Quote:
Originally Posted by
midmost
And does the Behringer unit sound anywhere close to a genuine Model D?
-No
...But it does...
See here (I'm sure the link has likely already been posted elsewhere on the forum) -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYxc8R_Qys0
RE the Synthi/VCS3 being weird/bad: yes, a completely understandable view.
But it does sound like a Synthi/has a unique voice, and the softsynth versions haven't yet managed a fully accurate replication (including Arturia's recent attempt. Accurate in places - but inaccurate in others i.e eq spectrum/filter ratio).
The worst marketing blunder by EMS is by EMS' very own Zinovieff. At c. 23:20 in the following video (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KkW8Ul7Q1I), he refers to EMS' synth output as, and I quote,
'rather pathetic little synthesizers'.
(Justifying spending thousands on a synth when one of the company founders describes it as 'pathetic' is possibly going to be difficult. If Frederic Brun described the Matrixbrute as 'a hybrid piece of junk', I'd question my purchasing of the synth.)
This is followed later in the film by Zinovieff's commenting on the use of computers to pursue new sound worlds. Which I'd agree with fully (breakthroughs are generally in this domain i.e CCRMA, IRCAM etc).
However, there are generally two camps i.e those wanting to create/explore new sound worlds, and those wanting to replicate the sounds of the music they have an affinity for. It isn't a black/white dividing line, but the synth world can generally be divided into those categories.
'There is nothing new here' could easily and justifiably be met with 'it isn't meant to be new'. And vice-versa, of course.
The most innovative musical instrument of the past 30-40 years is without doubt the PC (or rather, digital technology). Chowning's 'Stria' still sounds like it could have been written yesterday (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=988jPjs1gao), as do most pieces by Murail (e.g 'Desintegrations' -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4basuUUatf8)
Modular, whilst interesting, isn't exactly pushing boundaries of innovation. Granted, there are some interesting modules out there. But most interesting modules are the equivalent of certain words from the dictionary repackaged as a bite-size selection of words.
They aren't expanding the vocabulary.
(Which doesn't mean I don't own a modular. Or don't write music on one.)
But I don't believe the companies are claiming to be the forefront of innovation (are they? Maybe they are. If so, this is perhaps loose use of language), therefore no harm done.
Most analog synths also aren't expanding the vocabulary (but the innovation may be at a more granular level i.e refinement RE precision of filter etc). Hence the marketing focus.
I think the majority of 'clashes' online RE synths are clashes of assumption of function i.e innovation vs. replication/refinement of function.
Softsynth replications (and hardware replication, of course) are objectively quantifiable in terms of accuracy to original (comparative spectral analysis etc), but anything else is, objectively, probably a pointless discussion, as the discussions are more a matter of taste than anything quantifiable.
The best-sounding Synthi is a Synthi.
But it can't do what a DX does.
Neither can a DX do what a Synthi does.