Are the supposed endless sonic capabilities of synths overrated and exhausted?

[CyberGene]

I've been thinking a lot about that common assumption of synths as an infinite playground where you can basically create any possible sound there is. And of course, there's always minute differences between all the zillions of patches on earth, especially taking in mind all possible synthesis methods, and different implementations, and different synth programmers, etc, etc. Even two Minimoogs won't sound exactly the same.

 

But then, if you look at all that from above, because that's how we listen to music, aren't all possible sounds actually a limited set of general sound types, like e.g. some synth brasses, brighter, duller, some more analog, some more digital, reso, no-reso, then strings, pads, leads, basses, bells, etc., etc. you name it, but ultimately a collection of, say, 1000 patches would cover the entire spectrum.

 

And it leads me to a common refrain by @ProfD about how the big manufacturers have been rehashing sounds on their romplers for ages. Well, yes, because what revolutionary new sounds there can be? 😉

[Jose EB5AGV]

On a parallel line, I always wonder how, in a so limited spectrum the audio occupies (we can say about 15kHz for the average person), we can put so many different sounds, and then, when listening, our brain separates instruments, voices, other noises...

 

But, yes, I see your point. But imagine saying there are only a handful of acoustic piano sounds... For sure we could identify quite a lot of different ones, if listened alone. Not so many if used mixed with other sounds, as usually happens with synth sounds.

 

I would say with 1000 synth patches (ideally somehow tweakable) you could cover a huge spectrum of music, if you are not looking for the exact, perfect reproduction of the original (which usually is not needed, in my experience). I guess that is the reason for the common categories on synths. Just a few of them cover all the usual suspects 😆

[Finale]

A machine like the Kronos has indeed near limitless possibilities because it is also a sampler. But if we talk about the usual substractive synthesis with let's say 6 or 7 waveforms, you can indeed only go so far.

 

But I believe that the key is inspiration, both in creating sounds and the music that uses them. Guys like Florian Schneider achieved incredible sounds with conventional synths (many Kraftwerk albums). Even in the 60s, people like Pierre Henry could make a synth scream like an angry T-Rex (Psyché Rock) and nobody does that anymore. I think it is simply that nowadays, people just select preset sounds and don't experiment to create their own so much. In my case, I enjoy creating new sounds lots when I have some free time.

[AnotherScott]

3 hours ago, CyberGene said:

And it leads me to a common refrain by @ProfD about how the big manufacturers have been rehashing sounds on their romplers for ages. Well, yes, because what revolutionary new sounds there can be? 😉

 

I thought when people talked about rehashing the same rompler sounds, they meant they wished for better emulations of those same real-world instruments. 

[Paul Woodward]

3 hours ago, Jose EB5AGV said:

On a parallel line, I always wonder how, in a so limited spectrum the audio occupies (we can say about 15kHz for the average person), we can put so many different sounds, and then, when listening, our brain separates instruments, voices, other noises...

 

But, yes, I see your point. But imagine saying there are only a handful of acoustic piano sounds... For sure we could identify quite a lot of different ones, if listened alone. Not so many if used mixed with other sounds, as usually happens with synth sounds.

 

I would say with 1000 synth patches (ideally somehow tweakable) you could cover a huge spectrum of music, if you are not looking for the exact, perfect reproduction of the original (which usually is not needed, in my experience). I guess that is the reason for the common categories on synths. Just a few of them cover all the usual suspects 😆

I always think of the last sound I heard that felt totally unique or memorable. Digging deep into the past that might be Jan Hammers ‘faux’ lead guitar solo, or digging a hole by Booka Shade ( but that one is mostly the effects, not the raw sound). List would go on if I had time, and you can all do the same. As we were discussing the DX7’s birthday last week, there were sounds on there that were ‘new’ for the time, and I’m sure we have all tried new technologies: analogue synth, digital, sample and synthesis, sampling, wavetable, vector, physical modelling, granular etc. I do struggle myself when putting a mix together to choose from a dozen or so suitable sounds that sit in the sound space. As I layer tracks up, it gets even harder to differentiate some of them…they often start to build a thick wall of sound (think Shine on by Floyd).

I struggle nowadays to find anything that is totally unique (not just playful) that replaces something else I have so I know what the OP means.

[ElmerJFudd]

Due to the cyclical nature of musical styles I believe we will at some point return to a preference for acoustic instruments and arrangements.  And the youth will reject the synthetic timbres of plugins and computerized music making. 

[Paul Woodward]

1 minute ago, ElmerJFudd said:

Due to the cyclical nature of musical styles I believe we will at some point return to a preference for acoustic instruments and arrangements.  And the youth will reject the synthetic timbres of plugins and computerized music making. 

Wouldn’t that be something. They are already embracing ‘retro’ with Polaroid cameras, cassette players, VHS etc. many younger musicians playing older gear too…

[RABid]

I think this is why I have come back to modular. My first foray into modular I was too locked into the MiniMoog in separates mindset and the only thing I really explored was the effects of audio rate modulation on various components of sound. I got board and started checking out the big name mega software synths. Over time I decided these have too many options and send me to in a 1000 different directions, but always on a seemingly short path. So, back to modular. This time in I've discovered some smaller companies with truly different takes on sound generation. Basimilus Iteritas Alter Drum Synthesizer by Noise Engineering is a good example. Take something that can product normal sounds and give people access to modulation points to really go wild. Another example is Entity Metalloid Percussion Voice by Steady State Fate. While most companies go in with a goal such as "make it sound like a 909 hi-hat," they take the position of "start with something that sounds like a 909 hi-hat and give the user the tools to make it go wild." The success of Noise Engineering and Steady State Fate are making other companies take notice. I expect more of this in the future. It is amazing what people like DivKid and Blush Response can get from a single module like this.

 

 

 

[ElmerJFudd]

1 hour ago, Paul Woodward said:

Wouldn’t that be something. They are already embracing ‘retro’ with Polaroid cameras, cassette players, VHS etc. many younger musicians playing older gear too…

I think it’s inevitable, but the timing is hard to predict.  

[DeltaJockey]

I separate the theoretical limitless nature of synthesis/ sound generation with the seemingly similar sound of the products which keep being released. I've not heard any synth nor plugin in recent times which are wildly revolutionary in sound like the manufacturers/developers claim. I make an analogy with smell and taste synthesis. There seems to be a general grouping of categories our brain seems to associate with, even as harmonic rendering (or chemical constituency, in the case of taste) becomes more complex, and it's hard to overcome the limits of psycho-association, (is that a word?) I know when I hear a great new sound, my mind tends to relate it to something else I've heard, which means that I'm not experiencing something totally new and foreign. That's the power and at the same time weakness of a mind with lived experience.

 

I find though, that my way of getting value out of existing similar sounds is through effects. Which I guess in a way, is also changing a sound into something else.

 

 

[analogika]

2 hours ago, ElmerJFudd said:

Due to the cyclical nature of musical styles I believe we will at some point return to a preference for acoustic instruments and arrangements.  And the youth will reject the synthetic timbres of plugins and computerized music making. 

This sounds weird to me, because this already happened about fifteen years ago, and 25 years ago. It’s just that in the age of total accessibility of everything including virtually the entire back catalogue of the last 100 years, there was so much else going on that you didn’t notice unless you wanted to. 
 

But you had to be living under a rock to miss Jack Johnson (only the most well-known of countless artists running a similar program). Or the first few Ed Sheeran albums. 

[ElmerJFudd]

1 hour ago, analogika said:

This sounds weird to me, because this already happened about fifteen years ago, and 25 years ago. It’s just that in the age of total accessibility of everything including virtually the entire back catalogue of the last 100 years, there was so much else going on that you didn’t notice unless you wanted to. 
 

But you had to be living under a rock to miss Jack Johnson (only the most well-known of countless artists running a similar program). Or the first few Ed Sheeran albums. 

Perhaps that’s the issue - where in a market as saturated as music is, the trend has to be a tsunami and be adopted by the “mega stars” to define an era and be featured on VH1 Behind the Music.  Maybe there’s too much going on to even say a something was “the sound of the decade” ?  I’m just not sure.  

 

I didn’t actually envision acoustic guitar singer song writer when I used the word acoustic. But yes, that would qualify of course.  More so entire arrangements would ditch synths and plugins and automated fx, no auto-tune or audio quantizing.  No obvious use of tech.  Arrangements would be on acoustic pianos, acoustic guitars, violins, percussion, etc.  And vocal performances would revel in realness and minor imperfections would be cherished moments.  

[Dave Bryce]

Interesting topic to me, as I just got an Osmose. So far, it’s not really the uniqueness of the synth engine that I find intriguing as much as the way the (extremely expressive) keybed interfaces with the engine.

 

I actually can’t remember the last time I bought a synth for the uniqueness of its sounds.  Probably the Wavestation, and even that was kind of a combination of my older PPG 2.2 and Prophet VS.  

 

dB

[analogika]

50 minutes ago, ElmerJFudd said:

Perhaps that’s the issue - where in a market as saturated as music is, the trend has to be a tsunami and be adopted by the “mega stars” to define an era and be featured on VH1 Behind the Music.  Maybe there’s too much going on to even say a something was “the sound of the decade” ?  I’m just not sure.  

 

I didn’t actually envision acoustic guitar singer song writer when I used the word acoustic. But yes, that would qualify of course.  More so entire arrangements would ditch synths and plugins and automated fx, no auto-tune or audio quantizing.  No obvious use of tech.  Arrangements would be on acoustic pianos, acoustic guitars, violins, percussion, etc.  And vocal performances would revel in realness and minor imperfections would be cherished moments.  

A bunch of bands are all about that. Not just the overtly "retro" bands. 

[David Emm]

Overrated? That probably depends on how much you were wowed by the last Next Big Thing. That argument leads into the next. Exhausted? Do you mean like the piano and the electric guitar? Even a lot of synth players have bought into the idea that they can offer endless novelty, but its really about the endless flexibility. Its certainly welcome when a new patch gives me a thrill, but I usually find a sound that's in the general area and tweak it into shape. 

 

Its also about most of us using several kinds of synths, just as guitar players have several instruments that suit particular purposes. Its like FM, analog and sampling playing different roles in the band. Sampled strings good, sampled strings with analog under them far better.

 

So exhausted? That's dirty commie talk hereabouts, bucko!  

[ElmerJFudd]

1 hour ago, analogika said:

A bunch of bands are all about that. Not just the overtly "retro" bands. 

I think we are just looking at different charts and/or defining what a leading trend in pop looks like.  I don't see the “return to acoustic music I'm imagining might occur” in current pop charts hitting the widest audience.  What I do see is Doja Cat, SZA. Taylor Swift, Tate McRae, Smiley, Miley, Dua Lipa.  The top 40 continues to be very synthetic and heavily processed.  I do see an act, Elijah Woods, 24/7 365 that is sort of leaning away but the record has synths and autotune.  

I'm always open to hearing something good that I've missed though.  If you have some songs by acts that are truly a return to the most basic of music making on acoustic instruments, I would love to hear.  Even if they aren't leading a wave on chart topping pop (which typically is not my favorite music, though I am aware and notice it).  

[Tom Williams]

I don't think we've run out of sounds yet.

 

Okay, the 1970s claims of "infinite" and "any sound you can imagine" were somewhere between hyperbolic and just plain marketing fibs.  Not even Emerson's Moog modular could reproduce the sound of a Steinway playing F below middle C. 

 

But nowadays on workstations like my Kurzweil PC-3 and -4, we have so many options -- Three or four base APs (German, Japanese, some are adding Italian, and I'm still waiting for my American Baldwin); "Tine" and "Reed" EPs munged a dozen ways each, plus CP80 and maybe a pianet; Strings in half a dozen articulations, multiplied by tutti, divisi, and solo; and we have not even started on the number of preset subtractive and FM synth patches.

 

All of which is to say, we already have more timbres available than ever before in human history.

 

That said, I still enjoy making new sounds.  I remember spending weeks tweaking a completely synth-waved piano on my PX-5S, working out ways to make it as expressive as a sample-based voice while sporting an intentionally unnatural timbre.  More recently I started a similar project on my PC4 playing with basic sine-based FM timbres, expressly for the purpose of finding something unfamiliar that was still pleasing to the ear.

 

Add in the still-infant-stage MIDI 2 controllers and synths, and the opportunities for articulation and in-note expression, and I'd say that we're on the cusp of the next increase in variety.

 

All this can be countered (in the marketplace) by fad and fashion -- just look at how (understandably) obsessed this forum is with APs and clonewheel organs.

[Cliffk]

Interesting topic around sounds, authentic(?) and emulated. In response to @ElmerJFudd, I was watching a Leonard Bernstein documentary last night where he described his music for West Side Story as hip and funky. I scoffed.

 

But man, just from his and the producer’s playback sessions, he wasn’t wrong. What can be wrung out of traditional orchestral sounds and arrangements is jaw-dropping. At one point, the whole caboodle swung from symphonic movement into jazz combo feel. At that point even my wife looked up. 😄

[Tusker]

I've been pursuing sonic novelty in synthesizers for decades and so have an interest in this subject. I've utilized everything from sync, to fm to granular to resynthesis to modular. I've exhausted the tools and I too am exhausted. Have I been pursuing a phantom?

 

My current conclusion is similar to dB's. What makes a sound interesting is the interesting music we make with it. The musician's job is not to make sound. It's to make meaning from sound. But what is meaning? The principal channel through which humans understand meaning is story. And so every song is a story. Every solo is a story. Every melody, every rhythm, every harmonic progression has a journey. Will new sounds help me to tell ancient stories in new ways? Or help me to tell new stories?

 

Humans generally tell three kinds of stories. The cohesive (traditional) plot, the multi-plot and the anti-plot.

 

In music, the most traditional story is what most people want. It has a character (a melody usually, it can be a texture or a rhythm or some other unit of meaning) and the character goes through a journey. Often it returns home, transformed. Without transformation there is no story.

 

In the multi-plot, things are fragmented. This can be likened to cyclical musical styles where patterns co-exist and co-evolve. Examples are gamelan or multi-sequencer modular music or Steve Reich's minimalism. It can also be likened to repetitive patterns in art which have no central focus: artists like Klimt or Albers or Escher.

 

In the anti-plot, absurdity reverses the conventions and breaks the fundamental rules of story. True absurdity is rare in music. We do a deceptive cadence and are mightily pleased with that.

 

Music after all is among the most conservative of art forms. Despite the occasional revolution it aims primarily to comfort rather than to challenge. As you go from traditional to non-traditional story forms, your audiences decline. You'll see bigger crowds rolling up for Steve Perry than for Steve Reich.  Still, Brian Eno used a nontraditional story form and one little DX7 to create a small but dedicated fanbase didn't he? And he broadened our conception of what music can be. So there is room for novelty, if we couple it with imagination.

 

I am not suggesting we all make ambient music, only that we find new stories in sound. Synthesizers and their cousins are infinite relative to all other instruments which have ever existed. But whether that matters is up to us musicians and the stories we dare to make from them.

 

[ProfD]

22 hours ago, CyberGene said:

...aren't all possible sounds actually a limited set of general sound types...

Bingo. 

22 hours ago, CyberGene said:

....ultimately a collection of, say, 1000 patches would cover the entire spectrum.

It's a lot less.

22 hours ago, CyberGene said:

And it leads me to a common refrain by @ProfD about how the big manufacturers have been rehashing sounds on their romplers for ages. Well, yes, because what revolutionary new sounds there can be? 😉

Great to read the acknowledgement. 😁

 

My refrain isn't knock against manufacturers. Musicians expect to have a certain soundset especially in a ROMpler. 

18 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

I thought when people talked about rehashing the same rompler sounds, they meant they wished for better emulations of those same real-world instruments. 

Not in my case.

 

I don’t see the point in manufacturers putting a better or more realistic [insert instrument sound here] in a KB.

 

My challenge is for musicians to reimagine how they use sounds whether it's a traditional sound or synth or sample in a musically useful context. 

 

I already know the end result of any musically useful sound will still fall into a variation of the handful of sounds we've become accustomed to hearing.

 

Again, I think musicians like J3PO and Nick Semrad have the right approach to sound design in a musically useful context. 

 

I also believe the Osmose could potentially give a musician their own unique voice because like a brass or woodwind instrument it's all about how one plays it. 

 

Otherwise, IMO, KB manufacturers are mostly catering to preset-oriented musicians looking for incremental bumps in the same ole sounds and features and functionality of their existing KBs. 😎

[AnotherScott]

 

3 hours ago, ProfD said:

22 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

 

I thought when people talked about rehashing the same rompler sounds, they meant they wished for better emulations of those same real-world instruments. 

Not in my case.

 

I don’t see the point in manufacturers putting a better or more realistic [insert instrument sound here] in a KB.

 

 

Then I'd say you're not talking about rompler sounds, which are, by definition, recordings of real-world sounds, even if you can then manipulate/alter them.

 

 

[CyberGene]

5 minutes ago, AnotherScott said:

Then I'd say you're not talking about rompler sounds

Actually it was me who misquoted ProfD by using “rompler”, while in fact he’s usually referring to workstations that offer many types of synthesis, not just sample-based (which is what rompler implies). 

[ProfD]

2 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

Then I'd say you're not talking about rompler sounds, which are, by definition, recordings of real-world sounds, even if you can then manipulate/alter them.

I'm aboslutely referring to ROMplers/workstations because musicians want better synth and electromechanical and real world sounds in them.

 

I don't lnow how much better a flute sample can be but that's not keeping the next KB-playing Zamfir master of the pan flute from demanding that manufacturers deliver it in their next flagship KB.🤣😎

[uhoh7]

One thing I'm pretty sure of: in 2023 the endless sonic capabilities of acoustic instruments are far less appreciated than any sound coming out of a speaker. 

 

You guys know these synths way better than I ever will, though I'm learning more by playing. When I was researching the Osmose, I listened to Professor Haken talking about DSPs. He's been around quite awhile. His thoughts and other conversations I listen to have given me the impression, unqualified, that the meteoric rise of chip speed has benefited synth instruments less than other "users", but this may soon change. 

 

AI does not "run" on laptop processors very well. That's why Nvidia stock is so high. Those chips are totally different, and don't process sequentially, but simultaneously. ChatGPT etc has figured out (a bumpy path) how to leverage that to considerable effect. It can take huge reams of unorganized data and return results that sometimes are remarkable. Besides all the downsides LOL, it's given us one of the first new antibiotics in a very long time, recently. 

 

So "the future" may be: more articulate control (a la Osmose) + Nvidia style chipsets = richer sounding synths. Of course what we really need is improved reproduction---speaker technology has advanced less than anything, which is not to say they are not much improved. 

[Tusker]

1 hour ago, uhoh7 said:

One thing I'm pretty sure of: in 2023 the endless sonic capabilities of acoustic instruments are far less appreciated than any sound coming out of a speaker. 

 

100% agree that speakers are the weak link. The non-linearities in acoustic resonators (grand piano bodies, trumpet bells) grab the ear. Lavoix de luthier is doing some interesting stuff with his Onde and Pyramide and there is the granddaddy, the Leslie. In this video, Grégoire Blanc chooses to play the theremin through a Pyramide speaker because sometimes a box speaker won't do. Edmund Eagan's demonstration of the Onde is the most convincing for me. It may not be for everyone.

 

Maurice Martenot built two other resonant speakers: the Metalique has a gong resonator and the Palme has string resonators. These add even more character but are not in production as far as I know. Perhaps a little too much flavor?  

 

Perhaps someday ADSR's and LFO's will be routed to speakers to move baffles or drivers? Let's see what happens.

 

[Keyboardplayer]

The goal of music gear companies and in this case, ones that produce keyboards, should be to create instrument sounds that are on par with real instruments. A real Flute, a real Tenor Sax, a real Grand Piano and the list goes on. Give me realistic bread and butter sounds and also great synth sounds, and I'm a happy camper. And there's been a lot of progress just in the last 10 years or so. Remember the less than stellar ac. grand pianos on keyboards of yesteryear?

 

Acoustic instruments are getting better as time goes by. The Nord Stage 4 pianos are still a step above the rest in my opinion, but the Yamaha Montage M pianos are also very nice. But there's always room for improvement, and the companies that excel in their field will become even more popular, no doubt. The Genos2 sounds in some ways have also seen improvement. Yamaha basically cloned the DX7/FM sounds and put them in the Genos2, and they sound great, I have to admit. To express the sounds capabilities is partially vested in the quality of the keyboard's internal system. 32bit DACs, high quality reverb(s), OSC's, LFO's, DSP's, a full-fledged and seamless Operating System. But it all comes with a price. The Nord Stage 4 88 is roughly $6,000 and the Genos2 MAP is $5,699.99. Btw, the original Genos was selling for $5,999.99 up until just recently when Yamaha reduced the price a thousand bucks just prior to the launch of the Genos2. Exciting times we're living in, that's for sure. And NAMM 2024 is right around the corner. 👍     

[ProfD]

27 minutes ago, Keyboardplayer said:

The goal of music gear companies and in this case, ones that produce keyboards, should be to create instrument sounds that are on par with real instruments. A real Flute, a real Tenor Sax...

Interesting.

 

I can see KB manufacturers striving to provide better keyboard sounds.

 

I don't believe KB players should be hired to provide the most realistic flute and tenor sax sounds. If so, find another band.🤣

 

Otherwise, my recommendations would be to hire a flautist or saxophonist.😁

 

Composers use KB sounds to mock up orchestra parts but they usually replace them with real musicians.

 

Even if the goal is to be a one-man band or bang out jingles and film scores or mock up a whole band or orchestra using KBs...musicians have been getting results for decades with KB sounds available at the time.😎

[Mighty Motif Max]

4 hours ago, ProfD said:

Interesting.

 

I can see KB manufacturers striving to provide better keyboard sounds.

 

I don't believe KB players should be hired to provide the most realistic flute and tenor sax sounds. If so, find another band.🤣

 

Otherwise, my recommendations would be to hire a flautist or saxophonist.😁

 

Composers use KB sounds to mock up orchestra parts but they usually replace them with real musicians.

 

Even if the goal is to be a one-man band or bang out jingles and film scores or mock up a whole band or orchestra using KBs...musicians have been getting results for decades with KB sounds available at the time.😎

This always depends on the budget though, even on the composing side - hiring an orchestra can be very expensive, or even a solo wind player who plays at the level you need for your piece. If we're not realistic and want to hire a ton of live studio musicians, then we end up basically trying to offer flute players and saxophonists a bunch of those $50 gigs from that other recent thread . Or for live shows you get stuck with a bunch of tracks. I'd rather have a keyboardist cover brass and strings in a band than just have tracks and no keys player at all.

 

Broadway pit productions are a good example of this - it's more and more common to have a smaller group of woodwinds and acoustic instruments supplemented with multiple keyboardists than to have a full orchestra. If the budget doesn't allow, it doesn't allow.

[ProfD]

7 hours ago, Mighty Motif Max said:

This always depends on the budget though, even on the composing side...

 

Broadway pit productions are a good example of this....a smaller group of woodwinds and acoustic instruments supplemented with multiple keyboardists than to have a full orchestra.

True.

 

Budget is a very real consideration for most musical situations. Hence my last paragraph.

 

That's also why composers and Broadway pit music directors still use old Kurzweil KBs. The orchestral sounds are good enough.

 

Just ask our brotha @Dave Weiser if/when he plans to swap out KBs for the latest Montage.😁😎

[ABECK]

On 12/10/2023 at 9:02 AM, CyberGene said:

what revolutionary new sounds there can be? 😉

I say this every time a new overdrive pedal hits the market.