The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
anyone else underwhelmed with modern poly synths? Keyboard Synthesizers
Old 25th December 2016
  #331
Lives for gear
 
synthguy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robot gigante View Post
Because any good engineer or arranger knows that minute differences in a mix and arrangement are cumulative. Maybe you haven't experienced that magic moment where you do a sliiight EQ notch on one instrument in a dense mix and the entire mix opens up dramatically - top engineers do that all the time.

If a VA that pretends to sound vintage is causing mud, for example (cough Arturia cough) it may sound OK on its own but wreak havoc on the mix.

The other thing is, many people (hobbyists generally) are listening for the wrong things when trying to spot differences, missing on things that are super obvious to J. Average Listener. Partially trained ears causing missed focus I guess. This has never been a popular truth to express on audio forums though! Knowing WHAT to listen for, however subtle, how that affects the listener and how slight differences can affect the overall picture is what experience and training are for.
Hmm. I'm thinking this is a string of imaginary situations that don't exist in reality to force a preconceived notion. I sincerely doubt that any dense mix will suddenly become less dense, let alone open up dramatically, because a notch EQ was sliiightly applied to one track. Dense clogged mixes are a result of arrangement / production overkill. Too much was done, too many effects applied, too many frequencies and similar timbres are fighting for the same space. In this case, causing a song to open up dramatically means that a lot more was done than a db or two of notch. In one track I fought, I went out and bought a suite of plugins and swapped them for the stock ones in the DAW because an EQ and compressor was making the drums excessively cluttered. In other tracks, some stuff just wasn't working and a track or two was redone or killed outright. Maybe tracking them through a Neve or SSL or a high end digital desk would have made all the difference, but I'd have to see that done in front of me.

Along with that, a softsynth that's mucking up a track isn't going to clear up like a passing storm just because you replace it with a vintage analog. I'm betting a softie patch that's hogging space will hog about as much space done identically on an analog. A Minimoog or Prophet~5 or modular doesn't stomp a smaller hole in the middle of a mix just because it's analog.

And as for "things that are super obvious to J. Average Listener," I'm not sure what that even means. The average J. Average is a guy who listens to crappy compressed audio and I sincerely doubt could tell the difference between a Minimoog and a JD-XA, Virus or Kurzweil. Or even knows what a Minimoog is. For that matter, the average music these days is heavy with softsynth, VA and rompler, and I'm unaware of J. Anyone complaining about how these infidels have ruined music. Outside of a few malcontents here.

Too many people in this place are guilty of choking on a gnat and swallowing camels. Stating that everything is wonderful doesn't mean that we think vintage analogs are kibble or redundant. Are they special? Duh, yes, we'd all love to own them. In working order and without increasingly vexing issues of old age. And that really should be enough. But not for some people. You guys have to drag this into silly arguments of how nothing else will do the job right. And I'm just not down with that, sorry.
Old 25th December 2016
  #332
Lives for gear
 
robot gigante's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by synthguy View Post
Hmm. I'm thinking this is a string of imaginary situations that don't exist in reality to force a preconceived notion. I sincerely doubt that any dense mix will suddenly become less dense, let alone open up dramatically, because a notch EQ was sliiightly applied to one track. Dense clogged mixes are a result of arrangement / production overkill. Too much was done, too many effects applied, too many frequencies and similar timbres are fighting for the same space. In this case, causing a song to open up dramatically means that a lot more was done than a db or two of notch. In one track I fought, I went out and bought a suite of plugins and swapped them for the stock ones in the DAW because an EQ and compressor was making the drums excessively cluttered. In other tracks, some stuff just wasn't working and a track or two was redone or killed outright. Maybe tracking them through a Neve or SSL or a high end digital desk would have made all the difference, but I'd have to see that done in front of me.

Along with that, a softsynth that's mucking up a track isn't going to clear up like a passing storm just because you replace it with a vintage analog. I'm betting a softie patch that's hogging space will hog about as much space done identically on an analog. A Minimoog or Prophet~5 or modular doesn't stomp a smaller hole in the middle of a mix just because it's analog.

And as for "things that are super obvious to J. Average Listener," I'm not sure what that even means. The average J. Average is a guy who listens to crappy compressed audio and I sincerely doubt could tell the difference between a Minimoog and a JD-XA, Virus or Kurzweil. Or even knows what a Minimoog is. For that matter, the average music these days is heavy with softsynth, VA and rompler, and I'm unaware of J. Anyone complaining about how these infidels have ruined music. Outside of a few malcontents here.

Too many people in this place are guilty of choking on a gnat and swallowing camels. Stating that everything is wonderful doesn't mean that we think vintage analogs are kibble or redundant. Are they special? Duh, yes, we'd all love to own them. In working order and without increasingly vexing issues of old age. And that really should be enough. But not for some people. You guys have to drag this into silly arguments of how nothing else will do the job right. And I'm just not down with that, sorry.
Oh man, I have met so many people like you and with your perspective... I am not challenging your perception and experiences, oh no. Maybe think of a time when you went to a recording studio and the engineer spent hours and hours fiddling with this and that and the resulting mix was less than the original tracks you gave them. Not an unfamiliar situation to many I am sure. Maybe you have found yourself in such a situation. What's going on is that there are maybe one or two things in the mix that are creating issues, but since the damn engineer doesn't nail them, he creates all sorts of holes in the mix trying to work out everything around them. Next time you catch yourself doing this you'll know exactly what I mean.

I am just trying to share experiences, not blanket the issue. I am not working with bad cluttered material, I am working with good material tracked through high end gear.

As to what affects the average listener, a muso or engineer who thinks that they have a superior ear to the average person they are-- I was going to say something offensive, um. Most people might not think 'oh, that sounds frequency limited' for example but you bet they will react emotionally to the sub bass and airy highs when something isn't. They aren't always picking subtitles out but they do react to them.

Here's another experience: my first job at a small studio that had recently given away its Pultecs and Studers and bought the first versions of Pro Tools, which sounded horrible. In that case I was the newbie, an untrained listener and I was shocked at how bad the DAW sounded in comparison, but -- the head engineer was convinced it sounded so much better. Listening for the wrong things. Egotistical.

Maybe I am too burnt out by people whose crusty ears can't hear above 12k anyway shoving basics in my face for so many years. Apologies, that wasn't necessarily directed at your hearing, which I am sure is fine. The differences with these vintage synths have been obvious to me since I started playing synths in the late 90's, experience has confirmed that, and there have always been people saying what you say, so - OK.
Old 25th December 2016
  #333
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonInAustralia View Post
they often just sound better than the modern alternatives
While i don't necessarily disagree, i would REALLY like to hear an example of a vintage synth sounding considerably better than a modern synth of similar architecture, with one condition: maximum effort was made to make them sound the same.
Old 25th December 2016
  #334
Gear Addict
 
_ADSR_'s Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutantt View Post
While i don't necessarily disagree, i would REALLY like to hear an example of a vintage synth sounding considerably better than a modern synth of similar architecture, with one condition: maximum effort was made to make them sound the same.
This makes no sense whatsoever and sounds more like a separate thread.

Why would anyone want to put maximum effort into making an OB8 sound underwhelming?

We have all played VA's and softie's before. They are neat but not always a replacement for the real thing.

The modern VCO poly's are very close but, well...a little underwhelming for some who are familiar with the sound of the OB8 and friends.

A shootout is not going to change that for the OP or anyone in agreement with him.

Merry Christmas everyone!
Old 25th December 2016
  #335
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by _ADSR_ View Post
Why would anyone want to put maximum effort into making an OB8 sound underwhelming?
Obviously i meant it the other way around.
1. Make your best sound on the vintage.
2. Put your best effort to match it on a modern.

Yes, i heard some old vs new clips.
I remember that in almost all of them one thing was immediately obvious:
The users' conscious or unconscious (and successful) attempt to make his beloved vintage perform/sound better.
I mean the thing where you know very well that you could program it way closer just by spending 1 more hour with the modern one, or simply just by not only listening, but also looking at the spectrum, oscilloscope and tuner.

It is a bit like religion, if one would admit that the vintage can possibly lose to a modern synth at what the vintage does best, it would make the decision to buy it for twice the amount of what a modern synth costs, plus the high maintenance costs and frequent downtime... kinda silly.
People are often not brave enough to admit that paying extra 4000$ for a tiny 1% difference in sound which would get totally lost in effects and under other instruments in the song, is not the smartest thing one can do, so they try to inflate that 1% to something like "a huge difference" in their words.
Because buying a vintage for a huge difference in sound quality is a very good idea.
Old 25th December 2016
  #336
Gear Addict
 
_ADSR_'s Avatar
So the OP being underwhelmed is all in his head because he drank the kool-aid.

Other people telling you what to think. It is like religion!
Old 25th December 2016
  #337
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by _ADSR_ View Post
So the OP being underwhelmed is all in his head
If (for most of actually useful sounds, AKA "in the sweet spot") all it takes for a modern OB6 to sound almost exactly like a vintage OB-8 is tweaking the synth to the same values (i don't mean user interface values) without being sloppy about it and then some EQ and a hint of tube overdrive...
Then yes, it is all in his head.

But if not... then we are doomed, because many vintage synths are at the end of their life spans now.
Old 25th December 2016
  #338
Lives for gear
It is like a religion. Synthesizers are expensive and people want to believe the choices they make are the best for them.

When I got my MKS-80 + MPG-80 I was sure I could retire my Nord Lead 2. After all they both serve a similar task being kind of swiss army knife polysynths. But MKS-80 is fully analog, VCO's and all, while Nord Lead is a dated VA.

I compared them by programming and fine tuning the best programs I could make on one of the synths and then tried copying the patch with the other. I was constantly surprised positively, both because they both could do better than I thought but mostly because the NL2 did extremely well in comparison. Only when you started to tweak the filter and resonance in high settings would the NL2 lose clearly to the MKS-80. But when you start layering patches and use the morph function the NL2 beat the MKS-80, even if you could layer 2 patches with the MKS too. The NL2 has that very recognizeable Nord sound that can be a bit irritable but I couldn't sell it like I thought at first.

All synths have their strengths and weaknesses. It's stupid to compare only the sounds that old polysynths do well. Even a VA can be very good option if you know when and how to use it.
Old 25th December 2016
  #339
Gear Nut
 
Her Zesty Sin's Avatar
 

We react a different way to different machines... Emotions are normal, probably. Defending a particular machine, feeling strong about one more than about another one... Finding the synths that really move us is a large part of our adventure. Each adventures has surprises!

I frequently think of these lines, written about an ESQ1 on Sonic State, maybe it is relevant here today:

"This synth belongs to one of those disappeared species U don't really know a lot about, but when U hear'em screaming distorted sounds far away in the jungle cos' they've lost their family, U start crying too."
Old 25th December 2016
  #340
Gear Maniac
 
Muied Lumens's Avatar
I'm a proper slut I am. Modern, vintage, analog, digital, expensive, cheap, classy, cheesy - I love it all.
Old 25th December 2016
  #341
Lives for gear
 
Crazy4Jazz's Avatar
 

I think the question here is, must we always be overwhelmed? And for that matter, is there a category of just plain old whelmed?

Old 25th December 2016
  #342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muied Lumens View Post
I'm a proper slut I am. Modern, vintage, analog, digital, expensive, cheap, classy, cheesy - I love it all.
I agree, and am perfectly content writing a song I enjoy with vintage, modern, analog, digital, modular, or software. Often my stuff contains all of them.

They all have their strengths and weaknesses. The fact that we even need to debate it, to me says a lot about modern analog and software emulations.

I agree with one thing mentioned earlier also. I have no idea why, but trying to mix down a track with analog instrument recordings seems a whole lot easier than with digital or software instruments. Now I have never made any comparison with my newer vs vintage analogs, it was just something that became really obvious over time working with analog, digital, and software.

I also agree that minor EQ changes can effect an entire mix. A tip somebody gave me once, was that when EQ'ing, for example a lead sound, don't listen to the lead sound, listen how the EQ change on that lead sound effects everything else in the mix. Works really well when mixing drum tracks especially.
Old 25th December 2016
  #343
Gear Maniac
 
fadein's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty.west View Post
Anyone else underwhelmed with the modern options? Are there any modern synths that can 'get there'? Is it maybe just a matter of finding the right things to process with externally? I'm open to any recommendations!
I came to the same conclusion after spending a lot of time testing modern stuff. It just doesn't do it for me, I'm travelling back to "dinozaurs".
Old 25th December 2016
  #344
Lives for gear
I got a lot of vintage gear but to say that all modern polys are underwhelming I don't agree. The Ob6 for starters is really good.
Old 25th December 2016
  #345
Gear Addict
 

I have a Jupiter 4, 8, and up until a recent pruning a Memorymoog and Trident as well, and I also have an OB6. The OB6 sounds every bit on the same level as the vintage synths. Does it sound identical? No. Do any of the vintage boards sound identical to one another? No. Do any vintage Oberheims sound identical to one another? No. Is the OB6 on the same level of sonic depth and power as any of the vintage big dogs? Absolutely yes, it is, and it's better than all of them in many ways. No, it doesn't sound as big as an OBX, but neither does a JP8 or OBXa. But the OBX cant do layers like the JP8, and neither of them have all of the extensive connectivity, memory, and sequencer and effects options as the OB6, so who is to say one is better than any of the others? They are all powerful sounding VCO polysynths.

I don't get this thread.
Old 25th December 2016
  #346
Lives for gear
 
drockfresh's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonInAustralia View Post
Is the Synsun even available new anymore?

What price would one cost? Which sort of invalidates your argument about the cost of the vintage classics.

They are high end boutique synths, made in small numbers, and even then, those with experience with the Studio Electronics synths feel they don't quite get there.
Who says what about Omega/Code 8?

They are reliable and the demos sound beautiful to me, but I've always dug the Studio Electronics *hifi* tone (for lack of a better description).

People talk smack about em?
Old 25th December 2016
  #347
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by saw wave analog View Post
I have a Jupiter 4, 8, and up until a recent pruning a Memorymoog and Trident as well, and I also have an OB6. The OB6 sounds every bit on the same level as the vintage synths. Does it sound identical? No. Do any of the vintage boards sound identical to one another? No. Do any vintage Oberheims sound identical to one another? No. Is the OB6 on the same level of sonic depth and power as any of the vintage big dogs? Absolutely yes, it is, and it's better than all of them in many ways. No, it doesn't sound as big as an OBX, but neither does a JP8 or OBXa. But the OBX cant do layers like the JP8, and neither of them have all of the extensive connectivity, memory, and sequencer and effects options as the OB6, so who is to say one is better than any of the others? They are all powerful sounding VCO polysynths.

I don't get this thread.

"I don't get this thread" -

I absolutely get this thread.
The comments in this thread has mostly due to the fact that people tend promote what they own and have spent money on. Happens on every forum on every subject. I have seen it over and over year after years. I appreciate the fact that you have both and have been able to spend some time with them, and are able give a well informed view. Owning one, and "using" a loaner for an hour doesn't cut it for me. I tend to base my decisions on advise of those that have owned both, if I can't get extensive hands on time myself.
Old 25th December 2016
  #348
Gear Maniac
 
fadein's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by wMACKY View Post
The comments in this thread has mostly due to the fact that people tend promote what they own and have spent money on.
I don't see much relevance. As I understand the OP, the talk is about aesthetics and not economics.
Old 25th December 2016
  #349
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fadein View Post
I don't see much relevance. As I understand the OP, the talk is about aesthetics and not economics.
Your entitled to your opinion.
Old 25th December 2016
  #350
Gear Maniac
 
fadein's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by wMACKY View Post
Your entitled to your opinion.
Thanks
Old 25th December 2016
  #351
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by wMACKY View Post
"I don't get this thread" -

I absolutely get this thread.
The comments in this thread has mostly due to the fact that people tend promote what they own and have spent money on. Happens on every forum on every subject. I have seen it over and over year after years. I appreciate the fact that you have both and have been able to spend some time with them, and are able give a well informed view. Owning one, and "using" a loaner for an hour doesn't cut it for me. I tend to base my decisions on advise of those that have owned both, if I can't get extensive hands on time myself.
I think it would obvious statement that most people will comment in a positive fashion on what they own. I would imagine it's the very reason one buys it in the first place. They try it, on lone or in a store several times then pony up the money for something they liked. Then they appear on a forum like this talking about what they like a out it. The fact it happens over and over again would only make sense.
Old 25th December 2016
  #352
7up vs. Tomato juice - Most Refreshing?

Different folks different flavors...

To my personal taste I agree with the OP, but it's about flavor, and different people like/want different flavors, right?

So, like many threads on GS, both sides end up disagreeing disagreeably and kind of sounding like this guy:
via Imgflip Meme Generator
Old 25th December 2016
  #353
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonInAustralia View Post
They are high end boutique synths, made in small numbers, and even then, those with experience with the Studio Electronics synths feel they don't quite get there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drockfresh View Post
Who says what about Omega/Code 8?

They are reliable and the demos sound beautiful to me, but I've always dug the Studio Electronics *hifi* tone (for lack of a better description).

People talk smack about em?
Not talking smack, just opinions about how they sound compared to vintage...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTByrd View Post
There are several "vintage/modern" analog polysynths that can hang with many of the classic vintage polys. The Andromeda and Sunsyn come to mind. The SE Code has "that SE sound" that's not quite vintage, but doesn't sound like most other modern polys either.
Old 25th December 2016
  #354
Lives for gear
 

Someone got it backwards here re: mixing vintage analogue vs. softsynths. Au contraire, it is dramatically more difficult to mix vintage into anything but the simplest ensemble recordings, and there's all sorts of effort and technique required to squeeze same in. Truly head-scratching to suggest otherwise.

And again, this is something we've debated for 20 years, too.

Yawn.
Old 25th December 2016
  #355
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutantt View Post
It is a bit like religion, if one would admit that the vintage can possibly lose to a modern synth at what the vintage does best, it would make the decision to buy it for twice the amount of what a modern synth costs, plus the high maintenance costs and frequent downtime... kinda silly.

People are often not brave enough to admit that paying extra 4000$ for a tiny 1% difference in sound which would get totally lost in effects and under other instruments in the song, is not the smartest thing one can do, so they try to inflate that 1% to something like "a huge difference" in their words.
Because buying a vintage for a huge difference in sound quality is a very good idea.
You have people in here using the Sunsyn and Code for comparisons in modern sound to vintage. What prices are they selling for? Are they really $4000 less, or half the price, than the vintage classics? What is this frequent downtime you refer to, does that really happen to people who own vintage synths, or is that something else you have made up in your head?

You are claiming that there is only 1% difference in sound, how did you reach that percentage? Is that what people who prefer vintage over modern think the difference is, or is that what you, who do not seem to believe there is really any difference between vintage and new, think it is?

And anyway, the OP isn't talking about cost, you are, they are talking about sound only, you are projecting your own opinions about cost onto the situation, which are not there, they are in your head. Look at how many are going on about how much easier the modern option are to maintain, how much less they cost, how many more features they have, etc., etc., when the OP is just discussing the sound. They might be valid points to a particular buyer as to why they choose one over the other, but they do not in any way invalidate the OPs opinion that the older synths he likes sound better than the newer options.

Many, who have actual hands on experience with many from both options, seem to agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutantt View Post
If (for most of actually useful sounds, AKA "in the sweet spot") all it takes for a modern OB6 to sound almost exactly like a vintage OB-8 is tweaking the synth to the same values (i don't mean user interface values) without being sloppy about it and then some EQ and a hint of tube overdrive...
Then yes, it is all in his head.

But if not... then we are doomed, because many vintage synths are at the end of their life spans now.
You can turn on the OB8 and it sounds good, but you have to spend a whole lot of time programming the OB6, and adding EQ and tube overdrive, to try and make it sound as good? Seems that it simply doesn't sound as good in the first place, if you have to do that.

Which vintage synths are at the end of their life span?
Old 26th December 2016
  #356
Lives for gear
 
synthguy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robot gigante View Post
Oh man, I have met so many people like you and with your perspective... I am not challenging your perception and experiences, oh no. (etc)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDGEK8D View Post
I agree with one thing mentioned earlier also. I have no idea why, but trying to mix down a track with analog instrument recordings seems a whole lot easier than with digital or software instruments. Now I have never made any comparison with my newer vs vintage analogs, it was just something that became really obvious over time working with analog, digital, and software.
I think I'll lump these together as they deal directly with the issues of the thread, while expanding it a bit. I'll see if I can prevent a lengthy essay.

Sir robot, on the subject of bad engineering, I think I'm going to start all over with my perception of the state of recording and engineers today. I always thought they knew their stuff. Had golden ears and knew how to solve issues. I guess I was wrong, that there are elites, the decent, and the hack posers. That might explain why so much music sounds so bad.

I've never had the funds for commercial recording. I've always wheedled time from friends and done it myself, either free, cheap or in trade for my services later, so I've never had the unnerving experience of going to a place and thinking something was wrong with the mixes that came out of the speakers.

It's also possible the style of music is crucial here. I could easily see that hiphop, rap, metal and pop stuff might suffer from bad engineering and mixing. Fusion, jazz and classical don't seem to suffer from this as much. I've heard no instances of a classical pianist saying some record they were on was garbage because the piano was all wrong.

There's a score composer I'm very fond of named David Bergeaud who did work for the Ratchet & Clank series, and I love almost everything he does. His earlier work was very synth heavy, and he played and programmed most of his stuff. But much of it is busy, all frequencies going at once, and lots of incidental sounds thrown in seemingly at random. Sometimes things got buried. EQing wouldn't solve these issues. If I had been there, I would have paired things back and told him, "Use this stuff here, use this track over here... see how the balance and clarity is better? Look what you can hear clearly now, and you still aren't throwing anything away. You can only put so many toys on a shelf." And of course this was big budget production in expensive studios, so it was all down to him doing what he wanted and getting carried away sometimes. A lot of music is guilty of this.

Maybe this is what you're talking about. Maybe not, I don't know. But lumping in the discussion with EDGEK8D's post... I just don't see it your way.

I was recording people at a time when the digital gear was pretty much what everyone had. Yamaha FM, VAs, romplers and then softsynths as computers got powerful enough, and then I migrated to DAWs from tape. Maybe I was one of those guys who's audiophile ears just guided me to the ideal solutions all the time. And I learned very early on that music production was a gestalt. That you didn't solo a track or instrument and fuss with it in isolation and use it as is. You always worked with it as part of the ensemble with the other tracks. I had a friend who patched a 31 band EQ on a bass track, soloed it and began moving sliders one by one, working his way along. I told him that wasn't really how you did it, you had to have an idea what you wanted, but he waved me quiet. "I know what I'm doing." And he used it. I didn't object because he was the boss, but I preferred the track with just a touch of parametric.

Anyway, when analog guys began to reappear, they didn't sit in mixes any better than did the romplers. If anything, I had to learn all over again how big Moog sounds clobbered tracks, and how Prophet and Obie hard sync patches stuck out prominently, and how nicely ARPs would fit almost anywhere without much fuss. Many VAs and all romplers have EQ, and that was usually what I would hunt down when trying to situate an instrument. But analogs have their own size, like a piece of furniture, and you had to deal with them as they were, so in my experience I had to adjust to analogs, not the other way around.

So maybe this is where analog purists have a point. Analog synths rarely have EQ, but most VAs and all romplers do. When you flatten the EQ on many JP-8000 patches, the sound goes thin and limp. But at the same time, I don't think it matters. I really need to hear a before and after of a track I can download which was done with all digital synths, as well as all modern synths, then all vintage guys. And then of course trust anyone not to sabotage the results. But I know this is asking a bit too much of you guys. This could be a few weeks of work. I guess I really need to see about doing it myself and doing a blind shootout with the class. And I have a feeling that it's going to be a bit getting many responses. Very few seem to want to be first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankenstino View Post
I think it would obvious statement that most people will comment in a positive fashion on what they own.
I'm a rare exception. While I own quite a few toys, more than my level of talent, there's a whole universe of gear I don't own but have had the pleasure of using. Remember the Peavey synths and sample players? I've had a rich musical life, and there aren't many things I haven't had the pleasure of fondling and programming. Mr Varaldo seems to own them, so I need to pay him a visit someday.

Lovers of everything UNITE!

I guess I'll reposit something. There is way too much opinion stated as empirical fact around here. I would feel better and have more respect for those who would leave the argument to this: We love our vintage synths. They're the originals, the real deal. Pieces of music history. We're used to them, we know what they do and are capable of, we like their sound, and using them in music is just flat out cool as all heck. It's great that there are all these new toys on the block, but nothing says "synthesizer" like an authentic beastie from the 80s. And if you own a vintage modular, you are a true synth superhero." That I would be plenty happy with. No defensiveness, no emotional landmines, no flamebait, no agenda. No problem.

Merry Christmas.
Old 26th December 2016
  #357
Gear Maniac
 
fadein's Avatar
Nah, get as much old gear as possible! I mean, anything from the last century rocks.
Happy holydays
Old 26th December 2016
  #358
Lives for gear
 
robot gigante's Avatar
It's like I said Synthguy. I have met many people that come from where you are coming from in my career as an engineer and working in music retail previous to that. I understand your perspective, respect it, and am glad that there is diversity of opinion.

Hope you can understand my perspective as well.

I have owned and used many vintage synths, but not so many vintage ones now that prices are out of control (regret selling most years ago, but had to). So I am happy like everyone that there are less pricey modern options. I don't think the 'modern' sound is less than vintage, but it is different and if one is smart, one plays to its strengths.

Also I think it is just a matter of time before we see polys that sound more vintage on the market, it has been done with monos as has been mentioned.

Part of loving them all is recognizing that they are indeed all different and loving and appreciating those differences, I think.

The last time I played a Peavey synth was as a teen in the mid 90's and the shop owner told me with misguided (or falsified?) sadness it would be the last analog synth made. That's all I remember about it.
Old 26th December 2016
  #359
Quote:
Originally Posted by robot gigante View Post
I don't think the 'modern' sound is less than vintage, but it is different and if one is smart, one plays to its strengths.
In life, always play to your strengths.
Old 26th December 2016
  #360
Lives for gear
 
Derp's Avatar
I haven't tried the latest generation of analog polysynths, but I remember wondering what the hell Dave Smith was doing releasing the Prophet Oh, Wait when the same guts were already in the Evolver. That whole thing still smells fishy this far away from it.

The only 'modern' polysynth I have strong feelings about really is the Andromeda. I had one about six years ago and held onto that thing for a year trying to like it. The last straw was when I was recording an album, had composed it all and had recorded scratch tracks with a Virus. I started replacing Virus parts with analog synth parts and due to bad track labeling, I got the Virus and Andromeda tracks mixed up. That album went to the label for distribution and I still couldn't tell you if that string part was Andromeda or Virus. There's no reason for an 'analog beast' to sound exactly like a VA, so I dumped it to get a Vostok. Of all the analog synths I had at the time, that was the only one that gave me that kind of a mixup, even among other modern analogs like the Kraftzwerg and Telemark. The Pro One and the Prophet 600 on the other hand, those two were easy to spot in the finished mix.

Again, horses for courses, but I'm burned out on trying to love modern analog polys or analog polies in general. I just stick to sampling my modular and adding simulated analog drift to get what I need.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump