Has there really been much change in subtractive synthesis results in the past 30 years?

[ABECK]

I’ve gone down a few rabbit holes on YouTube lately, watching demo vids of older keyboards (Old meaning 1990 -2010 ish).  Keyboards like the Triton Extreme, O1/W Pro, EX5/7, Oasys, Roland Fantoms, V-Synth, JV Modules, K2000 family, et al…..

Many of those boards still have fantastic sounds.  So I’m wondering, in the digital space (e.g. not VA, Analog, or re-creations), have we long since topped out on what can be done with Subtractive and FM synthesis?  (That includes incorporating samples and rom based elements.) 

Advances in tech and design have certainly yielded myriad improvements, like increased storage space,  faster processors, smaller components, lighter form factors, more tactile controls, etc… But is the sound THAT much better?  For instance, in the vids above, there were examples from each that still sound as good today as they did when they were originally released. 

As I write this, I have to admit, as far as Electro Mechanical (Rhodes, Wurli, Acoustic Piano, Hammond) the sound has definitely improved.  In the context of subtractive synthesis, I would attribute that to increased memory for better sample sets. 

Maybe I’m just wondering if there’s still a place in this world for those older boards.  Maybe I’m just rambling.  Anyone feel me here?

[ProfD]

The short answer to the thread title is...NOPE.😁

34 minutes ago, ABECK said:

Many of those boards still have fantastic sounds.  So I’m wondering, in the digital space (e.g. not VA, Analog, or re-creations), have we long since topped out on what can be done with Subtractive and FM synthesis?  (That includes incorporating samples and rom based elements.) 

IMO, and as evidenced by every new KB released, we topped out a long time ago on subtractive and FM synthesis. 

 

Manufacturers are stuffing boxes (KBs) with the same old sounds we've been using for decades now.

34 minutes ago, ABECK said:

Advances in tech and design have certainly yielded myriad improvements, like increased storage space,  faster processors, smaller components, lighter form factors, more tactile controls, etc… But is the sound THAT much better?

Not really.  Depends on how the sound(s) is being utilized, monitored and mixed.  

34 minutes ago, ABECK said:

As I write this, I have to admit, as far as Electro Mechanical (Rhodes, Wurli, Acoustic Piano, Hammond) the sound has definitely improved.  In the context of subtractive synthesis, I would attribute that to increased memory for better sample sets. 

IMO, all sounds have benefitted from better sample sets and increased storage. 

 

However, a musician can extract gold from any KB manufactured over the past several decades.

34 minutes ago, ABECK said:

Maybe I’m just wondering if there’s still a place in this world for those older boards. 

There's certainly a place for those older KBs.  They are still being heavily used in studios and other countries too. 

 

1st world people have the luxury of upgrading to the latest KB manufactured.  Fortunately, that KB contains every sound from the last KB. 

 

There's a planet full of people who have to use those *old* KBs folks have tossed aside for the latest KB filled with the exact same thing.

 

Otherwise, we have been playing some iteration of the same sounds for about 3 decades and counting.😎

[johnchop]

I bought a Virus TI2 desktop a little over a year ago.

 

The tech in that box is circa 2009.

 

Sounds amazing to me, even though there’s aliasing with higher frequencies. 

 

I can’t think of a recent hardware synth that attempts to best what it offered in terms of multitimbrality, hands-on control (such that it was), and oscillator variety. Maybe the Iridium.
 

[Shamanzarek]

When somewhat smaller more affordable polyphonic synths came along in the early 80s my stage setup consisted of a Hammond C3/Leslie 122(Vox Super Continental for some gigs), Wurlitzer 200A, ARP Omni 2, and Sequential Pro-One. I then added a Roland Jupiter 6, Oberheim OB8, kept the Pro-One and stopped using the rest. At the time it looked like synths were the future of music with many keyboard players going to all synths and ditching the old keyboards. For the last 30 years I have been back to more of a vintage approach either using the real deal or modern replacements for those sounds. I don't use real synths on stage anymore only having occasional use for those sounds. My biggest regret is getting rid of the Wurlie.

[Stokely]

Fact is, the stuff I play live is "vintage" anyway...so new avante garde sounds/synthesis types would be of little use to me there.

For home, I'm all software and there are a ton of fun and different options to go with the more normal Divas of the world     I still manage to use Diva and Repro a ton, guess I'm vintage at heart!  (Hopefully my heart is not too vintage, need to get to the doc this reminds me....).   The effects possibilities are what really opens things up IMO....just with Logic's stock Phat and Step FX, you could change any synth sound into something unrecognizable.  There was nothing comparable (that I ever got to use anyway) back in the 80s....maybe some chain of various rack mount units just for that but even there, you would have had some work to do to get the timing-based effects happening.

[ABECK]

20 minutes ago, Stokely said:

 The effects possibilities are what really opens things up IMO....just with Logic's stock Phat and Step FX, you could change any synth sound into something unrecognizable.  There was nothing comparable (that I ever got to use anyway) back in the 80s....maybe some chain of various rack mount units just for that but even there, you would have had some work to do to get the timing-based effects happening.

Good point.  The quality of FX options has increased quite a bit.

[ProfD]

6 minutes ago, ABECK said:

The quality of FX options has increased quite a bit.

Here is a secret...a huge part of sound design is manipulating FX. 

 

The best way to freshen up *old* KBs and sounds is experimenting with FX.😎

[My Keys And Me Are Vintage]

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

Here is a secret...a huge part of sound design is manipulating FX. 

 

The best way to freshen up *old* KBs and sounds is experimenting with FX.😎

That’s a lesson I wish I had learned a couple decades ago! Not too long ago, I replaced some otherwise great old gear with new stuff that had built-in effects, which was such a big deal to me. But good outboard effects were expensive in the 80s! Had to make pseudo echoes and use envelopes wisely. I recently paired a Source Audio Nemesis delay unit to an Ensoniq SQ-80 and I can’t leave the thing alone now!

[AROIOS]

7 hours ago, ABECK said:

...Maybe I’m just wondering if there’s still a place in this world for those older boards.  Maybe I’m just rambling.  Anyone feel me here?...

It depends on the type of sound we're after.
 

One of the most important insights in Rompler/Sampler development was the importance of the "Attack" to our perception of most sounds.
 

This is particularly applicable to "percussive sounds", such as bells, drums, pianos, where 1) the players have little control over the sound past the Attack stage; 2) there's little complexity in the DSR stages of the sound (some would ague that not being the case with pianos, but that's a whole another discussion). This type of sounds weren't limited much by the cost of digital memory chips back in the day, and clever designers used to create lots of good patches in this category.
 

In contrast, there are "expressive sounds", like that of the string and wind instruments, where 1) the player have tons of control past the Attack; 2) the sound evolves in complex ways during the DSR stages. While 1) can be partly replicated with various controls, 2) was hard and often impossible to emulate with only the tricks afforded by subtractive synthesis and looping.
 

Then there's "analog sounds", where one cycle of sampling is all we need, and the rest of the sound depends on the same ole subtractive circuitry of filters and oscillators. So they are similar to "percussive sounds", in that even 80's tech was plenty enough. (again, analog connoisseurs would beg to differ, but that's for another discussion)
 

Predictably, "percussive sounds" and "analog sounds" in Rompler/Samplers peaked decades ago, and it's mostly "expressive sounds" that have been making strides during that time.
 

This realization helps set my expectations properly when it comes to sound design. I'm constantly creating interesting "percussive sounds" with decades-old synths, but won't be silly enough to design solo trumpet or violin sounds on them.

[AROIOS]

Also, when it comes to fattening sounds, besides the importance of FXs folks already mentioned above, I can't stress enough the value we can get out of stacking/layering.

Some of the most iconic 80's/90's sounds were results of clever layering. And I absolutely LOVE the magic of a tasty layered sound that simply can't be predicted from its individual parts. This is an area where one plus one often equals more than two.

[Tusker]

In addition to effects, perhaps a couple of areas of improvement have been in articulation switching and round robins? The former has been an effective sample based alternative to physical modeling. The latter make it possible to play repeated notes without them sounding mechanical. 

 

If you allow the consideration of wavetable synthesis, there has been a lot of development of dsp around waveforms (granular, re-synthesis, etc.)

 

I think digital filters have also come a very long way. During the early digital period it was not easy to find a resonant filter.

[CHarrell]

I still think we've barely entered the golden age of FM. Sure, the DX and SY were mega-sellers in their time, but that was more because they created more "realistic" sounds than subtractive and were relatively affordable compared to the Fairlights and Synclaviers of the time. 

 

About ten years ago, I predicted that FM synths would enter a surgence of popularity, purely for their merit of being an FM synth, and now the options out there are blossoming. I've been seeing Korg get a bad rap on here lately for its "Raspberry Pi toys", but the Opsix is an absolute marvel of design (not counting the abysmally flimsy build of the OG unit) and I'm excited to see what further twists synth designers and developers will add to a form of synthesis inherently built on adding to possibilities. 

[AROIOS]

23 minutes ago, CHarrell said:

..Korg get a bad rap on here lately for its "Raspberry Pi toys"...

For folks who think that, imagine their surprise seeing a cheapo Intel Atom inside KRONOS! 😆

[Chummy]

Here's a hot take: I'm no longer aroused by the "classic" analog / subtractive synthesis. I have, like many of you, played both modern boards and the vintage analogs (Jupiter / MS-20 / Korg Poly etc.) so I am familiar with how they sound and work.

 

Funny story: ~8 years ago I went to a local music shop, I was in my early 20s. Turns out the keyboard rep, an older guy doesn't even own any keys anymore. He told me gone are the days when he messed with synths and workstations, now it's only about the piano for him. At the time I used to be obssessed about synths and sounds, 70-80s music, programming and playing the exact parts etc. so I couldn't believe the guy, or that it would ever happen to me. But it did. Acoustic piano first for me ALWAYS, always. FM synths second, Hammond organ - 3rd.

 

I just like how in the DX7 for example, the velocity responds to the "filter" (I mean the FM modulator output or whatever it was called), how the complex envelopes could create LIVING, breathing sounds like brass swelling on and off, electric piano bells with tails, and aggressive, plucked, stingy sounds that would have the "thang", super sharp, super versatile envelopes... coupled with external FX which are a must, I found the DX7 mark II far , far , far more musical to the extent that I even sold my Jupiter-6 a couple of years ago because it didn't do it for me (I did sell my DX7 eventually too but I've got my sounds saved). And I'm not interested in buying any other modern or vintage subtractive analog... no matter how 'Fat' or 'Warm' it sounds.

[CHarrell]

52 minutes ago, Chummy said:

FM synths second,

 

I've been thinking about adding an FM synth to my live rig, do you have any recommendations? The Opsix, as I said earlier, has a great sound and interface that's pretty conducive to live work, but that keyboard is just so shoddily built, mine actually broke when opening it out of the shipping box! Korg graciously refunded it, but I didn't want to take a chance on another one.

[ProfD]

 

1 hour ago, Chummy said:

Turns out the keyboard rep, an older guy doesn't even own any keys anymore. He told me gone are the days when he messed with synths and workstations, now it's only about the piano for him....I couldn't believe the guy, or that it would ever happen to me. But it did. Acoustic piano first for me ALWAYS, always. 

 

I found the DX7 mark II far , far , far more musical....

Same here. Except mine is Rhodes. 

 

I'll always have a spot for the DX7 and FM synthesis too because any musically useful sound can be created with it.😎

[The Real MC]

10 hours ago, ABECK said:

Maybe I’m just wondering if there’s still a place in this world for those older boards.  Maybe I’m just rambling.  Anyone feel me here?

 

As a seasoned sound designer with subtractive synthesis, yes there's still a place.  And I've been programming analog synths since 1981.

Frankly, YT is a poor measure of potential of synths.  In my educated observation, few YT reviews wander beyond presets or beginners' skill in programming.  Yawn.

The standard polysynth architecture of VCO->VCF->VCA with ADSR EGs and master LFO are only going to take you so far.  My real breakout of analog synthesis was the Memorymoog I have owned since 1986.  The voice modulation feature of the MM opened up a broad palette of sounds not possible on the standard architecture.  Cross modulation, using filter EG to modulate PW and/or pitch of VCO1 and/or VCO2, using VCO3 as an LFO per voice, using filter EG to vary the VCO3/LFO modulation depth per voice, inverting any of those modulations.  I've gotten a LOT of mileage from that feature alone.

Similar breakout with my Andromeda.  The voice modulation features are deep and rich.  Add dual VCFs that can be parallel or serial, three 6-stage EGs that can loop and offer multiple slopes for each transient stage (linear, three exponential, three log, "S" curve, others).  Way many other features that no hardware analog synth has matched since.  I have gotten sounds using voice modulations on the Andromeda that you would never guess were from an analog synth.
 

A forum member on the Moog Music discussion site asked if VCO3 on a Minimoog can be switched to "LO" octave and used as an LFO, then what use is there for VCO1 and VCO2 in "LO" position...?  After some exploring I could get hearty belches, acid indigestion, boiling wicked witches caldron, heartbeats, bubbles in the river of molten wax at the diabolical villain's lair, even flatulence noises (farts).  All on the simple Minimoog.

If someone complains "is that all there is to analog", then they're not trying hard enough.

[J.F.N.]

The Roland D50 was imho an interesting evolution of the usage of subtractive synthesis, I have spent a lot of time hanging over that two row display, and quirky page navigation...

 

https://www.muzines.co.uk/articles/l-a-synthesis-what-is-it/1975

[The Real MC]

A fair argument would be "is that all there is to analog filters?"

We've made music using VCFs offered by the Moog ladder filter, the Oberheim SEM multimode filter, the ARP 4012/4023/403x/407x, the Roland/Korg/Yamaha/SSM/CEM variants, etc...  all products of the 1970s.  What new filter designs have emerged since then?  Not many, and those haven't found wide acceptance.  Sure there's the Polyfusion and Steiner VCFs but how many have heard those?  Virtual and digital VCFs were emulations of the vintage VCFs, adding a few that have already been done.  So.... what's new?

I got the Intellijel Cascadia a few months ago:
 

 

I wanted a compact semi-modular that was unlike the vintage Moogs/Oberheims/ARPs in my arsenal, without being redundant.  And boy is this unique.  Besides the digital EGs (which are excellent), everything is analog.  The primary VCF is a brand new design not yet offered in an Intellijel module.  It sounds DIFFERENT from the usual legacy filter architectures... and I like it that way.  

 

There's a new sound here, and the modulation options offered are... SICK.  Even the mild appearance of ENV B belies its power as a modulator.  Add that to normaled patching that allows you to alter the audio path of the normaled VCO->VCF->VCA architecture (and most "semi-modulars" don't offer that) and you're in another dimension.  Standard VCO->VCF->VCA synth leads?  Basses?  Synth Percussion?  Noise FX?  Sure, but... FORGET THEM.  Start patching and tweaking that new sounding filter, and you've made the breakout beyond "is that all there is to analog?"

I'm not going to go into all the features of the Cascadia, suffice to say there's more to analog with this box.  Other new devices like the Arturia PolyBrute also offer a lot of potential.  So...GET PATCHING!

[Chummy]

15 hours ago, CHarrell said:

 

I've been thinking about adding an FM synth to my live rig, do you have any recommendations? The Opsix, as I said earlier, has a great sound and interface that's pretty conducive to live work, but that keyboard is just so shoddily built, mine actually broke when opening it out of the shipping box! Korg graciously refunded it, but I didn't want to take a chance on another one.

Yeah the Opsix keyboard sucks.. honestly, these are options your should consider:

 

1) the MODX+8 as a bottom board, the Yamaha GHS action is not bad. Nowhere near as awful as the 6 and 7 MODX. It has the best FM engine as far as I am concerned and can load old DX7 sysex data... with loads of effects applied. It's a gigging player's dream.

 

2) Korg volca keys mark 2: if you don't have pianstic requirements , 6 voices of polyphony should be enough.. just hook it up to one of your boards. It can also load DX7 data if it matter to you and you can do the important editing in software. Very lightweight you won't feel it.

 

Perhaps I've missed something. I know the digitakt or some similar Swedish model has FM in it, but it's not my cup of tea. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with a vintage DX synth or a Montage (the latter too heavy for frequent gigs IMO)

[CHarrell]

18 minutes ago, Chummy said:

Yeah the Opsix keyboard sucks.. honestly, these are options your should consider:

 

1) the MODX+8 as a bottom board, the Yamaha GHS action is not bad. Nowhere near as awful as the 6 and 7 MODX. It has the best FM engine as far as I am concerned and can load old DX7 sysex data... with loads of effects applied. It's a gigging player's dream.

 

2) Korg volca keys mark 2: if you don't have pianstic requirements , 6 voices of polyphony should be enough.. just hook it up to one of your boards. It can also load DX7 data if it matter to you and you can do the important editing in software. Very lightweight you won't feel it.

 

Perhaps I've missed something. I know the digitakt or some similar Swedish model has FM in it, but it's not my cup of tea. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with a vintage DX synth or a Montage (the latter too heavy for frequent gigs IMO)

 

Thanks! Reluctant as I am to consider mini-keys, have you tried the Reface DX? I'm also potentially open to using an iPad app if there's a good one out there.

[time4jazz]

26 minutes ago, Chummy said:

Yeah the Opsix keyboard sucks.. honestly, these are options your should consider:

 

1) the MODX+8 as a bottom board, the Yamaha GHS action is not bad. Nowhere near as awful as the 6 and 7 MODX. It has the best FM engine as far as I am concerned and can load old DX7 sysex data... with loads of effects applied. It's a gigging player's dream.

 

2) Korg volca keys mark 2: if you don't have pianstic requirements , 6 voices of polyphony should be enough.. just hook it up to one of your boards. It can also load DX7 data if it matter to you and you can do the important editing in software. Very lightweight you won't feel it.

 

Perhaps I've missed something. I know the digitakt or some similar Swedish model has FM in it, but it's not my cup of tea. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with a vintage DX synth or a Montage (the latter too heavy for frequent gigs IMO)

I don’t have one, but I think the Kurzweil PC4 keyboards have an FM engine with the ability to load FM SysEx files. 

[ProfD]

43 minutes ago, Chummy said:

1) the MODX+8 as a bottom board, the Yamaha GHS action is not bad. Nowhere near as awful as the 6 and 7 MODX. It has the best FM engine as far as I am concerned and can load old DX7 sysex data... with loads of effects applied. It's a gigging player's dream.

Esxcellent for capturing FM in a modern KB.

43 minutes ago, Chummy said:

2) Korg volca keys mark 2: if you don't have pianstic requirements , 6 voices of polyphony should be enough.. just hook it up to one of your boards. It can also load DX7 data if it matter to you and you can do the important editing in software. Very lightweight you won't feel it.

Most cost effective way of adding FM flavor to a KB rig.

43 minutes ago, Chummy said:

Perhaps I've missed something. I know the digitakt or some similar Swedish model has FM in it, but it's not my cup of tea. 

It's an Elektron Digitone. 😎

[Tusker]

16 hours ago, The Real MC said:

I got the Intellijel Cascadia a few months ago:

 

Fantastic! That's a great looking machine.

 

17 hours ago, The Real MC said:

 What new filter designs have emerged since then?  Not many, and those haven't found wide acceptance. 

 

Personally, I am excited by the new comb filters and modal filters that are popping up everywhere. Like this one:

 

 

 

 

 

[David Emm]

21 hours ago, J.F.N. said:

The Roland D50 was imho an interesting evolution of the usage of subtractive synthesis, I have spent a lot of time hanging over that two row display, and quirky page navigation...

https://www.muzines.co.uk/articles/l-a-synthesis-what-is-it/1975

 

I missed the D50 train a couple of times, but the Cloud version includes the PG-1000 programmer. I still find it a bit squirrely in use, but it does all the right tricks. It almost felt like wrestling with fidgety FM operators until I got a better handle on it. No 2-line display woe, hurray! Instead, its WYSIWYG as a softsynth. Its age acknowledged, the D50 contains pretty much every synth from the family at the time. I've been amazed at the depth. I don't feel the need for added Junos or Jupiters. I might make an exception for the TAL-Pha Juno, as my old Juno-1 loved me long time.

 

The Minimoog was my first synth in a colorful range of early analogs and grainy digitals. The change hasn't been in the method; its been in the improved execution. When it gets so good that you have to ADD instability as a vintage effect, you've pretty well arrived at relative perfection. Even a simple spring reverb or bucket brigade delay doubles your synth's power, so where's the line when you have two effects chains in a Prophet-6? I find it wild that you can have 5 rings of synths, each dedicated to one method or another. Its more about the evolution of Everything.

[David Emm]

7 hours ago, Chummy said:

Yeah the Opsix keyboard sucks.. honestly, these are options your should consider:

 

If I was still a hardware player, I'd be happy to see that trio available as modules, for a couple hundred less. Taking a crap keyboard out of the equation notably improves things. Never mind the detractors. Those are some of the smartest designs Korg has ever offered. The Opsix makes FM downright analog-friendly. The Wavestate brings the obtuse Wavestation into the realm of real playability. Besides, almost everything these days has some surprising analog-type patches among the banks of digitals. Would you prefer your analog with sprinkles or your sprinkles with just a dab of analog? 

[CEB]

30 years… Subtractive synthesis sound generation is still subtractive synthesis. The sound generation is still the same principles.  But the way you apply the sounds in a performance has absolutely exploded in additional possibilities.   My little humble hardware rig I can send 32 internal and 32 external zones using any number of different sound generation methods to the keys sub mix.  The limitations is resources.  FX is completely unrecognizable from what we did 30 years ago.   I could go in to this but hell I don’t know anything. 

[David Emm]

2 hours ago, CEB said:

 >>> FX is completely unrecognizable from what we did 30 years ago.

 

True. I all but wore a Boss DSD-2 Sampling Delay pedal around my neck like a magic amulet for a while. Now, my FX rack impresses Zeus. 

 

 >>>  I could go in to this but hell I don’t know anything. 

 

Then you're doing better than you think. I'm sure I'm cross-breeding Samuel Clemens and Ezra Pound somehow, but there's an observation that by the time you reach 50, you realize you've been an idiot, but by 70, you realize that in fact, what you've actually been is a moron. That's when you can really take off spiritually, but a month later, you stroke out and your dog eats you. Oh well, that's Zen 4th of July for you.

 

[GovernorSilver]

On 6/27/2024 at 8:30 PM, CHarrell said:

 

I've been thinking about adding an FM synth to my live rig, do you have any recommendations? The Opsix, as I said earlier, has a great sound and interface that's pretty conducive to live work, but that keyboard is just so shoddily built, mine actually broke when opening it out of the shipping box! Korg graciously refunded it, but I didn't want to take a chance on another one.

 

Opsix Module.  MIDI it to your keyboard of choice

https://www.korg.com/us/products/synthesizers/opsix_module/

[Tusker]

On 6/27/2024 at 10:10 AM, ABECK said:

I’ve gone down a few rabbit holes on YouTube lately, watching demo vids of older keyboards (Old meaning 1990 -2010 ish).  Keyboards like the Triton Extreme, O1/W Pro, EX5/7, Oasys, Roland Fantoms, V-Synth, JV Modules, K2000 family, et al…..

Many of those boards still have fantastic sounds.  So I’m wondering, in the digital space (e.g. not VA, Analog, or re-creations), have we long since topped out on what can be done with Subtractive and FM synthesis?  (That includes incorporating samples and rom based elements.) 

Advances in tech and design have certainly yielded myriad improvements, like increased storage space,  faster processors, smaller components, lighter form factors, more tactile controls, etc… But is the sound THAT much better?  For instance, in the vids above, there were examples from each that still sound as good today as they did when they were originally released. 

As I write this, I have to admit, as far as Electro Mechanical (Rhodes, Wurli, Acoustic Piano, Hammond) the sound has definitely improved.  In the context of subtractive synthesis, I would attribute that to increased memory for better sample sets. 

Maybe I’m just wondering if there’s still a place in this world for those older boards.  Maybe I’m just rambling.  Anyone feel me here?

 

Are you looking for "better" sounds or "different" sounds? Or maybe you are looking for both? I can relate to your dissatisfaction.

 

The 1990-2010-ish boards were good enough to appear on professional tracks, right? So they got to define those particular sounds. Enya's Orinoco Flow (Sail Away), used the Pizzagogo preset from the D50. The VST version of the D50 doesn't try to improve the sound. Why bother?

 

Maybe the issue is not tech but culture? Those early synths like the D50 didn't even enough memory to recreate the entire sound ... but we managed to archive 40,000 years of instruments (including bone flutes!). Now it's hard to add more sounds without them sounding silly, or weird or fake. You might remember that "tweoo" sound on You can ring My Bell. Creative but cringy. But traditional sounds don't get dissed that way. Nobody objects to string pads.

 

I love the noise-through-a-filter whistle that Tomita creates. It sounds familiar but also alien. It makes me feel that synths still have something good (and unfamiliar) to say.