|
Usually I don't mix myself in discussions about musical gear, but since I am in the music business myself for about 20 years and own/have owned almost the entire spectrum of synthesizing equipment created in these 2 decades, I want to speak my peace.
For the 500$ I paid for it, I can only say that the SH-32 is a great sound source and well worth checking out. The simple interface allows for intuitive creation of all kinds of non-acoustic sounds. I consider synths as a breed of instruments just like any other, with their own characteristics (if you want a trumpet sound in your score, then use a real one ... why drag a Triton in there in an attempt to fake it ?). Often in these forums, people speak of synths as if they were siblings of God himself, sent to Earth to enchant us mortals with their intricate design and cool looks. Bwah ...
As I am in the business of film/advertising score production, I probably don't have the same state of mind as most techno-minded people(or whatever flavor), as I come from a more classical, symphonic oriented education. Hence, I use the SH-32 as a sound source with its proper characteristics , not as a do-it-all-boom-ping-sweep box which in addition has to look flashy during an on-stage mix.
Sure, SH-32 uses quadruple multisamples per octave as oscillator source instead of math formula output generated by a DSP, but in all honesty, how many ears in the world would be able to tell the difference when confronted with it during a blind auditing test ? They who shout the loudest, fail even to distinguish the shriek of a black bird from the cry of an eagle.
OK, SH-32 exhibits filter stepping and may loose its track when under heavy MIDI-strain while arpeggiating with high BPM and switching sounds banks, but as a multitimbral sound source it performes great in my setup. Sound-wise it holds its own against all my other gear (from objective point of view), which is up to ten fold the price of SH-32, and even adds its unique flavor.
There is a lot of religiosity in this synth world that transcends the essence of the instrument itself (i.e. sound creation). This type of synth is "in", the other one is "crap" ... while from objective sound-wise point of view, they are both worthwhile.
Can anyone tell me what you are trying to prove by comparing SH-32 to an A6, Q or whatever synth that costs 6-10x times as much ??? Its like saying a Corvette is no good compared to a Venom 800TT, while only driving a Yugo yourself.
Besides, I also KNOW and USE the instruments I own. They are not sitting in my private studio like exotic reptiles on display in a terrarium (look dude ... I got a blue, yellow and red one ... cool). NONE of them are perfect. Although it is fun programming them, the technical gadget level often masks out and even inhibits intuitive sound creation. No single manufacturer has ever succeeded in making a synth that allows for a fast and perfect translation of the sounds your hear in your mind to the sounds that emerge from your monitors.
90% of the reviews in these forums are of such subjective nature and without any foundation that they are of no use to potential buyers. I even wonder if the gear under discussion is really owned by some of the reviewers.
My only advice is: try it and if you like it, buy it. Your wallet won't feel raped for the sounds your ears will receive. For the money, it can do wonderful things. And isn't giving a mark all about price/performance ration ? In that aspect, SH-32 deserves a 4/5 for me.
It ain't Walhalla, but then again, what is ?
|
