# When using synth libraries do you prefer simple sounds or multi-layered ones?



## Pier (Aug 19, 2021)

So I'm working on my second library for Zebra. I naturally tend to prefer simple patches that can be layered with other instruments, but when listening to what some pro sound designers are doing it seems a lot of them tend to prefer complex multi-layered patches.

I'm a bit conflicted with this. On one hand, a complex multi-layered patch can easily be used as the main sound to quickly fill a scene. I scored a tv show years ago and I was happy to be able to underscore a scene with a single patch.

OTOH it seems like a simple patch would be easier to blend with other instruments. Also, I could be wrong, but when I listen to music in movies and tv shows, the patches tend to be rather simple. It seems like the composer is doing most of the "layering". So simple patches give the composer more control?


----------



## Dirtgrain (Aug 19, 2021)

If it sounds great, I don't care, but I prefer single layers from presets/soundpacks, as I often feel like layered sounds with rythmic elements do too much of the composing for me and hog up the frequency ranges.


----------



## doctoremmet (Aug 19, 2021)

@Dirtgrain +1! Well worded


----------



## ghobii (Aug 20, 2021)

I find that many preset designers layer on way too many fx, especially reverb and delay. The first thing I do with any sound that seems usable is turn all the fx off to get to the core sound to work with.


----------



## Pier (Aug 20, 2021)

ghobii said:


> I find that many preset designers layer on way too many fx, especially reverb and delay. The first thing I do with any sound that seems usable is turn all the fx off to get to the core sound to work with.


Right, because they (I guess we since I'm selling some stuff for Zebra) want to deliver as close to the end sound as possible. Also, dry sounds don't sound too impressive on demos 

It seems like you're using those presets to do your own sound design with. I guess you're in the minority of people buying synth libraries.


----------



## GNP (Aug 20, 2021)

Pier said:


> Right, because they (I guess we since I'm selling some stuff for Zebra) want to deliver as close to the end sound as possible. Also, dry sounds don't sound too impressive on demos
> 
> It seems like you're using those presets to do your own sound design with. I guess you're in the minority of people buying synth libraries.


Not true. There are plenty of composers who lean towards sounds being as simple, therefore as malleable and individualistic as possible. You guys should provide building blocks, and not "end sound" material. This gives composers extra room to customize their overall scores, rather than be caught sounding like someone else because of overly-completed patches.

I know that alot of composers up the higher rungs of the ladder would run away from sounds that are too complete. You should give them room to be more unique, and not assume that "end sound" patches are necessarily the way to go.


----------



## Pier (Aug 20, 2021)

GNP said:


> You guys should provide building blocks, and not "end sound" material. This gives composers extra room to customize their overall scores, rather than be caught sounding like someone else because of overly-completed patches.


I agree about the building blocks, which is the whole point of this thread I guess.

In Zebra at least, most designers let you "configure" the patch to your taste/needs with the performance page, but you can always dig into any synth to disable effects.



GNP said:


> I know that alot of composers up the higher rungs of the ladder would run away from sounds that are too complete.



I'm guessing those kinds of composers would hire a sound designer to custom tailor sounds instead of using _prêt-à-porter_ sounds.


----------



## SupremeFist (Aug 20, 2021)

It's a bit like how the first 10 presets on any hardware synth are basically designed to wow the potential purchaser in a store, rather than to be actually usable in a mix. Personally, I much prefer the simpler and more modest patches that respect the composer's likely use (The Unfinished is very good at this, among others).


----------



## GNP (Aug 20, 2021)

Pier said:


> I'm guessing those kinds of composers would hire a sound designer to custom tailor sounds instead of using _prêt-à-porter_ sounds.


True, but if you wanna appeal to the "gourmet" of composers and have more of them endorse your sounds, you should be that sound designer they'd hire, at least to that extent before the retail closes up on our asses, lol


----------



## doctoremmet (Aug 20, 2021)

@Pier Maybe check out some of the best selling patches by the likes of Tom Wolfe, the Unfinished, Howard Scarr. You’ll notice that they typically offer a bit of both worlds. So truly astounding “mini composition under one key” patches and “bare bones” ones that can function as starting blocks.


----------



## Pier (Aug 20, 2021)

doctoremmet said:


> @Pier Maybe check out some of the best selling patches by the likes of Tom Wolfe, the Unfinished, Howard Scarr. You’ll notice that they typically offer a bit of both worlds. So truly astounding “mini composition under one key” patches and “bare bones” ones that can function as starting blocks.


Yeah this is the logical way of doing it to fit as many needs/tastes as possible!


----------



## doctoremmet (Aug 20, 2021)

Pier said:


> Yeah this is the logical way of doing it to fit as many needs/tastes as possible!


I could easily see a format where you’d layer a couple of things in huge / wide / happening exciting soundscapes and then offer the building blocks separately. 

What I also REALLY dig and would love to pay additionally for, is patch descriptions. Like the ones Simon Stockhausen always delivers. The coolest ones I have seen are in U-he’s / Scarr’s Bazille Cookbook. I can read that thing just for fun!


----------



## doctoremmet (Aug 20, 2021)

This one


----------



## Pier (Aug 20, 2021)

doctoremmet said:


> This one


Oh wow these are great, thanks for sharing.

There's one where he writes:



> I don’t know how this works! White noise sent through a lag processor with maximum attack and medium decay somehow creates an interesting pitch envelope.


This synthesis shit is pretty deep, huh? Even the masters don't know everything!


----------



## doctoremmet (Aug 20, 2021)

Gotta admit Bazille and Hive (my only two U-he synths) are the best sounding synths I know, maybe only rivaled by REAKTOR. Urs and his team have an edge that’s still there a decade or so later…


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Aug 20, 2021)

Simple. It’s why my Ob-6 is my favorite synth and I think it’s been at least 6 months since I even opened Omnisphere.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Aug 21, 2021)

Pier said:


> So I'm working on my second library for Zebra. I naturally tend to prefer simple patches that can be layered with other instruments, but when listening to what some pro sound designers are doing it seems a lot of them tend to prefer complex multi-layered patches.
> 
> I'm a bit conflicted with this. On one hand, a complex multi-layered patch can easily be used as the main sound to quickly fill a scene. I scored a tv show years ago and I was happy to be able to underscore a scene with a single patch.
> 
> OTOH it seems like a simple patch would be easier to blend with other instruments. Also, I could be wrong, but when I listen to music in movies and tv shows, the patches tend to be rather simple. It seems like the composer is doing most of the "layering". So simple patches give the composer more control?


I would honestly say worry less about what you "think" your customers want and focus on what you enjoying making or what intrigues/motivates you. The effort and enjoyment you put into designing sounds will come out in the quality of what you're making and customers/users will be naturally drawn to that.

Plus, it helps you from going insane.


----------



## Voider (Aug 21, 2021)

In my opinion, huge complex patches are great if you design them for yourself for a very specific purpose or as a showcase to flex with a synth's capabilities, but if your want to create patches for others I'd recommend to mainly keep them simple up to medium - That's what I do when I create commercial soundsets.

Because the more complex a patch becomes, the more the range of possible uses declines.

But then again, it of course depends on the patch type. Basses, Leads and Pluck patches I tend to keep simple(r), while Pads can go up to the medium range and SFX stuff can become complex, because you know that it will most likely be something in an intro, outro, breakdown or solo, so it plays when there's enough space in a mix.


----------



## Wally Garten (Aug 22, 2021)

doctoremmet said:


> I could easily see a format where you’d layer a couple of things in huge / wide / happening exciting soundscapes and then offer the building blocks separately.


I like this idea. And agree that good descriptions of at least the different patch types is helpful.


----------



## Double Helix (Aug 22, 2021)

doctoremmet said:


> I could easily see a format where you’d layer a couple of things in huge / wide / happening exciting soundscapes and then offer the building blocks separately.


^^ this, of course ^^

Further, once PlugInGuru/Skippy/Sean can get around to Unify-ing a specific library, users can stack up to, what, thirteen layers? Or whatever a given cpu can handle. . .
Therefore, @Pier, not sure how much bandwidth it'd take up, but keep 'em simple/single with perhaps a small selection of layers that could demonstrate a few possibilities (don't know if that would be redundant, though)
Maybe eventually have a process/portal where users can submit/share their combinations (?) I have zero idea of the logistics involved in something like that. . .


----------



## Bman70 (Aug 22, 2021)

GNP said:


> ...You guys should provide building blocks, and not "end sound" material. This gives composers extra room to customize their overall scores, rather than be caught sounding like someone else because of overly-completed patches...


I don't agree on that, I think they should supply plenty of both "end sound" material and building blocks. End sound material gives me some visions of what could happen, but I almost invariably deconstruct it, take aspects I like and improve it to my tastes.


----------



## Bman70 (Aug 22, 2021)

doctoremmet said:


> I could easily see a format where you’d layer a couple of things in huge / wide / happening exciting soundscapes and then offer the building blocks separately. ...


For Omnisphere at least, this is already in a way supplied within every complex patch. The building blocks are the effects used, the layers, the envelopes and filters. Basic Omni delight includes copying an envelope from one patch / sound and pasting it into another.


----------



## R. Soul (Aug 22, 2021)

There's a lot of sounds on the market, in particular for Omnisphere that's really complex and just doesn't work for anything musical. 

What I really miss is unique and simple sounds, like plucks and leads with a different vibe but that doesn't sound like bog standard super saw or Reese bass.


----------



## Pier (Aug 22, 2021)

TheUnfinished said:


> I would honestly say worry less about what you "think" your customers want and focus on what you enjoying making or what intrigues/motivates you. The effort and enjoyment you put into designing sounds will come out in the quality of what you're making and customers/users will be naturally drawn to that.
> 
> Plus, it helps you from going insane.


The master has spoken!


----------



## bill5 (Aug 22, 2021)

Pier said:


> So I'm working on my second library for Zebra. I naturally tend to prefer simple patches that can be layered with other instruments, but when listening to what some pro sound designers are doing it seems a lot of them tend to prefer complex multi-layered patches.
> 
> I'm a bit conflicted with this. On one hand, a complex multi-layered patch can easily be used as the main sound to quickly fill a scene. I scored a tv show years ago and I was happy to be able to underscore a scene with a single patch.
> 
> OTOH it seems like a simple patch would be easier to blend with other instruments. Also, I could be wrong, but when I listen to music in movies and tv shows, the patches tend to be rather simple. It seems like the composer is doing most of the "layering". So simple patches give the composer more control?


Sums it up for me, more or less. Prefer the simpler, but not always...sometimes those "busy" presets can be very useful


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 22, 2021)

I like having all 4 parts active in Omnisphere, but controlling layers by using a Pair of FC-7 expression pedals.

That way I can have single sounds with Part 1/2, add Part 3 or Part 4 if needed.

May as well have each patch loaded seeings how there’s 4 parts now.
Also enjoy learning deep geekiness by programmers.

No end to sound design programming and learning from others.


----------



## dunamisstudio (Aug 22, 2021)

both


----------



## kgdrum (Aug 22, 2021)

doctoremmet said:


> @Pier Maybe check out some of the best selling patches by the likes of Tom Wolfe, the Unfinished, Howard Scarr. You’ll notice that they typically offer a bit of both worlds. So truly astounding “mini composition under one key” patches and “bare bones” ones that can function as starting blocks.


This 👍


----------



## TheUnfinished (Aug 27, 2021)

Pier said:


> The master has spoken!


Haha. Behave


----------



## Pier (Aug 27, 2021)

TheUnfinished said:


> Haha. Behave


Ok ok I got a bit carried away 

Just wanted to express that what you wrote made a lot of sense.


----------



## Wirebird (Aug 27, 2021)

doctoremmet said:


> @Pier Maybe check out some of the best selling patches by the likes of Tom Wolfe, the Unfinished, Howard Scarr. You’ll notice that they typically offer a bit of both worlds. So truly astounding “mini composition under one key” patches and “bare bones” ones that can function as starting blocks.


Yes! This.

I’m not familiar with Zebra, but with Pigments, that I use a lot, I prefer a selection of patches to be as much as they possibly can be, including FX. Then I get to hear and instantly work with the patch at its subjective best. With Pigments, it’s very easy to strip the sounds from FX and layers, which I often do. Especially delays and reverbs. But sometimes when a patch is just right I’ll use it as is.

Equally important is a selection of patches that are basic and clean. But if you strip ALL of your patches already on a programming level, you’re kind of selling them short and giving users less than the synth is capable of. 
One of many reason to buy patches is ease of use, to not have to do too much programming and spend more time composing. For those purposes it’s nice to get a wide variety when buying patches.


----------



## Wirebird (Aug 27, 2021)

GNP said:


> You guys should provide building blocks, and not "end sound" material. This gives composers extra room to customize their overall scores, rather than be caught sounding like someone else because of overly-completed patches.


Historically the quest to not sound like someone else got completely ruined on the same day that the second violin was built.

Joking aside, synth sounds can be used in a gazillion ways and contexts, so I don’t think this has to be much of a concern, unless it’s a patch that is basically a song in itself, which some are. But even then lots of fun stuff can be done with it. Run it backwards, run it at 1/64 of the tempo, filter it, gate it, distort it etc. Creativity is not limited by providing “finished” sounds. With synths a sound can be dramatically changed just by turning a single knob. Building block sounds definitely have their place and usefulness, but so does practically any sound a synth can make. Whatever inspires creativity has its place.
Just a perspective.


----------



## FinGael (Aug 27, 2021)

Both. It is all about the context (where I need them).

Sometimes a simple, single sound, other times multiple simple sounds layered, all the way to up to cases where there is need for several multilayered, complex sounds combined.


----------



## Whywhy (Sep 2, 2021)

About reverb and delay, I like to assign a macro to them: " space ". In reel life, composer, mixer, use some buses and prefer to use their own space. In this case, they can simply use the macro and turn it off.
Best 
YY


----------



## Snoobydoobydoo (Sep 3, 2021)

Are FX even part of the design? Sure.
Are FX cheating because they can make a single sawtooth sound like somebody chops down a forest? Yes. That may introduce problems like muddiness, phasing, extremely fast ear fatigue and
in the end your intestines can shrivel.

Use FX wisely and not to make a bad sound get better.

The most pleasure comes when a patch sounds finished without FX, and then you turn on some, and that clarity of the designed sound shines through.

An asthetic body is nice to look at even without fancy wearables, but pack that meat into a customized outfit….

When it comes to multilayering, its the same (for me) if its done right and not to blow up a thin idea, its useable. I prefer to stack myself and never used Multilayered sounds since Albino.


----------



## TWY (Nov 7, 2022)

Bman70 said:


> I don't agree on that, I think they should supply plenty of both "end sound" material and building blocks. End sound material gives me some visions of what could happen, but I almost invariably deconstruct it, take aspects I like and improve it to my tastes.


I too, would stay away from libraries that are filled with iconic presets. And I'm definitely sure I'm not alone. Yes, we deconstruct and take aspects of things we like and improve it to our tastes, but I'd rather just have building blocks if I were to buy an off-the-shelf product.

Otherwise, might as well HIRE guys like the Unfinished to give your project its very own iconic presets.


----------



## StefanoM (Nov 7, 2022)

The question for me is not if they are 1 layer, 2 layers or 3 layers.
But simply whether they are usable sounds in a real working context.

The difference between a good preset and a bad preset is all there.

3 Layers, 2 Layers, are not synonymous with complexity.

Sometimes 2 or 3 layers add little, but that little is essential to make the sound interesting.


----------



## Living Fossil (Nov 7, 2022)

Pier said:


> OTOH it seems like a simple patch would be easier to blend with other instruments. Also, I could be wrong, but when I listen to music in movies and tv shows, the patches tend to be rather simple. It seems like the composer is doing most of the "layering". So simple patches give the composer more control?


Ok, I'm really late on this one, since the thread has been obviously revitalized. 

However, from my perspective it's always the same:
I very clearly like doing the layering on my own.
The simpler the patch, the better for me.

However, @PulseSetter had a great approach in the Pulsor II library, which consisted in providing complex patches and also up to 4 stems (which sum up to the "full" patch).
This makes the sounds extremely useful.


----------



## Pier (Nov 7, 2022)

Living Fossil said:


> However, @PulseSetter had a great approach in the Pulsor II library, which consisted in providing complex patches and also up to 4 stems (which sum up to the "full" patch).
> This makes the sounds extremely useful.


I wish Zebra was better at stuff like this.

Many years ago Urs mentioned the idea of a Zebra player where it would be possible to compose multis like in Omnisphere.


----------



## AudioXpression (Nov 7, 2022)

Each project demands its own peculiarities.
So, if you have the facility to create and edit your own sounds, the richer the result will be.
Sometimes a simple patch of a library can solve everything. 
And with small adjustments in parameters, you can go even further...


----------

