You guessed wrong..D-Collector wrote:I guess you don't need to read a book either, as you just take a look at the front and then know every word inside it.
Once you know which parameters a synth has you can make a good estimation of the sounds one can and cannot make with it.
That would be true for about every other (semi-)advanced synth then, which wouldn't make the D50 special compared to other synths.No you don't have to spend a year with the D-50 to familiarize with it, but you need more than a brief look to fully explore it's depths and sonic possibilities. To do this you may need years.
That's of course a tricky statement to make ..Unless of course you are some kind of genius.
But for what it's worth: Let's quote a sounddesigner teacher (Ernst Bonis, an FM guru among other things) at my study instead. I didn't follow any advanced sounddesign classes for those 4 years (went for the composition/production road instead), and at the end of the 4yr course I planned a private meeting with him. I demoed some of the things I was doing and he labeled me "best sounddesigner in the study's history", and I
got sounddesign as extra major on my diploma..
Anyway, the discussion is going into the wrong way I think. The O.T. was 'D50 classic or outdated' and I choose 'outdated'. If it's forbidden to label it outdated, why ask for opinions in the first place? It's almost as if it's 'not done' to criticize D50, which reminds me of the old homecomputer feuds in the late 80's and early 90's. So, let's stick to measurable D50 facts and not waste time on the backgrounds of 'me'. tnx