At first glance, digital synths can feel a bit soulless — to make them come alive, you need to infuse them with life and creativity. For me, that requires brainpower and intention. I never quite connected with the DNI; it felt more like an automated companion for my DT than a standalone instrument. But the DNII feels different. Thanks to its new machines and filters, reaching the sweet spots feels far more intuitive for me.
Now that I’ve had the DNII for a few days, I’m diving in and experimenting. So far, there’s nothing I’m particularly proud of…
What’s on my mind right now?
How do I make a quiet, lively crackle - some warm dirt at the bottom of the music?
How can I emulate the human voice?
How do I craft violins that sound rich and emotive, without crossing into cheesy territory?
What’s the recipe for building a sonic journey to the west coast?
How do I prevent sound mud when layering?
And how do I create a syntakt kick (layering a digital kick over an analog one to achieve that juicy, fat, and crystal-clear punch)?
DNII has a lot of unique features and seems to be complete in itself. Post your snippets!
There is another thread “That Syntakt Sound”. If I recall correctly, the thread was started shortly after the introduction of the Syntakt. Just being pedantic here, but I question the addition of “that” to the title of this thread.
“That” implies an established, known quality of sound. I can understand “That Hammond B3 Sound”, or “That DX7 sound” (preset EP found in many 80’s recordings) for example. But there is no characteristic sound to a Digitone II or a Syntakt (open to argument).
So, I don’t know what’s more pretentious: Using “that”, or complaining about it…
That’s arguable indeed. I feel pretty confident I can hear and guess what Syntakt machines are being used when I hear a sound out of there. They have a certain quality to them because the machines are fairly conservative on parameters. Digitone II really doesn’t have a defining sound because the range is wider, but the original Digitone, which by extension lives in Digitone II, is also pretty characteristic to my ears.
I see “that” in this context like “That 70’s Show”
The “that” should be seen more as an invitation to work out typical sound characteristics using short sound snippets. And not as a statement that has already been made.
This thread is also not intended for self-promotion and marketing, but to show what is possible for the device, as is the case in the “That Syntakt Sound” thread.
“That” also always implies a sonic finiteness (or limitation) and sonic peculiarities created by distortion/filters etc.
FM is boring at first. ‘That’ magic happens around it.
But thats not really what “That sound of device XY” is, I think. The question is: When there is a fully produced song, without any info who and with what the song was produced, can you confidently identify that there is a sound made with a syntakt in there.
Use several layers create resonant filters to mimic vowel filters done. No i dont hsve one, but i think that approach can work. There is a certain distsnce for the resonances to get it sounding like a vowel.
Feel free to make it sound better !
Maybe you’d prefer the female frequencies…
I wouldn’t make a full album of it, would prefer to sing, but it was interesting technically.
Hey @sezare56, please don’t feel criticized. I respect you very much and appreciate the effort that went into creating the video. I just don’t like these kind of sounds. This was just a stupid comment from me expressing my distaste. It’s definitely a great example for what huge amount of different sounds the DN is capable of.
But definitely human sounding.
