“IMO: Roland Phantom has a lot of depth to them. Korgs Tritons seem to instantly get a vibe across once you drop it in a mix.” Hello there, I know what you mean, and it’s a good, solid, fair comment. I’ve found that to be quite ‘voice sound’ related, and really dependant on what you select. Many sounds seem to have 'several layers' to them which adds greater depth and often width.
If you go for ‘popular voices’ in particular, then 'the real soul of the sound' is right there instantly. And yes they do sound great!
Good for Live Playing and Easier Recording?
It’s not so much that the Motifs are in any way bad sounding, because they are not, they do sound really great too. But to get the best out of the instrument I would say that you have to work somewhat more, to get 'the sound you really want' from an individual voice you select.
By analogy, to my mind the basic sound sets are great, but I think of them as a ‘flat white canvas of sound’ that the artist needs to colour and shape to get ‘their ideal sound’ which for me, working as I do, enables me to set my sounds distinctly apart from those of others.
As I zero everything before each Recording Session, no two sounds are ever the same, even of the same voice.
They are individually personalised, and especially created for each and every track.
Good for Recording and Creative Individuality?
“It seems no matter how I process the strings or pianos from the Motif they just seem pretty boring and often narrow.” Hello there too!
Out in the Studio, among the keyboards, I have a Motif and I find it a really useful tool personally.
I’m wondering if you are looking for samples with far more layers super-imposed?
Perhaps you like the sounds of Bert Smorenburg’s Piano and other sounds?
Could the available libraries or something here might be the answer?
Viewing list of forums - MotiForum. Discuss Motif issues with people all over the world. - Forums powered by UBB.threads™
Bad Mister in particular is extremely helpful.
Irregardless, what you describe is not my experience. But I’m wondering if you are doing things rather differently from me.
My approach is to take time to get the absolutely the exact sound I want from the instrument itself in the first place.
Long before doing any additional final processing in the Digital Recording System.
The basic sounds are good solid quality sounds, but usually, somewhat removed from being 'precisely the sound' I want.
To that end I find the multiple E.Q. etc. sliders on the Motif a great boon. With them, I find I can usually tweak the sound, to get the quality of tonality and resonance etc I am earnestly seeking. And to be honest, if you are good, you will want to work with sounds until you really get them right. Won’t you?
This to my mind, is where all the most important work is done. More time spent here getting this initial response of the instrument, exactly how I feel it should be for the particular track, is far better than trying to correct or adjust something that is to some degree inappropriate afterwards.
Then, with a great sound from the start, I go out analogue to an analogue desk where I will commonly add additional processing. To my ears, all this Digital equipment sounds rather more to my personal taste, after going through a traditional analogue desk. (Or stage).
Please understand I am not against Digital equipment, it’s just that historically, many Digital designs have not been as well implemented as they should have been. Designers and Manufacturers have often taken shortcuts that have resulted in a clear Digital Sonic Signature. I particularly detest any sense of sterility.
So it is any audible sign of a Digital Signature that I seek to redress with the analogue stage. Others no doubt, will hear things differently.
But think about this....
If you want more ‘presence’ as you were saying, then it is likely that you will be adding E.Q. after tracking to get it. This can often raise the noise level along with the additional presence you are seeking to aquire, and so for me, I would prefer to add the treble E.Q. going in, if anywhere.
I get the sound I want first! I can always cut back the treble a little if required, and thus, simultaneously reduce the noise floor as I E.Q. To my way of thinking this is a neater trick to pull, than going the other way.
And treble is never overdone on any of my recordings, its like seasoning to food, a typical E.Q. Curve for me, would be high at the Bass end in a smooth continuous slope to the treble end reducing all the time. (This is of course a generalisation). But 60% energy to the Bass end as a typical guide.
(Where Piano’s are concerned I often find certain particular E.Q.’s to be especially favourable with often the best results, coming with completely flat E.Q.’s and flat E.Q.’s that very gently roll off towards the bottom end).
In any case, by the time the sound is at the point where I will track it, it’s really there.
I think of all this, especially in regard to the setting up of the instrument tweaks themselves, as being the equivalent of mic placement at the very sweetest spot possible, in the old fashioned traditional way to get good recorded sound.
And the analogue stage of additional processing, a traditional method (that is in effect a pre-emptive countermeasure) to address what I regard as the remaining negative issues and artefacts involved in Digital Recording Systems that designers have yet to properly address. (Thankfully, they are getting there)!
Have you thought about a new Recording Interface?
It may be well worth it for you now.
Best Regards!
P