|
Am I the only one thinking that Vanguard sounds horrible? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Rusty O'Hara |
| Have checked it out, dosn't really do much for me personally, didn't make the cut for the list. |
|
|
| Derivative |
I have found Vanguard can be good for:
White noise based effects and distorted saw wave acid sounds. Other than that I dislike it in almost every way and have done for years.
The oscillators alias like crazy (even if you oversample them using the non aliasing oscillators) and this may well be part of the synth's appeal but to me all the foldback at nyquist turns the upper ranges into mush. Consequently, high passed sounds have so much mushy top end I find this filter type unusable. The filter in general I dislike and it steps, badly.
The 3 LFOs are so inflexible the only point to having them is to create the 'wobble' effect. It is incapable of any complex modulation beyond that and the filter envelope.
But I guess it depends on the sounds you want to create. If you like the sound of analogue filters and analogue oscillators then you will probably hate vanguard because it doesn't ever sound like an analogue synth nor does it attempt to replicate analogue behaviour.
If you like complex digital additive/FM synths then you will probably hate vanguard because it doesn't have the routability or the number of oscillators/operators or modulation complexity to make alot of the sounds we associate with classy digital synths.
vanguard is kind of a mismatch of things which you will either love or hate. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by mysticalninja
And what synth isn't like that? This is common when working with bass thats why you resample it so the eq settings stay when you change note.. |
I know about the method. i just dont work like that. |
|
|
| AuxiliaryInput |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Sound
id have to agree with shibby....vanguard is just fine..its a synth.. has some ocs.'s and filters....you can make whatever...synths might have characteristics but...it doesnt suck..if you cant make anything good with vanguard then even getting a virus or whatever wont help you. |
Yeah, I figured out it has some OSC's and a Filter(s ?). But that doesn't necessarily mean that I can make whatever I want. I can try all I want, but it won't make the sound I'm looking for. Well, I can get very close to the sound. But still, it won't sound as good as it would on another synth (Depending on the synth. There are worse things than Vanguard). That's why I think it sucks.
Ok, so that last part there "If you can't make a good preset on Vanguard you can't make a good preset on another synth"
So if I make the crappiest synth ever and told you to make a good preset with it, but you can't. Does that necessarily mean that you cannot make a good preset on another synth?
Well, guess what, my Virus Classic helped me a lot and I'm very happy with it. I think it sounds better than software synths. So no, you're wrong. It did help me. A lot. |
|
|
| Derivative |
As a VA, Vanguard is nothing on the Virus. And I don't particularly like the Virus sound all that much.
Hell even a plain single oscillator, monophonic saw wave bass patch sounds better than the same on Vanguard. A patch that you could knock up with very little technical expertise on either synth, despite the fact that workflow is completely different.
Then theres the fact that the Virus has a mod matrix and alot of the work involved in making sounds on the virus is through the LFOs and the assign slots. So you can be a god at programming Vanguard but the workflow for that synth is not the same as the workflow for the Virus. After some consideration I have come to the conclusion that the Virus is a pretty easy synth to program. At least the Vb is. It just has alot of variables which you need to know the action of before it makes any sense. The same deal then as many other synths.
Vanguard doesn't have that many variables and most of them don't interact. Anything more than basic modulation is not possible on this synth. So its no surprise its easier to program at first. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Derivative
As a VA, Vanguard is nothing on the Virus. And I don't particularly like the Virus sound all that much.
Hell even a plain single oscillator, monophonic saw wave bass patch sounds better than the same on Vanguard. A patch that you could knock up with very little technical expertise on either synth, despite the fact that workflow is completely different.
Then theres the fact that the Virus has a mod matrix and alot of the work involved in making sounds on the virus is through the LFOs and the assign slots. So you can be a god at programming Vanguard but the workflow for that synth is not the same as the workflow for the Virus. After some consideration I have come to the conclusion that the Virus is a pretty easy synth to program. At least the Vb is. It just has alot of variables which you need to know the action of before it makes any sense. The same deal then as many other synths.
Vanguard doesn't have that many variables and most of them don't interact. Anything more than basic modulation is not possible on this synth. So its no surprise its easier to program at first. |
Vanguard's strength, in my opinion, lies in its pulse and 303 type sounds, though I think the saws are just fine as well for its cost...
z3ta+ ftw, though. |
|
|
| AuxiliaryInput |
| I agree that the saws in the Virus are better than Vanguard's. But why? I don't get it, it should be really simple. Is it caused by the EQ? |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
ummm vanguard has a couple saws if I remember.
edit: just did a comparison, vanguard saw has slightly more low end and more high end. virus saw is more middy. That's with analogue boost turned off on the virus. |
|
|
| G-Con |
| quote: | Originally posted by mysticalninja
And what synth isn't like that? This is common when working with bass thats why you resample it so the eq settings stay when you change note.. |
Could you explain this please? I'm being genuine, i never knew that I should do this... |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
well think if you boost a bass note in C and the fundamental freq is at like 80 hz, so you boost at 80 hz, now u have fat bass, but then the bass changes note so its boosting at 80hz but there really isn't much to boost there. so you sample the bass note, about as low as it can go still sounding good. now you use the bass note in a sampler and when it changes note all the bass you boosted will come with it. you could also as diginut will tell you automate the eq... I think that's sloppier though and definatly isn't as commonly done.
G# is the average lowest bass note that still sounds good.
most 808's are g# also if i remember right.
and it's not that you 'should' do this.. it's just another technique you don't always have to. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by mysticalninja
well think if you boost a bass note in C and the fundamental freq is at like 80 hz, so you boost at 80 hz, now u have fat bass, but then the bass changes note so its boosting at 80hz but there really isn't much to boost there. so you sample the bass note, about as low as it can go still sounding good. now you use the bass note in a sampler and when it changes note all the bass you boosted will come with it. you could also as diginut will tell you automate the eq... I think that's sloppier though and definatly isn't as commonly done.
G# is the average lowest bass note that still sounds good.
most 808's are g# also if i remember right.
and it's not that you 'should' do this.. it's just another technique you don't always have to. |
Very informative post, thanks for sharing.
I tend to automate the EQ myself, though I do feel that if the bass is always rich on every note, it loses a little bit of the magic that would occur if the richness was more spread out. Kind of like teasing, in a sense. |
|
|
| Derivative |
The Virus saw wave sounds a bit like a Minimoog saw wave. If I didn't know better I would say that it was modelled on the Minimoog's saw.
What a digital oscillator sounds like depends on alot of things. How it was synthesized additively, its contour and whether it has been oversampled and to what degree. Ideally it would be best to oversample at 192khz with a low pass filter over 22khz as this would push the Nyquist frequency faaar above the entire audible range of human hearing so that even extreme foldback from Nyquist manifests well above the highest frequency the human ear can hear.
For various reasons Vanguard's oscillators alias like mad. You can actually hear it which makes me wonder what kind of samplerate this synth is operating at internally. Even the non aliasing oscillators alias like crazy (although audibly less - try it yourself by A/Bing between them).
If a saw wave is a carrier wave that contains all harmonics, both odd and even in linearly descending amplitude up the scale, then the upper frequency ranges that exceed Nyquist will foldback. So Vanguard has a really messy top end and you can hear it so badly on hipassed sounds.
I should also say that the Virus's oscillators also alias but not nearly as much. However, I dislike the sound of the Virus oscillators alot. ImpOSCar's straight square wave is just so much more powerful than the Viruses. So is its saw and every degree of its PWM square.
The thing that makes the Virus sound good is its filter (without extreme saturation) and its modulation capability in the form of its LFOs and envelopes. The oscillators themselves sound incredibly weak without a tonne of effects.
And despite the fact that the Virus has a very Minimoog like saw wave oscillator, you can't really make convincing Moog leads on it because the Virus Filter sounds absolutely nothing like the Minimoog's Filter and doesn't behave in the same wave. And the Filter is what makes the Minimoog. |
|
|
|
|
