Enzyme Hybrid Scanned / FM Synthesizer


Humanoid Sound Systems has introduced Enzyme – a new software synthesizer for Mac & Windows.

Enzyme incorporates all the popular features of their Scanned Synth Pro, but takes its scanning synthesis in several new directions simultaneously.

Sample import is now available so you can resynthesize existing sounds with automatic pitch detection and click-free looping, while Hybrid Scanned/FM synthesis is also on offer, for even more sonic possibilities.

The scanned synthesis wavetable can now be scanned by multiple scanners at different frequencies in three different modes to add extra richness and internal movement.

Enzyme also has a beautiful new interface created by Spec Graphics, incorporating an animated visual wavetable display that makes it easier to understand how all the new features operate.

Here’s a video preview of Enzyme:


  • Next generation Scanned Synthesis Engine with Sample import function & Hybrid Scanned/FM synthesis options
  • Multiple scanner options for fatter ‘Unison Mode’, brighter ‘Harmonic Mode’, or imported ‘Explorer Mode’ with imported samples
  • New Effects Rack, allowing practically unlimited layering of effects such as analog modelled filters, reverb, chorus, flanger and distortion
  • Automatable performance controls, allowing control of important parameters from a single location and multiple parameters to be controlled using a single control
  • Arpeggiator
  • Alternative tunings,
  • VST 2.4, Audio Units and Pro Tools AAX plug-in formats

Here are the official audio demos:

Enzyme is available for Mac & Windows for US $49.95. A demo version is available.

Check it out and let us know what you think of it!

18 thoughts on “Enzyme Hybrid Scanned / FM Synthesizer

  1. Gonna download the demo now but I have to say the gui has its place in the ‘top 3 of ugliest interfaces ever’ list. This looks unbelievably bad ๐Ÿ™‚

    1. Sounds great and teaser video is really nice, but I agree with Karen. User interface design is very little a matter of taste and very much a matter of usability. Take the font for example. It’s hideous in this context. It tries to be futuristic and techy, but fails in it’s core function, that is communicative rather than decorative. Simply said, it’s really hard to read. Arial / Helvetica might not be the most exciting choice, but it’s the best one for purpose like this, and has been for over 60 years.

  2. Their a new company. Resources are limited and they are finding their way. Give a chance, they will in time become more polished. For now, they should be judged on their sonic offerings, than their UI.

    1. It’s much less a matter of resources, it’s a matter of (bad) taste. The gui looks like it’s from the 1990s or made by a 16 year old.

      For inspiration look a the Valhalla guis, they are extremely simple but very beautiful and practical, a masterpiece in design and good taste.

      And a product has to be judeged on all of its qualities, looks, usability and sound. Saying anything else is simple-minded and sounds like a poor excuse.
      Of course sound is the most important thing in this case.

      1. Take a deep breath Karen, on that basis the likes of Moog and Clavia’s offerings would be considered ugly as well. Whilst I would not praise them for the UI, if you peruse the site the man responsible for the UI is identified.

        And I agree, the simplicity and elegance of Valhalla’s UI and UI is brilliant. Yet perhaps they hired the wrong bloke or this is indeed their taste.

        My point is the primary factor here is the sound. And whilst I would not praise them for their design sensibilities, I have seen far worse from far bigger names.

        1. Moog and Claiva interfaces – the ones I can think of right now – look nothing like that one here. Also they are hardware. They have nothing to do with this! And that other software from bigger companies looks bad is true but has also nothing to do with this gui.

          You repeat yourself: of course sound is the main factor in an instrument and I already agreed with you on that in my other post.

          Why are you so defensive? Are you the designer of this instruement’s gui or another person from the company? Sorry you’re pissed off. I’m not trying to diss you but when I see a very bad quality gui I will mention it, the same as I will comment on a very well done gui.

          By the way, the problem with people offering services without really knowing what they are doing (and worst of all actually finding customers who cannot appreciate the difference between good and bad!) is not only a problem with graphic work:
          We see it in audio also, with kids with cracked Waves bundles offering their internet mastering services from their bedroom studios etc.

          1. That’s my last reply. I’ve said everything that needs to be said in this debate.
            Plus I just installed the demo so I’m off testing it now.

            Get some glasses ๐Ÿ˜‰

          2. I am neither the designer of the UI nor affiliated with the company. The designer of the interface is Efrain Becerra as noted on the company website. I have however designed UI’s, soft synths and been involved in the development of a handful of hardware synths as well.

            I do not think my statements were defensive, rather I felt a certain degree of sympathy for their second outing and if you think this is bad you should see their first synth.

            And no, I would not call Efrain’s proficiency, based on these examples, and design sensibilities terribly sharp or modern. Yet there is a direct correlation between resources and the quality of ones work. And resources does not merely represent funds.

            More importantly, the synth itself is not my cup of tea.

            1. Haha, yeah I’m happy it’s miles better than scanned synth !

              Tbh it wouldn’t hurt if the interface was more subtle and toned down . But I think the real problem is the demo limitation of cutting out every 30 secs.

              Scanned synth did some awesome sounds but you had to out the time into figuring it out. Enzyme being more advanced will take more time and the sound cutting out won’t encourage people to explore.

              IMO if NI can do 30 min at a time if UHE only goes out of tune, so can 99% of other plugins. I mean, this is cheap software, if I like it I’ll surely buy it just to support development. Most people could afford 50 bux if they knew they liked the program.

              Kinda a bummer that the discussion of one of the more interesting synths is only about it’s interface… ๐Ÿ™

        2. Do you mean Valhalla UI are well done and beautiful?

          If so, we indeed clearly not have the same taste… Simple, efficient, maybe. But well done and good “taste”? Well, not mine…

  3. I love granular synthesis, but this doesn’t sound very special compared to SkannerXT, Alchemy, Padshop Pro,or Polygon….

  4. I quick listen to the demos gives the impression of being pretty much a one trick pony.
    Probably more to do with the sound designer than the instrument..
    I like the clarity of the GUI although it looks like an Alchemy – ElectraX (white) lovechild.
    Unfortunately, I didn’t hear anything that makes me want to grab the demo.
    Time will tell.

  5. I have to say that I really love the interface. A lot. So far I’m having a great time playing with this and feel like I’ll find some very interesting and useful sound with it.

  6. I’m always glad to see synths that are evolutions of non-subtractive models. The interface seems fine to me. While the sound (as mentioned) is most important; the second most important quality is that the interface should be logical/functional and informative (showing you what is going on). The aesthetics of the interface are still important, but it’s pretty subjective. I’ve liked that some developers have provided skins/color-schemes, but ultimately, it’s not a priority. Once I get the sound I need, I don’t stare at the interface. But for most of my VI’s I don’t interact with them in realtime that much.

Leave a Reply