Pigments 7 vs Absynth 6 vs Serum 2: Which super synth should you buy?A handful of software synths can justifiably don the ‘super synth’ badge. Such instruments are so versatile and powerful that they simply couldn’t exist in hardware form.

READ MORE: Arturia Pigments 7 review: “Almost a no-brainer at $199”

Three synths in particular have long claimed such a title: Xfer Records’ Serum, Arturia’s Pigments and Native Instruments’ Absynth. Each has carved a particular niche: Absynth’s known as a master of pads, evolving textures and complex effects; Serum’s the go-to synth for all flavours of EDM; and Pigments is famed for its modules modelled on classic hardware and its remarkable ease of use.
All three have recently been updated (Absynth 6, Serum 2 and Pigments 7), and I want to find out which one is really the greatest super synth on the market.
Serum 2 wavetable editor. Image: Press
Which synth is most versatile — Serum, Absynth or Pigments
Synthesis is all about creating and shaping waveforms, so the more capable the tools for doing this, the more versatile the synth will be.
Serum and Pigments are similar in this regard, with distinct oscillator, filter and effect stages. The most notable difference is that Serum provides three slots for hosting oscillator modules, while Pigments has just two — although its Utility Engine provides a basic oscillator, noise generation and audio input. Additionally, Serum and Pigments can host two filter modules and offer both send and insert effect busses for hosting effects modules. Serum’s routing of these elements is slightly more flexible than Pigments’.
Absynth takes a different approach, with sound generation handled by three Channels, each combining an oscillator module with a pair of processing modules into which filters and signal processors (waveshaping, for example) can be loaded. The Channels’ mixed and panned (or even 3D panned, if using a multi-channel audio system) output is fed through another pair of processing stages and on to just a single effects stage. This is a far more restrictive effects section than the other two synths, but the modules on offer are less about adding sonic polish and more about creating something that’s an intrinsic part of the sound.
In terms of the actual modules on offer, Serum and Pigments are, again, very similar. Both have an advanced wavetable oscillator model, various pure synthesis oscillators geared to both analogue and digital synthesis techniques, and versatile sample-based engines. Both synths also offer a wide choice of filter and effects models.
Absynth is, again, the outlier. It has the widest choice of oscillator modules — two sample-based and six synthesis-based — but by far the smallest choice of filters/processors and effects. However, Absynth’s versatility arises as much from how flexibly these modules can be combined as from the specific modules themselves. Absynth is also weakest for sample-based emulations of acoustic instruments, although is outstanding when combining a sample-based sound with synthesis-based elements.
Finally, all three synths offer a range of modulation options: envelopes, LFOs, random generators and such. But Absynth is miles ahead in terms of sheer quantity, thanks to its 28(!) envelope generators that can each contain up to 68(!) breakpoints. The more modest modulator offerings of Serum and Pigments are unlikely to ever be insufficient, however.
Winner
Absynth has the most to offer in terms of raw timbral versatility, but it’s the least chameleon-like in terms of its overall sonic character. There’s little to separate Serum and Pigments, though. Serum has the edge for sample-based sounds, but Pigments counters with its physical modelling Modal engine. Overall, then, I call this a draw for Serum and Pigments, with Absynth not far behind.
SCORES
Absynth: 4
Serum: 5
Pigments: 5
Serum 2 clip sequencer. Image: Press
Which synth is easiest to use?
The similarities between Pigments and Serum extend to their ease of use. The visual layout of both is remarkably similar, although where Serum shows all three of its oscillator modules at once, Pigments presents its oscillator modules in tabs. This allows Pigments to spread the controls for its various oscillator models over a wider area of screen real-estate, allowing for more detailed visual feedback and a less-cluttered feel than with Serum.
Once again, Absynth carves its own path here. Many of the changes in its latest, resurrected, version focus on the synth’s appearance, which has been thoroughly modernised while retaining the same general layout as previous versions of the instrument. Notably, Absynth’s oscillator and filter/processor modules are comparatively compact and tend to feature fewer parameters than the other two synths. This makes working with the modules easier overall, although, conversely, it demands one become very familiar with the results of combining different modules in order to truly master the synth.
Modulator assignment is most graceful in Pigments. Each source has its own panel in the main view that shows a real-time graphical representation of the modulator’s activity, and assignment is simply a case of dragging from one of these panels to the destination parameter. Serum is almost as slick, although it lacks the real-time graphical readouts.
In contrast, modulator assignment in Absynth is handled via a dedicated assignment page – select a source in one column, a destination in another, and enter a strength value. This works just fine, but isn’t as intuitive and immediate as Pigments’ and Serum’s solutions.
Winner
Absynth is easy to navigate and work with, but it isn’t quite as intuitive as Serum and Pigments. While those two are remarkably alike, I have to hand the ease-of-use crown to Pigments. It’s a masterpiece of UI and UX design that makes what is a deeply powerful synth an absolute pleasure to work with.
SCORES
Absynth: 3
Serum: 4
Pigments: 5
Image: Press
Which synth has the best sound quality?
In terms of pure sound quality, all three synths are faultless. There are some subtle differences, and, more to the point, considerations of “sound quality” can extend beyond the basic question of “does it sound any good?”
Absynth is the perfect example of this. The synth’s sound has a clarity and spaciousness that underpins its reputation as a master of soundscapes and atmospheric sounds but beyond this, it also supports up to eight output channels. These are designed to work in conjunction with multi-channel surround-sound systems, so each of Absynth’s three sound generators sports a 3D panner for balancing its signal between those outputs. If composing for cinema, VR, or other surround sound media, this opens up massive potential for creating deeply immersive sonic experiences for listeners.
Serum’s sound tends towards being direct and in-your-face, boasting a clarity that could cut glass, yet with a crushing weight. Its oscillator engines feature a pair of Warp processor slots that allow many ways to mess with the sound so that it doesn’t become clinical. Its filter and effect models are more than capable of adding some character, too. This fabulous sound comes at a cost, though, with Serum being the most CPU-hungry of the three.
Pigments also delivers a pristine sound, but I find it to be a smidgen warmer than Serum’s. It’s also a little easier to make Pigments’ sound sloppier and messier than it is with Serum. But perhaps the biggest differentiator is that Pigments includes models taken from Arturia’s V Collection and FX Collection plugins, and these can lend the synth a satisfyingly vintage tone and flavour.
Winner
The sound quality difference between Pigments, Absynth and Serum is insignificant. I can’t stress it enough: they all sound superb! Still, I place Pigments at the top of the list, but only by the tiniest of margins.
SCORES
Absynth: 4
Serum: 4
Pigments: 5
Image: Press
Which synth has the best preset library?
All three of these synths invite you to dive in and create new sounds, but presets are important too, as a starting point for your own sounds or to save time when composing and producing.
Given its 25+ year history and backward compatibility with patches produced for any previous version, it’s no surprise that Absynth 6 comes with an enormous patch library. I find so many patches to be inspirational, sparking whole new musical ideas from just a few notes. Finding sounds within this mass would be tough, but the synth’s innovative AI-powered Preset Browser makes this easily manageable (see my Absynth 6 review for more on this).
Pigments, too, comes with a generous library containing all of the presets from all previous versions of the synth, along with a collection that’s new for Pigments 7. Although voluminous, this is a smaller library than found in Absynth, but what always impresses me here is the consistently high standard of the presets – Arturia’s sound designers really are something else! Finding the right sounds isn’t as graceful as in Absynth, but Pigments does have its own AI-powered system that suggests presets that are similar to the currently loaded patch.
Serum’s included library is excellent throughout, but at around 600 patches, it’s considerably smaller than both Absynth’s and Pigments’ libraries. Xfer sell additional libraries and, given the popularity of the synth, it isn’t hard to find Serum patches online, but it still feels a bit miserly given this is the most expensive synth of the group. Moreover, aside from simple categorisation, Serum’s only sop to aiding in the hunt for a suitable sound is a preview feature – handy, but not that helpful!
Winner
The sheer size of Absynth’s patch library is enough to hand it the victory in this category, a victory made all the more emphatic by the synth’s amazing Preset Browser. Pigments put up a strong fight with its large and impressive preset collection, but the comparative meagreness of Serum’s library sees it trailing in last place, albeit to a smattering of polite applause.
SCORES
Absynth: 5
Pigments: 4
Serum: 3
Innovative patch browser. Image: Press
Which synth is the best value?
At $199, there’s nothing between Absynth and Pigments in terms of asking price, and Serum’s not far behind at $249. Ultimately, this isn’t a big price range. However, value for money comes down to more than just asking price, and needs to factor in the comparative capabilities and features of each synth – you know, what we’ve been discussing up to now!
Manufacturers’ update policies are relevant too. Updates to Serum 2 for existing users are free, and Arturia hasn’t charged for updating the last few versions of Pigments. Updating Absynth, on the other hand, costs $120. This isn’t unreasonable given how long ago the previous version was released, and for all I know, a future Absynth update may be free. Nevertheless, this fee goes against Absynth in this head-to-head.
Winner
With all of this in mind, Pigments nudges itself into the lead, with Serum close behind and Absynth a further step back.
SCORES
Pigments: 5
Serum: 4
Absynth: 3
Image: Press
Which should you buy — Absynth, Pigments or Serum?
I’ve been a fan of Absynth for years, and love the energy and power of Serum, but the winner here is Pigments 7. Its voice is the most versatile, able to swing from vintage analogue to physical-modelling, taking in digital- and sample-based synthesis along the way. And it’s a joy to use, its design is as functional as it is attractive. If any synth can claim to be the only synth you’ll ever need, I say Pigments is the one.
However, in testing all three synthesizers, one thing is obvious: they are all incredibly powerful and fun to use. Your personal preference may lean towards Serum or Absynth rather than Pigments — to that end, I can say with certainty that you won’t be disappointed by any of these bodacious instruments.
The post Pigments 7 vs Absynth 6 vs Serum 2: Which super synth should you buy? appeared first on MusicTech.