Hey It’s about complex ambient pads. I use the Omnisphere for this and polyphonic pads are created with it, which are constantly in motion due to many automations.
I might have the opportunity to spend 1500 euros on a synth, such as for the rev2. And since I am convinced that the DAW simply cannot sound analog, I would like to drive completely analog, I also like the haptics on the hardware device.
I use the rytm for drums and the analog four for basses etc. Effects are created with eventide space and timefactor and everything runs via a midas mixer with analog EQs.
Now, as I said, there is no analog polyphonic synthesizer with at least eight voices. the voices mustn’t interrupt each other and have to flow nicely into one another in order to be able to generate long interesting pad drones.
Now the question arises whether a rev2 is worthwhile here, it costs around 1500 euros? is it great for pads? I can’t find anything anywhere about the fact that it is perfect for this, rather the opposite, because the filters are often criticized.
I produce something like ambient techno, if you can call it that, maybe someone here has an example with the rev2 or better stay with the omnispher and save up for a more complex synth?
I once had the Rev2 and …it sounds great. It’s just not easy to have more than this synth in a track because it occupies so much of the frequencies.
If I was you I’d first invest / look into U-he Diva since you are not afraid of computers Diva sounds pretty analog to me! And with some saturation / distortion / EQing / mastering … nobody will hear a difference imho.
that’s an interesting aspect. I’ve heard some good things about the Diva, maybe that would be a solution for now, maybe to save up for something more complex. The Omnisphere actually sounds great, just somehow a polyphonic analog synth should be added to the setup, then it would be almost complete.
I have a rev2 and I use it for pads, sometimes.
It sounds great if you put the time in.
Check out these patches, you might like them.
I don’t usually do presets but these were just what I was looking for.
In terms of complex pads in hardware, the Rev2 is probably the best current analog synth there is. Not sure why anyone would call it “crap”… it does have a certain brassy character at times, which you need to be down with. Examples:
That said, after having the Rev2 and quite a few other polysynths I settled on the Roland JD-990 with Vintage Synth expansion, which despite being digital is the best sounding pad machine I’ve ever heard. I also have a Blofeld for more cold, cutting poly sounds.
It does a lot. There’s vast amounts of modulation:
three envelopes: one each for amp and filter; a freely assignable 3rd, which can loop
4 LFOs: several waveforms; key or clock sync/reset-able; they can modulate each other
the mod matrix: allows you to have any of the modulation sources affect multiple params in parallel; modulators can drive one another in series;
osc1 can modulate the filter freq for crunchy sounds and FM of the filter (when it’s self-oscilating)
four lanes of 16-step parameter sequencing (or a 64 note polyphonic sequencer)
Each sound can have two layers, which doubles all the above modulation. You wont be bored.
I agree, it takes up a lot of space. I think this shouldn’t surprise anyone as a “full” sound is four oscs (sox with the subs), two sets of noise, potentially self-oscillating filters with FM and all that mod. Of course it’ll be big! I imagine some workarounds:
thin the sound at the oscillators using the variable wave shape
use fewer features
liberal eq in the mix, and use multi-mode to eq the layers separately
use the HFP effect to reduce bottom end
give in to its demands and have it perform more of the track for you (mix around it, and use fewer other instruments)
turn it down and use all the dynamic harmonics as mix glue rather than focus
Here’s the stuff I find a bit annoying:
the HPF is an effect, and so after the main audio pathway rather than before the amp
multi-mode and an Octatrack are a PITA to set up comfortably
local Off separates the knobs as well as the keys from direct control
despite being very knobby, it takes a lot of work to make great sounds. I suspect it’s just because it’s so feature rich. It requires care and patience and rewards with a certain majesty
There’s something about the sound of the oscs and filter together which I can’t quite put my finger on. Too forward? Too tiring? Too “glossy”? Compared with my Matriarch, I like but don’t love the Rev2. That said, I feel the same about my Juno 106 sound as I do about the Rev2, so maybe I just don’t like polys.
Another point: if you are in a position to get one just get it, and if it doesn’t work out you can sell it the same (sometimes more!) money than you paid for it… Dave Smith/Sequential gear has very strong resale values.
I’m considering replacing mine with a Prophet 6 desktop. I think I’ll enjoy the simpler architecture more. I’ll make the decision after putting some effort into finishing a few tracks with the Rev2 tho.
Something I meant to say earlier: it’s brilliant in a live setting. Probably better for live than for studio work. The split mode, huge memory, bitimbrality and confidence-inspiring manual controls are very helpful.
I had the P6 module and it was absolutely gorgeous, but found it TOO big sonically for poly duties and ended up using to mostly for mono sounds… and at that point I just got a Toraiz AS-1 instead. But YMMV.
Hey, I know the U-he stories. I’ve tested all of this and the analog devices sound completely different to me. Whether drums, EQs or synths, as soon as I use one of them, it takes hold immediately and I somehow can’t describe it correctly … the sounds are just crisper, livelier and the parameters really work and it’s fun to design and sound to just go nuts with it. that’s why I’m doing everything I can to get a polyphonic one, so that I can simply have peace of mind from these plugins.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mv8yc3v5b4io62q/Crapy_VST_Pad_%20Test.wav?dl=0… I don’t want to present my sound here. But here I have made a small example of how I imagine something that the expensive analog synth has to cover in any case. this is a very thin pad so that everything else, e.g. drums can still be heard well, I’ve removed them here and the pad is zero-automated, so basically raw.
normally there would be a lot of automations that adapt to the rhythm. I made the pad with a VST. can anyone tell me whether this type of pad is possible with the rev2? I could imagine that they would sound much nicer then.
I get it, the immediacy of hardware is hard to capture with plugins and that alone makes hardware more lively already. I mean a Rev2 is a very nice polysynth, one of the nicest - just watch out for what @PekeDorty said, the harmonic content of any DSI synth tends to be on the high side, playing those polyphonically really fills out the frequency spectrum.
I think in terms of value for money, the Rev2 is only rivaled by the Take5 in the Sequential lineup. Can’t go wrong with either of them if you’re into that Dave Smith sound.
This is a very bright (to my ears), HP filtered type of pad, shouldn’t be a problem for the Rev2 at all, in fact it’s right up its alley I’d say.
I have a rev2 and i think it’s a great synth to make evolving Sounds and complex sound patterns. nevertheless, in my opinion, i found the sound to clean, sharp. It’s very good in the mid high. If you’re looking for a pure analog sound i can recommand you to check the Udo Super 6. It’s a pure piece of analog sound dream. It’s wonderfull for pad, i mean deep pad.
Diva sounds pretty analog to me! And with some saturation / distortion / EQing / mastering … nobody will hear a difference imho.
I imagine some workarounds:
