Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

What synths do top composers use?

whinecellar said:
YMMV of course, but it’s a head scratcher to me that any synth lover wouldn’t have Dune high on their list!
Click to expand...
Hive 2 is one reason. Very, very comparable, and one that Urs basically called "Zebra in a candy bar" - or something to that effect. I thought, at least at the oscillator level when comparing them, Hive 2 > Dune 3. I do think people should at least have one or the other. Both is probably overkill... which isn't always a bad thing, either.

Now, if you've mastered Zebra, would you also want/need Hive2? Perhaps, if only for potential inspiration differences in layout and structure. Hive2 is more capable that it appears, but it's no Zebra for flexibility (it trades off convenience and efficiency vs. flexibility).

Zebra is clearly a winner as far as adoption amongst successful professionals, as evidenced by Rctec weighing in. I'm not sure if it's because of that, or in addition, but the other U-He offerings seem to also be getting more notice/use (e.g. Hive 2).
 
Last edited:
Jeremy Morgan said:
The question was "what synths do the top composers use" not "if I wanted to imitate the pros what would I need to use".
Click to expand...
My apologies. The flow of conversation after that went into the realms of “composer A used hive, so I want hive!” But I see it’s turned a bit more towards in-depth conversation about what these synths are, what they do differently, and their merits.
 
Pier said:
Yeah exactly!

The problem is sharing these multilayered synth patches as it's trivial to do that in a DAW. I'm guessing that's why companies end up making Kontakt libraries which allows them use anything to produce the final sound and distribute it as samples.

Studio One has found a great solution for this with the music loops feature. Hopefully other DAWs will implement something similar.
Click to expand...
I wish musicloops and audioloops would become an industry standard. While I have no intention of leaving studio one, in collaboration, sharing an entire tracks worth of information in instruments/Multis, effects and audio/midi data is just too convenient.

Can the same be done with Unify plugin ?
I bought it but then never used it after I realized studio one already has multis. Perhaps this would be the way to create multis to share with others.
 
chocobitz825 said:
Can the same be done with Unify plugin ?
I bought it but then never used it after I realized studio one already has multis. Perhaps this would be the way to create multis to share with others.
Click to expand...
Probably, but IMO the greatest feature about S1 music loops is that it stores an audio preview.

So you can quickly navigate those presets as if those were .wav files without having to reload all the plugins every time.
 
Putting GUI aside, as much as reasonble, are very talented synth gurus, stating that they cannot 'easily' make Omni v2.8 _ to sound like Zebra 2 ?? or vice-versa ?
Filters seem to arise often, as distinguishing characteristic.
So alternative filters cannot be used to rationalize the 'sound' parameter ?
No dog in this argy-bargy, just trying to learn and understand.
 
sostenuto said:
Putting GUI aside, as much as reasonble, are very talented synth gurus, stating that they cannot 'easily' make Omni v2.8 _ to sound like Zebra 2 ?? or vice-versa ?
Filters seem to arise often, as distinguishing characteristic.
So alternative filters cannot be used to rationalize the 'sound' parameter ?
No dog in this argy-bargy, just trying to learn and understand.
Click to expand...
As base synthesis I imagine many things can be done closely with internal and external effects, but omnisphere has the ability to use samples as well. So in that area I could see why omnisphere provides something different.
 
Last edited:
Snoobydoobydoo said:
Aww cmon. You learn better with good tools. Imagine building furniture with cheap ass Walmart chisels, you might end up throwing the result and yourself down a bridge.
Click to expand...
The irony of the practice right? Have to know how to use a good tool to know why a bad tool is bad. Preset diving doesn’t teach synthesis to the uninitiated.
 
From filmboards (dot) com, here is a rundown (though probably not comprehensive by any means) of Jerry Goldsmith's arsenal:

The short answer is, a lot. Jerry owned and played with many, many different synths. Early Arp 2600's, to Minimoogs on films like Logan's Run can be heard.
For a while Jerry made good use of a Yamaha GS-1, this was one of their digital synths just before the DX7.
During the mid/late 80's Goldsmith had a studio of synths where he still used the GS-1, but mostly worked with three Yamaha DX7s, an Oberheim OB-8 synthesizer (plus the DMX drum machine, and DSX sequencer). He also sometimes used the Oberheim Xpander. He also had an analog Roland Jupiter-8, a Memorymoog, and a Sequential Prophet T-8, which got used a little less then, though Legend seems to have a bit more analog in it than some of the other scores then.
As modules became popular (synth with no keyboard) for Runaway he wrote much on Roland MBK-1000 keyboard controller. Much of the score was written with a Roland MSQ-700 sequencer. Jerry also still used the and Yamaha GS-1 and a Yamaha CE-20 I believe. Someone else mentioned the TX816, which is likely true.
During that time Jerry had a connection with Yamaha, though I don't think he was sponsored by them, but he did have their name included in some of his soundtracks then. I'm not sure if he owned one, but the Yamaha DX1 was also on a few scores (basically a souped up, double DX7 in one synth).
Jerry also worked a lot with synthesists Ralph Grierson and Mike Lang. Which keyboards they owned, programmed or played I do not know. I do know that Jerry did some programming, but it was usually tweaking other people' da0 s patches to his desire and playing style.
Two other synths that were owned and used during that time by synthesist Craig Huxley, were the Rhodes Chroma (that Jerry didn't care for) and the NED Synclavier.
Edit: I didn't know all this off the top of my head, btw. Just been a Goldsmith fan forever, and a synthesist, and knew where to look online.
 
chocobitz825 said:
The irony of the practice right? Have to know how to use a good tool to know why a bad tool is bad. Preset diving doesn’t teach synthesis to the uninitiated.
Click to expand...
Whats best is to use the aged but still working good tools from Papa. They will lack the shine though, but may have built your home.
If Papa still has his old Moog, you better sell it to finance your new home.

Experience the worst, experience the best, and let your wallet do the decision.
*Works fine in the red light district also.
 
Last edited:
Marcus Millfield said:
But how can you be bad at synths when it's all about making fart noises, right? Agreed, Moog makes the best, but still...
Click to expand...
You automatically get better with more polyphony, you should know that. Owning more and more Synths also fill up your Studio and that is then all about acoustic room treatment. The Moogs for example are built to resonant themselves, even when turned off. The more Moogs, the more harmonic interaction between them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom