My 20 years old kurzweil k2661 able to layer till 32 timbres, each with their own LFOs, 3 multistage loopable ENVs, free run or triggered function generators, and FX with such crazy quality with customizable signal path, nd complex signal processing per-layer including filters of every type and all pass to manipulate phases...THAT WAS A REAL MACHINE Today we have 1000x more powerful microprocessors/asics/FPGAs but their power is just not used, because...if only one of the brands start to use it, we will have only one product per Brand doing all what we need...we are asked to pay the same price for something more limited than what we had in the past just because these brands are way too huge and if money are not circulating, the brand and the segment will just die
By the time I got a Blofeld (late 2020), I noticed all the videos about it were along the lines of "is there any life left in this old thing?" It's really discouraging to encounter that attitude over and over. The thing is brand new to me, not some retro relic.
As Jexus/WC Olo Garb from Poland says, "It's not what the synthesizer can do for a man but what a man can do with a synthesizer". I've come to really appreciate that guy. Some of his experimentations are a little off the wall if not brash and annoying... But some are truly wild and inspired spontaneous and impressive pieces of work. And they are done with all kinds of sense ranging from stuff that's almost 50 years old right up until the most modern cutting edge ones. I always got to laugh at how during the height of the Nord Lead's Fame, Jexus just about pissed on it according to his review. He was not terribly impressed with the synth that everyone else was bragging about! People who worry about how obsolete or not a synthesizer is are people who are simply swept along by the music industry and all of them doctrination of what the latest thing should sound like. I've heard some modern synthesizers that I was not impressed with at all and they were not cheap either. Get some people can take an old Casio for entry level Yamaha, and run it through some analog effects and come up with a beautiful ethereal symphony that has you on the edge of your seat. I dont take what these "progressive" people say seriously. Every time they declare one synthesizer obsolete and are religiously trying to promote the latest technology, they are merely covering at their own failure to get the best out of any machine they've ever worked with. Posers and techno-slaves with little real inherent musicianship or ability to draw inspiration out of thin air. They completely depend on some new gimmick in order to sound different. After everybody else starts using it then they toss it away and go to the next thing... Again trying to cover for their failures.
@@femto859 2 of the pots died on my blofeld, and a 3rd was on the way out ofter 6 months. It would randomly hard crash and restart. It would would randomly drop notes. It wouldnt hold sync to midi, as slave or master. Garbage. I'm not saying a Snow is cheap, or easier to program - it's about the same. But its a Pro unit. Built to last
Korg Wavestate is 4 part multi timbral and you can assign a different MIDI channel to each part. The Joystick allows to cross fade between the parts which can also be automated as a "path".
The Blofeld has 16 Parts. You can Layer or split until 16 different Instruments in Multi Mode. And, you can set every Multi Part to a different Midi Channel. Or, for a big fat Sound, set all to Channel 1 😉
I think the reason is largely that the focus of external equipment has changed. While in the 90s they were mostly sound sources it would not fly anymore since plug-ins are just quicker to use and sound better most of the time. So they focus on immediacy and ease of use. You can arguably dial in the "perfect tone" quicker on a knob per function analog synth. And multi-timbrality (and even presets) obscure this to a large extent. Since you are not sure anymore that the positions of the knobs correspond to anything in the sound.
Agreed. The main purpose of hardware synths these days is the interface. I have a Blofeld. I got it because it's multitimbral, cheap, small, and sounds okay. But I ended up kinda regretting it, because it turns out I don't really need to record more than one timbre at a time. What I need instead is a good interface for patch creation and performance expression... which the Blofeld doesn't have. It's mostly just three knobs and a very long menu. Multitimbrality in a hardware synth just doesn't matter much any more. It was huge in the past, but the set of people who need that feature in modern times is vanishingly small, mostly limited to only dawless synth geeks who _don't_ have a ton of hardware. I later ended up getting a Pro 3, and I've been very happy with it. It's like the opposite of a Blofeld, and it's fantastic. But I'd still like to find a use for the Blofeld's many timbres. So I'm thinking about writing a procedural song generator which spits out several channels worth of midi, similar to a NDLR but deeper and more automatic.
I disagree I just used a friends modx and korg ms 3000[?] . I came out power on to finished track in 20 min like my when I just use logic or Maschine plus whatever DAW I feel like using. Speed and efficiency is more on how you know your gear and what speaks to you..
@@lionelluney3063 what are you even replying to? Also you didn't finish a track in 20min. Not in any meaningful way anyway. That's how long it takes to master a track.
but with endless encoders it doesnt really matter to change them and you can use mystery island editor/Patchbase to show where everything is at - if you really intend to open an old project
Yep, I've always said the Blofeld is one of the most underrated synths. All of my Ensoniq synths back in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s were multitimbral, so the Blofeld was a blessing (especially considering it is still available today!) I miss my Blofeld terribly; the only reason I sold it was because I moved into Eurorack for my live performances (previously I was using 8 parts of the Blofeld being sequenced by the Elektron Octatrack... such a powerful performance combination!) and soundwise, I already also have the Waldorf Micro Q, the Waldorf XTk, and the Waldorf Quantum, so got all of those sounds covered. Still, I might want to get a Blofeld again just because it was so convenient for live performances.
Also regarding the whole "Analog vs. Digital" thing, which is such a stupid argument, usually from people new to the synth world; a really good Analog synth is great at being/sounding Analog. A good Digital synth is great at doing all of the things that Analog can't do, e.g. Wavetable synthesis, Physical Modeling, Granular Synthesis, Formant synthesis, Spectral synthesis, etc.
@thegoodbighornowlshepherd405 ok... though I don't know what any of that has to do with my comments but, if you wanted to post an overly verbose dissertation on the relation of human to sound, you could have posted that as its own comment to the video, yes? Otherwise it doesn't address any of my points and it [what you wrote] just looks like the ramblings of a madman.
Coffee is one of the most complex foods. It contains ~1200 molecular components. The problem with any paper filter is that, while removing the "harsh" components, it also removes some of the most flavorful ones. The end result is a smooth but less flavorful experience. Baby with the bathwater.
Correction: the Bofeld IS INDEED a VA (Virtual Analog) synth, as well as a WaveTable synth, and also a sample-playback and an FM synth. Beyond this single misstatement I noticed, a pretty good video and I agree with most of what you assert about how stupid it is that so many synths are Not multitimbral.
Here's what analog has to offer: It's the sound. It sounds different. That doesn't mean it's better or worse, a particular sound is only better if you like it more than others at the time. I hear ppl say plugins have it nailed. No, no they don't. I have a rediculous number of plugins. V collection 8, Roland Cloud Ultimate, Komplete 13, CA Voltage etc, hundreds more. No i don't own Diva, but I've heard all the demos and no cigar, sorry. I seriously don't understand how some ppl say they can't hear the difference. You know what? I'm glad VA sounds different. I have a room full of analog synthesizers, I have an an entire shopping mall full of VA software synthesizers and I like them too, and use them plenty when I could use an analog. I don't always want a track to sound like an analog synth. You might say, wait a second, not all analogs sound the same. Nope, no they don't but I can hear that they are analog and sometimes I don't want it on a track. I don't want to debate that, I just do hear it. I also guarantee you Behringer is not selling those very limited monophonic synths by the shipload because they sound the same or because ppl buy into buzzwords. I feel like you haven't owned an analog synth probably. Get your hands on a Behringer Model D, otherwise known as a BOOG, then get a plugin to sound like that. If it's a good plugin the character will be there, but it will just not be the same thing. If you want more complex, go for an Odyssey or 2600, but the thing about trying a Boog is that it's just the simplest sounds, and you can't say it's the complexity of the patch making it sound so different. I could see how you're sick of how many analog style plugins come out with analog styled limitations, but you know of course many don't. Pigments, Synthmaster, Vital, Voltage, sure don't have those limitations. The reason why with hardwarare synths analog is a big deal, is that all digital can be had in a plugin. They know that's their competition and also why I don't buy new digital hardware synths. I have quite a few vintage ones, and those do manage to sound different to plugins, and or you can get them very cheap and that's just fun. I put a like because I subscribe to your videos and appreciate your time and effort I of course get some knowledge/opinions and enjoy your delivery.... even though I disagree with most of what you said in this one lol. I appreciate opinions and respect you taking the time to express yours. Mine is, I could care less about multimbrality. If it's going to be your only hardware synth I guess, to not have to re-edit midi tracks before commiting to audio or making layers, but I'm generally fine with just recording tracks one at a time or using multiple synths in a multitimbral way. In the 90's I cared about a synth or rompler/sampler being multimbral, but with how plentiful synths and audio tracks are I havent used anything multimbrally except my Electribe 2 in over 20 years.
Let's break down the reality of what this cat is saying with a sum. Analog sounds better LIVE. If you put an analog synth thru a mixer then to a PA(moderately loud to fucking loud, mind you), you will need a hanky. The second you record it digitally, that magic is literally deleted(and it will sound just like a plugin). The human vagina is similar. I am a recovering 'hardware or die' cat. Even in that niche dichotomy there was another split, 'analog or die' or 'whatever I can afford'. Analog is now affordable. So yes analog sounds better live, I would testify to this in a congressional court. If the prosecutor then asked what my 3 favourite 'go to' synths were, I would say: Yamaha AN1X, Dsi Evolver, Alesis Ion engine(Ion/micron/miniak). I love my ultranova and my blofeld for their versatility. I am almost tempted to say an analog synth is like a jeep that likes mud. But that environment doesn't exist in urban/suburban areas. There are games where you can drive a virtual jeep in digital mud and it's...fun, but not the same experience. Notice this is not a question of better, it's difference.
@@gossamyr This is NOT what I'm saying. A digital recording does a fine job of reproducing an analog synth and doesn't, as you say, make it sound like a plugin. Also all the hardware synths you mentioned are digital.
@@housebandthexenos2569 Well the evolver is both, but yeah digital synths. I have 6 analogs but I was detailing my go to's, not analogs. I disagree with digital being the same. Even when I use a crappy fostex cassette 4 track, it sounds fuller than a digital recording to me. I can't afford to record on 2" tape though, so I have to record digital currently to be efficient. Most probably won't notice much of a difference, though...
@@gossamyr i dont have much experience with R2R but i kind of draw the line there. Its alot of extra work and expense on something thats not music making, and thats coming from someone with a 56 channel analog console and racks full of good comps and eqs. I own a Tascam 38 8 track R2R for 2 years and I havent used it even once. There are lots of ways analog or digital can be better, and many things that can be analog or digital. One things for certain, at least to me, analog things sound different than digital things and anyone who says different, is not good at listening or lying for an agenda. I do think the end listners hear it too, they dont know what it is or care what makes it sound that way, they just know if they like the music and sound or not.
@@gossamyr "Analog sounds better LIVE." That's 100% in your mind only, this difference does not exist in a live venue. Any of us keyboardists that know sound design and wield an FA-06 can prove it to you in person, as can the ones that wield a MODX or MOXF. I don't know with what and how you record your analogues in your studio, but when I record mine they sound noticeably different from my VSTs like Dune3 and Massive X. I just use a Quad-capture, nothing special but not as bad as those muddy, overrated Scarletts. That said, the difference between my analogues and VSTs once fitted into a mix is small, and the consumer masses couldn't care any less whether your synths are analogue or digital, whether they listen to your tracks or listen to you perform live. Analogue only continues to exist because we love the stuff and demand it and some companies are willing to supply. We can do without the stuff perfectly well. It's always hilarious watching others do absurd mental gymnastics trying to justify analogue as anything other than luxury. You love analogue and use analogue synths, that is really the only justification you need, and the only one that isn't laughably ridiculous.
Hmmm I do get the love for layering up synth sounds. But to me that doesn't mean synths need to be multitimbral. I always find multitimbral synths a bit confusing. It's like trying to fit a whole composition into one synth patch. I find layering up sounds in the recording process to be much more clear. Also when you layer up multiple different patches or different synths (even more fun!) to create layered sounds, it opens up much more possibilities for the rest of the production process as well. I do agree on the analog vs digital discussion having gotten way old. Who cares indeed.
My thought as well. Even though I love Logic's Alchemy and its ability to combine four timbres, I more commonly layer sounds as tracks because I don't have to dive into a plugin to control level and automation differently than other tracks.
I do think, that a lot of people when designing synth sounds, don't layer to create a single complex sound, played in the same way. However that was not the real use of multi-timbral synths either. So it might be a overlooked part of sound designing. And if the product don't support it, one can't find presets that does that. Unless someone gets something like Unity, or what it is called, and find presets made for just a specific set of softwares that they do own. Layering has been widely overlooked, for long though, as one of the aspects that made the CS-80 stand out, and when comparing it to others, people seem to completely miss that aspect, that would typically require more than one synth, to make something similar. Each of the layers of the CS-80, isn't necessarily that much more exciting than other synhts. But when comparing a dual layer sound to a single layer, one is missing a large part of it.
For me multitimbrality is more about live performance and studio space (or portability) - I think if you're working in the box and recording seperate tracks/instruments then it doesn't really make much sense in that kind of workflow, as you can just switch between presets. But for me being able to setup both a Pad and a Drone on one polysynth makes things a lot more practical for me.
@@NateHorn I forgot that Logic's Alchemy not only has four timbres, but it can *morph* those timbres, so that's something unique that we can't do on tracks in a DAW, at least not without a specialized morphing plug-in.
I generally agree with you on this. One thing I've always thought, though, is that there are two separate use cases for multitimbrality. One is layering, and the other is keyboard splits (which is mostly useful for live performance). Is it possible that manufacturers who are making smaller keyboard synths and/or desktop synths (OpSix, Hydrasynth etc.) are making an assumption that nobody needs multitimbrality because it's only useful for splits on large keyboards? The point being that layering is *always* useful to have, regardless of the form factor, and they ought to remember this more often. A similar issue from the world of computers: I'm pretty fed up with having to click the column separator to see the full file name in file explorer apps (Windows File Explorer and Apple's Finder equally guilty here). Both of these companies pour billions into whizzy new features that I don't want, like animated chat icons etc. - but for decades now they haven't got off their backsides and done the one simple thing that would improve my workflow no end: auto-sizing columns! Just make the column auto-size to fit the contents, so that folders with long filenames in them actually show you the complete filenames without you once having to click with a pointing device.
Multi timbral is not about just layers. It’s also about using the same synth to produce different sounds for your music tracks themselves That way I can set up the first eight mini channels to trigger eight custom drum sounds. I created an eight more channels for pads and melodies and bass and leads. You can create an entire song with just one machine Think of it like loading the same VST instrument multiple times because you need to use multiple sounds when working on a computer to make music
@@ptkelly80 Idk, sounds like the current Wavestates were designed to integrate into existing setups rather than be a single sound generator for everything. Form factor and price point, I kind of see it. I do wish there were more rack options than just the Roland Integra these days, but given the way people work now, and the emphasis on knob per function, that's just a tradeoff you have to make I guess.
@@ptkelly80 16-part is overkill, who actually makes sounds layering that much at once and with one or two insert FX for the 16 layers? Everyone producing on a PC has individual inserts on every layer plus a different EQ instance on each layer, but even then, they don't do 16 parts for one lead, bass, or pad.
@@Jason75913 the Integra-7 has 16 parts and an effects section for each one. It can be done, just no one wants to do it. Yeah, I understand about computers. A simple daw can outperform any hardware synth with enough RAM and CPU.
@@ptkelly80 You brought up the old Wavestation, not the modern Integra-7. FA-08 and the 2019 Fantom are similarly as powerful as the Integra, but none of this answers my question. Who is doing 16-layer pads, leads, and basses? And post effects are extemely limited on anything not a modern, upscale Roland rompler. Wavestate having only 4 parts is sensible. That said, I think the price is a bit high. It's sound quality is comparable to the Krome EX, but less feature-laden, much less keys, no touchscreen interface, and no full-fledged sequencer. Krome's sequencer (original or the newer EX) can bring up a piano roll view that works much like a PC DAW's.
MODX and Montage are 16-part multitimbral, with splits and layers galore. The new Hydrasynth Deluxe is bitimbral. So it's not completely absent from the market...just rare nowadays.
A workstation is a synthesizer. Full synthesis options are available. Depending on what you pick there may be more or less 1:1 dedicated control over timbre, or a deep menu system. But they are indeed fully featured synthesizers. ROM sample banks may be the most common trait, but it's by no means the only type of synthesis used on the modern systems, going back to Motif, Triton, and Kurzweil. I agree that they are typically not marketed to avant garde customers and the default patches can be pretty stale. But I think most people that say workstation like it's a dirty word, would be surprised by the power and capability of these things. Most are at a _minimum_ equipped to be subtractive synthesizers and there are waveforms, not just samples to use for oscillators.
@@spectre.garden ^this! My 20 years old workstation still can do more than all of my table top synths combined. Only the reverb effects sound really dated at this point (but that's what external effects are for).
@@bangmateo7481 the reason the Blofeld is multi-timbral is mostly the same that workstations are. In a time when using multiple instruments, and before that even audio channels in a daw was expensive, beeing able to sequence multiple channels via midi, made great sense. Workstations can be used to make layered sounds as well. So they do count. Most workstations though, had limitations, when it came to the subtractive synthesis part.
@@spectre.garden I haven't seen workstation as a negative word, in the past, other than as not as easy to work with as a computer, but as they usually hade quicker boot times, and often were more stable for live use, they had their place. I have heard the term Rompler, used as a negative word, and then often falsely describing something that was a workstation or sound module with sample and synthesis. There were Romplers, they typically played General Midi, or an expansion of that, some hade sequencers, and were kind of workstations, but they had no sound edit. Today, we mostly have digital pianos that are romplers, most other products, have some form of synthesis power, even a lot of stage pianos, are more than just simple romplers.
The Access Virus is amazing for this same reason, 16 part multi with the TI 1 and 2 having 80-100 voices... I received the Blofeld today and I like it a lot, very capable synth. I think the Blofeld and Virus might use a similar DSP chip
Your right in the sense that many synths used the Motorola DSP563xx chips. How ever the Virus TI uses 2 of them achieving up to 90 voices, allowing you to play up to 16 patches simultaneously. Not to mention that the Virus TI can be connected via usb and be fully controlled by the TI VST inside your DAW. Its a Very unique synth, with jaw drooping spec's and a capabilities that are a bit hard to compare to other synths. Older Waldorf synths were made in the same city as Access Virus's and the companies collaborated quite a bit back in the day, thus the similar design philosophies. The Biofield and TI2 are the only physical synths I own, and I don't plan on ever letting them go. 👍
I use sequencers. I NEED multitimbral synths. I HAVE a Blofeld...... 😊 It can do lots !!!!, dub techno chords, rad basses, killer pads/atmospheric, etc........dont bother with drum sounds, as it's 1 midi channel Per Voice (which is weird, normally complete sets occupy ch10)..... But, sticking to multis is HEAVEN. I stack/layer basses or pads or arps
@@nnervecenter then I need to re-read on that.... THAT would be a GIANT plus !!!! Can you point me in that direction for a good “head start” ??? I bought the Blofeld to replace my Venom....
@@paultorbert6929 there’s a moment in this video where a second patch in the multi is also set to channel 1. So you can do that for say, four patches kick snare hihat tom - but all set to 10. Then there’s a screen with multi to set the key range for each - you adjust thatx4 so that there’s just one note per voice and no overlap between them. You might actially want a range for the tom so that it can play different pitches. Once that’s done you may want to transpose individual sounds because the pitch they’re playing at on their assigned notes isn’t ideal. There’s a screen for that too in the multi settings if I recall. Don’t have Blofeld with me now. Hope that’s of use!
@@paultorbert6929 also you can import drum samples ready - mapped to certain notes. That way you can build a complete kit and have it occupy not just only one patch but just one ‘oscillator’ if you like
Hi, you can layer sounds in Reason using combinator. It is great tool, you can build complex sounds by combining any synths and effects and save the whole thing as a patch. Or you can build effect pathes same way.
I get what you're saying. If they could produce DSP like this over 14 years ago, where is the equalent low budget high performnce synth engine? In a sense the Blofeld was trying to be 'that popular synth'. It shares aspects of the Roland D50s, with its multi-tembral sounds [re-evoked in the relatively recent Boutique D-05]. This though isn't based on snipets of samples and puretones. This digital analoge FM kitchen sink box ticking hybred celebrates the joy of sound design. It had to succeed, and so they placed in it, everything they knew. Todays budget synth engines by comparison are me-too niech fillers. With that said, the music today isn't multi-tembral film score wannabes. The music today knows its place and does everything to stick to its designated genre. Now if only you could access those multitimbral parts in real time to turn them on or off, up or down as part of a performance. Maybe for your 'next trick' you could demonstrate this 'magic' with an external controller mapped to the cc which controls those multitimbral parts. The best way to promote this idea would be to demonstrate its usefulness.
I agree. The results and possibilities are much more important than any "analog" purity for me. I am looking forward to synth and plugin makers to move beyond replicating the past analog glory and find out how to completely flip the script using new tech.
Perhaps the best part of the Blofeld is the SL upgrade. Being able to add your own samples and run them through that architecture delivers tones with a character than can't be matched by either modern software or older hardware.
I picked up a mint condition Blofeld last month for $350. It's a beast and has radically changed my musical experience. I'm so impressed with your mastery of the programming. I've been thrilled with the onboard tones but now you've expanded my horizon to infinity. TY
I have several favorite multitimbral synths: Dune, Omnisphere, Electra, Falcon, Rapid, Triton, Kontakt, Xpand. I also make my own using Ableton Racks and Unify.
You might want to check out the Sequential REV2 16-voice. You can stack, or split two completely different patches, in full analogue. You can even stack two duplicate patches, pan one full left, and the other right, and achieve binaural stereo patches.
Man, what a refreshing video, especially your points about analog overmarketing at the beginning. I'm so over being told that analog sounds better, I wanna make what I wanna make and I'll use whatever I have available to me - analog or not, I don't caaaaare!
Totally agree, I get plenty of awesome shit out of my Nord or R8 that isn’t comparable to what I could get out of my moog, my modular stuff, or my 606.
Ok, but many of us have also played tons of instruments and genuinely feel that an analog Moog or electromechanical Rhodes or Fender tube amp really do sound the best.
Multi-timbral for layering sounds is nice, but multi-timbrality across multiple independent sync-able sequences/arps/tracks is the best! The KeyStep Pro, with 4 mono-timbral synths of your choice, is another way to go.
Back in the days DSP development was still low level machine code. They used real DSPs for computation. Today they mostly use general purpose CPUs with some DSP-like instructions and code them in higher level languages that are less performant. So even while they have much higher frequency, their performance is not DSP optimized and in reality they might perform worse. Additionally, back in the days you calculated sound differently. Waldorf mostly used fixed point calculation with some special tricks to use less instructions. You had lots of aliasing. Aliasing-free OSCs for proper wavetable playback are very taxing. Overall, I think because of better sound quality, CPU choice and probably less computational skills, newer synth developers might not be able to do more voices. Also it's a cost and time issue. DSPs are very expensive because nobody is buying them anymore.
Yes, but the point is you can go multitimbral with just the VA as well, which is already crazy. Even with aliasing waveforms Blofeld is still lot of fun to program.
This is very interesting, I suspected there was something technical behind this and not just the marketing / product positioning of knob per function interfaces. That mixture of DSP hardware becoming expensive and being replaced by general purpose computation plus the skills for writing code for DSP no longer being developed sounds like a solid reason why my Elektron Digitone has half the voices of a DX7 despite all the advancements in tech since.
I'm going to share my 2 cents, an embedded software engineer... The difference between hand-optimized assembler and a higher level system language like C/C++ or Rust is pretty small these days. Also, compiler extensions make supporting hardware vector operations and multiply-accumulate (like in a DSP but common CPUs now) super easy. Plus the performance difference of a modern superscalar processor that has a clock rate 2 or 3 times a high-end DSP core and a memory interface that is 10 to 50 times the throughput kind of makes up the difference of any inefficient use of languages. There are other aspects like latency for operations that make DSPs really excellent at what they do, but are often not a design requirement for a desktop synth module. If people are happy with their plugins, then an engineer can design something just as good if not better with a dedicated piece of hardware running a decent CPU and a real-time OS. Audio DSP programming is still hard though, even if you are using a high-level language and a modern architecture. And engineers still work out the use cases and use formal analysis to find the worst case scenario for processor usage in order to guarantee a minimum level of functionality. Which is why synths have limits on their polyphony that often changes depending on additional complexity added to the synthesis chain. The Blofeld is notorious for running through its 25 "voices" by adding things like comb filters and leaving you with half or quarter as much polyphony as you might have thought you were going to get. It's still a great box, right up there with the Alesis Micron/Ion for me!
Actually, most of the hardware synths I still own are multitimbral. With plugins you can use as many instances, with different patches, as your DAW can handle.
@@Heathcliff_hensel Perhaps for live recording. I create multitrack compositions in my DAW and then render the entire thing to audio. There usually are multiple hardware and software synths playing simultaneously.
things go in cycles, and we're in a sort of nostalgic 'analog is best' period at the moment. I think a mix of both is digital and analog (if you have the gear) is good and interesting. Great times to be making music indeed...
"what does this do that other things can't do" is my first question whenever I learn about a new piece of software. Often the answer is "nothing".... Which is really sad =/
that seems overly simplified. Feature sets are not the only important part of a product, as is the case with analog hardware, the question, is how does it sound different. And here, though, I would say a lot of people miss the large overlap in sounds, and may go for something, just because it in some cases can sound different, whereas most of the time, it sounds very similar (that is typically often how people compare analog to digital, only focusing on the difference, no matter how seldom it matters, just for the sake of finding a difference). I've seen a lot of people lookin for that next new thing, and because of that, not really paying attention to what is on offer. And typically, the makers, that makes something widely different, also ends up with something that is typically not that user friendly, and doesn't even have the legacy of, "that is just how that type of product works, and you learn it".
Amen, Brother! That's why I'm still using 25-year old Alesis QS synthesizers that can stack up to 64 tones under one key and import (although painfully slow) custom samples for new content...Synth manufacturers seem to be most interested in selling you trash for a quick buck, with the notable exception of the Sequential Prophet X
This very reason is why I will always have a Blofeld in my collection, no matter what crazy new synths come out or what fancy analog stuff shows up on the market. I'm happy to see companies like Roland offering new multi timbral synths, FINALLY, and I find the new Jupiter X to be an absolute joy because of it. Great video!
The prices Roland charges tho... I'm quite content with their older multitimbral offerings. You can get a JV1010 or even 1080 for comfortably low prices these days. The Jup X is a glorious instrument but just too bloomin' spendy. 🙂 I'm now rockin' a pretty capable multitimbral collection - QS8.1, Micron, Nanosynth, JV-1010, and just ordered, yep, a Blofeld. You need a Blofeld. I need a Blofeld. EVERYONE needs a Blofeld. 😀
@@Avesta. Alesis did something it apparently never occurred to Roland to try: They made the majority of their factory presets useful, usable, and decent sounding :P
I love how even the VST version of the Blofeld, Largo, is multitimbral. I mainly used to use my Blofeld with a computer and, while it isn't bad, the UI always turned me off from exploring deeper into the synth. I compared my Blofeld and Largo and found that (when the bass boost is turned on in Largo!!!) the sound is the same, aside from missing the Blofeld's PPG filter and sample rate/multi effect from Largo. I sold the hardware off for a more immediate synth and have been more than happy using the software version!
analogue is a catch word, and will be used as a sales pitch for the rest of eternity. What you are basically saying is that additive synthesis and layering is something that should be examined more closely and offered in a physical domain. I agree thoroughly, but a lot of people would find this approach complicated, just a quick look at the creation of sound on a synclavier using PCM in comparison to a moog or roland module. presonus StudioOne can layer different VSTs beside, or on top of each other now. This approach certainly answers your question, but only in the digital domain, again NOT with a "physical" approach. I love your question and am happy that you asked it.
Blofeld is what I recommend to any starting out musicians. There are a lot of synths that do more voices or have warmer filters. Or that can sync to MIDI perfectly. But the cool thing about the Blofeld is that it isnt a one trick pony and its not modeling anything in particular. It's just very flexible. A lot of other synths I have that are newer I am much more frustrated by. Common things are on knobs, everything else is a menu or a special key combo. Waldorf is screen intensive, but it's very straightforward. I compare it to the Machinedrum. Both are screen intensive little digital boxes that are pretty easy to get around on, but capable of crazy sound potential. And neither leaves me scratching my head trying to find the secret menu to turn on FM or something.
UNIFY... When Unify first came out I thought, "Who needs this?" because it is POSSIBLE to do it in DAWs, but the WAY Unify does it is SO GOOD for workflow and makes this layering work so well. I know it doesn't really work for hardware synths, but as far as that goes I think it's been overlooked there is because everyone has multiple synths, and nobody is using an Emu Proteus to do 8 different sounds in a song anymore... Oh, and yes, Chemex is great :-)
i wish synth companies experimented more with new and novel synthesis methods. cos software synths are way ahead in that regard, with synths like chromaphone, razor, unfiltered audio lion etc.
FM synthesis always seems to find some new dimension to survive in, giving it a whole new identity every few years. Next to certain lush, fat analog synths I just about favor FM over anything else. I think one of the most awesome trends of the past 30+ years is the SY-series from Yamaha featuring "convolution synthesis": Samples modulated and mixed with 6-operator FM. To me it doesn't get much better than that. I have an SY99 and I've come to believe that synth can do just about anything. Only it's contemporary, Kurzweil's K-series VAST engine, could do the same or better. I am still blown away by those two synths after all these years.
I think the digital osc and fx on the new synths demand more horsepower and are therefore often not multitimbral. The more expensive multitimbral versions of the Hydrasynth (the Hydrasynth delux) and the peak(the summit) are for a reason large. Btw, I also think that the Hydrasynth did make good use of technology digital synths can use easier than analog synth. 5 env, 5 lfo's (you can create your own lfo in 64 steps) , the fx, the filter choice.the routing options, the mutators and the amount waveforms you can morph between are pretty cool functions. That combined with a very very smart ui makes it an innovating machine in my eyes.
I watched this and actually wrote an absurdly long reply which I have since decided isn't a good fit for a comment here... maybe one day I do a video on this lol. bottom line is, just as you have pointed to plugins like diva.... there in is the issue. we don't want sound quality of rebirth, we want sound quality of diva. this takes a ton of DSP processing power. the synth market is VERY niche, so while you might be able to do this sort of thing cost effectively on an ipad, that same processor in a synth would be insanely expensive. I could go into so much more detail but I am biting my tongue lol. nice topic.
You are making me very curious why an iPad processor would be expensive in a synth since they are already made and could just be reused. In fact, I mentioned elsewhere in the comments that the Korg Wavestate is a good modern take on a budget multitimbral synth and now that I think about it: Korg did exactly this. Because although the outside of the WS is lots of knobs and buttons, the inside is a raspberry pi board, so the synth runs on an affordable mass produced computer processor.
@@jantuitman korg used a raspberry pi. Not at all the same as an iPad processor but certainly moving in that direction. It also illustrates part of the reason why it would not be cost effective to have something like an m1 chip in a synth. Economics of scale. In addition to that level of chipset being quite expensive to produce to begin with, you have to remember that the cost to the manufacturer does not equal the cost to the customer. Generally due to the size of the market and many other factors this increases the cost to the user greatly. There are draw backs to using an existing platform such as a pi , but there are also advantages.
@@Fluxwithit yes, an M1 in a synth would definitely be too expensive. But something like a raspberry pi is very doable, even for boutique synths, though it is easier for a large brand like Korg. And the good news is, iPads of a couple years old are quite impressive software platforms for audio, so a newer raspberry pi model or comparable board can definitely make viable synths. That a boutique company can also pull it off to sell a mid priced synth based on such a platform, is proven by the existence of devices like for example Critter and Guitari Organelle. So, the question left is, why are not more manufacturers doing this, and are most midi based synths so much the same, emphasizing analog above everything else? I think maybe the development of the more interesting synth paradigms has moved to eurorack land. Which is a sad thing because not everybody wants to spend that much money on it and also not everybody wants to deal with the mess of having to replug dozens of cables to change a patch.
@@jantuitman again, there are draw backs to using such a platform as well. You still need to develop a custom I/O board, your devs are limited by the platform IN Other areas as well. Not having complete control of your platform can be a hinderance. Let alone licensing etc. as I said I think this is the direction you will start seeing adopted as time moves on by other companies …but it’s not a perfect solution.
All through the late 80s and early 90s I had a Kawai K1R - like a poor man's D50. But that was multi timbral and I used to have each voice in a multi on a separate midi channel so I could get more tracks layered on my cassette 4 track. Later I had a Roland XP-30 and used multis on that to play live - either splitting across the keyboard or just getting more dense sounds. Don't play live now. Now I just layer soft synth sounds in a DAW. Seems easier and more flexible to me for recording.
I love my Blofeld for exactly that. But I also hate it in some ways, one of which you accidentally showed. I can't count how many sounds I've lost because of me turning that damn knob when the machine didn't want me to😅
I’m a multi enthusiast too, proud parent of my three faves which are the access virus ti2, blofeld, and my recent Jupiter Xm. I definitely use multi sound design on all of them. Love your coffee insight, lol.
Blofeld is one of the best digital synthesizer ever produced. A real MUST HAVE of our times....It's COOL, sounds good, it's not overpriced like 3/4 of the synthesizers on this planet, it packs tons of features for the most demanding sound designers but is loaded with lots of presets for the bread&butter kind of stuff nonetheless.
Concur. Between Cameron and a couple other guys (esp. Florian of Bad Gear, tho he had a rough time with the UI 🙂 ) I was convinced enough part with some gear and scoop up a Blofeld off Reverb.
Analog sound great (usually) and is simple (usually) and people like great sounding simple synths. It’s not that complicated. Just go to the world of plugins if you want great sounding digital synths with lots of options.
Yep, second hand for $350-400 (at least when I got one - haven't checked recently) and then with Mystery Island's editor/librarian software it programs like a plugin, too!!!!
Yep, the bang-for-buck ratio is just off the charts on this thing. I'm leaning really heavily towards adding one to my guitar rig for church. I do a lot of pads and atmospheric stuff, and the abiliity to pile some key/pad sounds behind my guitar playing would be a big boost, and while the SY-1000 can do a lot, this would be orders of magnitude more capable for a sound engine.
Another reason why I love Sequential so much, the rev2 is bi-timbral and I layer things on almost every patch I make. And with the new P10 update it can be bi-timbral too. Layering is the best.
If you have to ask what the obsession is with "good" analog then I think it unlikely you will be satisfied by any of the possible answers that you will get and I wont bore you with a bunch of cliche answers though Average or bad analogue is a whole other thing. Probably the best way to put it is the best analogue equipment sounds as good as its possible to sound but just being analogue doesn't guarantee being good at all. Like I cant for a second understand the resurgent interest in Cassette tape or even vinyl records other than forcing you to listen to whole albums at once. I have owned many synths from the original analog days before presets through the first wave of Analogue poly's with patch memory through the initial Digital eara of interesting synths on through the Digital Dark Ages of ROMplers and Workstations through Virtual Analogue era the the VST "Analogue" and finally to the second wave of Analogue plenty we are now in so I have seen and used pretty much everything there is at one time or another and while I can only speak for myself for me the super powerful multitimbral digital machines were just simply a pain due to the interface. Sure if you know your way around a lone machine intimately you can get to a point where its quicker but it never a joy like creating a sound on a Pro 5 or Juno 60 was and still is. The "dual" Architecture of machines like the Rev 2 where every patch is a layered thing and you can choose where you layer or split is a joy to work with. The Prologue is similar but requires menu diving to switch layers on or off which is stupid. I used a lot of VSTs at one point and got rid of most hardware but that wore thin after not so long and I rediscovered the joy of hands on hardware and I now have a decent collection of Analog, Digital and hybrid machines including a Blofeld which I do like but just find the interface even in single mode to take any and all joy out of the sounds its capable of. The Nord lead 4 does a great job of layering but cant imagine ever layering more than three possible four sounds. The other thing is even if ii require a layered sound I'm more likely to stack up a couple of different synths than use multiple layers from the same sound source .
I'm right there with you Cameron. One my favorite synths that I own is the Novation Nova. It's 16-voice, 6 part multi-timbral, provides the user the ability to create their own arpeggios, and it came out in 1999. Why does it feel like synth manufacturers have taken a step back instead of adding new functionality?
And this is why I love my VirusTI and will likely never sell it. Although Access seems to have abandoned the line forever, it has features, 15 years on, that even current attempts like the Kyra couldn’t get right. It’s 100% digital and it absolutely demolishes some current releases that swear by going after that “analog” brass ring. I also wish every synth has the ability to stream audio over usb to a daw and be used as a plug-in in real time (like the Virus can, until it won’t anymore).
I think some manufacturers fail to include the multi timbral aspect because they feel they're skating too close to a workstation and are not inclined to go the full mile on that product.
Great video! I've been using the Blofeld and Pulse 2 since 2016. Waldorf synths like the Blofeld and Pulse 2 do not get the praise they so rightly deserve. The Blofeld is, unfortunately, a very underrated synth. With a bit of digging and exploration, this synth becomes a monster! Again, thank you for an excellent review. Best, Chip
I can understand it. We were in a point where the music sounded too "digital" too predictible or lifeless given the nature of the vst or CPU based synths. Then people looked back and feel that the "real" synths were sounding more appealing. Trends always goes in circles. But you can always sit with an acoustic guitar and compose a sweet simple melody and that is beyond all this music trendy fever 😊
It's the marketing of analog that holds the multi-timbral back. When I was growing up, I insisted on multitimbral (because if I was going to go broke buying a synth, I wanted multiple voices!). Multi-timbral is much harder to "manage" the voicing with analog synths properly, otherwise previous "long running" patches start to get messed up with new parameters coming in for the next voice. Scaling up to many more analog voices is prohibitively expensive compared to software, which is why many modern synths are the bare minimum monotimbral analogue. I've kept my Virus TI (Snow), and microKorg, both of which are gems in their own right.
You're absolutely right Cameron! It was a staple in the late 80s, all of the 90s. The fact that synths were multitimbrals made them all so powerful. Don't know why they won't do it nowadays, even with the "analog" craze... Hey, even sequential did it with a few of their analog synths back then! I own a Sequential Six Trak, which was a completely "analog" synth, with only 6 voices of polyphony, but has the ability of stacking up to 6 voices, or even play up to 6 different patches over midi! So.... No excuse for all today's synth manufacturers not to do it. They're so focused on making it the same as, but better sounding, synths of yesteryear recreation, that they forget this tiny detail. Keep up the good work! Still looooove my Blofeld keyboard so much .... What an incredible machine. Would love to have a quantum, but out of my reach money wise hehe...
Totally agree - I've been exploring multitimbral options, trialing a Micro Monsta 2 from Audio Thingies and more recently picking up an Access Virus C - 32 voices that can be spread over 16 (!) parts, and just as important (and something the Blofeld lacks), 3 seperate stereo outs.
I'm not going to read through the comments before commenting, so what I'm about to post might already be in the comments. In the 90s, multi-trimbrality became a thing, since studio computers and disc space was expensinve. With multi-trimbral hardware, it was possible to midi sequence the hardware, and build songs that way, befor recording to a limited number of tracks. But there were some virtual analog synths, that had limited polyphony and thus limited or no multi-timbrality, as the polyphony wasn't enough. When the DSP power of the chips grew, more polyphony was added, and with that, the ability to finally do proper multi-timbrality with virtual analog synths as well. At this point though, there was an issue, most virtual analog synths, were sounding less lively compared to analog, and some parameters like the filter, had audiable stepping. And many had limited hands-on controls. What that lead to was a desire among many synth players to have the classic analog synth, with good layout and analog sound. At this point, among many, digital had lost the battle in terms of sound. However, it was possible in theory, to rebalance the DSP power, to make hardware that sounded more like analog hardware, but then it would loose polyphony, and multi-tibrality. But since, there was a divide, where some were just fine with digital, and others pretty much had their mind made up that analog was the thing, we had that analog revival. At the same time music computers became cheaper, and VST, really useful. So at some point digital synth hardware, made little point. And in the computer, you no longer had to rely on multi-timbrality, as it was just to make a new track. And with the flexibility of beint able to add whatevere one wanted on the layer, it could be another instance of the same software, or another synth, with another character, or acoustic sampled instrument. And on the hardware side, analog was almost the only thing synthheads cared for, where multi-timbrality, was pretty much out of the equation, due to cost and complexity, and the performer could get their workstations, wich layered much like software, with the korg offering engines, and others sample based synthesis in combination with others samples, there was really very limited market and use for multi-timbral synths. And as hardware has gotten cheaper, layering in hardware, is not accessible to a lot of synthheads, in the form of using multiple synths. Something that Jarre for example had been doing for decades, but that the average synthhead would not have been able to afford. There are some synths that does layering, today. But I would say the need for it is very limited. And I would probably outside of a workstation (or workstation like) synthesizer, would probably layer with another hardware, rather than inside a single unit. And then there is mainstage and similar solutions, where one can use virtual instruments live. One thing though, the classic Synth, CS-80 considered to be one of the best, was a dual layer synth, so it did layering, and that is something seem to miss when they compare it to other synths, as that is one mayor thing about it's sound. While each layer sounds good, on a per layer basis, it doesn't necessarily sound that more exciting compared to a lot of other synths. A lot of people even when layering, don't see it as a part of designing a single sound. But that was true often on multi-timbral synths as well. One thing though, I wish more synths had, was enough LFOs, and the ability to control one LFO with another. Modulating the modulation, is something I really enjoy, as it can really add movement and "life" to a sound. This is something a lot of software synths lack, where automation, might work as a workaround, but that when missing in hardware, you can't really solve it, as midi (not midi 2.0) lacks the resolution to do from an external source. Where monophonic synths with CV patch connectors, and the right exerntal unit can solve. One thing though about analog. I agree, digital synths, today, can, if the maker want them to, sound analog. Typically though in hardware, digital synths tend to be made so complex that the hands-on control panel can't cover anywhere near all the features, and one has to work a lot inside of menus. But even some modern analog suffers from this, at times (but that was also the case in the 80s and forward). When it comes to filters, I really wish makers, would better make use of the relative ease of which more complex filters can be built. They can have continuously variable slope, and go to much deeper slopes as well, and have continuously variable mode, like SEM, but with the character of other types of filters. And one can have dual filters of even more, without adding the same kind of cost it would in analog hardware (the CS-80 was also a synth with dual resonant filters, many Rolands had a non resonant HP filter, and that isn't anywhere near the same thing). Even those that do hybrids, should really consider adding a digital high quality filter, to expand the number of filters, to at least two, and with that make the digital one a really flexible one.
If you use Reaper, the structure of the DAW allows for instant layering of synth Plugins. Easy Peasy. No multiple tracks of MIDI , or routing MIDI, required (although Reaper allows for all kinds of crazy routing). I miss Ableton, though, it doesn't work on my version of Linux (I tried it with WiNE)
I also use Reaper to route midi from a hardware synth to control other hardware synths and boom, my monotibmbral synths can have as many layers as I want.
The Novation Nova is great for this. It's also got 6 outputs, so you can route it into a mixer like it's 3 different stereo synths, or 6 different mono ones!
Totally agree. Back in the 90s I had a Yamaha TG77 Synth module which was a 16 voices multitimbral capable synth: with a Atari mega 1 computer (that’s it, 1 megabyte of flash memory on a single floppy disc) and a software (C-Lab Notator, today I think is Logic) I could manage an entire song. But today, apart from the Bloefeld, the only multi-timbral hardware modules are those from Yamaha and Roland (and a few minor choices) which are pretty expensive and not too inspiring kind of romplers. It is true that the tg77 wasn’t cheap either, but in 30 years technology has become more affordable and I see no reason for the lack of choices, even (or above all) from the sound design perspective.
Nostalgia is such a big part of it. People craved those big knob twiddlin' beasts in their youth but couldn't afford them, and now they are older, there are pretty faithful recreations of them that they can. I'm trying to cover my bases my having a Behringer Cat, Neutron and Crave on on hand, and a Roland D-110 and JV-2080 on the other :-)
@@freestate6200 the D-110 is obviously more dated but it has some nice FM-style electric pianos if you need that '80s vibe. And of course it is a whopping 9-part multitimbral (8 instruments + drums) Actually that's maybe a good point on why it's not as prevalent anymore, the complexity! Trying to program several different timbres on the D-110's tiny screen is not fun
I am of the opinion that the most important part of coffee making is the grinder. A conical burr grinder is best at shrinking the standard deviation of size distribution. Having the correct grind for whatever coffee method helps with smoothness e.g. fine particulates in a French press makes it bitter and harsh. I would rather have a cup of cowboy coffee from a clean gym sock with a conical burr grinder set to coarse than a cup of stovetop espresso/French press from a hack apart type grinder.
I believe it has largely to do with this "remake" era we live in. Millenials are now old enough to work and have some money on them, so the market sells them all kinds of products of questionable quality mainly based on "nostalgia". See all the 90´s movies that were remaked (some horribly).
I feel exactly the same about the disdain for anything built after 1983. If I want that '80s vibe, I have my trusty old Juno-60...Along with a modular rack, a Nord Lead3 and some great 19" rack mount sound modules, all of which are multitimbral. I had the Blofeld, regretted selling it to fund a Prophet '08 that I tried hard to love but never did...Oh well! Love your vids, and I've subbed.
I can't afford disdain for anything newer than a Juno, if only because I can't afford a Juno! 😛 I've viewed Junos and JXs thru the frosty glass of unobtainium and spousal ire for decades, but I'm quite content now with one of the big R's ubiquitous 4-part wonder-romplers, and a VST for Juno exactitude (Cherry's mind-blowing thirty buck DCO-106).
My first synth was Ensoniq ESQ1 and all my older synth were all able to combine sounds in layers. This was the reason why my last synth is a Roland F07. Today there is no midi master keyboard able to manage 16 or more midi channel to combine sounds. I still have an old ELKA MK55 with 2 midi out and able to connect an external keyboard as extention for split like have upper and lower manual split off 2x 76keys . I got some new analog digital synth in last years but you need the right tools on computer to manage layer and split. Mainstage for mac ( but i dont have mac) Or for pc: Ableton or Mulab from Mutools a very underrated an cheap swiss army tool to combine hardware synth and vst synths. For me a sound is allway a combination of timber, and sound in my brain is divide in 3 part : attack part sustained part and released part. Sound generator can be any thing, from basic shape, wavetable , samples or high complex digital genarators. Sadly i lost the most advanced synth many years ago the Clavia nord modular G2 , and synth expander with only one buton ( on/off) , it was digital polyphonic modular system programmed on computer and full midi compatible with macro assigning.
I completely agree with you, I'm using the Sledge 2.5 Black, and even though it's only layers two sounds, you can trigger a note or a cord holding sustain and change patches and the previous sound sustaining. Give it a try if you haven't yet. It gives real-time control to the Blofelds cousin.
There are things you can do with analog you can't with digital and vice versa. Marketing is obnoxious. People were annoyed in the 90's & 00's about knobless digital workstations being the trend. The same people complaining about mono analogs "not being worth it" are the same one's who derided the Blofeld "it's digital? so it's just a vst? not worth it?" Also Multitimbral synths were developed to make up for what we have in spades. Multitracking in a daw. Quick search for current Multitimbral synths: Elektron Analog Four Elektron Octatrack Elektron Digitone PreenFM2 Any drum synth Waldorf Kyra Waldorf M Nord Lead A1 Nord Wave 2 Moog One (tri-timbral) Korg Wavestate Too many bi-timbral synths to name.
I totally agree with your frustrations. Surely if we compare the price and performance of DSP from the 90's compared to now, you would assume you would get far more packed into a VA synth nowadays. Possibly 32 parts Multitimbral and 3 filters, 5 LFOS, 5 OSC etc. I wonder if the extra DSP is now utilised to focus on quality of sound above all else. I know early VA's had more noticeable aliasing/stepping on the filters. But then I have a Nord Lead 1 and a Novation KS4 that still sound phenomenal even now, and as you have mentioned also provide multiple parts. I love my Cobalt8/Argon8/System8 and Hydrasynth also, but sometimes I wonder why they are limited to only 8 voice polyphony. My Virus TI2 has 110 voice polyphony and that is 10 years old. There must be a reason? Maybe it's because back then people used to only use their DAW to sequence and then route everything through an analog mixing desk and record to DAT, (hence the need for multitimbral synths with seperate outs whereas now manufacturers think that we can just record different parts to the DAW.
Yep. Analog isn't the end word in synthesis, though it has its advantages in creating classic sounds. It is hitting saturation point these days though. As for the lack of modern multi-timbral synths, it means old Viruses, Nords, Waldorfs, Korg's and the like will always have a place in many studios. Regarding the discussed issue here, to my mind the best examples are the Nord Lead 3 & Integra, followed by the Korg Radias & Monomachine, then Nord Lead 2/Virus/Novation Supernova.
I agree. I do like the emulation of analog within the digital domain though. it does step backwards as far as sonics but it does help rethink the next step going forward. sort of like not not forgetting the basic math.
I always had the same question I don’t understand why in the 90s keyboards were multitimberal so you could connect to a DAW and playback 16 tracks! Especially now competing with VSTZ’s that do this, it doesn’t make sense for hardware to not do this.
When I bought my Blofeld desktop, it was around the same time I bought a Korg Radias. The Radias is four part multi timbral, and coupled with the onboard step sequencers, dual filters....and effects, it's a beast. But I digress...I loved the Blofeld so much, I bought the keyboard version within a few months 🤷🏻♂️
Thanks for putting this together. I am a fellow Blofeld fan, and several of my most recent additions to the studio - an Alesis Micron and Kurzweil K2000RS - attest to a shared interest in deep synthesis. That said, I have probably gone the path of many people who want a deeper and more texturally interesting sound palette by buying a lot of mid-range synths fitting in certain niches rather than a few synths with multitimbrality. While I totally agree there's a lack of imagination on the part of most synth manufacturers, I think much of what's out there is driven by consumer demand. I feel like, aside from the Hydrasynth and a number of other manufacturers' $3000+ flagship synths, there's just very little interest in pushing the boundaries because most of the people buying synths are just interested in retreading the 1970-2000 soundscape. I also have this sense that the modular craze has drained away a lot of the interest in innovation. It's basically: oh, you want to do crazy shit? You should get into modular. Call me old fashioned, but I appreciate a well-made instrument, and very little about modular says 'instrument' to me. I also feel that most people do not go deep enough with their gear. The stuff you point out about the Blofeld only becomes apparent after one spends a great deal of time with it. How many people get to the outside edges of what a given piece of gear can do, enough to understand what it will never be able to do? That's how we got a lot of the synth technology we have now - Tangerine Dream and Brian Eno and others sitting down with hardware designers in the '70s and '80s because what was currently available couldn't do a thing they imagined was possible, but could find nothing that would do it. Which artists are pushing those boundaries now?
Modular has potential if used right. Most modular makers/demoers, and a lot of users, don't seem to understand the potential. Instead of using it a building blocks, to build a monophonic synth (or a few monophonic synths), with a custom signal path, and all the modulators one might want, with differnt filterts and oscs, depeding on the sound. What they mostly demonstrated as, are blip-blop machines, where it isn't uncommon, that demoers get rhythmic sounds by pushing the module, rather than trigger it (and the vcas of the voice), like one would on a actual synth. Because of the bad demos, though, it can be hard to discover the good modules. Polyphonic synthesis in modular, is way too expensive, unless one buy polyphonic modules, but those don't offer the per voice control, or signal path separation, that made modular interesting in the first place.
@@TheJonHolstein My point is not to badmouth modular, but more to say it can end up a form of ghettoization, where synth manufacturers keep endlessly recycling the same feature sets, and anyone who wants to be adventurous gets told to 'try modular'.
Totally agree. I’m yearning for a 4-8 part multitimbral polysynth with a very knobby interface to sequence with a Digitakt. Thinking of giving in to a Virus TI.
Even if you get an Access Virus TI Snow, you will pleased with that combined with Digitakt. That's what i use. The Snow is 4 parts only, but that and another multi-tim synth is plenty for me.
I do it with the Blofeld.Also have a JP8080 but since the Blofeld came,JP kinda stayed in the box. You are in for some treat if you decide to go for it.Or with a Virus. Amazing combination.
Hello. I've just bought a second hand Blofeld. It's great. Perhaps, you've got this information : there is a noise parameter called "Noise Color". I would want to modulate it in the modulation matrix with some modulator (enveloppes, LFO and so on), but I don't find this parameter in the destination list. Do you know how to do that ? Thank a lot. Fred
Whenever the possibility of a technological shift came, people who mainly wanted to play and would have made good music even without new technologies reached for it. Do you suffer? The Beatles could sit down to a coffee and lament that there was nothing better for a long time :-) While once people were content with just singing, today is the time that we want better technology, we would rather fall asleep and try to live for more a hundred years to make it happen. But we do not live what it is. I don't think great music is the way you want to make great music, but you just feel it, you want to play terribly, and of course you reach for the most interesting thing at hand at all times. And if you have nothing, you take a stone and beat it on a tree stump and just out of excitement you finally express yourself and experience yourself. Whether or not it affects the success of other people standing around your stump, it doesn't matter. And if you don't care, you're addicted, you're trapped in the future, instead of living here and now. I'm just going to buy a synthesizer - that's why I'm watching these videos, and according to your words, I shouldn't even look at the guitar anymore. God, how old it is :-) Look, I'm completely captivated by all those synthesizers. I don't care if others yawn over it. It's easy for me: Do you want something different? Something new? So do it. Do what you feel. If you feel something that is not real at the moment, then you are a child who is anxiously waiting for his mother to bring him a new toy on the way home from work. If you feel a tremendous desire to do something new, then don't compare yourself to who did what and didn't do - you would repeat exactly what millions of people before you did. Do something new the way YOU haven't done it yet. That will be your big music. And if it is new and large enough, discoverable for you, so that you can believe it yourself, it will certainly be good enough for a few others around. But that's the consequence. How does a child develop towards the world? Let's skip mom and dad - they're here in the beginning to allow you to live on your own. So first you are here, then you only know things and form your relationship with them. Then you slowly get to other people and create experiences with others. But you seem to skip something. You have left out yourself and your direct relationship to things, and you are directly comparing yourself to what you think, how others perceive their surroundings. Is this a fairly new synthesis of sound for the world? Would it take another ten layers? Maybe you're missing the first layer. You would need to get a bow and lock yourself in a cave for two months and strum a bow :-) Music is about feelings. At least the strong music experiences. The others just like / dislike it - they enjoy / don't enjoy it. Real music will help you find a feeling. Your feelings seem to be closed, caught up in the technical concept and in the ideas of how others perceive it. Surprise yourself. Release your feelings, look for your real basic, personal, closest layer, trust it and you will have music. Some technologies have always been around and will be around.
The Sequential Six-Trak is my first love and also still my favorite for it's six part multi-timbral monster mono stack mode (Kind of like a modular without the cables). It's old and it's single oscillator per voice, but the little things it does differently kind of put it in a special place. The poly glide is also nice when playing polyphonic stuff extra slippy like being on the edge of control; sort of intuiting which note will be the glide from source on your next legato key press (sounds like it's random and uncontrollable but actually you start to have an intuition.) The Synaesthesia Pipes does nice layering stuff it's a sample playback device, but like the MPCs and other devices it lets you stack up voices into very complex layer arrangements. I think the Korg Wavestate does similar things with wave sequencing. Agreed that the "Analog" word is abused but I still love analog filters and prefer them especially under modern digital control even if the 127 levels under MIDI CC is kind of exasperating considering that the standard is 45 years old.
I owned a six track and sold it for a Ensoniq VFxsd that I sold to get a Korg Karma, kept that for 20 years and got a MODX in 2021. Anyway, the sixtrack caught my eye. Happy Thanksgiving
When I first got my Circuit Tracks I wrote to Novation hoping that they were, perhaps, going to develop a synth module that would replicate and supplement the two synth channels of their onboard synth for use with the Tracks. They wrote me back that they were not really thinking about this, which bummed me out. Then I found the Blofeld and I no longer cared what Novation did or did not do. (BTW Novation has not done a firmware upgrade in months). This thing does it all. So between the Circuit Tracks, the Blofeld, a Korg Minilogue XD and NTS-1, I can pretty much get it done. But really all I need is the Blofeld and the Circuit. It's 2021 FFS !!!
There are still plenty of multi-timbral digital synths. For example, the Roland Fantom can split or layer up to 16 parts (with 256 voice polyphony total). The reason why synth makers are moving backwards is because of snobbery from many users. For example, take the Roland Jupiter 80. This was a very innovative synth with virtual analog and sampled voices which was specifically designed for powerful splits and layering. The depth and richness of its sounds exceeds most things on sale now. But it was a market failure, because players didn't want a powerful, multi-timbral workstation--they wanted a re-issue of the Jupiter-8. Roland eventually caved on this and issued the Jupiter-X, which basically is a virtual Jupiter-8 (albeit with many other features). There is a lot more market buzz over the $5000 OB-X8, than the $5000 Waldorf Quantum, even though the Quantum is vastly more powerful and versatile. In fact, snobs will often complain that any digital synth is just "a VST in a box" regardless of how powerful it is and how good it sounds. You also have the rise of things like Eurorack, which is deliberately retro and backward-looking. Manufacturers will build what sells, so I don't blame them for moving back towards outdated analog synth technology. They are probably happy that they can sell 40 year old technology for premium prices. But analog fell out of favor back in the 80's for good reasons, and those reasons are more valid than ever today. People need to start looking for new and interesting sounds again and stop recycling old analog tones on every song.
I 100% Agree that there need to be more multitimbral instruments... That used to be the thing. I mean why a $3000 keyboard not only just 8 voices, but only one instrument at a time... It is just ridiculous, back in the 90s I worked for a record label and created entire tracks with ONE SYNTH - and no I did not compose them one instrument at a time with a ADAT or some other means of recording - in-fact computers were not fast enough to do VSTs or Digital Audio to NEAR the degree that it can be done today. I composed entire tracks then dumped them one track at a time to ADAT and added vocals... Actually need to add on - and THAT is one of the reasons I love YAMAHA - Alsmost EVERY YAMAHA KEYBOARD I HAVE (Except My AN1x) is multitimbral. This includes the FlagShip Montage, MODX, MOTIF,MX49, CS1X and CS6X
Still have some of my early Yamaha modules. The lowly TX81Z can layer 8 sounds in performance mode and the DX21 two sounds. My FS1-R... shoot I can't remember, but it's a bunch. It almost seems like a conspiracy to make you buy more synthesizers, this lack of multi-timbrality.🤪
Actually I don't miss multi-timbrality as my mixes are often too dense anyway. And I'd rather have immediate hands-on control of additional synth voices without menu diving. OK I do wish Chromaphone was multi tembral... yeah I know multiple instances.
I just pulled the trigger yesterday and added myself to the Blofeld diggers. Have you purchased any sound sets? I’m wondering if Pure Mood soundset offers sort of warm moogish sounds. I’m after that Minimoog horn sound at the opening of Pink Floyd Shine On … I know this is a digital platform but my hope is to cover some famous tones of analogue era using the wavetable synth engine.
The point you raised is not too remote from the debate concerning the rebirth of vinyl records (a probably polemic topic, but, well ...). From a purely acoustic standpoint, there is no rational reason to prefer vinyls over CDs. However, many people prefer the former over the latter due to the combination of a genuine sensory pleasure with a physical experience, of a whiff of nostalgia , and, to be fully honest, quite often of a tad pedantic attitude. By comparison, the appeal of analog (and more generally hardware) synthesisers still retains a higher degree of rationality than that of vinyl records, because the physicality of an interface does matter a lot when it comes to playing a musical instrument. We love analog/hardware synth because they provide a sensory experience that is a direct transposition of the sound design process itself. This is also the very reason why most electronic hardware nowadays try to provide some kind of haptic feedback to their user: people feel more at ease when their actions are grounded in the physical world (or appear to be). When it comes to synths and more generally to any sort of creative tool, sensory experiences and subjective feelings suddenly take a major importance in the creative process. This is why, I believe, there will always be a market for technically "outdated" analog instruments or tools. I know that I, for one, am a real sucker for them ! :)
Hey. I also believe that technically digital DSP can be as good as "analog" or even better, and that the "analog" term is overused in the marketing of some of the VST plugins. Hoover there is a serious case when analog vs digital makes a serious difference. Both analog and digital domain have some downfalls, I don't mind if a hardware synth or FX pedal is digital, but I do mind a lot when it's digital in a "bad way". For example there are synths and fx pedals that can digitally clip, operate on low sample rate, produce unwanted nyquist related issues, reduce the dynamic range or affect the detail (usually in the topend and transients ) of the sound. In most cases with digital DSP based hardware the main issue is not the OSC, but the weak D/A converter or output amp, and the similar issue can be found with A/D and D/A conversion in cheap FX guitar pedals. In my "sound design rules book " there is no good or bad sound design process or effect, but in this case when I'm aiming for the most crisp and detailed sound with sharp transients, I would recommend staying away from the "digital synths and effects" unless you are absoluty sure that the product you are using has high quality DSP, A/D, D/A and AMP chip. With pure analog hardware products, it's less common to have a bad sound since the prices of analog gear are usually higher than their digital counterparts, and the analog hardware developers are paying more attention to the quality of their hardware to justify the higher price. Hopefully that helps you to understood why it still makes sense to prefer analog gear for some use cases.
Bro, it is a minefield on this youtube, the best stuff i learned was while reading between the lines listening to mixers like Bob Powers, Joshua Jaycen, guys who are spitting fast without thinking about what their sponsors will say... When they stop in the middle of the sentence to think about politics, you are already in the wrong direction. There must be a decision within, am i going all in or am i a hobby musician? Also, am i capable of figuring all by myself coz my technicality or am i full of ideas but i need someone else to cover other areas. Anyway - It is refreshing to read your comment. gg
When you started explaining this, I kinda thought it was a feature I wouldn't use myself. But, then, thinking about it, in the DAW I do it all the time. Have multiple different synths layered, and then just dump the same MIDI in there. This is pretty much the same thing, if you think about it.
This is what I was thinking. You don't need multi-timbral plugins when you can do the same thing by layering as many tracks in your DAW as your want. Slow computer? Just bounce the tracks. There are still a few plugs that do multi-timbral; Omnisphere, Halion, Phaseplant, Falcon (which he mentioned). Pretty sure you can in Reaktor and Kontakt too.
What's your favorite multitimbral synth? 🤔
Access Virus TI
Nord Lead 4
@@craighillcomposer Yeah virus ti. its *literally* 16 synths in 1, with traditional layout.
The Roland V Synth XT is a great hidden multi-timbral synth... hidden cause I had to really fight to get there. :)
Well, ALL OF THEM, of course....!
My 20 years old kurzweil k2661 able to layer till 32 timbres, each with their own LFOs, 3 multistage loopable ENVs, free run or triggered function generators, and FX with such crazy quality with customizable signal path, nd complex signal processing per-layer including filters of every type and all pass to manipulate phases...THAT WAS A REAL MACHINE
Today we have 1000x more powerful microprocessors/asics/FPGAs but their power is just not used, because...if only one of the brands start to use it, we will have only one product per Brand doing all what we need...we are asked to pay the same price for something more limited than what we had in the past just because these brands are way too huge and if money are not circulating, the brand and the segment will just die
By the time I got a Blofeld (late 2020), I noticed all the videos about it were along the lines of "is there any life left in this old thing?" It's really discouraging to encounter that attitude over and over. The thing is brand new to me, not some retro relic.
It’s really powerful! I think the blofeld needs new videos as well, this one is a great start
As Jexus/WC Olo Garb from Poland says, "It's not what the synthesizer can do for a man but what a man can do with a synthesizer". I've come to really appreciate that guy. Some of his experimentations are a little off the wall if not brash and annoying... But some are truly wild and inspired spontaneous and impressive pieces of work. And they are done with all kinds of sense ranging from stuff that's almost 50 years old right up until the most modern cutting edge ones. I always got to laugh at how during the height of the Nord Lead's Fame, Jexus just about pissed on it according to his review. He was not terribly impressed with the synth that everyone else was bragging about! People who worry about how obsolete or not a synthesizer is are people who are simply swept along by the music industry and all of them doctrination of what the latest thing should sound like. I've heard some modern synthesizers that I was not impressed with at all and they were not cheap either. Get some people can take an old Casio for entry level Yamaha, and run it through some analog effects and come up with a beautiful ethereal symphony that has you on the edge of your seat. I dont take what these "progressive" people say seriously. Every time they declare one synthesizer obsolete and are religiously trying to promote the latest technology, they are merely covering at their own failure to get the best out of any machine they've ever worked with. Posers and techno-slaves with little real inherent musicianship or ability to draw inspiration out of thin air. They completely depend on some new gimmick in order to sound different. After everybody else starts using it then they toss it away and go to the next thing... Again trying to cover for their failures.
well the build quality was shit. And a 2nd hand Virus Snow, makes it look like a joke.
@@craigmoran893 Here you pay twice amount the price for a snow and what i have seen - it has 3 potentiometers (kills the ui for me personally)
@@femto859 2 of the pots died on my blofeld, and a 3rd was on the way out ofter 6 months. It would randomly hard crash and restart. It would would randomly drop notes. It wouldnt hold sync to midi, as slave or master. Garbage. I'm not saying a Snow is cheap, or easier to program - it's about the same. But its a Pro unit. Built to last
Korg Wavestate is 4 part multi timbral and you can assign a different MIDI channel to each part. The Joystick allows to cross fade between the parts which can also be automated as a "path".
Just got mine it’s fireeeee
The Blofeld has 16 Parts. You can Layer or split until 16 different Instruments in Multi Mode. And, you can set every Multi Part to a different Midi Channel. Or, for a big fat Sound, set all to Channel 1 😉
I think the reason is largely that the focus of external equipment has changed. While in the 90s they were mostly sound sources it would not fly anymore since plug-ins are just quicker to use and sound better most of the time. So they focus on immediacy and ease of use. You can arguably dial in the "perfect tone" quicker on a knob per function analog synth. And multi-timbrality (and even presets) obscure this to a large extent. Since you are not sure anymore that the positions of the knobs correspond to anything in the sound.
Agreed. The main purpose of hardware synths these days is the interface.
I have a Blofeld. I got it because it's multitimbral, cheap, small, and sounds okay. But I ended up kinda regretting it, because it turns out I don't really need to record more than one timbre at a time. What I need instead is a good interface for patch creation and performance expression... which the Blofeld doesn't have. It's mostly just three knobs and a very long menu.
Multitimbrality in a hardware synth just doesn't matter much any more. It was huge in the past, but the set of people who need that feature in modern times is vanishingly small, mostly limited to only dawless synth geeks who _don't_ have a ton of hardware.
I later ended up getting a Pro 3, and I've been very happy with it. It's like the opposite of a Blofeld, and it's fantastic.
But I'd still like to find a use for the Blofeld's many timbres. So I'm thinking about writing a procedural song generator which spits out several channels worth of midi, similar to a NDLR but deeper and more automatic.
@@ToyKeeper Nodal is pretty good for that
I disagree I just used a friends modx and korg ms 3000[?] . I came out power on to finished track in 20 min like my when I just use logic or Maschine plus whatever DAW I feel like using. Speed and efficiency is more on how you know your gear and what speaks to you..
@@lionelluney3063 what are you even replying to? Also you didn't finish a track in 20min. Not in any meaningful way anyway. That's how long it takes to master a track.
but with endless encoders it doesnt really matter to change them and you can use mystery island editor/Patchbase to show where everything is at - if you really intend to open an old project
Yep, I've always said the Blofeld is one of the most underrated synths. All of my Ensoniq synths back in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s were multitimbral, so the Blofeld was a blessing (especially considering it is still available today!) I miss my Blofeld terribly; the only reason I sold it was because I moved into Eurorack for my live performances (previously I was using 8 parts of the Blofeld being sequenced by the Elektron Octatrack... such a powerful performance combination!) and soundwise, I already also have the Waldorf Micro Q, the Waldorf XTk, and the Waldorf Quantum, so got all of those sounds covered. Still, I might want to get a Blofeld again just because it was so convenient for live performances.
Also regarding the whole "Analog vs. Digital" thing, which is such a stupid argument, usually from people new to the synth world; a really good Analog synth is great at being/sounding Analog. A good Digital synth is great at doing all of the things that Analog can't do, e.g. Wavetable synthesis, Physical Modeling, Granular Synthesis, Formant synthesis, Spectral synthesis, etc.
@thegoodbighornowlshepherd405 ok... though I don't know what any of that has to do with my comments but, if you wanted to post an overly verbose dissertation on the relation of human to sound, you could have posted that as its own comment to the video, yes? Otherwise it doesn't address any of my points and it [what you wrote] just looks like the ramblings of a madman.
@thegoodbighornowlshepherd405 Maybe it's a left Brian right Brian thing 😉
@thegoodbighornowlshepherd405 fair enough. And I do like your perspective on all of this, hope you didn't take my comment as a jab.
Coffee is one of the most complex foods. It contains ~1200 molecular components. The problem with any paper filter is that, while removing the "harsh" components, it also removes some of the most flavorful ones. The end result is a smooth but less flavorful experience. Baby with the bathwater.
french press all the way
Correction: the Bofeld IS INDEED a VA (Virtual Analog) synth, as well as a WaveTable synth, and also a sample-playback and an FM synth. Beyond this single misstatement I noticed, a pretty good video and I agree with most of what you assert about how stupid it is that so many synths are Not multitimbral.
Here's what analog has to offer: It's the sound. It sounds different. That doesn't mean it's better or worse, a particular sound is only better if you like it more than others at the time. I hear ppl say plugins have it nailed. No, no they don't. I have a rediculous number of plugins. V collection 8, Roland Cloud Ultimate, Komplete 13, CA Voltage etc, hundreds more. No i don't own Diva, but I've heard all the demos and no cigar, sorry. I seriously don't understand how some ppl say they can't hear the difference. You know what? I'm glad VA sounds different. I have a room full of analog synthesizers, I have an an entire shopping mall full of VA software synthesizers and I like them too, and use them plenty when I could use an analog. I don't always want a track to sound like an analog synth. You might say, wait a second, not all analogs sound the same. Nope, no they don't but I can hear that they are analog and sometimes I don't want it on a track. I don't want to debate that, I just do hear it. I also guarantee you Behringer is not selling those very limited monophonic synths by the shipload because they sound the same or because ppl buy into buzzwords.
I feel like you haven't owned an analog synth probably. Get your hands on a Behringer Model D, otherwise known as a BOOG, then get a plugin to sound like that. If it's a good plugin the character will be there, but it will just not be the same thing. If you want more complex, go for an Odyssey or 2600, but the thing about trying a Boog is that it's just the simplest sounds, and you can't say it's the complexity of the patch making it sound so different.
I could see how you're sick of how many analog style plugins come out with analog styled limitations, but you know of course many don't. Pigments, Synthmaster, Vital, Voltage, sure don't have those limitations. The reason why with hardwarare synths analog is a big deal, is that all digital can be had in a plugin. They know that's their competition and also why I don't buy new digital hardware synths. I have quite a few vintage ones, and those do manage to sound different to plugins, and or you can get them very cheap and that's just fun.
I put a like because I subscribe to your videos and appreciate your time and effort I of course get some knowledge/opinions and enjoy your delivery.... even though I disagree with most of what you said in this one lol. I appreciate opinions and respect you taking the time to express yours. Mine is, I could care less about multimbrality. If it's going to be your only hardware synth I guess, to not have to re-edit midi tracks before commiting to audio or making layers, but I'm generally fine with just recording tracks one at a time or using multiple synths in a multitimbral way. In the 90's I cared about a synth or rompler/sampler being multimbral, but with how plentiful synths and audio tracks are I havent used anything multimbrally except my Electribe 2 in over 20 years.
Let's break down the reality of what this cat is saying with a sum. Analog sounds better LIVE. If you put an analog synth thru a mixer then to a PA(moderately loud to fucking loud, mind you), you will need a hanky. The second you record it digitally, that magic is literally deleted(and it will sound just like a plugin). The human vagina is similar. I am a recovering 'hardware or die' cat. Even in that niche dichotomy there was another split, 'analog or die' or 'whatever I can afford'. Analog is now affordable. So yes analog sounds better live, I would testify to this in a congressional court. If the prosecutor then asked what my 3 favourite 'go to' synths were, I would say: Yamaha AN1X, Dsi Evolver, Alesis Ion engine(Ion/micron/miniak). I love my ultranova and my blofeld for their versatility. I am almost tempted to say an analog synth is like a jeep that likes mud. But that environment doesn't exist in urban/suburban areas. There are games where you can drive a virtual jeep in digital mud and it's...fun, but not the same experience. Notice this is not a question of better, it's difference.
@@gossamyr This is NOT what I'm saying. A digital recording does a fine job of reproducing an analog synth and doesn't, as you say, make it sound like a plugin. Also all the hardware synths you mentioned are digital.
@@housebandthexenos2569 Well the evolver is both, but yeah digital synths. I have 6 analogs but I was detailing my go to's, not analogs. I disagree with digital being the same. Even when I use a crappy fostex cassette 4 track, it sounds fuller than a digital recording to me. I can't afford to record on 2" tape though, so I have to record digital currently to be efficient. Most probably won't notice much of a difference, though...
@@gossamyr i dont have much experience with R2R but i kind of draw the line there. Its alot of extra work and expense on something thats not music making, and thats coming from someone with a 56 channel analog console and racks full of good comps and eqs. I own a Tascam 38 8 track R2R for 2 years and I havent used it even once.
There are lots of ways analog or digital can be better, and many things that can be analog or digital. One things for certain, at least to me, analog things sound different than digital things and anyone who says different, is not good at listening or lying for an agenda. I do think the end listners hear it too, they dont know what it is or care what makes it sound that way, they just know if they like the music and sound or not.
@@gossamyr "Analog sounds better LIVE."
That's 100% in your mind only, this difference does not exist in a live venue. Any of us keyboardists that know sound design and wield an FA-06 can prove it to you in person, as can the ones that wield a MODX or MOXF.
I don't know with what and how you record your analogues in your studio, but when I record mine they sound noticeably different from my VSTs like Dune3 and Massive X. I just use a Quad-capture, nothing special but not as bad as those muddy, overrated Scarletts. That said, the difference between my analogues and VSTs once fitted into a mix is small, and the consumer masses couldn't care any less whether your synths are analogue or digital, whether they listen to your tracks or listen to you perform live.
Analogue only continues to exist because we love the stuff and demand it and some companies are willing to supply. We can do without the stuff perfectly well.
It's always hilarious watching others do absurd mental gymnastics trying to justify analogue as anything other than luxury. You love analogue and use analogue synths, that is really the only justification you need, and the only one that isn't laughably ridiculous.
Hmmm I do get the love for layering up synth sounds. But to me that doesn't mean synths need to be multitimbral. I always find multitimbral synths a bit confusing. It's like trying to fit a whole composition into one synth patch. I find layering up sounds in the recording process to be much more clear. Also when you layer up multiple different patches or different synths (even more fun!) to create layered sounds, it opens up much more possibilities for the rest of the production process as well.
I do agree on the analog vs digital discussion having gotten way old. Who cares indeed.
My thought as well. Even though I love Logic's Alchemy and its ability to combine four timbres, I more commonly layer sounds as tracks because I don't have to dive into a plugin to control level and automation differently than other tracks.
I do think, that a lot of people when designing synth sounds, don't layer to create a single complex sound, played in the same way. However that was not the real use of multi-timbral synths either.
So it might be a overlooked part of sound designing.
And if the product don't support it, one can't find presets that does that.
Unless someone gets something like Unity, or what it is called, and find presets made for just a specific set of softwares that they do own.
Layering has been widely overlooked, for long though, as one of the aspects that made the CS-80 stand out, and when comparing it to others, people seem to completely miss that aspect, that would typically require more than one synth, to make something similar. Each of the layers of the CS-80, isn't necessarily that much more exciting than other synhts. But when comparing a dual layer sound to a single layer, one is missing a large part of it.
For me multitimbrality is more about live performance and studio space (or portability) - I think if you're working in the box and recording seperate tracks/instruments then it doesn't really make much sense in that kind of workflow, as you can just switch between presets. But for me being able to setup both a Pad and a Drone on one polysynth makes things a lot more practical for me.
@@NateHorn I forgot that Logic's Alchemy not only has four timbres, but it can *morph* those timbres, so that's something unique that we can't do on tracks in a DAW, at least not without a specialized morphing plug-in.
@@VictorLombardi That's very cool!
If you like layering different waveforms, the hardware synth you want is the Nord Wave 2. Four part multitimbral with faders.
You can layer 16 parts on the Virus TI ;)
Faders, so you can vary the levels between the layers and bring 'em in and out as needed? Handy!
I generally agree with you on this. One thing I've always thought, though, is that there are two separate use cases for multitimbrality. One is layering, and the other is keyboard splits (which is mostly useful for live performance). Is it possible that manufacturers who are making smaller keyboard synths and/or desktop synths (OpSix, Hydrasynth etc.) are making an assumption that nobody needs multitimbrality because it's only useful for splits on large keyboards? The point being that layering is *always* useful to have, regardless of the form factor, and they ought to remember this more often.
A similar issue from the world of computers: I'm pretty fed up with having to click the column separator to see the full file name in file explorer apps (Windows File Explorer and Apple's Finder equally guilty here). Both of these companies pour billions into whizzy new features that I don't want, like animated chat icons etc. - but for decades now they haven't got off their backsides and done the one simple thing that would improve my workflow no end: auto-sizing columns! Just make the column auto-size to fit the contents, so that folders with long filenames in them actually show you the complete filenames without you once having to click with a pointing device.
totally agree. interface usibility on macs and in software become worse the last ten years. not only in os but in lets say adobe tools as well
Multi timbral is not about just layers. It’s also about using the same synth to produce different sounds for your music tracks themselves
That way I can set up the first eight mini channels to trigger eight custom drum sounds. I created an eight more channels for pads and melodies and bass and leads.
You can create an entire song with just one machine
Think of it like loading the same VST instrument multiple times because you need to use multiple sounds when working on a computer to make music
The Korg Wavestate is four-part multitimbral. Modwave is two-part.
The Wavestation was 16-part almost 30 years ago. It’s ridiculous to cut it down to four.
@@ptkelly80 Idk, sounds like the current Wavestates were designed to integrate into existing setups rather than be a single sound generator for everything. Form factor and price point, I kind of see it.
I do wish there were more rack options than just the Roland Integra these days, but given the way people work now, and the emphasis on knob per function, that's just a tradeoff you have to make I guess.
@@ptkelly80 16-part is overkill, who actually makes sounds layering that much at once and with one or two insert FX for the 16 layers? Everyone producing on a PC has individual inserts on every layer plus a different EQ instance on each layer, but even then, they don't do 16 parts for one lead, bass, or pad.
@@Jason75913 the Integra-7 has 16 parts and an effects section for each one. It can be done, just no one wants to do it. Yeah, I understand about computers. A simple daw can outperform any hardware synth with enough RAM and CPU.
@@ptkelly80 You brought up the old Wavestation, not the modern Integra-7. FA-08 and the 2019 Fantom are similarly as powerful as the Integra, but none of this answers my question.
Who is doing 16-layer pads, leads, and basses? And post effects are extemely limited on anything not a modern, upscale Roland rompler.
Wavestate having only 4 parts is sensible. That said, I think the price is a bit high. It's sound quality is comparable to the Krome EX, but less feature-laden, much less keys, no touchscreen interface, and no full-fledged sequencer. Krome's sequencer (original or the newer EX) can bring up a piano roll view that works much like a PC DAW's.
MODX and Montage are 16-part multitimbral, with splits and layers galore. The new Hydrasynth Deluxe is bitimbral. So it's not completely absent from the market...just rare nowadays.
MOD and Montage are workstations like the Motif and Tritons were.
A workstation is a synthesizer. Full synthesis options are available. Depending on what you pick there may be more or less 1:1 dedicated control over timbre, or a deep menu system. But they are indeed fully featured synthesizers. ROM sample banks may be the most common trait, but it's by no means the only type of synthesis used on the modern systems, going back to Motif, Triton, and Kurzweil. I agree that they are typically not marketed to avant garde customers and the default patches can be pretty stale. But I think most people that say workstation like it's a dirty word, would be surprised by the power and capability of these things. Most are at a _minimum_ equipped to be subtractive synthesizers and there are waveforms, not just samples to use for oscillators.
@@spectre.garden ^this! My 20 years old workstation still can do more than all of my table top synths combined. Only the reverb effects sound really dated at this point (but that's what external effects are for).
@@bangmateo7481 the reason the Blofeld is multi-timbral is mostly the same that workstations are. In a time when using multiple instruments, and before that even audio channels in a daw was expensive, beeing able to sequence multiple channels via midi, made great sense.
Workstations can be used to make layered sounds as well. So they do count. Most workstations though, had limitations, when it came to the subtractive synthesis part.
@@spectre.garden I haven't seen workstation as a negative word, in the past, other than as not as easy to work with as a computer, but as they usually hade quicker boot times, and often were more stable for live use, they had their place.
I have heard the term Rompler, used as a negative word, and then often falsely describing something that was a workstation or sound module with sample and synthesis. There were Romplers, they typically played General Midi, or an expansion of that, some hade sequencers, and were kind of workstations, but they had no sound edit. Today, we mostly have digital pianos that are romplers, most other products, have some form of synthesis power, even a lot of stage pianos, are more than just simple romplers.
You’re right not a lot of people are doing this, but Dave Smith Instruments / Sequential has this on several synths.
The Access Virus is amazing for this same reason, 16 part multi with the TI 1 and 2 having 80-100 voices... I received the Blofeld today and I like it a lot, very capable synth. I think the Blofeld and Virus might use a similar DSP chip
A lot of synth of this time use the same DSP, I think it's the 536XX.
Your right in the sense that many synths used the Motorola DSP563xx chips. How ever the Virus TI uses 2 of them achieving up to 90 voices, allowing you to play up to 16 patches simultaneously. Not to mention that the Virus TI can be connected via usb and be fully controlled by the TI VST inside your DAW. Its a Very unique synth, with jaw drooping spec's and a capabilities that are a bit hard to compare to other synths. Older Waldorf synths were made in the same city as Access Virus's and the companies collaborated quite a bit back in the day, thus the similar design philosophies. The Biofield and TI2 are the only physical synths I own, and I don't plan on ever letting them go. 👍
I use sequencers.
I NEED multitimbral synths.
I HAVE a Blofeld...... 😊
It can do lots !!!!, dub techno chords, rad basses, killer pads/atmospheric, etc........dont bother with drum sounds, as it's 1 midi channel Per Voice (which is weird, normally complete sets occupy ch10).....
But, sticking to multis is HEAVEN.
I stack/layer basses or pads or arps
You can set the multi up to have all your drum sounds on channel 10, each on a different note
@@nnervecenter then I need to re-read on that.... THAT would be a GIANT plus !!!! Can you point me in that direction for a good “head start” ???
I bought the Blofeld to replace my Venom....
@@paultorbert6929 there’s a moment in this video where a second patch in the multi is also set to channel 1. So you can do that for say, four patches kick snare hihat tom - but all set to 10. Then there’s a screen with multi to set the key range for each - you adjust thatx4 so that there’s just one note per voice and no overlap between them. You might actially want a range for the tom so that it can play different pitches. Once that’s done you may want to transpose individual sounds because the pitch they’re playing at on their assigned notes isn’t ideal. There’s a screen for that too in the multi settings if I recall. Don’t have Blofeld with me now. Hope that’s of use!
@@paultorbert6929 also you can import drum samples ready - mapped to certain notes. That way you can build a complete kit and have it occupy not just only one patch but just one ‘oscillator’ if you like
@@nnervecenter oh dang....... this could be a Game Changing moment !!!!!!!!!!!!
I CANNOT SAY THANK YOU enough !!!!!!!
Hi, you can layer sounds in Reason using combinator. It is great tool, you can build complex sounds by combining any synths and effects and save the whole thing as a patch. Or you can build effect pathes same way.
I get what you're saying. If they could produce DSP like this over 14 years ago, where is the equalent low budget high performnce synth engine? In a sense the Blofeld was trying to be 'that popular synth'. It shares aspects of the Roland D50s, with its multi-tembral sounds [re-evoked in the relatively recent Boutique D-05]. This though isn't based on snipets of samples and puretones. This digital analoge FM kitchen sink box ticking hybred celebrates the joy of sound design. It had to succeed, and so they placed in it, everything they knew.
Todays budget synth engines by comparison are me-too niech fillers. With that said, the music today isn't multi-tembral film score wannabes. The music today knows its place and does everything to stick to its designated genre.
Now if only you could access those multitimbral parts in real time to turn them on or off, up or down as part of a performance. Maybe for your 'next trick' you could demonstrate this 'magic' with an external controller mapped to the cc which controls those multitimbral parts. The best way to promote this idea would be to demonstrate its usefulness.
I agree. The results and possibilities are much more important than any "analog" purity for me. I am looking forward to synth and plugin makers to move beyond replicating the past analog glory and find out how to completely flip the script using new tech.
Perhaps the best part of the Blofeld is the SL upgrade. Being able to add your own samples and run them through that architecture delivers tones with a character than can't be matched by either modern software or older hardware.
any idea where i can get high quality samples that emulate vintage synths?
I find it odd that there aren't really any videos on UA-cam demonstrating this feature.
I picked up a mint condition Blofeld last month for $350. It's a beast and has radically changed my musical experience. I'm so impressed with your mastery of the programming. I've been thrilled with the onboard tones but now you've expanded my horizon to infinity. TY
I have several favorite multitimbral synths: Dune, Omnisphere, Electra, Falcon, Rapid, Triton, Kontakt, Xpand. I also make my own using Ableton Racks and Unify.
Agreed
You might want to check out the Sequential REV2 16-voice. You can stack, or split two completely different patches, in full analogue. You can even stack two duplicate patches, pan one full left, and the other right, and achieve binaural stereo patches.
Man, what a refreshing video, especially your points about analog overmarketing at the beginning. I'm so over being told that analog sounds better, I wanna make what I wanna make and I'll use whatever I have available to me - analog or not, I don't caaaaare!
Totally agree, I get plenty of awesome shit out of my Nord or R8 that isn’t comparable to what I could get out of my moog, my modular stuff, or my 606.
Ok, but many of us have also played tons of instruments and genuinely feel that an analog Moog or electromechanical Rhodes or Fender tube amp really do sound the best.
Multi-timbral for layering sounds is nice, but multi-timbrality across multiple independent sync-able sequences/arps/tracks is the best! The KeyStep Pro, with 4 mono-timbral synths of your choice, is another way to go.
Back in the days DSP development was still low level machine code. They used real DSPs for computation. Today they mostly use general purpose CPUs with some DSP-like instructions and code them in higher level languages that are less performant. So even while they have much higher frequency, their performance is not DSP optimized and in reality they might perform worse. Additionally, back in the days you calculated sound differently. Waldorf mostly used fixed point calculation with some special tricks to use less instructions. You had lots of aliasing. Aliasing-free OSCs for proper wavetable playback are very taxing. Overall, I think because of better sound quality, CPU choice and probably less computational skills, newer synth developers might not be able to do more voices. Also it's a cost and time issue. DSPs are very expensive because nobody is buying them anymore.
Yes, but the point is you can go multitimbral with just the VA as well, which is already crazy. Even with aliasing waveforms Blofeld is still lot of fun to program.
This is very interesting, I suspected there was something technical behind this and not just the marketing / product positioning of knob per function interfaces. That mixture of DSP hardware becoming expensive and being replaced by general purpose computation plus the skills for writing code for DSP no longer being developed sounds like a solid reason why my Elektron Digitone has half the voices of a DX7 despite all the advancements in tech since.
I'm going to share my 2 cents, an embedded software engineer... The difference between hand-optimized assembler and a higher level system language like C/C++ or Rust is pretty small these days. Also, compiler extensions make supporting hardware vector operations and multiply-accumulate (like in a DSP but common CPUs now) super easy. Plus the performance difference of a modern superscalar processor that has a clock rate 2 or 3 times a high-end DSP core and a memory interface that is 10 to 50 times the throughput kind of makes up the difference of any inefficient use of languages. There are other aspects like latency for operations that make DSPs really excellent at what they do, but are often not a design requirement for a desktop synth module. If people are happy with their plugins, then an engineer can design something just as good if not better with a dedicated piece of hardware running a decent CPU and a real-time OS.
Audio DSP programming is still hard though, even if you are using a high-level language and a modern architecture. And engineers still work out the use cases and use formal analysis to find the worst case scenario for processor usage in order to guarantee a minimum level of functionality. Which is why synths have limits on their polyphony that often changes depending on additional complexity added to the synthesis chain.
The Blofeld is notorious for running through its 25 "voices" by adding things like comb filters and leaving you with half or quarter as much polyphony as you might have thought you were going to get. It's still a great box, right up there with the Alesis Micron/Ion for me!
Actually, most of the hardware synths I still own are multitimbral. With plugins you can use as many instances, with different patches, as your DAW can handle.
Which synths?
Yes and when it comes to recording most people record one track at a time.
@@Heathcliff_hensel Perhaps for live recording. I create multitrack compositions in my DAW and then render the entire thing to audio. There usually are multiple hardware and software synths playing simultaneously.
things go in cycles, and we're in a sort of nostalgic 'analog is best' period at the moment. I think a mix of both is digital and analog (if you have the gear) is good and interesting. Great times to be making music indeed...
It all just depends on what appeals to you as an artist.
"what does this do that other things can't do" is my first question whenever I learn about a new piece of software. Often the answer is "nothing".... Which is really sad =/
that seems overly simplified. Feature sets are not the only important part of a product, as is the case with analog hardware, the question, is how does it sound different. And here, though, I would say a lot of people miss the large overlap in sounds, and may go for something, just because it in some cases can sound different, whereas most of the time, it sounds very similar (that is typically often how people compare analog to digital, only focusing on the difference, no matter how seldom it matters, just for the sake of finding a difference).
I've seen a lot of people lookin for that next new thing, and because of that, not really paying attention to what is on offer. And typically, the makers, that makes something widely different, also ends up with something that is typically not that user friendly, and doesn't even have the legacy of, "that is just how that type of product works, and you learn it".
Amen, Brother! That's why I'm still using 25-year old Alesis QS synthesizers that can stack up to 64 tones under one key and import (although painfully slow) custom samples for new content...Synth manufacturers seem to be most interested in selling you trash for a quick buck, with the notable exception of the Sequential Prophet X
This very reason is why I will always have a Blofeld in my collection, no matter what crazy new synths come out or what fancy analog stuff shows up on the market. I'm happy to see companies like Roland offering new multi timbral synths, FINALLY, and I find the new Jupiter X to be an absolute joy because of it. Great video!
The prices Roland charges tho... I'm quite content with their older multitimbral offerings. You can get a JV1010 or even 1080 for comfortably low prices these days. The Jup X is a glorious instrument but just too bloomin' spendy. 🙂 I'm now rockin' a pretty capable multitimbral collection - QS8.1, Micron, Nanosynth, JV-1010, and just ordered, yep, a Blofeld. You need a Blofeld. I need a Blofeld. EVERYONE needs a Blofeld. 😀
@@mrz80 I have a QS 8.2, I'm always surprised at how relevant that thing is no matter how much time passes lol
@@Avesta. Alesis did something it apparently never occurred to Roland to try: They made the majority of their factory presets useful, usable, and decent sounding :P
I love how even the VST version of the Blofeld, Largo, is multitimbral. I mainly used to use my Blofeld with a computer and, while it isn't bad, the UI always turned me off from exploring deeper into the synth. I compared my Blofeld and Largo and found that (when the bass boost is turned on in Largo!!!) the sound is the same, aside from missing the Blofeld's PPG filter and sample rate/multi effect from Largo. I sold the hardware off for a more immediate synth and have been more than happy using the software version!
analogue is a catch word, and will be used as a sales pitch for the rest of eternity. What you are basically saying is that additive synthesis and layering is something that should be examined more closely and offered in a physical domain. I agree thoroughly, but a lot of people would find this approach complicated, just a quick look at the creation of sound on a synclavier using PCM in comparison to a moog or roland module. presonus StudioOne can layer different VSTs beside, or on top of each other now. This approach certainly answers your question, but only in the digital domain, again NOT with a "physical" approach. I love your question and am happy that you asked it.
Blofeld is what I recommend to any starting out musicians.
There are a lot of synths that do more voices or have warmer filters.
Or that can sync to MIDI perfectly.
But the cool thing about the Blofeld is that it isnt a one trick pony and its not modeling anything in particular.
It's just very flexible.
A lot of other synths I have that are newer I am much more frustrated by. Common things are on knobs, everything else is a menu or a special key combo.
Waldorf is screen intensive, but it's very straightforward.
I compare it to the Machinedrum.
Both are screen intensive little digital boxes that are pretty easy to get around on, but capable of crazy sound potential. And neither leaves me scratching my head trying to find the secret menu to turn on FM or something.
UNIFY... When Unify first came out I thought, "Who needs this?" because it is POSSIBLE to do it in DAWs, but the WAY Unify does it is SO GOOD for workflow and makes this layering work so well. I know it doesn't really work for hardware synths, but as far as that goes I think it's been overlooked there is because everyone has multiple synths, and nobody is using an Emu Proteus to do 8 different sounds in a song anymore... Oh, and yes, Chemex is great :-)
i wish synth companies experimented more with new and novel synthesis methods. cos software synths are way ahead in that regard, with synths like chromaphone, razor, unfiltered audio lion etc.
FM synthesis always seems to find some new dimension to survive in, giving it a whole new identity every few years. Next to certain lush, fat analog synths I just about favor FM over anything else. I think one of the most awesome trends of the past 30+ years is the SY-series from Yamaha featuring "convolution synthesis": Samples modulated and mixed with 6-operator FM. To me it doesn't get much better than that. I have an SY99 and I've come to believe that synth can do just about anything. Only it's contemporary, Kurzweil's K-series VAST engine, could do the same or better. I am still blown away by those two synths after all these years.
I think the digital osc and fx on the new synths demand more horsepower and are therefore often not multitimbral.
The more expensive multitimbral versions of the Hydrasynth (the Hydrasynth delux) and the peak(the summit) are for a reason large.
Btw, I also think that the Hydrasynth did make good use of technology digital synths can use easier than analog synth. 5 env, 5 lfo's (you can create your own lfo in 64 steps) , the fx, the filter choice.the routing options, the mutators and the amount waveforms you can morph between are pretty cool functions. That combined with a very very smart ui makes it an innovating machine in my eyes.
I watched this and actually wrote an absurdly long reply which I have since decided isn't a good fit for a comment here... maybe one day I do a video on this lol. bottom line is, just as you have pointed to plugins like diva.... there in is the issue. we don't want sound quality of rebirth, we want sound quality of diva. this takes a ton of DSP processing power. the synth market is VERY niche, so while you might be able to do this sort of thing cost effectively on an ipad, that same processor in a synth would be insanely expensive. I could go into so much more detail but I am biting my tongue lol. nice topic.
*Palpatine voice* "Do it!"
You are making me very curious why an iPad processor would be expensive in a synth since they are already made and could just be reused.
In fact, I mentioned elsewhere in the comments that the Korg Wavestate is a good modern take on a budget multitimbral synth and now that I think about it: Korg did exactly this. Because although the outside of the WS is lots of knobs and buttons, the inside is a raspberry pi board, so the synth runs on an affordable mass produced computer processor.
@@jantuitman korg used a raspberry pi. Not at all the same as an iPad processor but certainly moving in that direction. It also illustrates part of the reason why it would not be cost effective to have something like an m1 chip in a synth. Economics of scale. In addition to that level of chipset being quite expensive to produce to begin with, you have to remember that the cost to the manufacturer does not equal the cost to the customer. Generally due to the size of the market and many other factors this increases the cost to the user greatly. There are draw backs to using an existing platform such as a pi , but there are also advantages.
@@Fluxwithit yes, an M1 in a synth would definitely be too expensive. But something like a raspberry pi is very doable, even for boutique synths, though it is easier for a large brand like Korg. And the good news is, iPads of a couple years old are quite impressive software platforms for audio, so a newer raspberry pi model or comparable board can definitely make viable synths. That a boutique company can also pull it off to sell a mid priced synth based on such a platform, is proven by the existence of devices like for example Critter and Guitari Organelle. So, the question left is, why are not more manufacturers doing this, and are most midi based synths so much the same, emphasizing analog above everything else? I think maybe the development of the more interesting synth paradigms has moved to eurorack land. Which is a sad thing because not everybody wants to spend that much money on it and also not everybody wants to deal with the mess of having to replug dozens of cables to change a patch.
@@jantuitman again, there are draw backs to using such a platform as well. You still need to develop a custom I/O board, your devs are limited by the platform IN Other areas as well. Not having complete control of your platform can be a hinderance. Let alone licensing etc. as I said I think this is the direction you will start seeing adopted as time moves on by other companies …but it’s not a perfect solution.
Multi mode was the whole reason I bought a Blofeld. And the Alesis Micron, M-Audio Venom and Beat Thang. Also love slaving synths with a Quadra Thru.
All through the late 80s and early 90s I had a Kawai K1R - like a poor man's D50. But that was multi timbral and I used to have each voice in a multi on a separate midi channel so I could get more tracks layered on my cassette 4 track. Later I had a Roland XP-30 and used multis on that to play live - either splitting across the keyboard or just getting more dense sounds.
Don't play live now. Now I just layer soft synth sounds in a DAW. Seems easier and more flexible to me for recording.
I love my Blofeld for exactly that. But I also hate it in some ways, one of which you accidentally showed. I can't count how many sounds I've lost because of me turning that damn knob when the machine didn't want me to😅
You’re not alone, I definitely agree! I love analog, but I would never be able to do what I do without digital synths and fx.
I too love analog, but VA and VSTs are just plain close enough for what's left of my hearing. 😛
Tetr4 from DSI is quite a nice example of what an analog multitimbral portable synth could be!
I still dream of a Tetra with the workflow of the P12 module
I’m a multi enthusiast too, proud parent of my three faves which are the access virus ti2, blofeld, and my recent Jupiter Xm. I definitely use multi sound design on all of them. Love your coffee insight, lol.
Volume STICKER addON = superb delight on my inner skull pan… Post Script: I love your outside face…
Blofeld is one of the best digital synthesizer ever produced. A real MUST HAVE of our times....It's COOL, sounds good, it's not overpriced like 3/4 of the synthesizers on this planet, it packs tons of features for the most demanding sound designers but is loaded with lots of presets for the bread&butter kind of stuff nonetheless.
Concur. Between Cameron and a couple other guys (esp. Florian of Bad Gear, tho he had a rough time with the UI 🙂 ) I was convinced enough part with some gear and scoop up a Blofeld off Reverb.
Analog sound great (usually) and is simple (usually) and people like great sounding simple synths. It’s not that complicated. Just go to the world of plugins if you want great sounding digital synths with lots of options.
Blofeld probably best value synth ever It’s a great synth
Yep, second hand for $350-400 (at least when I got one - haven't checked recently) and then with Mystery Island's editor/librarian software it programs like a plugin, too!!!!
Yep, the bang-for-buck ratio is just off the charts on this thing. I'm leaning really heavily towards adding one to my guitar rig for church. I do a lot of pads and atmospheric stuff, and the abiliity to pile some key/pad sounds behind my guitar playing would be a big boost, and while the SY-1000 can do a lot, this would be orders of magnitude more capable for a sound engine.
Close second for me is the micro freak
Another reason why I love Sequential so much, the rev2 is bi-timbral and I layer things on almost every patch I make. And with the new P10 update it can be bi-timbral too. Layering is the best.
If you have to ask what the obsession is with "good" analog then I think it unlikely you will be satisfied by any of the possible answers that you will get and I wont bore you with a bunch of cliche answers though Average or bad analogue is a whole other thing. Probably the best way to put it is the best analogue equipment sounds as good as its possible to sound but just being analogue doesn't guarantee being good at all. Like I cant for a second understand the resurgent interest in Cassette tape or even vinyl records other than forcing you to listen to whole albums at once.
I have owned many synths from the original analog days before presets through the first wave of Analogue poly's with patch memory through the initial Digital eara of interesting synths on through the Digital Dark Ages of ROMplers and Workstations through Virtual Analogue era the the VST "Analogue" and finally to the second wave of Analogue plenty we are now in so I have seen and used pretty much everything there is at one time or another and while I can only speak for myself for me the super powerful multitimbral digital machines were just simply a pain due to the interface. Sure if you know your way around a lone machine intimately you can get to a point where its quicker but it never a joy like creating a sound on a Pro 5 or Juno 60 was and still is. The "dual" Architecture of machines like the Rev 2 where every patch is a layered thing and you can choose where you layer or split is a joy to work with. The Prologue is similar but requires menu diving to switch layers on or off which is stupid.
I used a lot of VSTs at one point and got rid of most hardware but that wore thin after not so long and I rediscovered the joy of hands on hardware and I now have a decent collection of Analog, Digital and hybrid machines including a Blofeld which I do like but just find the interface even in single mode to take any and all joy out of the sounds its capable of. The Nord lead 4 does a great job of layering but cant imagine ever layering more than three possible four sounds. The other thing is even if ii require a layered sound I'm more likely to stack up a couple of different synths than use multiple layers from the same sound source .
I'm right there with you Cameron. One my favorite synths that I own is the Novation Nova. It's 16-voice, 6 part multi-timbral, provides the user the ability to create their own arpeggios, and it came out in 1999. Why does it feel like synth manufacturers have taken a step back instead of adding new functionality?
It's all about the money, it's all about the dum dum duddi dum dum
Even Novation took a step back with the monotimbral Ultranova
ive got the 24-voice version. Can be maxed to 48! *eeeeee* :)
Holly molly, I used the multitimbral feature in 2015, but I completely forgot about this. Thank you for reminding me. I just did it again. Very nice.
And this is why I love my VirusTI and will likely never sell it. Although Access seems to have abandoned the line forever, it has features, 15 years on, that even current attempts like the Kyra couldn’t get right. It’s 100% digital and it absolutely demolishes some current releases that swear by going after that “analog” brass ring. I also wish every synth has the ability to stream audio over usb to a daw and be used as a plug-in in real time (like the Virus can, until it won’t anymore).
Reason why they're have not depreciated at ALL in value all these years later...
Go virus ti, a ti3 would be precisely what would solve all problems. Shame the maker went into guitar amps instead with the technology.
@@somtamtim Tell me about it.
I think some manufacturers fail to include the multi timbral aspect because they feel they're skating too close to a workstation and are not inclined to go the full mile on that product.
Great video! I've been using the Blofeld and Pulse 2 since 2016. Waldorf synths like the Blofeld and Pulse 2 do not get the praise they so rightly deserve. The Blofeld is, unfortunately, a very underrated synth. With a bit of digging and exploration, this synth becomes a monster! Again, thank you for an excellent review. Best, Chip
Or more to the point, for DAWLESS setups, on separate channels, two synths! For a digi/wavetable having pads and stabs on one synth is great
I can understand it. We were in a point where the music sounded too "digital" too predictible or lifeless given the nature of the vst or CPU based synths. Then people looked back and feel that the "real" synths were sounding more appealing.
Trends always goes in circles. But you can always sit with an acoustic guitar and compose a sweet simple melody and that is beyond all this music trendy fever 😊
It's the marketing of analog that holds the multi-timbral back. When I was growing up, I insisted on multitimbral (because if I was going to go broke buying a synth, I wanted multiple voices!). Multi-timbral is much harder to "manage" the voicing with analog synths properly, otherwise previous "long running" patches start to get messed up with new parameters coming in for the next voice. Scaling up to many more analog voices is prohibitively expensive compared to software, which is why many modern synths are the bare minimum monotimbral analogue. I've kept my Virus TI (Snow), and microKorg, both of which are gems in their own right.
You're absolutely right Cameron! It was a staple in the late 80s, all of the 90s. The fact that synths were multitimbrals made them all so powerful. Don't know why they won't do it nowadays, even with the "analog" craze... Hey, even sequential did it with a few of their analog synths back then! I own a Sequential Six Trak, which was a completely "analog" synth, with only 6 voices of polyphony, but has the ability of stacking up to 6 voices, or even play up to 6 different patches over midi!
So.... No excuse for all today's synth manufacturers not to do it. They're so focused on making it the same as, but better sounding, synths of yesteryear recreation, that they forget this tiny detail.
Keep up the good work!
Still looooove my Blofeld keyboard so much .... What an incredible machine. Would love to have a quantum, but out of my reach money wise hehe...
The Wavestate, despite its more advanced engine, is only 4-part multitimbral, compared to the Wavestation’s 16 parts. That’s unforgivable to me.
Totally agree - I've been exploring multitimbral options, trialing a Micro Monsta 2 from Audio Thingies and more recently picking up an Access Virus C - 32 voices that can be spread over 16 (!) parts, and just as important (and something the Blofeld lacks), 3 seperate stereo outs.
I'm not going to read through the comments before commenting, so what I'm about to post might already be in the comments.
In the 90s, multi-trimbrality became a thing, since studio computers and disc space was expensinve. With multi-trimbral hardware, it was possible to midi sequence the hardware, and build songs that way, befor recording to a limited number of tracks.
But there were some virtual analog synths, that had limited polyphony and thus limited or no multi-timbrality, as the polyphony wasn't enough.
When the DSP power of the chips grew, more polyphony was added, and with that, the ability to finally do proper multi-timbrality with virtual analog synths as well.
At this point though, there was an issue, most virtual analog synths, were sounding less lively compared to analog, and some parameters like the filter, had audiable stepping.
And many had limited hands-on controls.
What that lead to was a desire among many synth players to have the classic analog synth, with good layout and analog sound.
At this point, among many, digital had lost the battle in terms of sound.
However, it was possible in theory, to rebalance the DSP power, to make hardware that sounded more like analog hardware, but then it would loose polyphony, and multi-tibrality. But since, there was a divide, where some were just fine with digital, and others pretty much had their mind made up that analog was the thing, we had that analog revival.
At the same time music computers became cheaper, and VST, really useful.
So at some point digital synth hardware, made little point.
And in the computer, you no longer had to rely on multi-timbrality, as it was just to make a new track. And with the flexibility of beint able to add whatevere one wanted on the layer, it could be another instance of the same software, or another synth, with another character, or acoustic sampled instrument.
And on the hardware side, analog was almost the only thing synthheads cared for, where multi-timbrality, was pretty much out of the equation, due to cost and complexity, and the performer could get their workstations, wich layered much like software, with the korg offering engines, and others sample based synthesis in combination with others samples, there was really very limited market and use for multi-timbral synths.
And as hardware has gotten cheaper, layering in hardware, is not accessible to a lot of synthheads, in the form of using multiple synths. Something that Jarre for example had been doing for decades, but that the average synthhead would not have been able to afford.
There are some synths that does layering, today. But I would say the need for it is very limited. And I would probably outside of a workstation (or workstation like) synthesizer, would probably layer with another hardware, rather than inside a single unit. And then there is mainstage and similar solutions, where one can use virtual instruments live.
One thing though, the classic Synth, CS-80 considered to be one of the best, was a dual layer synth, so it did layering, and that is something seem to miss when they compare it to other synths, as that is one mayor thing about it's sound. While each layer sounds good, on a per layer basis, it doesn't necessarily sound that more exciting compared to a lot of other synths.
A lot of people even when layering, don't see it as a part of designing a single sound.
But that was true often on multi-timbral synths as well.
One thing though, I wish more synths had, was enough LFOs, and the ability to control one LFO with another. Modulating the modulation, is something I really enjoy, as it can really add movement and "life" to a sound.
This is something a lot of software synths lack, where automation, might work as a workaround, but that when missing in hardware, you can't really solve it, as midi (not midi 2.0) lacks the resolution to do from an external source. Where monophonic synths with CV patch connectors, and the right exerntal unit can solve.
One thing though about analog.
I agree, digital synths, today, can, if the maker want them to, sound analog.
Typically though in hardware, digital synths tend to be made so complex that the hands-on control panel can't cover anywhere near all the features, and one has to work a lot inside of menus. But even some modern analog suffers from this, at times (but that was also the case in the 80s and forward).
When it comes to filters, I really wish makers, would better make use of the relative ease of which more complex filters can be built. They can have continuously variable slope, and go to much deeper slopes as well, and have continuously variable mode, like SEM, but with the character of other types of filters. And one can have dual filters of even more, without adding the same kind of cost it would in analog hardware (the CS-80 was also a synth with dual resonant filters, many Rolands had a non resonant HP filter, and that isn't anywhere near the same thing).
Even those that do hybrids, should really consider adding a digital high quality filter, to expand the number of filters, to at least two, and with that make the digital one a really flexible one.
If you use Reaper, the structure of the DAW allows for instant layering of synth Plugins. Easy Peasy. No multiple tracks of MIDI , or routing MIDI, required (although Reaper allows for all kinds of crazy routing). I miss Ableton, though, it doesn't work on my version of Linux (I tried it with WiNE)
I also use Reaper to route midi from a hardware synth to control other hardware synths and boom, my monotibmbral synths can have as many layers as I want.
The Novation Nova is great for this. It's also got 6 outputs, so you can route it into a mixer like it's 3 different stereo synths, or 6 different mono ones!
The Integra-7 has 8 outputs! 😀
Totally agree. Back in the 90s I had a Yamaha TG77 Synth module which was a 16 voices multitimbral capable synth: with a Atari mega 1 computer (that’s it, 1 megabyte of flash memory on a single floppy disc) and a software (C-Lab Notator, today I think is Logic) I could manage an entire song. But today, apart from the Bloefeld, the only multi-timbral hardware modules are those from Yamaha and Roland (and a few minor choices) which are pretty expensive and not too inspiring kind of romplers. It is true that the tg77 wasn’t cheap either, but in 30 years technology has become more affordable and I see no reason for the lack of choices, even (or above all) from the sound design perspective.
im really happy youre making an issue out of this, i feel the same way
Nostalgia is such a big part of it. People craved those big knob twiddlin' beasts in their youth but couldn't afford them, and now they are older, there are pretty faithful recreations of them that they can.
I'm trying to cover my bases my having a Behringer Cat, Neutron and Crave on on hand, and a Roland D-110 and JV-2080 on the other :-)
What you prefer to use the D110 for vs the JV2080?
@@freestate6200 the D-110 is obviously more dated but it has some nice FM-style electric pianos if you need that '80s vibe. And of course it is a whopping 9-part multitimbral (8 instruments + drums)
Actually that's maybe a good point on why it's not as prevalent anymore, the complexity! Trying to program several different timbres on the D-110's tiny screen is not fun
I am of the opinion that the most important part of coffee making is the grinder. A conical burr grinder is best at shrinking the standard deviation of size distribution. Having the correct grind for whatever coffee method helps with smoothness e.g. fine particulates in a French press makes it bitter and harsh. I would rather have a cup of cowboy coffee from a clean gym sock with a conical burr grinder set to coarse than a cup of stovetop espresso/French press from a hack apart type grinder.
I believe it has largely to do with this "remake" era we live in. Millenials are now old enough to work and have some money on them, so the market sells them all kinds of products of questionable quality mainly based on "nostalgia". See all the 90´s movies that were remaked (some horribly).
As far as coffee making recommendations go, my favorite is the Bialetti moka express.
I feel exactly the same about the disdain for anything built after 1983. If I want that '80s vibe, I have my trusty old Juno-60...Along with a modular rack, a Nord Lead3 and some great 19" rack mount sound modules, all of which are multitimbral. I had the Blofeld, regretted selling it to fund a Prophet '08 that I tried hard to love but never did...Oh well! Love your vids, and I've subbed.
I can't afford disdain for anything newer than a Juno, if only because I can't afford a Juno! 😛 I've viewed Junos and JXs thru the frosty glass of unobtainium and spousal ire for decades, but I'm quite content now with one of the big R's ubiquitous 4-part wonder-romplers, and a VST for Juno exactitude (Cherry's mind-blowing thirty buck DCO-106).
My first synth was Ensoniq ESQ1 and all my older synth were all able to combine sounds in layers. This was the reason why my last synth is a Roland F07. Today there is no midi master keyboard able to manage 16 or more midi channel to combine sounds. I still have an old ELKA MK55 with 2 midi out and able to connect an external keyboard as extention for split like have upper and lower manual split off 2x 76keys . I got some new analog digital synth in last years but you need the right tools on computer to manage layer and split. Mainstage for mac ( but i dont have mac) Or for pc: Ableton or Mulab from Mutools a very underrated an cheap swiss army tool to combine hardware synth and vst synths.
For me a sound is allway a combination of timber, and sound in my brain is divide in 3 part : attack part sustained part and released part. Sound generator can be any thing, from basic shape, wavetable , samples or high complex digital genarators. Sadly i lost the most advanced synth many years ago the Clavia nord modular G2 , and synth expander with only one buton ( on/off) , it was digital polyphonic modular system programmed on computer and full midi compatible with macro assigning.
I completely agree with you, I'm using the Sledge 2.5 Black, and even though it's only layers two sounds, you can trigger a note or a cord holding sustain and change patches and the previous sound sustaining. Give it a try if you haven't yet. It gives real-time control to the Blofelds cousin.
There are things you can do with analog you can't with digital and vice versa. Marketing is obnoxious. People were annoyed in the 90's & 00's about knobless digital workstations being the trend.
The same people complaining about mono analogs "not being worth it" are the same one's who derided the Blofeld "it's digital? so it's just a vst? not worth it?"
Also Multitimbral synths were developed to make up for what we have in spades. Multitracking in a daw.
Quick search for current Multitimbral synths:
Elektron Analog Four
Elektron Octatrack
Elektron Digitone
PreenFM2
Any drum synth
Waldorf Kyra
Waldorf M
Nord Lead A1
Nord Wave 2
Moog One (tri-timbral)
Korg Wavestate
Too many bi-timbral synths to name.
I totally agree with your frustrations. Surely if we compare the price and performance of DSP from the 90's compared to now, you would assume you would get far more packed into a VA synth nowadays. Possibly 32 parts Multitimbral and 3 filters, 5 LFOS, 5 OSC etc. I wonder if the extra DSP is now utilised to focus on quality of sound above all else. I know early VA's had more noticeable aliasing/stepping on the filters. But then I have a Nord Lead 1 and a Novation KS4 that still sound phenomenal even now, and as you have mentioned also provide multiple parts. I love my Cobalt8/Argon8/System8 and Hydrasynth also, but sometimes I wonder why they are limited to only 8 voice polyphony. My Virus TI2 has 110 voice polyphony and that is 10 years old. There must be a reason? Maybe it's because back then people used to only use their DAW to sequence and then route everything through an analog mixing desk and record to DAT, (hence the need for multitimbral synths with seperate outs whereas now manufacturers think that we can just record different parts to the DAW.
8:32 I haven't used my Blofeld in years, but I knew exactly where this was going...
Vital has the option of using resynthesis sound the we created and use as a wave table for oscilators.
This video made me get one!
Yep. Analog isn't the end word in synthesis, though it has its advantages in creating classic sounds. It is hitting saturation point these days though. As for the lack of modern multi-timbral synths, it means old Viruses, Nords, Waldorfs, Korg's and the like will always have a place in many studios. Regarding the discussed issue here, to my mind the best examples are the Nord Lead 3 & Integra, followed by the Korg Radias & Monomachine, then Nord Lead 2/Virus/Novation Supernova.
I agree. I do like the emulation of analog within the digital domain though. it does step backwards as far as sonics but it does help rethink the next step going forward. sort of like not not forgetting the basic math.
I always had the same question I don’t understand why in the 90s keyboards were multitimberal so you could connect to a DAW and playback 16 tracks! Especially now competing with VSTZ’s that do this, it doesn’t make sense for hardware to not do this.
When I bought my Blofeld desktop, it was around the same time I bought a Korg Radias. The Radias is four part multi timbral, and coupled with the onboard step sequencers, dual filters....and effects, it's a beast. But I digress...I loved the Blofeld so much, I bought the keyboard version within a few months 🤷🏻♂️
Thanks for putting this together. I am a fellow Blofeld fan, and several of my most recent additions to the studio - an Alesis Micron and Kurzweil K2000RS - attest to a shared interest in deep synthesis. That said, I have probably gone the path of many people who want a deeper and more texturally interesting sound palette by buying a lot of mid-range synths fitting in certain niches rather than a few synths with multitimbrality.
While I totally agree there's a lack of imagination on the part of most synth manufacturers, I think much of what's out there is driven by consumer demand. I feel like, aside from the Hydrasynth and a number of other manufacturers' $3000+ flagship synths, there's just very little interest in pushing the boundaries because most of the people buying synths are just interested in retreading the 1970-2000 soundscape. I also have this sense that the modular craze has drained away a lot of the interest in innovation. It's basically: oh, you want to do crazy shit? You should get into modular. Call me old fashioned, but I appreciate a well-made instrument, and very little about modular says 'instrument' to me.
I also feel that most people do not go deep enough with their gear. The stuff you point out about the Blofeld only becomes apparent after one spends a great deal of time with it. How many people get to the outside edges of what a given piece of gear can do, enough to understand what it will never be able to do? That's how we got a lot of the synth technology we have now - Tangerine Dream and Brian Eno and others sitting down with hardware designers in the '70s and '80s because what was currently available couldn't do a thing they imagined was possible, but could find nothing that would do it. Which artists are pushing those boundaries now?
Modular has potential if used right. Most modular makers/demoers, and a lot of users, don't seem to understand the potential. Instead of using it a building blocks, to build a monophonic synth (or a few monophonic synths), with a custom signal path, and all the modulators one might want, with differnt filterts and oscs, depeding on the sound. What they mostly demonstrated as, are blip-blop machines, where it isn't uncommon, that demoers get rhythmic sounds by pushing the module, rather than trigger it (and the vcas of the voice), like one would on a actual synth.
Because of the bad demos, though, it can be hard to discover the good modules.
Polyphonic synthesis in modular, is way too expensive, unless one buy polyphonic modules, but those don't offer the per voice control, or signal path separation, that made modular interesting in the first place.
@@TheJonHolstein My point is not to badmouth modular, but more to say it can end up a form of ghettoization, where synth manufacturers keep endlessly recycling the same feature sets, and anyone who wants to be adventurous gets told to 'try modular'.
Totally agree. I’m yearning for a 4-8 part multitimbral polysynth with a very knobby interface to sequence with a Digitakt. Thinking of giving in to a Virus TI.
Even if you get an Access Virus TI Snow, you will pleased with that combined with Digitakt. That's what i use. The Snow is 4 parts only, but that and another multi-tim synth is plenty for me.
I do it with the Blofeld.Also have a JP8080 but since the Blofeld came,JP kinda stayed in the box.
You are in for some treat if you decide to go for it.Or with a Virus.
Amazing combination.
Hello. I've just bought a second hand Blofeld. It's great.
Perhaps, you've got this information : there is a noise parameter called "Noise Color". I would want to modulate it in the modulation matrix with some modulator (enveloppes, LFO and so on), but I don't find this parameter in the destination list. Do you know how to do that ?
Thank a lot.
Fred
Whenever the possibility of a technological shift came, people who mainly wanted to play and would have made good music even without new technologies reached for it. Do you suffer? The Beatles could sit down to a coffee and lament that there was nothing better for a long time :-) While once people were content with just singing, today is the time that we want better technology, we would rather fall asleep and try to live for more a hundred years to make it happen. But we do not live what it is. I don't think great music is the way you want to make great music, but you just feel it, you want to play terribly, and of course you reach for the most interesting thing at hand at all times. And if you have nothing, you take a stone and beat it on a tree stump and just out of excitement you finally express yourself and experience yourself. Whether or not it affects the success of other people standing around your stump, it doesn't matter. And if you don't care, you're addicted, you're trapped in the future, instead of living here and now. I'm just going to buy a synthesizer - that's why I'm watching these videos, and according to your words, I shouldn't even look at the guitar anymore. God, how old it is :-) Look, I'm completely captivated by all those synthesizers. I don't care if others yawn over it.
It's easy for me: Do you want something different? Something new? So do it. Do what you feel. If you feel something that is not real at the moment, then you are a child who is anxiously waiting for his mother to bring him a new toy on the way home from work. If you feel a tremendous desire to do something new, then don't compare yourself to who did what and didn't do - you would repeat exactly what millions of people before you did. Do something new the way YOU haven't done it yet. That will be your big music. And if it is new and large enough, discoverable for you, so that you can believe it yourself, it will certainly be good enough for a few others around. But that's the consequence. How does a child develop towards the world? Let's skip mom and dad - they're here in the beginning to allow you to live on your own. So first you are here, then you only know things and form your relationship with them. Then you slowly get to other people and create experiences with others. But you seem to skip something. You have left out yourself and your direct relationship to things, and you are directly comparing yourself to what you think, how others perceive their surroundings. Is this a fairly new synthesis of sound for the world? Would it take another ten layers? Maybe you're missing the first layer. You would need to get a bow and lock yourself in a cave for two months and strum a bow :-)
Music is about feelings. At least the strong music experiences. The others just like / dislike it - they enjoy / don't enjoy it. Real music will help you find a feeling. Your feelings seem to be closed, caught up in the technical concept and in the ideas of how others perceive it. Surprise yourself. Release your feelings, look for your real basic, personal, closest layer, trust it and you will have music. Some technologies have always been around and will be around.
Please try to be shorter. I understand what you are saying. I think...
The Sequential Six-Trak is my first love and also still my favorite for it's six part multi-timbral monster mono stack mode (Kind of like a modular without the cables). It's old and it's single oscillator per voice, but the little things it does differently kind of put it in a special place. The poly glide is also nice when playing polyphonic stuff extra slippy like being on the edge of control; sort of intuiting which note will be the glide from source on your next legato key press (sounds like it's random and uncontrollable but actually you start to have an intuition.) The Synaesthesia Pipes does nice layering stuff it's a sample playback device, but like the MPCs and other devices it lets you stack up voices into very complex layer arrangements. I think the Korg Wavestate does similar things with wave sequencing. Agreed that the "Analog" word is abused but I still love analog filters and prefer them especially under modern digital control even if the 127 levels under MIDI CC is kind of exasperating considering that the standard is 45 years old.
I owned a six track and sold it for a Ensoniq VFxsd that I sold to get a Korg Karma, kept that for 20 years and got a MODX in 2021. Anyway, the sixtrack caught my eye. Happy Thanksgiving
When I first got my Circuit Tracks I wrote to Novation hoping that they were, perhaps, going to develop a synth module that would replicate and supplement the two synth channels of their onboard synth for use with the Tracks. They wrote me back that they were not really thinking about this, which bummed me out. Then I found the Blofeld and I no longer cared what Novation did or did not do. (BTW Novation has not done a firmware upgrade in months). This thing does it all. So between the Circuit Tracks, the Blofeld, a Korg Minilogue XD and NTS-1, I can pretty much get it done.
But really all I need is the Blofeld and the Circuit. It's 2021 FFS !!!
There are still plenty of multi-timbral digital synths. For example, the Roland Fantom can split or layer up to 16 parts (with 256 voice polyphony total). The reason why synth makers are moving backwards is because of snobbery from many users. For example, take the Roland Jupiter 80. This was a very innovative synth with virtual analog and sampled voices which was specifically designed for powerful splits and layering. The depth and richness of its sounds exceeds most things on sale now. But it was a market failure, because players didn't want a powerful, multi-timbral workstation--they wanted a re-issue of the Jupiter-8. Roland eventually caved on this and issued the Jupiter-X, which basically is a virtual Jupiter-8 (albeit with many other features). There is a lot more market buzz over the $5000 OB-X8, than the $5000 Waldorf Quantum, even though the Quantum is vastly more powerful and versatile. In fact, snobs will often complain that any digital synth is just "a VST in a box" regardless of how powerful it is and how good it sounds. You also have the rise of things like Eurorack, which is deliberately retro and backward-looking.
Manufacturers will build what sells, so I don't blame them for moving back towards outdated analog synth technology. They are probably happy that they can sell 40 year old technology for premium prices. But analog fell out of favor back in the 80's for good reasons, and those reasons are more valid than ever today. People need to start looking for new and interesting sounds again and stop recycling old analog tones on every song.
This is why I still treat my Yamaha TG500 and SY85's with kid gloves.
And also why older multitimbral modules are still pretty expensive.
I 100% Agree that there need to be more multitimbral instruments... That used to be the thing. I mean why a $3000 keyboard not only just 8 voices, but only one instrument at a time... It is just ridiculous, back in the 90s I worked for a record label and created entire tracks with ONE SYNTH - and no I did not compose them one instrument at a time with a ADAT or some other means of recording - in-fact computers were not fast enough to do VSTs or Digital Audio to NEAR the degree that it can be done today. I composed entire tracks then dumped them one track at a time to ADAT and added vocals... Actually need to add on - and THAT is one of the reasons I love YAMAHA - Alsmost EVERY YAMAHA KEYBOARD I HAVE (Except My AN1x) is multitimbral. This includes the FlagShip Montage, MODX, MOTIF,MX49, CS1X and CS6X
Still have some of my early Yamaha modules. The lowly TX81Z can layer 8 sounds in performance mode and the DX21 two sounds. My FS1-R... shoot I can't remember, but it's a bunch. It almost seems like a conspiracy to make you buy more synthesizers, this lack of multi-timbrality.🤪
I had a JV30 for a while, fully multi-timbral . . sounded like poo but you could layer that poo
Actually I don't miss multi-timbrality as my mixes are often too dense anyway. And I'd rather have immediate hands-on control of additional synth voices without menu diving. OK I do wish Chromaphone was multi tembral... yeah I know multiple instances.
Anyone remember the first multi mode synth ? (and it was analog!)
the Rhodes chroma with chromaface hooked to Apple 2c in '82
I just pulled the trigger yesterday and added myself to the Blofeld diggers. Have you purchased any sound sets? I’m wondering if Pure Mood soundset offers sort of warm moogish sounds. I’m after that Minimoog horn sound at the opening of Pink Floyd Shine On … I know this is a digital platform but my hope is to cover some famous tones of analogue era using the wavetable synth engine.
The point you raised is not too remote from the debate concerning the rebirth of vinyl records (a probably polemic topic, but, well ...).
From a purely acoustic standpoint, there is no rational reason to prefer vinyls over CDs. However, many people prefer the former over the latter due to the combination of a genuine sensory pleasure with a physical experience, of a whiff of nostalgia , and, to be fully honest, quite often of a tad pedantic attitude.
By comparison, the appeal of analog (and more generally hardware) synthesisers still retains a higher degree of rationality than that of vinyl records, because the physicality of an interface does matter a lot when it comes to playing a musical instrument. We love analog/hardware synth because they provide a sensory experience that is a direct transposition of the sound design process itself. This is also the very reason why most electronic hardware nowadays try to provide some kind of haptic feedback to their user: people feel more at ease when their actions are grounded in the physical world (or appear to be).
When it comes to synths and more generally to any sort of creative tool, sensory experiences and subjective feelings suddenly take a major importance in the creative process. This is why, I believe, there will always be a market for technically "outdated" analog instruments or tools. I know that I, for one, am a real sucker for them ! :)
2:35 Thank you! I cannot get my head around this trendy analog > everything mentality. EVERYTHING has its place.
I completely agree with your end statement.
*Another Blofeld love letter*
Blofeld: _casually fucks up patch_
Hey. I also believe that technically digital DSP can be as good as "analog" or even better, and that the "analog" term is overused in the marketing of some of the VST plugins. Hoover there is a serious case when analog vs digital makes a serious difference. Both analog and digital domain have some downfalls, I don't mind if a hardware synth or FX pedal is digital, but I do mind a lot when it's digital in a "bad way". For example there are synths and fx pedals that can digitally clip, operate on low sample rate, produce unwanted nyquist related issues, reduce the dynamic range or affect the detail (usually in the topend and transients ) of the sound. In most cases with digital DSP based hardware the main issue is not the OSC, but the weak D/A converter or output amp, and the similar issue can be found with A/D and D/A conversion in cheap FX guitar pedals. In my "sound design rules book " there is no good or bad sound design process or effect, but in this case when I'm aiming for the most crisp and detailed sound with sharp transients, I would recommend staying away from the "digital synths and effects" unless you are absoluty sure that the product you are using has high quality DSP, A/D, D/A and AMP chip. With pure analog hardware products, it's less common to have a bad sound since the prices of analog gear are usually higher than their digital counterparts, and the analog hardware developers are paying more attention to the quality of their hardware to justify the higher price. Hopefully that helps you to understood why it still makes sense to prefer analog gear for some use cases.
Bro, it is a minefield on this youtube, the best stuff i learned was while reading between the lines listening to mixers like Bob Powers, Joshua Jaycen, guys who are spitting fast without thinking about what their sponsors will say...
When they stop in the middle of the sentence to think about politics, you are already in the wrong direction.
There must be a decision within, am i going all in or am i a hobby musician? Also, am i capable of figuring all by myself coz my technicality or am i full of ideas but i need someone else to cover other areas.
Anyway -
It is refreshing to read your comment.
gg
I agree, I think the word "analog" with synths is synonymous with the word "organic" is with food.
When you started explaining this, I kinda thought it was a feature I wouldn't use myself. But, then, thinking about it, in the DAW I do it all the time. Have multiple different synths layered, and then just dump the same MIDI in there.
This is pretty much the same thing, if you think about it.
This is what I was thinking. You don't need multi-timbral plugins when you can do the same thing by layering as many tracks in your DAW as your want. Slow computer? Just bounce the tracks. There are still a few plugs that do multi-timbral; Omnisphere, Halion, Phaseplant, Falcon (which he mentioned). Pretty sure you can in Reaktor and Kontakt too.