with Zebra - Hans is the king and he unquestionably gets stunning results". But the other more dominant thought is "I should spent more time with the synths I have, learning to really master them".


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Oct 23, 2012)

Guy,

Just like you, I am a fan of Omnisphere as well and use it all the time. But you must download the demo for Diva and spend a few days exploring it.

You will find that on Best quality mode, the sound quality is really really good. I dont think , we can really compare Omnisphere and Diva. Omni is also part rompler. 

So, what you will find is that Diva is a great addition to the family of soft synths that you may have. I started reaching for it often once I started using it. 

Now, I use a combination of Diva and Omnisphere for a lot of stuff. NI is out for now.

Check out the HS and TUC patches - they are fabulous - just to get you started and then you can explore the synth in more detail.

I also like the Plate, Chorus and the delay. They are really good!


Try the demo. I dont have Zebra but Diva itself is pretty good and complex. Will probably get Zebra at some point.

I also love Chrompahone from AAS - Its really great. It is very tolerant to processing and you can achieve some great sounds with it.


Tanuj.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Oct 23, 2012)

Here is something I did with DIVA when I first got it.

I hate soundcloud - it adds fuck all buzzing and all in some sounds.

Ignore, the high frequency buzz. 

I will try and upload a high quality version when I have more time.


http://soundcloud.com/tanujtiku/diva-test-sound

I have used a slight reverb (2C audio Breeze) just to give it some space.


After the 26th, I will be posting high quality version of my score to Rush with Diva mixed in.

You might find that helpful. I doubt it though, if you dont already like the demos on the website.


Tanuj.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Oct 23, 2012)

Also, I am very impressed by the filters in Diva. They are very very different to Omnisphere for sure. Really good. Even Omnisphere is really good. Just different.

I think Hans finally did use Omnisphere on TDKR - It was mentioned on the Spectrasonics website.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Oct 23, 2012)

If you listen to the cue 'Imagine the Fire' on the TDKR soundtrack, listen to the bass arp coming in at 1:10.

I have not been able to achieve this kind of sound with Omsniphere yet. Diva comes very close.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Oct 23, 2012)

Here are a couple of high quality .wav excerpts....

I have muted one or two layers to make the synths stand out a little for this test.

http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/VIEG1.wav

http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/VIEG2.wav

In VIEG2 - Even the piano is layered with a patch from Diva to give it a more dreamy feel. The comb filter type arp towards the end is made in Chromaphone.

This is not the final mix. Its not passing through any outboard gear or anything. ITB only with no EQ on any synth sounds. Very mild compression on a couple of sounds and all the reverbs and delay are from Diva itself.

Hope this helps.


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## Kralc (Oct 23, 2012)

Great stuff, Tanuj! Definitely liking Diva's sound.

And on the subject of Diva and "samplestration", this demo with Holst's Venus on Diva's product page sounds really nice,
http://www.u-he.com/diva/songs/MikeLeghorn_Venus.mp3
Keen to try this with some of the other planets! Do some reducing and sharpen the ol' synth skills. Two birds with one stone!


----------



## u-he (Oct 23, 2012)

Thanks guys!

@HZ - Happy to take you out next time!!!

@noiseboyuk - you may not realise it, but you've given Zebra the biggest compliment possible at this time and age


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 23, 2012)

The Big Bear is in the Haus?!!

Wunderbarchen!!

If anyone needs round-kick lessons, Urs is your man.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 23, 2012)

u-he @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> @noiseboyuk - you may not realise it, but you've given Zebra the biggest compliment possible at this time and age



Oooh, that's nice! How did I do that?

(and welcome to non-lurking VI Control!)


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 23, 2012)

u-he @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> @noiseboyuk - you may not realise it, but you've given Zebra the biggest compliment possible at this time and age


----------



## u-he (Oct 23, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> u-he @ Tue Oct 23 said:
> 
> 
> > @noiseboyuk - you may not realise it, but you've given Zebra the biggest compliment possible at this time and age
> ...


Well, not many pure synths can hold a candle towards Omnisphere.

While Omnisphere sounds phantastic, I think it's obvious that its core strength is cleverly sampled sources. 

Zebra however does not deploy sample playback at any level. Everything you hear from Zebra is based purely on sample-free synthesis - additive oscillators, filters, physical modeling, fm, the whole lot.

That's why, whenever Zebra gets compared to Omni I think we did something right.

- Urs


----------



## mark812 (Oct 23, 2012)

vibrato @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Here are a couple of high quality .wav excerpts....
> 
> I have muted one or two layers to make the synths stand out a little for this test.
> 
> ...



Great Tanuj, thank you very much..now I can't decide between Zebra and Diva. :lol:

Why did you choose Diva over Zebra? From what I hear, Diva's sound quality is even better than Zebra's, but Zebra seems to be more versatile. I'm also curious how does Diva compare to Cubase's Retrologue (sonically).

I guess Zebra with Diva's filters would be ideal for me.


----------



## Cruciform (Oct 23, 2012)

mark812 @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> I guess Zebra with Diva's filters would be ideal for me.



Well, you're in luck. It's called Dark Zebra and it comes with a bunch of patches programmed by HZ and Howard Scarr.


----------



## Rctec (Oct 23, 2012)

Ok, here's a rather silly confession... When Eric first gave me a copy of Omnisphere, I was so overwhelmed by the amount of presets, I never bothered to really look much beyond the first twenty. I'm quicker - once Howie started to show me how the striped beast worked - making my own sound. I don't randomly find a preset that fits, I hear in my head the sound of what I want to write with... There is another thread here about "Sherlock". One of the problems with the re-interpretation is that the underlying rhythm is wrong. Well, in my version it started with a Zebra groove....
As far as Noizeboy is concerned...I actually agree for the most part with him. He knows Omni, and probably gets great stuff out of it. That, to my mind, makes it the best synth for him. My arrogance didn't really want to start with someone else's sounds, and Omni felt to me as if it was chock-a-block full of Eric's sonic imagination and aesthetic. But I like starting off with a pure waveform and making my own mess.
Absynth


----------



## zvenx (Oct 23, 2012)

Rctec @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Ok, here's a rather silly confession... When Eric first gave me a copy of Omnisphere, I was so overwhelmed by the amount of presets, I never bothered to really look much beyond the first twenty. I'm quicker - once Howie started to show me how the striped beast worked - making my own sound. I don't randomly find a preset that fits, I hear in my head the sound of what I want to write with... There is another thread here about "Sherlock". One of the problems with the re-interpretation is that the underlying rhythm is wrong. Well, in my version it started with a Zebra groove....
> As far as Noizeboy is concerned...I actually agree for the most part with him. He knows Omni, and probably gets great stuff out of it. That, to my mind, makes it the best synth for him. My arrogance didn't really want to start with someone else's sounds, and Omni felt to me as if it was chock-a-block full of Eric's sonic imagination and aesthetic. But I like starting off with a pure waveform and making my own mess.
> Absynth



ironically (and no I am not kissing up here ) that was one of my theories.... I get the feeling you like simplicity, at least in your work flow. you said here or earlier, that you don't want 11,000 presets to have to go thru, (or something to that effect) and I figured that may have turned you off of omnisphere ironically.

rsp


----------



## Cruciform (Oct 23, 2012)

Hans,

Did you ever use Kore 2? You could go wild layering up your Zebra patches in it. It's the main reason I've never bought Omni. Kore makes it so easy to create complex and evolving instruments using the synths and effects already in my toolbox. It's discontinued but if you can find a copy, I think you'd enjoy its layering and routing capabilities.


----------



## Rctec (Oct 23, 2012)

...oops, hit the wrong button...Absynth is a great sounding original piece of software and sounds quite different to my ears from any of the other NI machines.
But here is my rather personal bottom line - and please remember, my stuff gets played on thousands of screens for millions of people - I wanted something that stood the test of time, and not something I would here in the multiplex next door. I get on chance to write and record this piece, it's there for ever, and I don't wanted to have something from the same rompler bank playing in the score next door.
I myself have contributed sounds to Eric's library and not just Omni. I like him very much and wished he'd do a movie with me -electronic mayhem-, but we're far to busy to even talk!
Not all you hear in "Dark Knight" or "inception" is Zebra. Mel Wesson, my Francis Bacon of sonic design loves the thinness of Reactor and Metasynth (when he not pushing his huge PPG modular to it's limits) it's precisely the advantage of using different sounding synth that makes for a colorful score. Howie always had a slight disdain for all things Tomita, while we could all agree on Kraftwerk and my friend Trent's tortured, human electronics. Love the synth you're with!
Hz


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 23, 2012)

Cheers Hans, makes total sense. Omni is a very powerful soft synth, but if you're always building from scratch, no samples at all, I can see how Zebra is a better fit. And Urs - I get you now, that makes sense too.

I will confess that at my modest level - TV on silly deadlines - the issue of soundsources isn't really a great concern (especially since their are so many of them). Zebra does look like an amazing synth, and Diva too, all power to you both.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 23, 2012)

Very interesting. I totally get where Hans and Guy are coming from, which is opposite ends of the scale in terms of time and resources (and assistance) to deliver a project and Hans' need to be original. 

I remember when the Korg Wavestation came out and for two years I heard "Midnight Run" and "Pharoah's Jig" all over the place. If I were a Hans Zimmer I would not want my score to be one where people said, "Hey, he used that same patch from Synth Incredible that I use!"

But like Guy, I am not a Hans Zimmer and I have not the time or sadly the ambition to be able to create a lot of patches from scratch so generally for me it is pick a patch, then tweak it and add different fx to make it at least a little different from the stock sounds.

But what I am getting from Hans here, and Han perhaps you will correct me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying, is that if I take a patch to tweak in i.e Albino or Crono X and a similar one in Diva or Zebra 2, that when I am done with my modifications I will have patch that has more depth and quality because the quality is higher and the filters are better.

Also, am I not correct in assuming that the more synth patches used, the more the better sonic quality will factor in?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 23, 2012)

As a daily user of Omnisphere for years now, I have to say that many of the patches created from its own synth engine are fantastic (see the Moog set), just as rich/interesting/fat as some in Zebra. Let's not forget that the Spectrasonics team has its own incredible team of wizards, starting with Glenn Olander and Scott Frankfurt. The synth engine is very deep, due in no small part to the generous mod matrix.

For those looking to further their knowledge of synthesis, I highly recommend getting a hardware synth, preferably with no presets: Arturia MiniBrute, Moog Minitaur, Oberheim SEM, or a vintage Roland (Model 101) or Korg (MS10). You'll be forced to experiment and learn in order to have a range of sounds from one instrument, and in order to call up something on the fly.


----------



## Dan Mott (Oct 23, 2012)

Hello everyone

I have been studying Synthesis for a while and have read many articles and watched many video tuts, ect.

I recently got this book - http://noisesculpture.com/how-to-make-a ... rogramming

It's free. He has other books, but I'm just in the middle of reading this one. It's quite good and it get's your hands dirty.


----------



## gsilbers (Oct 23, 2012)

www.groove3.com has some extensive video courses abotu synth. the 30 day pass is the best. you can see all of them. 

http://www.groove3.com/str/synths-explained.html

its the basic synthesis instruction which covers all synths. 
then each synth has its own way of representing the modules, routing , sfx etc.


----------



## Daniel James (Oct 23, 2012)

In my experience, once you learn the basics of synthesis its all about finding a synth that suits the way you work. Some people love all those weird digital effects you can get, some love that analogue sound/feel...some just want to modulate modulators with modulators etc etc.

For me personally I took the principles of synthesis and applied it to sound design, if you have ever heard my stuff in Hybrid Tools or my Alpha teasers you would notice that its almost like it was made by a synth, but a little bit different, which is my little edge of our world for now.

I am trying to design a synth prototype that uses organic sounds instead of oscillators but then everything else carries on like a hardware synth.... so you push a key which makes a robot hammer hit a string, which is then recorded and the audio passes through the effects and filters instead of an oscillator generated tone. It will probably be shit, but worth a go  

Dan


----------



## zvenx (Oct 23, 2012)

how are you going to get the robot with a hammer hitting a string small enough to fit inside digital code, or are we talking hardware synth? :|
rsp


----------



## zvenx (Oct 23, 2012)

I am of course kidding above Daniel, but isn't that the same idea behind...Psychoacoustic used in Omnisphere?
rsp


----------



## Daniel James (Oct 23, 2012)

zvenx @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> how are you going to get the robot with a hammer hitting a string small enough to fit inside digital code, or are we talking hardware synth? :|
> rsp



Hardware.


----------



## Daniel James (Oct 23, 2012)

zvenx @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> I am of course kidding above Daniel, but isn't that the same idea behind...Psychoacoustic used in Omnisphere?
> rsp



Well my though process is that every time you hit a string its slightly different, only subtle but different. Something like omni is single recordings. Like I say it will probably sound shit, but I gotta give it a go  haha it will probably be too big to be practical.

Dan


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 23, 2012)

Daniel James @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> In my experience, once you learn the basics of synthesis its all about finding a synth that suits the way you work. Some people love all those weird digital effects you can get, some love that analogue sound/feel...some just want to modulate modulators with modulators etc etc.
> 
> For me personally I took the principles of synthesis and applied it to sound design, if you have ever heard my stuff in Hybrid Tools or my Alpha teasers you would notice that its almost like it was made by a synth, but a little bit different, which is my little edge of our world for now.
> 
> ...



So you are doing the same what I did with my taiko-sample experiment in Kontakt? 

There I had used only little snippets from one sample and some instruments are very very cool. It's all there, the filters, envelopes, lfo's e.t.c. . The only thing what I do not like so much in Kontakt is the quality/sound of the filters and eq's, for example compared to Diva or the old hardware. But, it makes a lot of fun!


----------



## Howie (Oct 23, 2012)

Rctec @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Howie always had a slight disdain for all things Tomita, while we could all agree on Kraftwerk and my friend Trent's tortured, human electronics. Love the synth you're with!
> Hz


I think I said Tomita's sounds were "cheesy", especially compared with Walter Carlos beef - but then again I haven't listened to anything of his since Snowflakes and Pictures i.e. the mid '70s.

Although I'm getting more opinionated with age, I'm willing to be educated. I only really started appreciating Kraftwerk's "Gesamtkunstwerk" a year or so ago - I hope they are inducted into the "Rock & Roll Hall of Fame" this time (they were nominated AFAIK)!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 23, 2012)

HS, is that you? If so...

o=? o=? o=? o=? o=?


----------



## gsilbers (Oct 23, 2012)

Daniel James @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> zvenx @ Tue Oct 23 said:
> 
> 
> > I am of course kidding above Daniel, but isn't that the same idea behind...Psychoacoustic used in Omnisphere?
> ...



i lost track with so many synths but i think z3tra does that. you can change the waveform/ /sample on every hit. still, i dont think its like the same instrument . like 6 different guitar string sample. or robot hammer etc. 

hartman neuron did somethign similar too. still , wierd waveform samples and not like a hyrbid sampler type recording.


----------



## Daniel James (Oct 23, 2012)

gsilbers @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Daniel James @ Tue Oct 23 said:
> 
> 
> > zvenx @ Tue Oct 23 said:
> ...



What I have in mind is pure audio, not waveforms in the synth sense. Think of a Round Robin machine thats playing an actual string, the nrecording it and processing the sound on the fly.

Dan


----------



## wst3 (Oct 23, 2012)

one more perspective on learning synthesis...

it isn't something you can really learn from reading a book, but there are a couple of books that I think provide a great foundation (or more accurately, they did for me):

In the modern text category I suggest checking out any and all of Simon Cann's books at
http://simoncann.com/

and also Sam Ecoff at 
http://www.samecoff.com/works.html

In the 'vintage' category, Jim Michmerhuizen's ARP 2600 manual is a great starting point for subtractive synthesis, and for thinking about synthesis. You can find copies on the web, but in the spirit of doing the right thing you might want to buy a copy from him at
http://michmer.net/store.html

And the Roland Synthesis course, which is not available except used on eBay from time to time. I am told, by someone I trust, that Roland has given permission to distribute the book electronically, there is a copy here:
http://www.analogindustries.com/samples/The_Synthesizer.zip (http://www.analogindustries.com/samples ... esizer.zip)

Beyond that, Hal Chamberlin's "Musical Applications of Microprocessors" is a very difficult read, but there is a lot of great information on synthesis technology, which I found useful - this is definitely a YMMV, and it ain't cheap!!

After you are done reading, actually while you are reading, you have to listen. Listen to some HZ scores, and Kraftwerk, and Tomita, and Carlos, and anything that interests you. Then try to re-create those sounds. You need to develop your synthesis vocabulary so that when you hear something in your mind you can re-create it with a synthesizer.

One size won't fit all, but I have made the mistake of jumping into a bunch of different synthesizers more than once, and all it does is slow me down!

If your chosen synthesizer provides presets then play with them. Figure out WHY the work, then tweak them. Then start from scratch and try to recreate them.

None of this is all that different from learning orchestration... did you know what an oboe and clarinet sound like when they play in unison before you tried it? The same thing applies to synthesis, or at least it did for me. The only difference is the toolset you have before you... with synthesis you have, arguably, a larger palette.


----------



## Kejero (Oct 23, 2012)

Quick thanks to everybody for all the resources mentioned here. Always eager to learn


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 23, 2012)

> If I remember correct, Nick B. wrote a book about synthesizers some month ago. I am sure that there is much good information.



Thanks for remembering, Gunther. Actually it's about creating custom sample libraries. I do go into the basics of synth parameters, but that's only to be complete - you know, what an envelope is, a filter, etc.

***
Just to stir the waters, I want to say that (for me, and in the musical contexts I'm talking about) it's the performance much more than the sounds that makes synths listenable. (Was it Steve Taglione?) I forget the name, but there were some demos of the Yamaha WX-7 when it first came out in the '80s of a violin that were really grabbing. The sound itself was totally stinky cheese, but...Steve?...played the shit out of them. 

And not that I'm stuck in the '80s, but why do Herbie Hancock's crazy synth solos on the Headhunters album still stand up without sounding dated? Or anything Zawinul played with Weather Report? The music, yeah, but also the performances.

***
As to the parallels to orchestration - which I agree with - there's one big difference. Ducking and running: for instruments that can create a nearly infinite number of sounds, music that's all synths (as opposed to samples) sure sounds monotonous most of the time! The ear doesn't tire of an orchestra, but it does tire of all synths.

(I know, I know, there's also an infinite number of sounds that synths can't create. But hopefully I've made the point.)

Just trying to be ornery this fine Tuesday morning.


----------



## MacQ (Oct 23, 2012)

I'm smiling ear to ear with all of this synth nerd love. Carry on ...


----------



## Daryl (Oct 23, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> As to the parallels to orchestration - which I agree with - there's one big difference. Ducking and running: for instruments that can create a nearly infinite number of sounds, music that's all synths (as opposed to samples) sure sounds monotonous most of the time! The ear doesn't tire of an orchestra, but it does tire of all synths.


I'm not so sure it;s just that the ear tires of the sounds. I think it's more that it tires of the compositions. With most of the synth compositions the actual sound is way more important than the musical content. I've heard people say that they were really glad when Omnisphere came out, because they had used all the sounds in Atmosphere. To me this says that for them the sound is everything, and the musical content hardly matters.

I think that for many composers the content of their synth compositions is less important than the actual sound, but it is content that keeps the listener interested. Therefore I think that if synth compositions had more content they might be more interesting.

D


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 23, 2012)

Daryl @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> I think that for many composers the content of their synth compositions is less important than the actual sound, but it is content that keeps the listener interested. Therefore I think that if synth compositions had more content they might be more interesting.
> 
> D



Hm..., the same for so many other .......... . You know what I mean? o-[][]-o


----------



## Howie (Oct 23, 2012)

Daryl @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> I've heard people say that they were really glad when Omnisphere came out, because they had used all the sounds in Atmosphere. To me this says that for them the sound is everything, and the musical content hardly matters.


Especially very simple synth sounds can be so haunting they turn me into a sobbing wretch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt3i271i3eA
That piece moves me more than any solo violin I've heard (could be just personal nostalgia). Maybe using such sounds today takes too much courage or naivety or both, but I do miss that kind of innocent charm in modern synth music. Of course you need a good "choon" too!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 23, 2012)

*cough*Vangelis*cough*


----------



## cc64 (Oct 23, 2012)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> *cough*Vangelis*cough*



Albedo 39 o-[][]-o


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 23, 2012)

Howie @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Especially very simple synth sounds can be so haunting they turn me into a sobbing wretch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt3i271i3eA
> That piece moves me more than any solo violin I've heard (could be just personal nostalgia). Maybe using such sounds today takes too much courage or naivety or both, but I do miss that kind of innocent charm in modern synth music. Of course you need a good "choon" too!



If you listen to this piece, Howard, then you also get your own special memories to the time when you heard it first. 

But I agree, I know what you mean. o-[][]-o


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Oct 23, 2012)

Maybe you Guys have a solution I run into quite often when building my own synth patches: Clicks and Pops regularly appear on the attacks and when working with arpeggiators. How do you get rid of those and don't loose the transients (by taking too much away from the attack)? 
I often find a quite useful sound and then recognize that it's full of such artifacts...

btw, ZebraHZ is so awesome because many of the sounds are so simple, I wish all developers would concentrate on really useful stuff like this.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 23, 2012)

Andreas Moisa @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Maybe you Guys have a solution I run into quite often when building my own synth patches: Clicks and Pops regularly appear on the attacks.....



?


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Oct 23, 2012)

I'm talking about stuff that doesn't belong to the sound you're hearing on your head, you're almost there but then there is something that keeps you busy getting rid of instead of making music  But I guess there is no simple answer...


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 23, 2012)

Andreas Moisa @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> I'm talking about stuff that doesn't belong to the sound you're hearing on your head, you're almost there but then there is something that keeps you busy getting rid of instead of making music  But I guess there is no simple answer...



Ha ha, you have to find out your own way to handle it best. Sometimes not easy, I agree. o/~


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 23, 2012)

cc64 @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue Oct 23 said:
> 
> 
> > *cough*Vangelis*cough*
> ...



Blimey, I had that album when I was 12! I forgot it even existed...


----------



## Audun Jemtland (Oct 23, 2012)

Always wondered about this: How do you go about making that "inception bass drop" ? You know that phat synth sound falling several octaves...

djoooooooooom :D


----------



## Ed (Oct 23, 2012)

Audun Jemtland @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Always wondered about this: How do you go about making that "inception bass drop" ? You know that phat synth sound falling several octaves...
> 
> djoooooooooom :D



Can you find the track on Youtube and give us a time? I think I know what bit you mean.


----------



## Daniel James (Oct 23, 2012)

Audun Jemtland @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Always wondered about this: How do you go about making that "inception bass drop" ? You know that phat synth sound falling several octaves...
> 
> djoooooooooom :D



Sine Wave pitching down...of course there are tons of variations ie riding the filter so you can adjust the resonance as it pitches down...but its all based around a bass pitching down.

Dan


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 23, 2012)

Audun Jemtland @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Always wondered about this: How do you go about making that "inception bass drop" ? You know that phat synth sound falling several octaves...
> 
> djoooooooooom :D



Maybe with my taiko basses? )))))

https://www.box.com/s/f09aac8d70d8dc4f994b

But seriously, if you want that great bass sound, you have to use the U-He Synth's.


----------



## Rctec (Oct 23, 2012)

Inverted dadsr on the vco...the 'D' part holds the note at it's upper pitch, and then the rest just starts bending the vco down till it gets subsonic. Howie, didn't we put that in with the Dark Knight sounds?
....one of the reasons that Howie and my patches in Zebra sound musical is - they are not abstract "let's make a sound" type of things. They where all created for a specific place in a piece of music. So their envelopes are, for instance, taylored to the tempo, etc...


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 23, 2012)

Daniel James @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Audun Jemtland @ Tue Oct 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Always wondered about this: How do you go about making that "inception bass drop" ? You know that phat synth sound falling several octaves...
> ...



(it's a nightmare knowing Hans is reading and will tell you if you get it wrong...)

Sine drops it is for the meat. I think what makes the Inception drops so effective are actually what's on top of it - there's a lot of other stuff too, orchestral effects and so on. I did some in a theatre thing earlier this year as a battle went into slomo, and you need quite a bit more than just a falling sine to have some impact... in my case I had some animal roars at the front I think and some slowed down cannonball zip bys or something (again at the front), and then some ethereal stuff coming on top and leading out of it. Sounded great when played bloody loud, if I do say so myself.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 23, 2012)

Rctec @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> ...So their envelopes are, for instance, taylored to the tempo, etc...



+1000!

That's it, Hans! Exactly! What I always say....... . o-[][]-o


----------



## Sebastian (Oct 23, 2012)

Hi guys 

If you WANT that sound which Hans is talking about just focuse on the Virus TI , Zebra 2 , Diva , NI Massive.

Virus Ti - best hardware synth with digital engine.
Diva - best digital plugin with analog sound ( so close to real analog ) 

Two different worlds available around you should focus on.

*If you have the Access Virus TI instrument you should check new free patches from ME like also by Howard Scarr available at the official access music website ! *

Below you will find small demo of my sound design work. 
Good sounds library for Music and Film / Game . No samples , just realtime sound ! 

Enjoy ! 

Virus TI - hardware : 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ypTt28Q ... page#t=49s

NI Massive - software : 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsfU65YF ... age#t=231s


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 23, 2012)

Are you seriously spamming this thread on your first post? Wow.


----------



## Daniel James (Oct 23, 2012)

Rctec @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Inverted dadsr on the vco...the 'D' part holds the note at it's upper pitch, and then the rest just starts bending the vco down till it gets subsonic. Howie, didn't we put that in with the Dark Knight sounds?
> ....one of the reasons that Howie and my patches in Zebra sound musical is - they are not abstract "let's make a sound" type of things. They where all created for a specific place in a piece of music. So their envelopes are, for instance, taylored to the tempo, etc...



Also have a Low Pass filter going at the same speed so that you can use the resonance to boost some frequencies if they are too weak. Also try layering it with some other sounds (normally cool distorted ones) following a similar path.

Dan


----------



## Daniel James (Oct 23, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Daniel James @ Tue Oct 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Audun Jemtland @ Tue Oct 23 said:
> ...



Haha Guy! I know right, no pressure. I always feel a bit on edge giving advice, when there are people who have successful careers longer than I have been alive, in the room haha. 

I did a whole bunch of these types of sounds in Hybrid Tools v1 and I have a whole bunch of new ones with some better sound design coming in my Alpha library. But like has been mentions, its all about hte pitch modulation.

Dan


----------



## Sebastian (Oct 23, 2012)

Good no mate 

Trying to explain the capability of LFO and Filter


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 23, 2012)

Daniel James @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> I did a whole bunch of these types of sounds in Hybrid Tools v1 and I have a whole bunch of new ones with some better sound design coming in my Alpha library. But like has been mentions, its all about hte pitch modulation.
> 
> Dan



Are you sure? 

Pitch modulation is only one little little step.....


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 23, 2012)

I love Windows/Mac synths, hardware cannot emulate that sound no matter how hard I try.


----------



## Daniel James (Oct 23, 2012)

germancomponist @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Daniel James @ Tue Oct 23 said:
> 
> 
> > I did a whole bunch of these types of sounds in Hybrid Tools v1 and I have a whole bunch of new ones with some better sound design coming in my Alpha library. But like has been mentions, its all about hte pitch modulation.
> ...



Thats what I said....there is lots of variations of the dropper sounds but it pretty much always revolves around a pitch modulation (in my experience anyways).

Dan


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 23, 2012)

Daniel James @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> germancomponist @ Tue Oct 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel James @ Tue Oct 23 said:
> ...



Sorry to say that, but you are wrong. As I said, pitch modulation is only one step. There's much more what you have to throw an eye. ....


----------



## Audun Jemtland (Oct 23, 2012)

Ed @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Audun Jemtland @ Tue Oct 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Always wondered about this: How do you go about making that "inception bass drop" ? You know that phat synth sound falling several octaves...
> ...


1:49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgbjTaGv_fA&feature=relmfu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgbjTaGv ... ure=relmfu)

The best example of it isolated is in the movie when
he's showing the stairs



Daniel James @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Audun Jemtland @ Tue Oct 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Always wondered about this: How do you go about making that "inception bass drop" ? You know that phat synth sound falling several octaves...
> ...


But how? It's also slowing down.


----------



## Audun Jemtland (Oct 23, 2012)

Rctec @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Inverted dadsr on the vco...the 'D' part holds the note at it's upper pitch, and then the rest just starts bending the vco down till it gets subsonic. Howie, didn't we put that in with the Dark Knight sounds?
> ....one of the reasons that Howie and my patches in Zebra sound musical is - they are not abstract "let's make a sound" type of things. They where all created for a specific place in a piece of music. So their envelopes are, for instance, taylored to the tempo, etc...


Oh didn't see this. Thanks. "dadsr on the vco" What's that in laymen terms?


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 23, 2012)

Audun Jemtland @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Rctec @ Tue Oct 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Inverted dadsr on the vco...the 'D' part holds the note at it's upper pitch, and then the rest just starts bending the vco down till it gets subsonic. Howie, didn't we put that in with the Dark Knight sounds?
> ...



It's the attack, decay, sustain, release (not sure what the first D is?) - use the decay (or release) to modulate the pitch of the oscillator (vco). That's how you get your basic falling pitch.

Just as a tangent - I'd consider this effect to normally be the job of the sound designer on a film, not the composer. Inception's score is pretty unusual though, and has sound design elements throughout.


----------



## Kralc (Oct 23, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Oct 24 said:


> It's the attack, decay, sustain, release (not sure what the first D is?)


Delay?


----------



## dannthr (Oct 23, 2012)

At the school where I teach, we've partnered with Urs to bring Zebra 2 into the classroom.

It's the foundational tool we use to teach the students Sound Design Concepts as subtractive synthesis is the foundation of basic sound design and sound shaping.

Zebra is incredibly deep and more than worth its price.

It does take time and an understanding of synthesis to start working in it effectively, but once learned it becomes an extremely powerful tool.

To top it off, Zebra installs an FX version of itself as well, called Zebrafy which incorporates many of its versatile modules into an FX patch which can be applied to any sound source.

We also have Diva, and while I'm not as big a fan of Diva (because Diva is more like a traditional synth unit rather than a modular synth unit), it sounds incredible--a lot of work has been put into emulating voltage and circuit behavior.

I have Zebra and Omnisphere at home, and I don't feel the need to purchase another synth product--with experience, I feel like I can make almost anything I imagine with Zebra--I rarely use Omnisphere anymore.


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Oct 23, 2012)

germancomponist @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> Pitch modulation is only one little little step.....



you're not talking about semitones, right?


----------



## Arbee (Oct 23, 2012)

Daryl @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> I think that for many composers the content of their synth compositions is less important than the actual sound, but it is content that keeps the listener interested. Therefore I think that if synth compositions had more content they might be more interesting.
> 
> D


IMO the above is SUCH a significant comment I had to bring it up again. I think the same can be said for "massive epicness with great sounding out-of-the-box libraries". How often I've been inspired by the sound of something only to realise in a few days that the composition actually sucks and I'm quickly bored with it. o=<


----------



## dannthr (Oct 23, 2012)

Define content.

Essentially, we're talking about an organization of frequencies over time--whether those frequencies are found in the rich overtones of an instrument or are placed there by the performance of a single sine wave--sound design and production are too much a part of the musical process to separate.

We just often get used to hearing music as performed by "stock" instrumentation or "traditional" instrumentation.

But with that instrumentation comes a lot of rich, beautiful, and specific harmonic information that textures the base fundamental frequency that drove the "distilled" composition.

To me these are not separate processes nor considerations--they're intertwined.


----------



## Arbee (Oct 23, 2012)

Content to me is the architectural structure of the music, not the colour of the sounds. Warning, analogy ahead: I can continue to appreciate the design of a building regardless of whether it is painted red, white or blue.


----------



## Ed (Oct 23, 2012)

germancomponist @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Sorry to say that, but you are wrong. As I said, pitch modulation is only one step. There's much more what you have to throw an eye. ....



Since Dan has demonstrably made lots of these bass drop/dive sounds and done it well, how can you say he is wrong? You think he is doing other things to the sound and has forgotten?


----------



## José Herring (Oct 23, 2012)

Get rid of all the dubstep stuff but this has a good explanation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3SBJGcDX78


----------



## zacnelson (Oct 23, 2012)

Arbee, you have made some very good points in your posts. I agree with your analogy even if, like most analogies, it is a little problematic!


----------



## spectrum (Oct 23, 2012)

Daniel James @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> zvenx @ Tue Oct 23 said:
> 
> 
> > I am of course kidding above Daniel, but isn't that the same idea behind...Psychoacoustic used in Omnisphere?
> ...


Actually, that's not true. The sampled soundsources in Omnisphere can be just as deep as Kontakt, with full velocity specs, multi-channels and deep round-robins. most of the sampling done for the typical soundsource in Omnisphere involves many recordings...sometimes up to several thousand.

Also, there are many modulation possibilities in Omnisphere to alter the timbre/sample start, etc so that the attack is different every time you hit it. In fact, this aspect of the STEAM engine is quite a bit more powerful than Kontakt, since the start modulation is a lot more flexible since it was geared towards synthesis.


----------



## spectrum (Oct 23, 2012)

Rctec @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Ok, here's a rather silly confession... When Eric first gave me a copy of Omnisphere, I was so overwhelmed by the amount of presets, I never bothered to really look much beyond the first twenty. I'm quicker - once Howie started to show me how the striped beast worked - making my own sound.


Ok my friend...that's it! We're getting together to nuke your factory presets directory and show you how to build your own sounds from scratch in Omnisphere! :lol: 



> My arrogance didn't really want to start with someone else's sounds, and Omni felt to me as if it was chock-a-block full of Eric's sonic imagination and aesthetic. But I like starting off with a pure waveform and making my own mess.


Of course! You can definitely work with Omnisphere like this too.



Rctec @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> I myself have contributed sounds to Eric's library and not just Omni. I like him very much and wished he'd do a movie with me -electronic mayhem-, but we're far to busy to even talk!


Thanks for your kind words. Sounds like we are overdue for a visit! 

Cheers,

EP


----------



## Rctec (Oct 24, 2012)

Ok, for those that really don't know...
A DASDR is a Delay, Attack, Sustain, Release envelope. You want to establish the pitch of the note before you bend down first, hence the delay parameter which holds the note steady - a bit like standing on a diving board holding your breath...And whoever else said it wasn't just about shifting the pitch of the Vco down is right. As it goes down, the envelope boosts the bass EQ, brings in a DDL, etc, etc... There is an orchestral version, where I just do a ritardando with the orchestra to half speed and end up with a key-change at the same time....

Noiseboy, I don't agree that it should only be part of the soundesigner's job on a movie. I feel the composer is very much responsible to incorporate as many of the textures into the sonic world of the movie into the score (not that Richard King didn't do great soundesign in its own autonomous way). But we work as a team, collaboratively. I very often ask Richard to supply me with some raw sounds (I remember getting a huge amount of tearing metal for something from him once - brilliantly unpleasant, and really dangerous to do. I didn't want to loose any fingers...), or I give him things to work with - like, for instance, the chant in "The Dark Knight Rises", which went on a long journey from me, to the set, where the actors learned it so they could shoot it, to a version over the internet, where we invited the fans to contribute to the chant, to Richard, who, over a weekend when the Warner's lot was closed - piped it through a huge pa, and re-recorded it with microphones all over the lot, then back to me.
We try to discuss certain elements way before the shoot. For instance, the first half of "The Dark Knight" is shot and staged (not edited to music, that's too obvious) at 96 Bpm, so that when I change tempo, everything changes. It really kicks the pacing of the story and the action into a different gear. So, where does the process of composition start, and where does it end? The final dub is always at it's best when it's like a performance, I think.


----------



## Marko Zirkovich (Oct 24, 2012)

spectrum @ 10/24/2012 said:


> Thanks for your kind words. Sounds like we are overdue for a visit!



Ok, I know the term "epic" is way too overused, but this would indeed be truly epic. Please consider taking some video cameras with you and record that event. Eric Persing and Hans Zimmer talking Omnisphere would be an awesome thing to watch.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 24, 2012)

Rctec @ Wed Oct 24 said:


> Noiseboy, I don't agree that it should only be part of the soundesigner's job on a movie. I feel the composer is very much responsible to incorporate as many of the textures into the sonic world of the movie into the score (not that Richard King didn't do great soundesign in its own autonomous way). But we work as a team, collaboratively. I very often ask Richard to supply me with some raw sounds (I remember getting a huge amount of tearing metal for something from him once - brilliantly unpleasant, and really dangerous to do. I didn't want to loose any fingers...), or I give him things to work with - like, for instance, the chant in "The Dark Knight Rises", which went on a long journey from me, to the set, where the actors learned it so they could shoot it, to a version over the internet, where we invited the fans to contribute to the chant, to Richard, who, over a weekend when the Warner's lot was closed - piped it through a huge pa, and re-recorded it with microphones all over the lot, then back to me.
> We try to discuss certain elements way before the shoot. For instance, the first half of "The Dark Knight" is shot and staged (not edited to music, that's too obvious) at 96 Bpm, so that when I change tempo, everything changes. It really kicks the pacing of the story and the action into a different gear. So, where does the process of composition start, and where does it end? The final dub is always at it's best when it's like a performance, I think.



That's fantastic. I was really saying that the conventional (old school) approach would separate it into sound design, and your approach is new school. Any approach where the two departments are in dialogue has got to be the best way - as you say, the lines are so frequently blurred. In my own small TV field, I love doing both jobs - I can make decisions about whether music or effects lead a particular section for example, and in borderline cases I never run into the problem of who is responsible for what!

Really interesting to hear your comments about tempo - bringing all departments together.

Out of interest, do you often attend the dub, Hans?


----------



## HDJK (Oct 24, 2012)

Marko Zirkovich @ Wed Oct 24 said:


> spectrum @ 10/24/2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for your kind words. Sounds like we are overdue for a visit!
> ...



Yes, it would!

What a great thread, thanks everyone for contributing (especially the 'big guys' :D )


----------



## Waywyn (Oct 24, 2012)

Andreas Moisa @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> btw, ZebraHZ is so awesome because many of the sounds are so simple, I wish all developers would concentrate on really useful stuff like this.



Have to agree with you! ZebraHZ blew my mind because it was just not another set of presets ... but somehow I felt more comfortable to check out what was going on and instead of using all the sounds as is I have a great fun to get my own stuff going.

Just a general thanks to HZ, HS and Urs for making this possible! ZebraHZ was actually like a huge tutorial for me ... and definitely became the missing link in my tracks! 

... and Diva still on my list! Gnargl!


----------



## Daniel James (Oct 24, 2012)

@Rctec: Just to clarify I am not saying that pitch modulation is the ONLY thing you need to do for a dropper sound, I was saying that it is the basic principle behind it....which you then layer up and adjust to taste. For example check out the track "Up Top Flight" in Harry Gregson-Williams' Total Recall score....that first crazy dropper sound was one Aaron made for Hybrid Tools and I doubt anyone could do a sound like that with JUST pitch modulation  

@germancomponist: lol How am I wrong? I mentioned several times that to get that dropper sound there were a few things you needed to do, you must have just chose not to read that. Unless of course you know a way to make a dropper sound without any pitch modulation? (that wasn't me being facetious btw I dont claim to know everything and if there is a cool technique I dont know about, dammit I want to learn it)

@Spectrum: I stand corrected there. Please don't get me wrong I wasn't intentionally singling out omni, just referencing it as it was in the context of replying to a question. Omnisphere is my absolute goto synth and I use it now everyday, I know it pretty much inside and out, plus I have my own huge bank of patchs. However the system I was talking about was not based on round robin, essentially everytime you hit a key, the robot arm hits the string (with subtle randomness) and so it would be an organic sample each time (a sort of unlimited RR as it where) however the scope of a machine like this is limited to whatever the arm is hitting. Again it will probably be a total failure but still something I want to try.


----------



## Kralc (Oct 24, 2012)

Daniel James @ Wed Oct 24 said:


> For example check out the track "Up Top Flight" in Harry Gregson-Williams' Total Recall score....that first crazy dropper sound was one I made and I doubt anyone could do a sound like that with just pitch modulation


Woah, that's yours? Cool stuff Daniel!


----------



## Daniel James (Oct 24, 2012)

Kralc @ Wed Oct 24 said:


> Daniel James @ Wed Oct 24 said:
> 
> 
> > For example check out the track "Up Top Flight" in Harry Gregson-Williams' Total Recall score....that first crazy dropper sound was one I made and I doubt anyone could do a sound like that with just pitch modulation
> ...



My mistake that was one of Aaron's (we did all the sound design together on Hybrid Tools and you often forget which ones you did xD)

But it still stands to show that I understand there is more to a downer than pitch modulation but at the end of the day thats the main element.

/rant 

Dan


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Oct 24, 2012)

+9000 to Zebra and Dark Zebra. 

I am somewhat new to synthesis, but very familiar with HZ's music. Seeing how the Dark Zebra presets were built is like peeking in to a window of the mad scientist's lab. It's truly a masterclass of synthesis.

And the Zebra synth itself... holy smoke! It's shocking the variety and quality of sounds that are possible from it. Someone else on this thread mentioned Omni, but that's a 50Gb install utilizing tons of samples and sound sources... Zebra is a lean 25Mb install and easily sounds as rich and lush as Omni!!! How did they do that?!

Zebra + Dark Zebra is my best purchase this year, and I've barely scratched the surface of it. Kudos and thanks to Urs, HS and HZ for this excellent product!


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Oct 24, 2012)

LOL, just saw that EP is on this thread. I certainly meant no offense to Omni... I think it goes without saying that Omni is the "godfather" synth. 

I just honestly didn't expect Zebra to come close and it really surprised me! It's really usable and practical - just like Omni. I think that is a good thing!


----------



## givemenoughrope (Oct 24, 2012)

Rctec @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> ...oops, hit the wrong button...



^Proof that this isn't actually Hans posting. (I keed...)

This is a great thread. Hearing how everyone deals with synths at their own levels and in their own ways is an eye-opener and makes me feel more comfortable about developing my own approach. 

Anyone else want to chime with anything about Absynth or Reaktor? I've been getting a lot of mileage out of the latter but I'm nowhere near able (in regards to time or IQ) to build my own algorithms. Plenty of incredible ones on the NI forums that can be stripped down to their basic elements and then "played" and CC'ed with music results. 

Anyone using either of these to manipulate samples? I'm going to attempt some of that with Absynth today. (It's only sat on my machine for years...)


----------



## paaltio (Oct 24, 2012)

josejherring @ 2012-10-22 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Oct 22 said:
> 
> 
> > Here is what I am not clear on. If i.e. you held a note on a straight sine wave would there be a difference? If you then turned on a filter to the same frequencies would their be a big difference?
> ...



A difference in oscillators is one of those things that one *would think* would go in the same pseudoscientific category with the "this DAW sounds different" stuff, after all, a waveform's a waveform... but of course that's not the case. Realtime digital oscillator design, it turns out, is not easy at all and every solution seems to have tradeoffs, as none produce truly pure results. This definitely took my by surprise when I came across it, as it seems counterintuitive.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 24, 2012)

> To me these (content and sound) are not separate processes nor considerations--they're intertwined



Let's hope. But you can give any wanker great sounds and the music will suck, while a great musician will sound great with terrible sounds.

In other words: I wish there were a shortcut, but there really isn't.


----------



## Howie (Oct 25, 2012)

Rctec @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Inverted dadsr on the vco...the 'D' part holds the note at it's upper pitch, and then the rest just starts bending the vco down till it gets subsonic. Howie, didn't we put that in with the Dark Knight sounds?
> ....one of the reasons that Howie and my patches in Zebra sound musical is - they are not abstract "let's make a sound" type of things. They where all created for a specific place in a piece of music. So their envelopes are, for instance, taylored to the tempo, etc...



If I remember correctly (which I increasingly don't!) it was also a stack of MKS80s played "live" and pitched via mod wheel. 

BTW I'm pretty sure the Zebra "dadsr" thing is included in "The Dark Zebra", but I'll check that.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Oct 25, 2012)

Since the Masters are here, I would like to ask for a little help.

What is a good Hardware Synth to start with? I was not present during the analogue era so I have only been into soft synths but I would like to get my hands dirty with a great synth and learn.

I can spend upto $2500 and I will be in London next week. Any suggestions about where to try and pick up one would also be great.


Tanuj.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 25, 2012)

New, I would suggest Arturia Minibrute (if you can find it), DSI Prophet '08, Moog Minitaur, Oberheim SEM Pro.

Used, I would spring for a Jupiter 6, SC Pro One, Moog Source, Korg MonoPoly.


----------



## Tatu (Oct 25, 2012)

vibrato @ Thu Oct 25 said:


> Since the Masters are here, I would like to ask for a little help.
> 
> What is a good Hardware Synth to start with? I was not present during the analogue era so I have only been into soft synths but I would like to get my hands dirty with a great synth and learn.
> 
> ...



Being a child of the digital-era myself.. I can't give you a pro-advise, but shouldn't that be something that pleases your - and only yours - ears. Whether that'd be a 150$ DIY-synth or a ~3000$ Moog?


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Oct 25, 2012)

Tatu,

Yes, you are absolutely right. I will need something that pleases me of course.

But, I also want to make an informed decision. Some of these synths have been proven over decades. I would like to know what to look for as well.

This is why I said, I need to go to a place where I can try these models, not simply swipe my card online and get it delivered!

Although, that will turn out to be very expensive since I live in sunny Mumbai.

Being in London will help and I can also spend sometime checking these synths out.

@Ned,

Thanks for your suggestions, I just realized you had posted this information on the previous page already.

any more recommendations/experiences are welcome!


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 25, 2012)

Why look backwards only, when you can look forward and behind with a synth that has more modulation routings, more Oscillators, more Filters and internal 96k processing, along with 24bit audiorate modulations.
My recording skills are sub standard, but these are mostly me recording in realtime no editing of the left and right hand.
You'll hear incredibly realistic Analog emulations, but also Waldorf Wave style synthesis, Prophet VS wavetables, you name it.
So try and overlook the piss poor mixing and recording as I had to throw in drums as the children wanted to hear the synth in a mix.
Someday when I quit performing I will learn how to use a DAW.

Keep in mind this synth was created in software and matured for years, then it turned into a hardware synth using 6 x SHARC processors for incredible " sonic depth", and it's just so much fun to control in realtime at a gig.
You'll need a little more than a few large, but never really need another synth IMO.

http://soundcloud.com/jimmyvee/solaris-red-lined


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 25, 2012)

The Solaris synth is indeed a monster synth.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 25, 2012)

Nice piece and nice playing, Chim.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 25, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Oct 25 said:


> Nice piece and nice playing, Chim.



Huh, I forgot to mention this


----------



## TheUnfinished (Oct 25, 2012)

As someone who has really got into synth sound design this year, this thread has been a very interesting read. Especially as I have been designing sounds for other composers on a project by project basis - it's good to see that subject discussed here.

And I can't wait to get my hands on Zebra soon.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Oct 25, 2012)

I could be interested in Solaris. Unfortunately I want to try it and pick it up while I am in the UK to avoid shipping costs.

The next batch is only available in march 2013 and nowhere to try!


Tanuj.


----------



## dannthr (Oct 25, 2012)

Worth mentioning Chris Jones' little demo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thx4Bp7ZUN4

100% Zebra and cheap/DAW-native FX:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTYM5_5WfaM


----------



## musophrenic (Oct 26, 2012)

I just want to be part of this thread, pay no attention to me.

(Hi Hans! Hi Howie! Hi Eric!)

_-) /\~O o/~ o=< 

OK, carry on.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 26, 2012)

First: Hello Hans, nice to see replies from you!
A very cool thread that I need to find time to read thru. I have found that Zebra2 is my one to go synth. I could do everything on it. 
I made a version of the batman and Selina Kyle Theme for a while ago. There I decided to only use the Zebra2 (not DarkHZ) and make EVERY synth, drop, effects, bass etc my self. This was a huge learning curve for me!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD2fMhr6gPE&feature=share&list=UUb-qsMMFRFE0atcCXoUCObw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD2fMhr6 ... tcCXoUCObw)

01:56 - 02:13 that drop is plain Zebra2 programming. There are some strings coming in, but everything else is zebra2. 

Best  
Ryan


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Oct 26, 2012)

Jimmy,

Great stuff man! Awesome performance as always and some really nice stuff.

You are right in that I must look at something that is doing some interesting stuff and also integrates with our DAW's a bit better than the older synths.

So far, the Virus and Prophet 08 look like possible choices.

The Solaris does sound stunning and I might consider getting it if it was available to pick up in the UK.

Unfortunately, if I order and get it shipped, it would mean that I have to sell my kidney. It does not help that it's not even available to audition anywhere. 

Perhaps another time.


Tanuj.


----------



## Arbee (Oct 27, 2012)

OK, just picked up Zebra :shock: - what a sonic beast! Hands down the slickest and most intuitive UI I've ever used despite the complexity behind it. Omni and Zebra now make every other soft synth I own sound like toys. Thankfully Zebra also runs flawlessly in VE Pro so I don't need to worry about the lack of PC/RTAS compatibility  

Thanks again to you all on this forum, I can say I've not had a single case of buyer's remorse since starting out on my musical rebirth a year ago o-[][]-o


----------



## mk282 (Oct 27, 2012)

What a great and informative thread! And the masters are here! o-[][]-o 


Zebra is awesome, in fact anything u-he is awesome.


----------



## synergy543 (Oct 27, 2012)

dannthr @ Thu Oct 25 said:


> Worth mentioning Chris Jones' little demo:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thx4Bp7ZUN4


Nice Zebra2 demo, but note: This same Chris Jones is a *monster* graphic artist. Check out the animation he made by himself several years ago including all graphics and music (using Lightwave & EWQLSO).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGW0aQSgyxQ&feature=channel&list=UL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGW0aQSg ... el&amp;list=UL)


----------



## Polarity (Oct 27, 2012)

Wow, this is an awesome topic!
I would like to thank a thousand Hans and Howard (I linked you on Facebook too) for their time to contribute with their precious advices! 

At the moment I'm going deep with Atmosphere and Trillian programming my synths for some Jean Michel Jarre type of music, but I think I will get soon Zebra2 and Diva me too...

@vibrato: about an hardware synth to start to suggest, I think that the one rctech has talked and praised about is one to go for sure, i.e. the Virus.
it's a bread and butter synth for sure.
A couple of months ago I got second hand one Virus B (because I read around that is sounds more fat and (maybe) analog than later models.
Then it's a lot cheaper than getting a new TI2 now, I got mine for 450 euros.
Howie can confirm it's quality having created a lot of patches for it.

About the John Bowen's Solaris: if you find it too much expensive (well 3650 euros its expensive for sure) can you consider eventually to purchase a second hand Pulsar 2 card (they are cheap now) and get the software version (300 + vat)??
You find it under the Zarg Music brand.
I don't know if it sounds perfectly identical but I think it should be close enough... the hardware one is based on 6 Shark DSPs, the same mounted on Creamware/SonicCore cards I guess. 
Perhaps Chimuelo can give some opinion about, being himself since long time a Creamware user like me.


----------



## Polarity (Oct 27, 2012)

uh, forgetting about...

I'd have two special questions for rctech if he can answer:

1)I know that when they came out you got and endorsed the Creamware's Pulsar cards.
Do you still use use them nowadays sometimes? 
Or you just dumped them? 

2) my second question implies a work done by another RC composer: Transformers.
I still wonder what synth Steve Jablonsky used for that deep, strong and resonant sound that you can hear many many times during the soundtrack (and also in the subsequent movies and trailers as well)?
I guessed that FM synthesis was involved, I made one similar (but not close at all) inside FM8, and knowing that Zebra has FM I could imagine that Zebra was used...
Perhaps also Howie could confirm or not?
(perhaps he created that patch on Zebra?)

thanks a lot in advance.
hoping I'm not too curious :mrgreen: 

all the best


----------



## dannthr (Oct 27, 2012)

synergy543 @ Sat Oct 27 said:


> dannthr @ Thu Oct 25 said:
> 
> 
> > Worth mentioning Chris Jones' little demo:
> ...



Incredible! These people make me feel like I'm not doing enough with my life.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 27, 2012)

Polarity @ Sat Oct 27 said:


> uh, forgetting about...
> 
> I'd have two special questions for rctech if he can answer:
> 
> ...



I can some what answer in case Hans doesn't come back.

1) I believe they switched to a SSL Alpha Link Madi AX using the Mixpander cards. Not sure if they still use it, but last time I was there that's what they had. For FX they switched to mostly UAD cards. So that system replaced the Creamware stuff.

2) Hans didn't do Transformers so I don't know if he could answer. But, all the sound design was done by awesome sound designer Clay Duncan who went into detail describing how he got at least the bass sound for transformer in an article for Steinberg that may still be around. Basically the bass sounds was a moog sample, processed primarily through API preamp, Neve Compressor( I believe) and API EQ. I'm sure there was probably a little more to it than that but that was the basic outboard chain. Overdrive the preamp, squash the heck out of it, then EQ the nasty stuff, pump up the bass. At least that's my take on it.

best,

José


----------



## Polarity (Oct 28, 2012)

Thanks a lot for the infos Josè! 
Never thought about a Moog sample as starting source.

PS: UAD card... something that I'll probably buy in future. Occasionally I already thought about getting one.


----------



## Polarity (Oct 28, 2012)

Found that article on Steinberg, thanks.
It's not the same sound I'm asking about.
Clay Duncan is referring to a "pulsing drone" bass sound in the "Decepticons" theme track.

A completely different sound from the one I'm referring to: 
it's like a signature sound for that movie trilogy.
You can hear more than once in the movies; for example in the track "Soccent Attack" from first movie you can hear it instantly at the beginning and a few other times during the track..


----------



## Ed (Oct 28, 2012)

Polarity @ Sun Oct 28 said:


> You can hear more than once in the movies; for example in the track "Soccent Attack" from first movie you can hear it instantly at the beginning and a few other times during the track..



That could be a hundred different things, could even be some organic sound pitched down.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 28, 2012)

Polarity @ Sun Oct 28 said:


> Found that article on Steinberg, thanks.
> It's not the same sound I'm asking about.
> Clay Duncan is referring to a "pulsing drone" bass sound in the "Decepticons" theme track.
> 
> ...



It's a piece of the same thing. Clay can make about 20 different sounds from the same source material. That particular sound you're talking about sounds like the attack has been adjusted so there's a ramp up and then the sample has been stretched. But it has the same sonic characteristics of the moog bass sound.

Basically, you just have to get creative and make your own stuff. I would always ask Clay how he got this sound or that and his response was almost always the same. He can't remember. He just tweaked it for hours and hours until he got what he wanted. Sound design is more hard work than us orchestral composers give credit to.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 28, 2012)

josejherring @ Sun Oct 28 said:


> Sound design is more hard work than us orchestral composers give credit to.



+1

It is a must to have in mind all the functions what a synth has on board and/or how a plugin will sound like, if you do this and/or that. Of course there are sometimes also cool coincidences. o/~


----------



## Polarity (Oct 28, 2012)

josejherring @ Sun 28 Oct said:


> It's a piece of the same thing. Clay can make about 20 different sounds from the same source material. That particular sound you're talking about sounds like the attack has been adjusted so there's a ramp up and then the sample has been stretched. But it has the same sonic characteristics of the moog bass sound.
> 
> Basically, you just have to get creative and make your own stuff. I would always ask Clay how he got this sound or that and his response was almost always the same. He can't remember. He just tweaked it for hours and hours until he got what he wanted. Sound design is more hard work than us orchestral composers give credit to.




yeah, I agree 
(indeed I'm not an orchestral composer but more a hybrid composer). 
I was just curious about which synths were used to create that electronic sound that I like much.
Thanks for your answers and time.


----------



## Matt Baron (Dec 2, 2012)

Daniel James @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> I am trying to design a synth prototype that uses organic sounds instead of oscillators but then everything else carries on like a hardware synth.... so you push a key which makes a robot hammer hit a string, which is then recorded and the audio passes through the effects and filters instead of an oscillator generated tone. It will probably be shit, but worth a go
> 
> Dan



I was messing around with FL Studio on a friends computer to see what it was like now ( I haven't used it for 3 or 4 versions) and saw a plugin called Sakura which in the gui has two strings which were mechanically struck and then used to create various sounds. At leas I think that was the idea, I don't really remember and obviously it isn't real anyways, but it reminded me of this post. Is this the type of thing you were talking about? If so that seems super cool and I would definitely be interested in seeing something like this for real instead of just a VST. You can see a picture of what it looks like on the Image-Line site along with a description of what it's doing, seems kind of interesting.

http://www.image-line.com/documents/sakura.html


----------



## Rednas (Dec 3, 2012)

The Zebra and Diva are top notch, but let's not forget the stuff Fxpansion makes. The Dcam Synth Squad contains some real beasts (particularly the Strobe synth). I think at least 50% of the quality of a Vsti synth lies in the filter department, which is where the Fxpansion and Urs synths shine.

Btw, if you guys are interested in filters, check out the beta of 'Cytomic the Drop'. It's BY FAR the most amazing, best sounding, gorgeous software filter ever made.


----------

