I always try to find a workaround. .

Isn’t this just a thread title looking for a reason to exist?

It's funny you mention the Multi/Poly as that and the other Raspberry Pi synths do kind of overwhelm me in terms of their options. Part of it is likely the presentation of the VSTs though.

I think what I look for most in a synth is sound quality and possibility. Meaning the possibility of interesting, but useable (for me) sounds, which usually comes with modulation options. However, having just received an OB-X8 yesterday, I'm pleasantly surprised at how much you can do with it with a relatively limited modulation set. That said, I would be thrilled if they released a Muse-style update that introduced more envelopes and LFOs. The fact that Moog did that actually pushes me in the direction of getting one eventually.

Sometimes all I want is a couple of oscillators, a filter, and a bit of basic modulation. In a monosynth for example, I don't want a lot of bells and whistles, but rather something rather basic that has a solid and somewhat sonically pure 'voice' to it like a horn or violin. In other words, just your classic bread and butter minimoog type of tones. Someone else obviously will have much different ideas in mind of what an ideal monosynth is.

For other stuff, yeah I'm more likely to want to have more options on the table. But at the same time I don't like to get too crazy going down sound design rabbit holes, or I won't get any writing done heh. (But going down those rabbit holes can still be a lot of fun nevertheless.)

To the OP:
‘Sounds like a personal issue.’
There’s the old adage ‘Know Thyself’, and its little known corollary, ‘Know Thy Synth’. Match those two up for happy sound creation.

Relative. In periods where music is the goal, buying a deep synth will just delay you. I end up using a few presets and then regret I bought it. In low inspiration times, a deep synth can light the fire again after spending some time making your own unique sounds and moods with it. Korgs are not for me, but I love MC909's four tone rompler. Have made at least three tunes solely with this.

Not a personal issue as I didn't start this thread to get some sort of answer for myself. This thread was started to simply get a discussion going amongst all of us. To see what others think and feel especially since the Muse and Multi/Poly have been making such a big "splash".

As I mentioned in the opening post, I know what I like. I like things more simple. And that's why I have not purchased the Muse or the Multi/Poly. But I also know that others have a total different outlook on the type of synth they like and it's really nice to hear the reasoning behind the different opinions.

The discussion here has been great! It's nice to get a more overall picture of what people are looking for in a synth. It seems pretty balanced between "give me more" and "keep it simple".

Let's keep the discussion rolling!!

real question is "can synth be too many"

play what synth inspires you to play, it's the same thing with guitars, I like strats, and telecasters, they inspire me to play, it's not even possible to explain why, and I don't try and fight it.

"One synth is too many, and a thousand aren't enough" - Geddy Lee

Sure, I get that. Not all, or even the majority of, my sounds are complex. Most are fairly simple, but I want the variety of options. My simplest synth is an ATC-X, but it's got cross-mod, filter fm, ring mod, wave combination, velocity, aftertouch, an aux envelope, two LFOs, and 4 filter types. I don't really consider it that complex, but compared to monosynths of the 70s and 80s, it's very advanced. Compared to most modular systems, it's very simple. One thing I really like about software modular plugins are that I can patch up with exactly the amount of complexity the sound needs, but I have a large variety of modules to pick from.

Hands on the heart, I have already sold off devices based on, that I found their design too complex for my needs

If it can express a wide range of tones, I think it's a great synthesizer that will be accepted by a wide range of users.
Just because it has a lot of things it can do doesn't mean you have to use it all. Some users may feel that even if it has a lot of functions, it's not enough. Everyone has their own preferences.
Just by using two synths instead of one, the functionality becomes much greater, but I only use both synths partially.
Still, using one synth feels insufficient.
Just seeing a scene with a few synths in it makes me happy.

Software synths are also very feature-rich and I love the feeling of going overboard. The Arturia V collection is also really fun because it feels like it's going overboard.

Synths still feel dreamy.
Probably forever.

Phrased another way - for some people - yes.

Synth users are at all stages of development.

It always felt wrong to me, that I didn’t use all the engines in my Monomachine, like I wasn’t a proper Monomachine owner.

My Polybrute sounds use very little of its capabilities, most of the time. I’m an LFO/envelope junky but I’ve rarely felt my sounds could benefit from just one more with that synth.
That feels kinda wrong, too but, yeah, a good sound can easily be spoiled.

A complex synth can afflict option paralysis when sitting down to create a sound, especially if you don’t have a clear idea of what you’re about to make, I hate the sound of a naked sawtooth in that moment.

I've been appreciating this conversation.

When I first saw this thread I immediately thought of T.O.N.T.O., which isn't "too much" for some folks, like Stevie Wonder. I was listening to the Tonto's Expanding Head Band album a bit ago and liked this video on the architecture and history.


I started my synth journey not long ago with different small entry level synths instead of investing in one complex one. It's been cool to combine them and learn by comparison. I've started to think a little about the qualities of a feature and not just its presence. For example how short short can the attack be or how sensitive are the controls? I'm also motivated by aftertouch (I love my MicroFreak!), which is a sadly overlooked feature, but adds a lot expressive complexity (for me).

I was feeling my hardware synths lacked depth. I've had Ableton for a long time, but never got into their synths (except GranulatorII, that was a gateway...). I started looking to free plugins like SurgeXT if I want a deeper synth programming experience.

Just because a synth has a ton of options doesn't mean you need to use them all, if you prefer to use it as just a traditional synth you without all the options you can do that too. To me personally, the more options the better, but you don't need to use everything. For instance, you could still just use 1 saw wave, a filter and an envelope in mono, if you wanted to. without using anything else.

Never

Sometimes I feel like the difference between development is that some people are stuck in a mindset of learning synthesizers, instead of learning synthesis. Once you have a deep understanding of synthesis, it's just a matter of becoming familiar with the feature set and layout of a synth. A shopping list with 6 items on it isn't more complex than a shopping list with 26 items on it, it's just longer. If you know what all the items are, and know the layout of the grocery store, there's not as big a difference as it might seem at first glance.

Of course that doesn't mean you have to go to a giant super-mart every time you want food. If your small corner bodega has everything you want, you shouldn't waste your time, but if you're cooking up something complex, then you'll be frustrated that your bodega doesn't have all your ingredients. The analogy breaks here, but I generally prefer a super-mart synths because in the world of synths, I don't have to drive for anything or spend time walking down long isles. I keep a simple synth like the Prophet 6 around because it's like a specialty item, but if Sequential released a Prophet 6000 that had the modulation options of a REV2 an extra oscillator, but the same tone as the 6, I'd get rid of the 6 in a heartbeat.

Well, I'd say that the Monomachine, and really all Elektron synths, are hobbled by their UI/UX, and not by their complexity. I bought an Analog Four and RYTM only because I saw what Overbridge was up to. On their own, I find them confusing and difficult to use, as I did when I did own a Monomachine/Machinedrum combo. But when I'm working in Maschine, which arguably has as many synth engine types as you have plugin instruments, I don't find it complex or hard to work with at all. So, I think we might be talking about two things: complexity, and user experience design. A well designed complex synth can be easier to use than a more simple synth that's got a terrible design. For example, my Modal 002r wasn't that complex, but the UI was poor. Using the web interface made it easy to use, just like Overbridge makes the Analog Four easy to use. I get that a lot of people don't like using software, but I'm not one of them.

I won a ticket to go to his studio, but while I was there, I touched a knob without asking and I was spring-ejected out as some tiny orange men sung a mean song about me.

Depending on the situation, I mighta tossed you out too. But I probably wouldn't have gone as far as a mean song.

Just ask me about kids breaking drums....

for a second I was thinking you are refering to upgrade prophet 2000 hahaha

No, they are downright simple when compared to something like a Kronos or Montage.

There’s plenty of softsynths that are too much, and they are so much cheaper than hardware it’s easy to stock up on them and never be able to truly master them.

Logic’s Alchemy has four sources (each a full synth sound by itself). Each can use one of the following synthesis types: VA, additive, sampled, granular, spectral (what, no FM?). Each source has it’s own three filters and it has two sends that can be routed to two global filters and four global effects chains. For modulation there are 16 LFOs, 16 AHDSR EGs, and 16 multisegment EGs with seemingly no limit on the number of stages (I gave up after creating 80 stages between attack and the end of release) which are shared amongst the sources. Add in multiple arpeggiators and step sequencers and the ability to morph between up to eight variations of the basic sound.

OK, now try to think of a sound that could actually require all of those resources. No wonder when you open up some of the soundscape presets to reverse engineer them, it takes a long time to understand what’s actually going on. Many of them are so complex, you can hit record, play a single chord, step on the sustain pedal, start messing around with the mod wheel and then stop recording after an hour. There’s your new album

I probably use only some small % of the capabilities of any equipment I own aside from the mixing console and the mpc60 and that’s more to do with how limited the mpc is. The only things I don’t know on it are the things I never have reason to ever do. Outside of that I wayyyyyy underuse synths. Could def do with just a couple Juno 106 and an sh101 and never seen anything else for synth sounds.

I like simple / oldschool synths. All my patches are quite straightforward 80s ones. I have no need for overly complex modulation routings etc, I'll never use it and it'll only get in my way.

I also love presets.

Probably in the minority here but it is what it is!

I'd say that the answer to the question is both yes and no, depending on the number of synths you own.

One synth: Yes and the reason is that you can learn everything, all the hidden features and shortcuts of a mod matrix, etc. You also have access to both the net and the manual for extra info of your synth. You can focus, play, and really get to know your only synth on a daily basis and over the course of time, just about all the special under the hood features and commit those to memory.

Several synths: No, it becomes more complex as your time is divided in learning the features of each synth. This becomes worse as the number of synths you own increases. You can spend time with only one synth and become intimate with the features, but by the time you reach that point you have forgotten most of what you had learned on your other synths which forces you to go back and start to again RTFM or go back to the net for additional info.

This is what I struggle with owning 10 hardware synths. I have to do all those things I stated above. What makes it worse is that my time is limited and spread thin and I don't always get to play my synths daily.

Feel like this is more of a modding a forum/having over 10000 posts issue. If you spent most of your free time with your synths instead it would be very easy to remember the subtleties of 10 different synths. I could have 100 synths and know them all like the back of my hand.

Obviously this is an individual thing as we are all different. Some people are better handling some tasks than others, but also the way we process tasks differs.

For me there is a definite cutoff point. When the Multi/Poly was announced it looked very capable and sounded good. But, looking at that interface I just knew that it wouldn't work for me. It's too busy. Too many options demanding my attention at once.

Contrast that with the Blofeld. A similarly deep, complex synth that for some is too difficult because of the interface. However I feel that it strikes a reasonable balance. It's easier to focus on a particular task and then move on to the next part of the process with a logical matrix and a few knobs.

I'm sure there are many that would disagree with me on the above. And they're correct, because they're seeing things from the perspective of how their brain works.