What misconceptions about your synths drive you nuts?

Discussions about anything analog, digital, MIDI, synth technology, techniques, theories and more.
Post Reply
wilsontherocker
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:29 pm
Location: Asheville, NC

Post by wilsontherocker » Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:22 pm

The use of the words "Casio" or "Casiotone" as a replacement for "synthesizer" in rock record reviews by writers who really should know better.


That really bugs the h**l out of me. It also bugs me when "Moog" is used as a catchall term too, but far less than "Casio."

(not that there's anything wrong with Casio. :wink: )

MitchK1989
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 663
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:46 am
Location: Nova Scotia

Post by MitchK1989 » Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:08 am

"(insert hardware synth here) is so much better than (insert software synth here). There's just no comparison to the sound of a REAL synth"... I especially love that one when they're talking about a digital hardware synth.

"Software just sounds so bad/thin/gross/digital. It will be another 10 years before it catches up with hardware"... Another laughable one, especially considering the things you can do with software that hardware could never touch...

"Software synths need analog outboard to warm them up and help them sit in the mix"... Or you could just use some soft saturation plugins and EQ. You know, mixing tools. For mixing.

My own personal grievances also include people who insist "real" DJs use vinyl and people who bash amp modellers who don't know how to program them and usually aren't using them correctly, but those aren't really synth related (running an amp sim into your guitar amp? That's a no-no as the tone does not need a double dose of guitar amp flavour. Claiming guitar rig sucks when recording you're guitar into the microphone input and listening on laptop speakers? You're an idiot.)

P.S. I also hate people who pirate music software. "why pay for it when you can get it for free?". Because if you don't pay for it, it won't exist anymore, dingus. Not to mention the obvious irony in stealing intellectual property in order to make your own. Why don't you shoplift that nord lead 3 you want so much then?

User avatar
Vxster
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: Luton, UK

Post by Vxster » Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:21 am

MitchK1989 wrote:"(insert hardware synth here) is so much better than (insert software synth here). There's just no comparison to the sound of a REAL synth"
It's even better when users of certain software synths claim that they are a very accurate rendition of a synth they have never used...

MitchK1989
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 663
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:46 am
Location: Nova Scotia

Post by MitchK1989 » Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:36 am

Vxster wrote:
MitchK1989 wrote:"(insert hardware synth here) is so much better than (insert software synth here). There's just no comparison to the sound of a REAL synth"
It's even better when users of certain software synths claim that they are a very accurate rendition of a synth they have never used...
I hate that too, actually. Though I also hate when people who don't own the hardware bash the software too. Especially when they're like "My Jupiter 6 sounds so much better than the Jupiter 8v"... I mean really, maybe you'd just prefer a Jupiter 6 to the Jupiter 8 to begin with?

This is getting a bit OT, but I personally don't see the appeal of software clones. I'd rather have a synth with an interface optimized for a computer screen then a picture of a hardware interface... Fabfilter's Twin or Cakewalk's Rapture for example. Good luck finding hardware that lets you drag and drop mod routings or create graphic envelopes.

User avatar
Vxster
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: Luton, UK

Post by Vxster » Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:57 am

MitchK1989 wrote:
Vxster wrote:
MitchK1989 wrote:"(insert hardware synth here) is so much better than (insert software synth here). There's just no comparison to the sound of a REAL synth"
It's even better when users of certain software synths claim that they are a very accurate rendition of a synth they have never used...
I hate that too, actually. Though I also hate when people who don't own the hardware bash the software too.
I think perhaps I am aiming too high here.

User avatar
BlackGnosis
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:18 pm
Real name: Stormy
Gear: See signature image.
Band: Eridani V
Location: San Angelo, TX
Contact:

Post by BlackGnosis » Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:38 am

When a Synth is listed as "affordable" when clearly I can barely afford it to begin with!

*goes and cook some raman noodles..
Image
Ashe37 wrote:I find it funny that you're a guitar pedal snob and yet don't own a single analog synth.

User avatar
hageir
Expert Member
Expert Member
Posts: 1222
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 11:57 pm
Gear: http://www.geirhelgi.com/
https://soundcloud.com/geir-helgi
Band: Geir Helgi
Location: Reykjavík, Iceland
Contact:

Post by hageir » Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:51 am

"that sound is gay" -c'mon! that's ridiculous, how can a sound sound gay? :lol:

and also, kuroichi, you haven't played enough with the parameter locks on the MD+MNM, they're fantastic!
I had the ER-1 once and it was like a piece of dust compared to the Elektron's..
Elektron MnM & MD UW, DSI MEK & Prophet REV2 16 Voices baby!, Ensoniq VFX & ESQ-1, SE-1X, Korg MS-20mini, Polysix, SH-101 (red), 707, CR-8000, KPR-77, PO-12, Yamaha C1 Music Computer, Synare PS-1, FX, mixers, some more stuff..

User avatar
tom Cadillac
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 376
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:49 am
Gear: FS1R, EPS, JP8000, Kaos pad, Ineko, SP606, Mopho, MP7 and so on....
Band: Bipolarbass
Location: Auckland NZ

Post by tom Cadillac » Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:58 am

the misconception or pre concepton i hate most is that you can't make a certain sound adequately till you have 'the perfect synth' for it. ie you want good bass - you've got to have a pro one. And so on. Just the idea that there's certain ultimate synth sounds that only the best (=most expensive and rare?) synths can do properly. makes me feel very inadequate. But ultimately its a kind of nonesense. Electribes do bass perfectly fine really.
"On the following day , the sorcery undespairingly continued: I changed my series, chose other sequences, cut other lengths, spliced different progressions, and hoped afresh for a miracle in sound." (Stockhausen)

Wiglaf
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 4:06 am
Real name: Tyler
Gear: I don't even remember half of it
Band: width full
Location: Michigan, U.S...but not Detroit

Post by Wiglaf » Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:35 am

See below.
"I thought all you did was push a button and sounds came out!" - Mom on synths
"Not quite, Mom." - Me on synths

GeneralBigbag
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:16 pm
Location: Grad school

Post by GeneralBigbag » Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:49 am

MitchK1989 wrote:"(insert hardware synth here) is so much better than (insert software synth here). There's just no comparison to the sound of a REAL synth"... I especially love that one when they're talking about a digital hardware synth.

"Software just sounds so bad/thin/gross/digital. It will be another 10 years before it catches up with hardware"... Another laughable one, especially considering the things you can do with software that hardware could never touch...
These two statements are at odds with each other.
virb.com/ookpikk

MitchK1989
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 663
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:46 am
Location: Nova Scotia

Post by MitchK1989 » Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:42 am

GeneralBigbag wrote:
MitchK1989 wrote:"(insert hardware synth here) is so much better than (insert software synth here). There's just no comparison to the sound of a REAL synth"... I especially love that one when they're talking about a digital hardware synth.

"Software just sounds so bad/thin/gross/digital. It will be another 10 years before it catches up with hardware"... Another laughable one, especially considering the things you can do with software that hardware could never touch...
These two statements are at odds with each other.
well, technically digital is digital and will sound the same whether running on DSP chips or an intel processor as long as the D/A converters are more or less the same, so software is inherently able to sound as good as hardware.

The thing I like about software is that a lot more odd or experimental things are done that are technically possible with digital hardware, but too "niche" to ever really become a real hardware product... Like U-He's more feedback machine. I doubt any delay that can get that screwy will ever show up in hardware. Same for Ohm Force's Ohmicide.

I also don't know how you would make a hardware reaktor without making the interface just a big touchscreen, which you could already do with a computer...

I'm not saying software is better than hardware or vice versa, I like both... Just pointing out annoying arguments I see on KVR all the time when the debate comes up.

User avatar
tallowwaters
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 4:11 am
Gear: LC-MS/MS
Location: snake's belly in a wagon rut

Post by tallowwaters » Sun Dec 23, 2007 7:01 am

Vxster wrote:
MitchK1989 wrote:
Vxster wrote: It's even better when users of certain software synths claim that they are a very accurate rendition of a synth they have never used...
I hate that too, actually. Though I also hate when people who don't own the hardware bash the software too.
I think perhaps I am aiming too high here.
nah. :wink:
Brains can be used like a "stress ball," but only once.

User avatar
kuroichi
Expert Member
Expert Member
Posts: 1232
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:43 am

Post by kuroichi » Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:43 am

hageir wrote:"that sound is gay" -c'mon! that's ridiculous, how can a sound sound gay? :lol:

and also, kuroichi, you haven't played enough with the parameter locks on the MD+MNM, they're fantastic!
I had the ER-1 once and it was like a piece of dust compared to the Elektron's..
Ive had both, The MD did amaze me, but that was more to do with the UI really. There was just something about it that I wasnt satisfied with, which made me think it wasnt worth the price.

The ER-1 was OK, but nothing serious.
Come on Bennett.... Let's Party!

User avatar
Zarith
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:19 pm
Band: Brek Zarith
Contact:

Post by Zarith » Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:40 pm

"Why don't you buy a real instrument?"
"Why don't you play real music?"
"Why do you use a fake instrument? and not a real piano?"

I hear this all the time :roll:

In the 90ies, the "more is better" argument was really annoying:

"My synth is better because it has 1000 presets! 128 voices polyphony! and 25 effects!" :lol:

User avatar
braincandy
Retired Moderator
Retired Moderator
Posts: 940
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 7:35 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

Post by braincandy » Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:16 pm

"The DX (insert model here) is cold and digital." (in the form of a complaint)

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Now stop trying to do analog emulations on it and utilize it for what it does best. The statement above is part of why I like the DX-series and I still rue the day I sold my FS1r.
Fender Blacktop Jazzmaster | Squier CV Duo-Sonic | e6400 Ultra | Blofeld | a bunch of effects

Post Reply