"...Soft synths don't actually have oscillators..."
 
I thought about it, and while I understand the idea that digital oscillators provide a potential for complex waveforms that do not have analogues, I'm having trouble complying with this particular phrase.
 
:-)
 
 

Well, I am not going to pretend I know how to code, but knowing what I do know, I think bit may have something there.

My understanding is that the way to code something is not like the original equipment it's mimicking. The results will be the same (emulation), but not the actual process.

IOW, there is code, processing info, that results in an emulation of an Oscillator.

And Mike I know your smart about this stuff, and I'm just trying to offer a simple explanation.

Hi Grem, Thanks for offering your insights.
 
I'm guessing that I'm just getting hung up on semantics.
 
I don't know very much about digital... I'm more of an analog guy, but I've read a little bit about digital oscillators in the past.
 
Here's an example: http://www.dspguru.com/dsp/howtos/how-to-create-oscillators-in-software of some coding that applies to the one of the simple oscillator waveforms mentioned above.

On another site the maker posted a comparison between his synth and some popular ones(which he didn't name). In the comparison you could see there was less alaising and the harmonics looked clearer than the others.
 
After having tried it, I do think it sounds good, but it's a bit hard to program. I'm hoping I can make 25 presets and win a free copy because that price is pretty steep.

I had installed it with the hope that I would be able to come up with some winning patches.  I scanned through the patches, thinking some were awful and some were good.  The better patches hinted at potential, but did not really fully exploit that potential.  I suppose that's why Melda is running the contest to come up with patches.
 
 
 
 

Why not make a collection of 25 presets and sell them for 50% off of $10 instead of trading them for the hope of getting a free $150 synth.
 
Let's say you sell 30 collections of presets for $5.00... the rest is gravy.
 
:-)

Presets are what sells synthesizers. That's been the case since the introduction of ROM-based presets, long before we had synths in pure software form.
 
Yamaha sold a boatload of DX7s, and you can always identify one in a recording because every hit record that ever used it used a factory preset. Few users ever figured out how to program the thing. I don't have any FM synths myself, but I'll bet every one of them has a preset named "Jump".
 
If I were the developer, I'd be upping the ante. The best patch programmers expect to make money doing it, and they're a small talent pool. Eric Persing founded a successful company after starting out as a patch designer. 30+ years later he's still selling the same patches he designed for Roland "hardware" synths, but as samples today. His flagship product is a great synth, but even many of its users don't know it. I'd be surprised if more than 1% of his user base actually programs Omnisphere beyond simple envelope tweaks.
 
My point is that having a great collection of presets is far more important to a soft synth's success than having a great set of building blocks.
 
 

The last three synths I purchased don't have any presets, they just have knobs. I'll be buying more of that kind cause it's lots of fun to twist it out.

I've always enjoyed tweaking sounds - but only with real knobs. My earliest experiences were with a Minimoog, but that instrument was so incredibly easy to program you could tweak it and play it at the same time. Later on I added a Micromoog, which was even easier to program. But synths quickly became more complicated after that.
 
The first synthesizer I ever used on a recording was an Oberheim 4-voice. It belonged to the studio, and luckily the engineer had some experience programming it. We spent over an hour setting up a string patch (I was glad somebody else was paying for the session), which ended up sounding pretty awesome on the record. But that's when I realized that after all that work there was no way to save or recall the patch, except writing down knob positions.
 
Spending hours to set up a patch that would run for 30 seconds on a recording just wasn't a good effort-to-payback ratio. So when I went shopping for the first polyphonic synth of my own, what did I do? Audition presets. I bought the one that had the best-sounding presets, without even studying its controls.
 

Yes, but as you say you spent hours tweaking a 4 voice synth that wasn't yours. It might have only taken a few moments if it was yours and you had experience using it.
 
I wonder how many presets people routinely use out of the 1000's of presets they get with a new synth? A dozen? Two Dozen? 27?
 
How often is all the exactitude practiced in selecting a preset vested in to playing a couple of notes, or maybe a few chords?