A new synth & vocoder

Cubase
,
1

Hi Guys,

I would like to suggest a new synth as an addition to cubase - I find spector and mystic incredibly difficult to work with and get useable results out of (I might feel different if I were in the market of atonal drones), and whilst Retrologue is frankly fantastic and my go-to synth (over the likes of v-station, sylenth1, etc) for the vast majority of synth work… I feel something is a little lacking; something that can create complex, evolving atmospheres with ease.

I would love to see something along the lines of Spitfire Audio’s BT Phobos, or Spectrasonics Omnisphere, etc. Padshop pro makes a good stab at this, but still doesn’t quite do it for me. Perhaps I’m just too excited about BT Phobos’ polyconvolution engine - I might buy it today in fact.

Oh, and I have been waiting for what feels like an absolute LIFETIME for orange vocoder to make its way back to VST; and am fed up with waiting. Please could we have a Steinberg vocoder? That would make me so happy… Perhaps even roll it into the synth I just spoke about? Imagine vocals that evolve over time!

Just my two cents.

2

100% agree! Can we add a full featured sampler to that list?

3

The old Cubase 5 Vocoder was great!
Would like to see this as a modern VST3 Plugin! :sunglasses:

4

Halion is a full featured sampler

Groove Agent is a full featured drum sampler

5

+1 for vocoder / synth

6

So, I just purchased Phobos, but the point remains; Cubase ought to come with a suite of tools (it’s almost there!) that make people want to buy the whole package, not just a DAW and I feel that a look at making some truly groundbreaking, modern synths could be just that.

7

I don’t want to pay for a vocoder that I will never ever use. Thanks :stuck_out_tongue:

8

I never use the logical editor, control room, DJ EQ, Arpache SX, etc, etc… Doesn’t mean I’d want other users not to have them.

9

Big development cost difference between an E.Q. and a Super Synth.

10

You know what’s a bigger cost? People not buying your product because it doesn’t appear to keep up with the alternatives.

11

I have to say new synths and FX are at the BOTTOM of my list - and would be for most pro’s as they have their own alternatives they prefer.

Why someone would want Steinberg to spend their time on this when they can get one from a third party at a reasonable cost seems very odd to me, especially when certain things desperately need fixing like -

D.O.P (just generally broken in many ways)
Hitpoint detection still buggy
Time alignment still buggy
Constant resetting of audio engine (stutters) when adding/removing FX/sends/changing routing
Weird/inconsistent core loading on heavy projects
Inconsistent automation timing/chasing that changes with different buffer sizes/asio guard settings

There’s just a handful to start with… any serious professional would prioritise these over a new synth/filter/vocoder to play with IMO.

I guess the question is whether Steinberg wants to focus on bedroom producers or working professionals. Unfortunately it seems to be the former at the moment… so you may very well get your wish.

Also, there are a bunch of FREE vocoders available, have you looked? TAL is good.

12

I don’t see the need for a DAW to have a super synth either. A good vocoder would be great though, because Cubase makes it a pain to set up some great VST2 vocoders out there.