| >People like analog synths because they have a very simple programming model that only makes a relatively small range of sounds, most of which sound good more or less by default. You trade immediacy against sophistication. Well and they sound completely different. The UI differences don't come down to number of controls but the fact that most analog designs have a 1:1 relationship with the sound, every knob you turn has a very distinct impact on the sound and usually, applying that to any input generates more or less the same impact on the output. It's extremely intuitive to learn how changing a knob changes the sound. FM is completely different, where altering simple things like the operator ratios and modulation index have massive changes on the sound and don't create the same effect on different sounds - it's naturally non-intuitive. Most FM wizards get there through tons of experimentation, not through established fundamentals. Imagine playing a wind instrument and changing your embouchure alters the pitch of the differently depending on what note you finger. That's what programming an FM synth is like. iPad synths are a dime a dozen these days. Lack of a physical interface is as big a problem on them as with larger synths. They are hardly tactile. A corollary here is the success of wavetable synths compared to granular, additive, and FM in the softsynth space. Wavetables have the same subtractive model as traditional analogs, and incorporate many of the same features as semi-modular synths. But they are extremely versatile because of how their interface is intuitive even for first time users - it's stupid easy to change the sound, the only additional dimension is the wavetable but that's quick to pick up. Compared to say, granular synths which are possibly the most versatile paradigm, but whose controls are extremely divorced from the timbre of the sound you design. |