Synth design standards EVERY re synth should apply

[damasio]

I see new rack extensions popping up nearly every week and some of them are really good. Unfortunately most of them lack certain interface standards that a synth in this day and age should have, especially for sound design.
Here are a few crucial points i see lacking in a lot of synths:
1. Portamento in poly and mono mode
I just don't understand why so many synths don't have this option.
2. Exact Voice settings for poly mode.
This setting is crucial for cpu management, and to avoid note overlap when playing chords with string and pad sounds.
When you play a minor 7th chord you want to set the poly mode to 4 notes in order to avoid overlapping notes that ruins the harmony and suck up unnecessary cpu as well.
3. Chromatic and precise Oscillator tuning.
Most synths in RE format lack this and it is super annoying. For instance in most dance sounds like bass and stabs in modern dance music contain stacked 5ths. What you do in this case is have one oscillator tuned +5th. But a synth like Aurora for instance, doesn't have the option for chromatic tuning. And on top of that the tuning is imprecise so that you can't tune it well. This lead me eventually not to buy this synth at all while it's sound is incredible.

These principles are really well implemented in reasons stock synths. Eventually to my experience there are very little new rack extensions that outperform reasons stock plugins, especially once the novelty of those new synths wear off.

[rcbuse]

3. Chromatic and precise Oscillator tuning.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Do you mean they lack the ability to tune +/- 50 cents ?

[pjeudy]

I'm a big fan of Aurora...and will have to agree often times I wish the turning was a little more traditional....octaves 1 up and down +/_ tuning In semi up/down in 1-2-3 etc.. semi steps

[JoshuaPhilgarlic]

What I missed in several synths lately: keyboard track for the filter! I think it's the most underestimated parameter ever! Damn, it's cool to fine-tune the sound for low and high notes separately, so why the heck do new developers skip this feature that was helpful for decades???

[Vyckeil]

Isn't it obvious? Newbie developers jump at the chance to make REs and don't consider all the useful features in their plugin the users might want. Most plugins that have missing features probably use Props' IDT because it's much easier to develop the plugin. Sadly, those devs don't consider the full array of features users might want by sheer lack of experience.

As easy way of checking if the dev used IDT is by checking connections in the back; If there's only audio out L/R and gate/note CV, and no other connections, there's a very good chance the dev used IDT. I simply don't buy IDT devices anymore, especially synths, even if it's 10$. I would have to be really impressed to buy it.

[Benedict]

I get the OP as it is frustrating when a cool synth is hampered by odd or missing implementation.

It is only by lesser skilled Devs making cheaper and quirkier devices that they build up to making superbly well thought out devices like Thor. Sure there will be some oddities along the way, but those oddities often have special skills inside their rough edges. Occasionally even, someone makes a mistake that becomes a great new feature.

Case in point was Megasaur which was great out of the gate but annoyingly hampered by some little things being poorly thought through. Thankfully the Dev stepped up (as he has before with Snakebite) and gave us an update which is vastly better. his next synth will likely be far more evolved in the little details. In time he will probably make us a superb instrument. Till then I will use the flawed gems that overcome their weaknesses (and bypass those that don't excite me enough to overcome any weaknesses/repetition).

[hydlide]

Isn't it obvious? Newbie developers jump at the chance to make REs and don't consider all the useful features in their plugin the users might want. Most plugins that have missing features probably use Props' IDT because it's much easier to develop the plugin. Sadly, those devs don't consider the full array of features users might want by sheer lack of experience.

I would be a bit dodgy on the fact of a few things:

- how can you tell its a newbie developer? Someone could have had years of experience in the realm of creating soft synths but is new to the RE platform. But calling out the "newbie" developer, and not even giving him / her some slack for even trying baffles me on that part. But that is what I am getting out of this statement.

- I am not sure what specs IDT devices have, but portamento is similar as "pitch bending from one note to another note", and from a technical point of view it shouldn't require skills to pull that one off (maybe its a limitation of the SDK that portamento isn't a default setting, I am not sure since I am not a dev yet).

- Why wouldn't devs consider the full array of features? What defines the full array of features from every user that uses them? Isn't that a part of UEX? Or should other people just chime in their thoughts that every synth has to be granular (I would call that a full array of features in my book). Every user might have different expectations on how an RE should / will function. This is where reviews / comments / feedback / beta testing come in handy. Judging by "it lacks this", does not prove at any point they lack experience, they might lack valid user input from people who tested it.

Just saying.

[eusti]

Mr. Hydlide, you're making too much sense tonight!

D.

[bgold]

As someone working on a synth right now, I can tell you that monophony/polyphony issues can be remarkably tricky to get right. Polyphonic portamento in particular can be a pretty advanced thing and it doesn't seem to be widely used. I didn't even realize the Subtractor did it until recently, so add another thing to my to-do list...

Tuning issues can really depend on what the synth is meant to be used for, too. Just fifths are fine on a largely monophonic synth but since Reason expects equally tempered tuning it starts to sound weird if you play a chord with a polyphonic synth that uses just tuning the for harmonics. But I'm a big believer of providing fine tuning knobs for all sorts of things.

[Vyckeil]

This comment not to shit on the devs, REs, or anyone/anything regarding this or is meant in a negative way. I strongly encourage the devs, especially the new ones, to keep improving, keep reading comments, keep up with the feedback. But I'm not going to apologize their mistakes because they're new to the Reason environment. If people want to spend their money on any REs that comes, that's their prerogative, but don't expect some people to not get fed up with spending their money and later finding out those little annoying things they wished the RE had.

- how can you tell its a newbie developer? Someone could have had years of experience in the realm of creating soft synths but is new to the RE platform. But calling out the "newbie" developer, and not even giving him / her some slack for even trying baffles me on that part. But that is what I am getting out of this statement.

I do give new developers a try and some slack. What you should've gotten out of the statement is "Buyer beware". There are a lot of quality VSTs and we kind of expect REs to be similar in quality and feature before spending our money. It's as simple as that.

- I am not sure what specs IDT devices have, but portamento is similar as "pitch bending from one note to another note", and from a technical point of view it shouldn't require skills to pull that one off (maybe its a limitation of the SDK that portamento isn't a default setting, I am not sure since I am not a dev yet).

This thread was created because someone complained about simple features that are quite standard in most synths. A lot of those simple 10-20$ devices have that problem. This is simply bad planning and QA, ergo lack of experience. If the dev reads this forum and/or the complaints and feature requests from people, more power to the devs. Again, people want quality similar to what they're used to, especially when they pay for it.

- Why wouldn't devs consider the full array of features? What defines the full array of features from every user that uses them? Isn't that a part of UEX? Or should other people just chime in their thoughts that every synth has to be granular (I would call that a full array of features in my book). Every user might have different expectations on how an RE should / will function. This is where reviews / comments / feedback / beta testing come in handy. Judging by "it lacks this", does not prove at any point they lack experience, they might lack valid user input from people who tested it.

Key things you mentioned: reviews / comments / feedback / beta testing. If you're not a large company that has experience developing plugins with a large knowledge base of what its users want, you need this desperately. Again, lack of experience. New devs will miss things, simple features that should not be omitted because some of us are used to them and are so prevalent in other plugins it makes no sense to not include them. And just to make it clear: I'm not saying they're doing it on purpose or trying to shell out half-assed products to cash-grab Reason users.

Look, I'm not trying to be negative. If you did see it that way, well I think you might be over-sensitive or susceptible. Or maybe I have horrible diplomatic skills... or maybe I'm simply an asshole. Either way, I don't really care. I'm offering my opinion and spending my time to share it. It's a "take it or leave it" scenario.

P.S. I will say one thing though. For me, the honeymoon of REs is over. I will not spend my money on cheap REs anymore simply because they're new. I've gotten used to better because there are really good, and I mean really good, independent devs making REs. But that's just my opinion.

[rcbuse]

Most plugins that have missing features probably use Props' IDT because it's much easier to develop the plugin. Sadly, those devs don't consider the full array of features users might want by sheer lack of experience.

It's not that devs using IDT are new and overlook these features, its that they are hitting the limits of the IDT. The IDT is designed to create devices like the propellerheads A-List Guitars and Radical Keys. The IDT is a really awesome tool for taking large sample libraries and adding some dynamics and interfaces to them. I think what we have been seeing lately are REs that take the whole feature set of the IDT, putting at interface on it, and calling it a synth. While there isn't anything wrong with this, some features you would find on a typical synth just won't be possible.

[Vyckeil]

Most plugins that have missing features probably use Props' IDT because it's much easier to develop the plugin. Sadly, those devs don't consider the full array of features users might want by sheer lack of experience.

It's not that devs using IDT are new and overlook these features, its that they are hitting the limits of the IDT. The IDT is designed to create devices like the propellerheads A-List Guitars and Radical Keys. The IDT is a really awesome tool for taking large sample libraries and adding some dynamics and interfaces to them. I think what we have been seeing lately are REs that take the whole feature set of the IDT, putting at interface on it, and calling it a synth. While there isn't anything wrong with this, some features you would find on a typical synth just won't be possible.

Thank you for explaining, you did a much better job than I did.

And this is exactly why I avoid those cheap "synths" with only gate/note CV on the back. Nothing wrong with using IDT for what it's supposed to be used for though, but if you're a new dev making a pseudo-synth with IDT the feature set will be lacking, and that's what OP was complaining about. "Buyer beware."

[damasio]

Isn't it obvious? Newbie developers jump at the chance to make REs and don't consider all the useful features in their plugin the users might want. Most plugins that have missing features probably use Props' IDT because it's much easier to develop the plugin. Sadly, those devs don't consider the full array of features users might want by sheer lack of experience.

I would be a bit dodgy on the fact of a few things:

- how can you tell its a newbie developer? Someone could have had years of experience in the realm of creating soft synths but is new to the RE platform. But calling out the "newbie" developer, and not even giving him / her some slack for even trying baffles me on that part. But that is what I am getting out of this statement.

- I am not sure what specs IDT devices have, but portamento is similar as "pitch bending from one note to another note", and from a technical point of view it shouldn't require skills to pull that one off (maybe its a limitation of the SDK that portamento isn't a default setting, I am not sure since I am not a dev yet).

- Why wouldn't devs consider the full array of features? What defines the full array of features from every user that uses them? Isn't that a part of UEX? Or should other people just chime in their thoughts that every synth has to be granular (I would call that a full array of features in my book). Every user might have different expectations on how an RE should / will function. This is where reviews / comments / feedback / beta testing come in handy. Judging by "it lacks this", does not prove at any point they lack experience, they might lack valid user input from people who tested it.

Just saying.

1. Some synths succeed at providing a clear sound without aliasing etc, but still "fail" to provide a decent interface. This can be caused by RE's programming environment and not be a flaw from the developer.

3. I agree with you on point 1 and 3. Some soft synths aim to modulate or provide replicas of vintage synths, hence it would senseless to come up with feature that weren't include in the re version.

On point 2 i disagree. Portamento is definitely different from pitch bend. I agree that pb can achieve the same effect when programmed, but in terms of real time expressiveness portamento can not be replaced. (overshooting the target note etc)