Old 02-22-2016, 04:04 AM   #121
Time Waster
Human being with feelings
 
Time Waster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bowral, Australia
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noise_construct View Post
What would the benefit of this?
Firstly, for some people this might just be a more interesting approach to creating the sound that you want. It's a lot more flexible than having everything in one VST, with the inevitable compromises that entails. Secondly, you only have to use the modules you want so potentially it could be more CPU efficient than an all-in-one. Because a developer would only have to concentrate on one module, the modules could be highly optimised.
Time Waster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016, 04:05 AM   #122
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
brainwreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The 90's
Posts: 17,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noise_construct View Post
What would the benefit of this?
The benefit would be multiple i/o points. For example, a vst synth doesn't allow for audio in unless a separate fx version of the plugin is made. And even then, there is only one input point and one output point. If you might like to pass a guitar through a synth's filter and modulate it while ignoring the rest of the synth's modules, you're out of luck. With a modular approach, you could take the filter and lfo and do what you want. This is already being done in Reason, but there is Propellerhead's business practices to contend with.
__________________
The media are misleading the public about...pretty much everything.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016, 04:12 AM   #123
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
brainwreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The 90's
Posts: 17,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Softsynth View Post
Non sonically. This is something for hobbyist users that want even more sonic Meccano. Today the opportunities to create new and different sounds are vastly greater than ever before. Arguably the lack of limitations is a form of creative stumbling block already!
Nah, it's more like having individual hardware modules that can be used however you see fit. Look at Reaktor's blocks, for example. But that type of modularity should be in the plugin standard, rather than being tucked away inside special modular environments.
__________________
The media are misleading the public about...pretty much everything.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016, 05:02 AM   #124
nutjob
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 9
Default

Not read through this thread tbh, but I expect most of us learnt on a cracKeD copy of Reason back in the day... you couldn't do much without learning how things worked so you kinda had to....and Fruityloops was just pathetic back then so nobody used that.
nutjob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016, 05:18 AM   #125
Softsynth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,005
Default

Originally Posted by Softsynth
"Non sonically. This is something for hobbyist users that want even more sonic Meccano. Today the opportunities to create new and different sounds are vastly greater than ever before. Arguably the lack of limitations is a form of creative stumbling block already!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainwreck View Post
Nah, it's more like having individual hardware modules that can be used however you see fit. Look at Reaktor's blocks, for example. But that type of modularity should be in the plugin standard, rather than being tucked away inside special modular environments.
I gave a subjective opinion. The objective possibilities for the user are obvious, I have no doubt I would use that system too. The real world benefits are nonetheless dubious.

In a way I do not think it makes much commercial sense for anyone involved in plugin instruments. This is why I do not think it would happen.
For instance Native Instruments want you to combine elements of Reaktor instruments. They don't want you to drag in U-HE filter module or whatever. Apart from reducing their portion of the pie this might also create a mother lode of headaches for tech support.

We can already drastically change the sound within single VST instruments, then we can combine this with multiple FX and then combine this with other instruments to play simultaneously and add further FX to the collective sound if desired too. If this isn't enough we can further mangle the sound in production via audacity or whatever.
This is why I say it is like Meccano. It's another toy (one I would enjoy) but entirely unnecessary.
Softsynth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016, 05:32 AM   #126
Time Waster
Human being with feelings
 
Time Waster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bowral, Australia
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Softsynth View Post
Originally Posted by Softsynth
"Non sonically. This is something for hobbyist users that want even more sonic Meccano. Today the opportunities to create new and different sounds are vastly greater than ever before. Arguably the lack of limitations is a form of creative stumbling block already!"



I gave a subjective opinion. The objective possibilities for the user are obvious, I have no doubt I would use that system too. The real world benefits are nonetheless dubious.

In a way I do not think it makes much commercial sense for anyone involved in plugin instruments. This is why I do not think it would happen.
For instance Native Instruments want you to combine elements of Reaktor instruments. They don't want you to drag in U-HE filter module or whatever. Apart from reducing their portion of the pie this might also create a mother lode of headaches for tech support.

We can already drastically change the sound within single VST instruments, then we can combine this with multiple FX and then combine this with other instruments to play simultaneously and add further FX to the collective sound if desired too. If this isn't enough we can further mangle the sound in production via audacity or whatever.
I agree that it wouldn't make much commercial sense, at least, until it became a 'thing'. It's more an open source type of project. Eventually though, someone would work out how to make money out of it.

I see it as un-complicating the process, because you only have to use exactly what you need, rather than the more hit and miss affair with complex all-in-one synths, trolling through presets to find something like the sound you want, followed by further processing.
Time Waster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016, 05:34 AM   #127
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainwreck View Post
The benefit would be multiple i/o points. For example, a vst synth doesn't allow for audio in unless a separate fx version of the plugin is made. And even then, there is only one input point and one output point. If you might like to pass a guitar through a synth's filter and modulate it while ignoring the rest of the synth's modules, you're out of luck. With a modular approach, you could take the filter and lfo and do what you want. This is already being done in Reason, but there is Propellerhead's business practices to contend with.
What prevents you from grabbing a filter plugin and LFO now and just putting them on a track? Or doing that in Reaktor or any other modular plugin?

I'm probably missing something obvious, but I don't really understand what you are after that isn't already available in very refined form. All these share one thing in common- a graphical routing interface. Which is missing from REAPER and number of other mainstream hosts.
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016, 07:38 AM   #128
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
brainwreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The 90's
Posts: 17,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Time Waster View Post
I see it as un-complicating the process, because you only have to use exactly what you need, rather than the more hit and miss affair with complex all-in-one synths, trolling through presets to find something like the sound you want, followed by further processing.
Yea, that is one big aspect of it. Instead of taking on these big synths (all or nothing) and their interfaces, you might just want a new oscillator, filter, or whatever, to add to the sonic tool box.

Another aspect is that more attention would be given to individual modules, both from developers and users.
__________________
The media are misleading the public about...pretty much everything.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016, 07:55 AM   #129
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
brainwreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The 90's
Posts: 17,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noise_construct View Post
What prevents you from grabbing a filter plugin and LFO now and just putting them on a track? Or doing that in Reaktor or any other modular plugin?

I'm probably missing something obvious, but I don't really understand what you are after that isn't already available in very refined form. All these share one thing in common- a graphical routing interface. Which is missing from REAPER and number of other mainstream hosts.
Have you ever tried to put together a modular synth without a modular environment? It ain't no fun to do or to use.

With something like Reaktor, it is all or nothing. In other words, you have that NI ball-and-chain to deal with. A few years down the road when the new version of the ball-and-chain comes out, as opposed to a modular standard like a software implementation of eurorack, you can't just obtain and use any new modules until you have bought in to the new environment. And a solid open standard would be more likely to attract a user and development community than a closed environment.
__________________
The media are misleading the public about...pretty much everything.

Last edited by brainwreck; 02-22-2016 at 08:01 AM.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016, 08:03 AM   #130
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainwreck View Post
Yea, that is one big aspect of it. Instead of taking on these big synths (all or nothing) and their interfaces, you might just want a new oscillator, filter, or whatever, to add to the sonic tool box.

Another aspect is that more attention would be given to individual modules, both from developers and users.
What kind of attention? I'm pretty sure the guys at NI put a lot of attention to inventing the ZDF filters for example. And all developers put a whole lot of attention into designing complete, functional synths where all separate parts work perfectly together with minimal overhead in one plugin, instead of splitting it into numerous separate plugins.

Quote:
Have you ever tried to put together a modular synth without a modular environment? It ain't no fun to do or to use.
That's what I said

Quote:
With something like Reaktor, it is all or nothing. In other words, you have that NI ball-and-chain to deal with. A few years down the road when the new version of the ball-and-chain comes out, as opposed to a modular standard like a software implementation of eurorack, you can't just obtain and use any new modules until you have bought in to the new environment.
Reaktor update costs less than a single eurorack module, not really sure what your point is. It's a bargain and does exactly what you ask, if you want to build your sound sources from individual modules, Reaktor is the best option.
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016, 08:45 AM   #131
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
brainwreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The 90's
Posts: 17,940
Default

noise-addict, if you don't like the idea of a modular standard, then you just don't like it. There probably isn't any sense in us wasting space trying to convince one another about the pros and cons, especially seeing that your arguments are nonsense.
__________________
The media are misleading the public about...pretty much everything.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016, 09:31 AM   #132
sostenuto
Human being with feelings
 
sostenuto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,264
Default

As User much closer to OP than either of you (or others here) Reaktor6 seems the closest, current, quality product approximating your recent 'eurorack' note. Powerful. capable company (NI) behind it and huge User content.

I get the ball & chain thought, but at least Reaktor6 is a stable, capable, living, breathing tool until something far better comes along. Also, with its internal content, plus Razor, tons of Synth needs are covered.

Last edited by sostenuto; 02-22-2016 at 11:07 AM.
sostenuto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016, 10:11 AM   #133
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainwreck View Post
noise-addict, if you don't like the idea of a modular standard, then you just don't like it. There probably isn't any sense in us wasting space trying to convince one another about the pros and cons, especially seeing that your arguments are nonsense.
I do like modular things, I'm a Reaktor user, building a eurorack system and spent years making music only in modular hosts. I just don't see much point in splitting VSTis into less functional components that can't be properly combined in linear rack hosts like Reaper & co. Especially when mature modular systems already exist in both plugin and complete host formats.

But if your arguments are sensible and my nonsense, and you resort to name-calling then I guess continuing this is indeed pointless.
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016, 12:09 PM   #134
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
brainwreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The 90's
Posts: 17,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noise_construct View Post
I just don't see much point in splitting VSTis into less functional components that can't be properly combined in linear rack hosts like Reaper & co.
That is the point...a standard for hosting components, as opposed to only hosting monolith plugins. And I'm not talking about low level stuff here - oscillators, filters, modulators, etc.
__________________
The media are misleading the public about...pretty much everything.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016, 05:48 PM   #135
Time Waster
Human being with feelings
 
Time Waster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bowral, Australia
Posts: 400
Default

Eurorack is a good example (also an example of a working commercial model). Essentially we are proposing a virtual/digital version of something like the Eurorack standard. It's a standard as opposed to a piece of software.

The aim is to be able to take a module from any source/supplier and be able to plug it into any other module (in a logical sequence, of course). Control signals should be able to be shared across modules. Audio inputs should be able to be directed to any suitable module from any source (either from another module or from the DAW) and output to any other module, or out to any track in the DAW.

Most DAWs can use VST's, so ideally the standard should be configured to work with any VST compatible DAW, rather than having to redesign DAWs to use the new standard.
Time Waster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016, 06:44 PM   #136
sickamorz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alma Mare View Post
Howdy o/

I'm mostly a rock/metal guy who's been perfectly happy so far recording with amp sims and basic mixing tools (EQ, comp, reverb). I've been getting curious about synths lately and I'm a bit tired of being dumbfounded everytime I look at those interfaces with all the ADSHR and LFO and filters and shit. A screenshot of a Massive patch gives me a migraine :P

I kind of understand the very basics (start with a wave and modulate its parameters with other waves) but I'm looking for a synth that would allow me to try out the different approaches, tools and types of modulation in a logic manner. Baby's first synth, if you will. Something not too overwhelming.

What would you guys recomend? Thanks!

You could try Kairatune to get started, there is a how to video also for Kairatune by Nick Maxwell.
sickamorz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2016, 09:23 PM   #137
Chris_S
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 12
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikComposer View Post
The only gripe I have with it, and a minor one, is that it doesn't have a even notes sequencer, and instead it has bars, which is difficult to set to even pitches unfortunately.
Use a Step Sequencer LFO and click on "Snap To Grid" right above the bars.
Drag the LFO Control to your OSC Pitch and set to +12 (hold alt and drag up)

I learned how to program synthesis with Massive as well.


Serum has a pretty basic layout, and the visual envelopes and filters help to show what is happening to the sound.
Chris_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2016, 05:42 AM   #138
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
brainwreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The 90's
Posts: 17,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Time Waster View Post
Eurorack is a good example (also an example of a working commercial model). Essentially we are proposing a virtual/digital version of something like the Eurorack standard. It's a standard as opposed to a piece of software.

The aim is to be able to take a module from any source/supplier and be able to plug it into any other module (in a logical sequence, of course). Control signals should be able to be shared across modules. Audio inputs should be able to be directed to any suitable module from any source (either from another module or from the DAW) and output to any other module, or out to any track in the DAW.
Yea, but unlike Eurorack modules, it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg for users to put together synths that works well on a personal level.

I guess there would be both pros and cons for developers. On one hand, if users are buying modules for configuring their own synths, they are probably going to be less interested in buying monolithic synths. On the other, more users are likely to become interested in synthesis when they can start out by connecting up a few modules to see what synthesis is really about.
__________________
The media are misleading the public about...pretty much everything.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2016, 07:38 AM   #139
Softsynth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainwreck View Post
Yea, but unlike Eurorack modules, it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg for users to put together synths that works well on a personal level.

I guess there would be both pros and cons for developers. On one hand, if users are buying modules for configuring their own synths, they are probably going to be less interested in buying monolithic synths. On the other, more users are likely to become interested in synthesis when they can start out by connecting up a few modules to see what synthesis is really about.

For the most part I do not think it would bring anyone new into synthesis. The average user wanting to make music will see it as even more geeky tech/engineering than musical instrument, unless we are talking about schools or universities teaching technology.

If people really want to learn how it works (on that deep a level they will most likely want to go beyond that) then they can easily do this with the likes of Reaktor or Synthedit already.
http://www.synthedit.com/modules/

It would have its place for sure but I serious doubt that's what would be synth players have been yearning for!!!

It could it be used to create saleable products though, albeit to seasoned synth users.
Softsynth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2016, 08:14 AM   #140
Alma Mare
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 20
Default

So, plot twist, my eyes are getting caught up by Absynth. After seeing some youtubes I decided to get the manual and give it a spin. Apparently, despite all the whacky stuff Absynth is capable of pulling off, the way it's organized makes it very scaleable. 3 oscilators that can be turned on and off at will, routed to 2 slots that can have either nothing or a module of your choosing, with the effect and LFO making clear what oscilattor they are affecting.

Basically, it seems to be able to be made as simple or as complex as one wants it to be. I have to try it out.
Alma Mare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2016, 08:57 AM   #141
Softsynth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alma Mare View Post
So, plot twist, my eyes are getting caught up by Absynth. After seeing some youtubes I decided to get the manual and give it a spin. Apparently, despite all the whacky stuff Absynth is capable of pulling off, the way it's organized makes it very scaleable. 3 oscilators that can be turned on and off at will, routed to 2 slots that can have either nothing or a module of your choosing, with the effect and LFO making clear what oscilattor they are affecting.

Basically, it seems to be able to be made as simple or as complex as one wants it to be. I have to try it out.
I use Absynth one in a while. Absynth now desperately needs a new GUI as it is small and fiddly on modern screens 1080p and over. Fine on 27" 1080p monitors and larger HDTVs with their larger pixels I guess.

Glad you found something you like.
Softsynth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2016, 08:59 AM   #142
Softsynth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,005
Default

Another modular system that can be combined with Reaper is the Modular synth/DAW Mulab:
http://www.mutools.com/mulab-product.html
Softsynth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2016, 12:50 PM   #143
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
brainwreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The 90's
Posts: 17,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Softsynth View Post
Another modular system that can be combined with Reaper is the Modular synth/DAW Mulab:
http://www.mutools.com/mulab-product.html
Last that I tried it, it was very limited in what it could do. That must have been 2-3 years ago. Pd however...but it has a learning curve.
__________________
The media are misleading the public about...pretty much everything.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2016, 02:32 PM   #144
Softsynth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainwreck View Post
Last that I tried it, it was very limited in what it could do. That must have been 2-3 years ago. Pd however...but it has a learning curve.
I do not have it, it looks user friendly enough.
Softsynth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2016, 03:49 PM   #145
Reason
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 253
Default I like T-Force Alpha Plus

I like the way the presets sound. They're very Euro-trancey, so you kind of have to be into that to like them. They usually have some delay and reverb, which are very appropriate for that style and complete the preset.

Because I like the sounds, I've spent some time with it and I feel like it's fairly easy to learn but still quite flexible.

It's got three oscillators on one page, the envelopes and filters on another page, and two pages of effects. One of the effects pages is just for a gate and can be ignored until desired.

The envelopes and filters page is pretty easy to understand.

One thing that I highly recommend for anyone interested in soft synths is a dedicated keyboard. There is no comparison between clicking some notes in the piano roll and playing a keyboard. You instantly get a feel for a preset and how you might use it - quick chords, slow pads, leads, plucked arpeggios, etc.

Something else occurs to me - what level would you describe yourself at? Since you posted, have you learned how subtractive and additive synthesis works, at a high level? FM?
Reason is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2017, 06:27 AM   #146
flipotto
Human being with feelings
 
flipotto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 487
Default

Helm looks interesting - cross platform too
http://tytel.org/helm/
__________________
KeyMce/GenMce - pc keyboard/midi to Mackie control emulation (built with ahk). Also - an ahk script to build your own midi programs.
flipotto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 03:35 AM   #147
rcl
Human being with feelings
 
rcl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Bahia,Brazil
Posts: 560
Default

Normally, I would say something like Charlazan. However latley I have discovered this.

https://www.fathomsynth.com

It is still in devrlopment but this will be a game changer. It is totally modular and allows you to use only the modules you need. The interface really is top notch. It offers a FREE mono version with all the functionality of the poly.

The dev is active daily and is reachable on KVR for now

I am not affiliated in any way, just someone learning synths that found a great tool and wants to share.
__________________
We didnt jump the fence because the grass was greener. We jumped it because it was a fence.
https://scrubbingmonkeys.bandcamp.com/
rcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 07:53 AM   #148
Softsynth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcl View Post
Normally, I would say something like Charlazan. However latley I have discovered this.

https://www.fathomsynth.com

It is still in devrlopment but this will be a game changer. It is totally modular and allows you to use only the modules you need. The interface really is top notch. It offers a FREE mono version with all the functionality of the poly.

The dev is active daily and is reachable on KVR for now

I am not affiliated in any way, just someone learning synths that found a great tool and wants to share.
What a bizarre sales pitch on the page of this product. It's as if he thinks the majority of soft synths don't exist?

Cut 'n' paste from the site:
What Is a Synthesizer?
Does your software synthesizer contain samples from other synthesizers?
If so, ask yourself this ...
Are you really using a synthesizer?
Fathom does not contain any samples or waveforms lifted from other instruments.


Weird sales pitch.
Softsynth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 09:17 AM   #149
Doc Brown
Human being with feelings
 
Doc Brown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,328
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Softsynth View Post
What a bizarre sales pitch on the page of this product. It's as if he thinks the majority of soft synths don't exist?

Cut 'n' paste from the site:
What Is a Synthesizer?
Does your software synthesizer contain samples from other synthesizers?
If so, ask yourself this ...
Are you really using a synthesizer?
Fathom does not contain any samples or waveforms lifted from other instruments.


Weird sales pitch.

I read that with a little puzzlement myself. It's like they think most soft synths have D50 architecture.?
__________________
Intel I7 2600/ 16 gigs ram/ system drive-samples drive-audio drive- backup drive/ windows 7 64/ Reaper 64/ focusrite 18i20
Doc Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 03:08 PM   #150
dea-man
Human being with feelings
 
dea-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Softsynth View Post
What a bizarre sales pitch on the page of this product. It's as if he thinks the majority of soft synths don't exist?

Cut 'n' paste from the site:
What Is a Synthesizer?
Does your software synthesizer contain samples from other synthesizers?
If so, ask yourself this ...
Are you really using a synthesizer?
Fathom does not contain any samples or waveforms lifted from other instruments.


Weird sales pitch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Brown View Post
I read that with a little puzzlement myself. It's like they think most soft synths have D50 architecture.?
As soon as I read the "limitations" page (something I've never seen in a synth advertisement) I clicked away.

I agree, it is a weird ad.
__________________
Please check out my REAPER produced music here: http://soundcloud.com/dea-man
dea-man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 11:10 PM   #151
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
brainwreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The 90's
Posts: 17,940
Default

Lately I really like that there seems to be more attention toward modular synths from developers, but for fuck's sake, will someone work out some common standards?

Software is supposed to be more flexible than hardware, but that is currently far from the case for modular software synthesizers. Instead of having standards which allow modules from different developers to work together, we have a bunch of competing modular synth walled-gardens. What's the point?

Someone has already made an oscillator, filter, distortion, chorus, delay, whatever, that is different or better (or both) than anything within your wall-garden, but it can't get inside to work with your components. It's like using a daw that can only use the included plugins. How many users would go for that?

Might as well stick to a fixed or semi-modular synth if these modular walled-gardens aren't going to work with other developers' modules.
__________________
The media are misleading the public about...pretty much everything.

Last edited by brainwreck; 06-17-2017 at 11:17 PM.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 03:25 AM   #152
Noobi
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 21
Default

I don't know for sure because I'm quite new to the world of synthesis, but I do know I LOVE my Microkorg
Noobi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 05:18 AM   #153
rcl
Human being with feelings
 
rcl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Bahia,Brazil
Posts: 560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noobi View Post
I don't know for sure because I'm quite new to the world of synthesis, but I do know I LOVE my Microkorg
Awesome.

@ Softsynth. The developer put the synth out as public beta. It is still in development. Thus the limitation list. Keep an eye on it it will develop.

I think the point with "is your synth a synth" is to say that alot of synths use a sampled single wav cycle in a loop as a foundation. That would really be a sampler.

@ Brainwreck. Thats a good point with modular synth. Maybe we could have an evironment like a DAW then purchase modules from different developers like VSTs then rewire that into our DAW. That would be modular. I like it.
__________________
We didnt jump the fence because the grass was greener. We jumped it because it was a fence.
https://scrubbingmonkeys.bandcamp.com/
rcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 06:06 AM   #154
Softsynth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcl View Post

@ Softsynth........

I think the point with "is your synth a synth" is to say that alot of synths use a sampled single wav cycle in a loop as a foundation. That would really be a sampler.......
.
It's just odd, like someone developing a product for a market in which he has done absolutely no research at all.
Softsynth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 08:11 AM   #155
rcl
Human being with feelings
 
rcl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Bahia,Brazil
Posts: 560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Softsynth View Post
It's just odd, like someone developing a product for a market in which he has done absolutely no research at all.

Thats possible. Some of the comments made by him would suggest he is quite new to the scene. He has some background with hardware. Very talented coder and a solid vision though. And willing to listen.
__________________
We didnt jump the fence because the grass was greener. We jumped it because it was a fence.
https://scrubbingmonkeys.bandcamp.com/
rcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 07:33 PM   #156
Time Waster
Human being with feelings
 
Time Waster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bowral, Australia
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainwreck View Post
Lately I really like that there seems to be more attention toward modular synths from developers, but for fuck's sake, will someone work out some common standards?

Software is supposed to be more flexible than hardware, but that is currently far from the case for modular software synthesizers. Instead of having standards which allow modules from different developers to work together, we have a bunch of competing modular synth walled-gardens. What's the point?

Someone has already made an oscillator, filter, distortion, chorus, delay, whatever, that is different or better (or both) than anything within your wall-garden, but it can't get inside to work with your components. It's like using a daw that can only use the included plugins. How many users would go for that?

Might as well stick to a fixed or semi-modular synth if these modular walled-gardens aren't going to work with other developers' modules.
I attempted to address these issues when I developed the ReaRack JSFX modular synth. The inspiration for the project actually came from this thread and part of the point of it was to show that it should be possible to develop a modular system which is an open system. To achieve this I used MIDI as the communication protocol between modules, which has its limitations due to low resolution, but seems adequate for most purposes. There is no environment that the modules must live in. They are all just separate FX that are inserted on a track, or across a number of tracks. The 'modularity' of the system is provided by a couple of loose design guidelines (refer to the manual for details http://stash.reaper.fm/v/28621/ReaRack_Manual.pdf ).

I used JSFX to develop ReaRack, which tends to limit it's use to REAPER, but here is no reason why something similar can't be done using VST.
Time Waster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 10:12 PM   #157
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,862
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Time Waster View Post
I used MIDI as the communication protocol between modules, which has its limitations due to low resolution,...
Regarding value-resolution, there always is high "resolution CC" and "high resolution velocity" that use additional CC messages (should not be a problem with internal (or USB) Midi transport) that allows for a resolution of 2^14, and is fully compatible with non-high-resolution senders and receivers.
Regarding time-resolution, I don't know if the midi send position pointer offers sample-exact midi positioning.

Another problem with ReaRack IMHO is aliasing. Such software should be able to be set in some 8 times oversampling mode.

Otherwise a great software synth, and for free and with full source code ! Hence perfect for the original request.

-Michael
__________________
www.boa-sorte.de
mschnell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 11:39 PM   #158
Time Waster
Human being with feelings
 
Time Waster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bowral, Australia
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschnell View Post
Regarding value-resolution, there always is high "resolution CC" and "high resolution velocity" that use additional CC messages (should not be a problem with internal (or USB) Midi transport) that allows for a resolution of 2^14, and is fully compatible with non-high-resolution senders and receivers.
Regarding time-resolution, I don't know if the midi send position pointer offers sample-exact midi positioning.

Another problem with ReaRack IMHO is aliasing. Such software should be able to be set in some 8 times oversampling mode.

Otherwise a great software synth, and for free and with full source code ! Hence perfect for the original request.

-Michael
Hi Michael, I have tended to shy away from the high resolution CC (LSB) method as it can make things more complicated when working with other FX and devices. Where necessary I'm just doing simple parameter smoothing using interpolation. By complicated, I mean that if choosing the second CC automatically, you may be unknowingly interfering with another FX's CC. If you select the second CC manually, well, that's just a pain. Added to this, it can potentially halve the number off parameters you can control. I take the view that simplicity is more important than sample accuracy, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

There is a band limited oscillator on the way.
Time Waster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 01:51 PM   #159
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,862
Default

As the high resolution CC (and velocity) is a rather well accepted standard, other VSTs should not use CC# 32.. 63 or 88.

So setting the # used for the LSB does not make much sense.

Great to hear about an improved Oscillator.

IMHO doing the Audio calculation by an oversampling algorithm with a band limit before downsampling not only makes sense for Oscillators, but for all devices that (mathematically) might create frequencies greater than half the sampling rate. Rather obvious with VCA when it gets a fast control signal, but maybe with VCF, as well.

-Michael
__________________
www.boa-sorte.de

Last edited by mschnell; 06-19-2017 at 01:57 PM.
mschnell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 08:31 PM   #160
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
brainwreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The 90's
Posts: 17,940
Default

Time Waster, Rearack looks like a cool project. Obviously, a big limitation (at least to me) is the separate gui's for each module. But it's really cool seeiing something like this as a jsfx any way.
__________________
The media are misleading the public about...pretty much everything.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.