Waldorf Iridium Cinematic Sounds

Waldorf shared this video demo of a new sound library for the Iridium synthesizer, Cinematic Edition.

Cinematic Edition is a great showcase of the sonic possibilities of the Iridium. The sound library is created by sound designer Kevin Schroeder, who has worked with several synth manufacturers and film composers Hans Zimmer, Trevor Morris and Paul Haslinger.

Here’s what they have to say about the library:

“This soundset offers a multitude of complex “cinematic sequences”. These can be played with one key and are ideal for creating a complete song. Using both layers and multiple parameter tracks simultaneously in the sequencer creates very dynamic and atmospheric soundscapes. No additional samples needed.

No samples were used in this set!”

Cinematic Edition contains 64 patches with bass, lead, atmospheres and pad sounds.

Pricing and Availability

Cinematic Edition is available now for 29,00 €.

19 thoughts on “Waldorf Iridium Cinematic Sounds

  1. Really wish we could get a Waldorf retrospective or behind the scenes..

    I’ve been looking for videos about the Q and how it was developed.. that sort of time-frame and I’ve not been able to turn up anything.

    You would think by now somebody would’ve divulged how these special instruments were created/programmed and what was going on at that time.

  2. i know that ragging on price is a tired topic, but a demo with a whopping $5,000 of synth – two iridium modules – that has more menu-diving than a computer and produces fairly boilerplate cinematic noodling is not a strong pitch for the synth*. A solid computer, a couple rich effects, and a few instances of Arturia’s Pigments and this is handled with plenty left over for a good controller. i know hardware vs software workflow is an eternal point of bickering, but i just can’t buy the hardware appeal of a machine that needs this much screen-time to actually get involved in it.
    *i know this is about the preset collection.. but still.

    1. It is true that with a laptop, software, a keyboard controller, and a control surface, a person can design and build a very powerful and versatile “synth station”. And in many ways, the kind of system you would build would be highly customized to your own tastes, workflow and goals.

      That said, dropping $2500 for a centerpiece instrument seems reasonable. And Waldorf has a good reputation for building this kind of synth. As for menu diving, devices like this have to balance size, cost, knobs, workflow. I’ve never minded menu-diving as long as there are some ways to access certain parameters fairly quickly.

      I’ve never been a fan of the button grid thing– preferring good velocity sensing keys. But it’s useful to have those things on board for secondary tasks/triggers.

      1. My ‘problem’ is that I dropped that kind of money 20 years ago on a Kurzweil K2500, and it’s such a deep instrument that I can’t justify even looking at something like this!

        I’ve been limiting myself to knob-per-function type synths and modular gear as a result, because I realize that I’ll probably never plumb the depths of another new instrument that’s as deep as the K2500.

        Still get G.A.S., though!

        1. I agree. I have a K2500RS that still holds its own against lots of stuff I see. That’s exactly my point. You can invest enough money in the kind of gear/workflow that gets the job done.

          But without hesitation, the K2500R and K2661 are among the most satisfying purchases of my life.

      2. @milkshake When I had money and made money making music, I had a nice workstation. Now I don’t sell music and don’t make as much money, I have a laptop, a DAW and a couple of VSTS. Horses for courses.

    2. The main advantage of an instrument like Iridium is that you can’t surf the internet and comment on Synthtopia with it.

    3. Software leaves me cold. There’s no joy in shaping a sound or creating something new. You may as well be running a spreadsheet. I know software is way cheaper, and be done on a laptop, but really to me electronic music creation has to be hardware and experimentation – not bits and bytes. The computer plays a role via a DAW, but I’m in the process of getting rid of all my software instruments and controllers in favour of hardware.

      1. Use whatever works for you, but an Iridium is really just a dedicated computer running specialized software with a relatively small display that requires much menu diving. There’s no real advantage of using hardware in that case. Sure there are controls to tweak, but those controls aren’t for things as immediate as controls on an analog synth. IMO, it doesn’t make sense to dump all your software for hardware synths that can be better implemented in software. Arturia Pigments was mentioned above and is a good example. Pigments has a big, detailed GUI that is much easier to navigate than the small multipage screen on an Iridium. You can do things on its GUI that you can’t do well, or at all, on Iridium’s display. I personally don’t use software on a computer because it’s cheaper, I use it because I like the workflow more than hardware.

        1. digital synth stuff sounds great through an analog filter. there should be more (non-euro) analog filter stuff on the market.

    4. Yeah, if your demo features 2 of the same synth it’s an instant turnoff. I can sorta understand it with monosynths or whatever, but really if you want to do sound on sound I much prefer to see The synth paired up to a looper.

      That goes double (ha ha) for big expensive multitimbral polysynths like this. I like and admire Waldorf gear but this is just overkill.

  3. I’m with stub about it being a “centerpiece instrument.” At the $2K+ level, you should be prepared to dig in until you get your money’s worth. Waldorf has a good pedigree and the Iridium is a monster. Its not an instrument you buy lightly; its a good example of its form factor. Several makers offer their versions. Its a bridge between big workstations, analog-y sequencers and laptop rigs.

    I have mixed feelings about people like BT, who even owns a beautifully jacked-up Fairlight. His keyboard room looks like Sweetwater’s! He’s earned his gear, so its not about that. Its wondering how he can get more than a surface amount of use from so many very deep instruments. As with cars, hardware synths require time in the driver’s seat so you can learn to make the tight turns. I’m a software zombie with a Firewire port in my neck, so I have different issues.

Leave a Reply