Supersaw?

[Morshu]

what is the best synth for supersaw?

and compared to the best synths for supersaw, what would you consider the R3?

[Re-Member]

You forgot to include the SH-201, which would be my pick. You can use 4 Supersaws at once, plus modulate them individually. There's also the V-Synth that has them as well.

[Morshu]

suprised you said 201, personally i think the jp8000 is very similar to the 201 supersaw wise, although the jp8000 is more coarse sounding

[axxim]

What is your definition for "supersaw"?

"Supersaw" is the name Roland registered for a sound on the JP8000 consisting of several detuned saw waves running at a time. Others may call it hypersaw, multisaw etc. but none of this names defines the sound itself, so it is the same as if you would ask which synth is better to make the sound "piano", "guitar", etc.

[DaniH]

You forgot to include the SH-201,...be my pick..

Mine as well. I loved my SH-201 but it was only great for pads/strings for me. I can achieve that super-saw sound with just about any synth so I had to sell it.

[Re-Member]

What is your definition for "supersaw"?

"Supersaw" is the name Roland registered for a sound on the JP8000 consisting of several detuned saw waves running at a time. Others may call it hypersaw, multisaw etc. but none of this names defines the sound itself, so it is the same as if you would ask which synth is better to make the sound "piano", "guitar", etc.

The Supersaw is technically up to six saw waves stacked and detuned operating as a single oscillator, so in that aspect, you can define it as a sound. In many ways, it reminds me of the Vox Humana Polymoog preset that Gary Numan often uses.

[axxim]

The Supersaw is technically up to six saw waves stacked and detuned operating as a single oscillator, so in that aspect, you can define it as a sound. In many ways, it reminds me of the Vox Humana Polymoog preset that Gary Numan often uses.

Well, that is what I am trying to say. The "supersaw" can only be done by the synth for and with it was created, the same as with "vox humana"

[Timo]

Well, THE definitive supersaw sound is the JP80x0. The trance machine that spawned an entire genre. It's about the filters as much as the supersaw oscillator (7 saws) itself. The JP filters define the all-important midrange bite and high-frequency openness during filter sweeps when using the supersaw that others often leave behind.

Virus TI has Hypersaw (9 saws per oscillator) but different filters. From the demos I've heard, not as much bite. Needs a little post-processing.

The Radias' Unison Oscillator (5 saws per oscillator), to me, at least, comes across as sounding phasey and thin. Unfortunately I'm not a fan. I prefer the Radias' standard waveform modulation (splits the oscillator into two and modulates the phase), but this is a different technique to supersaw.

Of course there are a good few VSTi's that emulate the JP supersaw, often better than the hardware imitators (separate to JP).

[Morshu]

What about the Moog Voyager? is that good for supersaw? lol.

[SanderXpander]

It has only three oscillators, so if you mean emulating the classic JP80x0 sound then no. It gets very fat but in an entirely different way.

I think the Z3Ta+ softsynth (pc only, comes with Sonar Producer) has an awesome one. Not necessarily the best JP emulation, but definitely gets the idea of the supersaw sound right. Much better than many hardware VAs.

[Morshu]

not true. zeta is a good plugin, but nonetheless it sounds not even near as good as a nord lead or virus b or well, alot of things. The problem with software, is it doesnt have the soul that a piece of hardware has. software cannot simulate the circuitry inside a hardware synth, at least not very well or accurately(even looking at arturia, this is deemed true).

I personally think that my favorite plugin is 3osc, as every other plugin just plain annoys me with its rediculously awkward positioning of controls and setup(doesnt change when i use a midi controller)

Why can't anyone make a normal software plugin?

[SanderXpander]

Oh god, not this bullshit again. A Nord and a Virus are both software as well, they just run on their own processors instead of your computer's. I own a Nord and have tried the Virus. I like the Virus but for supersaw would definitely prefer the Z3ta+ over the Nord.

[Timo]

not true. zeta is a good plugin, but nonetheless it sounds not even near as good as a nord lead or virus b or well, alot of things. The problem with software, is it doesnt have the soul that a piece of hardware has. software cannot simulate the circuitry inside a hardware synth, at least not very well or accurately(even looking at arturia, this is deemed true).

You do know that the JP80x0 is an entirely digital synth internally - including the filters, oscillators, modulation, effects, et al? All digital. As is the Virus, the Nord 1/2/3, Microwave, Radias, R3, MicroKorg, Kronos.... Only two you mentioned are real analogue - the Moog Voyager and the Alesis Andromeda - and the Moog is monophonic, so no polyphonic supersaw pads there. However, the Andromeda would likely have excellent potential.

[Morshu]

in all seriousness, the hardware synth sounds different than the software, even if you tried to make an exact copy of the korg r3 in vst form, it would not sound the same. The hardware takes more years to create and takes more thought and intelligence to make, the software requires far less, and the hardware also requires circuitboards and processors, so its not just software, and computers cannot simulate the circuits within a hardware synth wether digital or analog. Its simply not possible, every once and a while your hardware will make a strange noise, filter, make a error, mistake, or etc, and often the sound you get out of it can change mildly as well, it simply will sound better in hardware form always.

we need them to make a zeta hardware synth for me to prove this to YOU guys though.

[X-Trade]

On the contrary, softsynths are often more complex in their synthesis and much more capable than hardware synths because they are not restrained by hardware design or the (relatively) limited processors and hardware costs necessary to make a competitive product. They can focus almost entirely on the sound.

The problem is that you need a decent computer and connectivity (audio outputs, MIDI controllers) to appreciate software synthesizers on a similar level. And for a really decent soft synth you could still be paying more than the cheapest hardsynths - before you even begin to

I assure you, there is nothing about the R3's hardware itself that can give it any uniqueness in sound. If you ran a softsynth with similar algorithms at the same sample rate, they would sound very similar. In fact, sample rates and quality of output hardware tend to be the only major differences.

It is not necessary to emulate the digital aspects in hardware, because besides from the DAC, anything that happens to ones-and-zeroes is a given - it will be the same. On the basic level, digital computers don't make mistakes.
Your computer is just as likely to make the same mistakes (likeliness: almost totally improbable). That is THE main attraction of digital computing platforms and the reason they are so popular now in almost every form of technology.