KVR: Forum Archive - Pentagon I, the next big thing

Posted: 3rd September 2001 02:12

Hello all,

Being in the final beta stage, Pentagon I is mature enough, so we released the DEMO version which is available in our site.

realmarco, I'm sorry we couldn't please your taste on GUI. Pentagon I is the top of the line synth in our "classic" series, so it looks quite similar to Triangle I and Square I.

Our three instruments have generated a lot of comments on their user interface. There are quite opposite feelings about them.
I'd like to state our company point of view here.

Being a professional soundesigner/musician for many years and tired of finding parameters in endless windows of my many instruments, I decided to create this interfaces with only one thing in mind: all parameters must be accessed in few clicks, so every user can become a soundesigner, not only a preset user.

I use a lot of instruments in software/hardware every day, and imho the weakest point in many of them is the lack of good presets. In most cases, this is due the overcomplexity of the interface, too many steps to reach a simple parameter.

Even betatesters feedback about the GUI is variated, but they all agree in one thing: after your first hour on Triangle I/Square I/Pentagon I you can create your own sounds with almost no effort if you know a little bit about synthesis.

Pentagon I is not a synth for beginners. There is a huge amount of routing/modulation options and very advanced oscillators/filters/lfos. But just give the demo a try, and you'll see after a while you can easily create the sounds you have in your head with it.

I've programmed most of the 256 presets on Pentagon I (128 in the DEMO version) in almost no time. They should give you all a good idea about the instrument possibilities in case you don't want to spend time trying.

We feel we are doing a real contribution to the sonic pallete of instruments availables as VSTi's with our Classic Line.

But of course, we are permanently reading and monitoring this (the best by far) and other forums and web sites and mailing lists looking for feedback and user wishes. So if Pentagon I doesn't fit all your expectations, I hope our future instruments will do

Thank you and regards,
René

realmarco

Posted: 3rd September 2001 02:52

when I meant that I hated the gui is that,
its too bland for my taste. and everything
looks the same.

Ergo it takes a while to realise that,
just like a forest, its easy to lose track
and get lost (for me anyways).

vhollo

Posted: 3rd September 2001 07:52

Square I has a kicking sound!
I give Pentagon I a try too.

feedback

Posted: 3rd September 2001 08:20

Hi,

Don't forget that rgcAudio purposes one of the best reverb in the world : the rgcReverb freewares.

On this page : http://www.espace-cubase.org/anglais/freesuppos.php3 (system vote is still buggy !)

We can see that this Reverb get the best number of download

brittnell

Posted: 3rd September 2001 16:06

DOWNLOAD IT NOW!

PENTAGON I

Oh my god... "The next big thing is right", this thing is so phat!

I'm getting some seriously crunky sounds out of it (and that's a good thing).

I WANT IT, I WANT IT, I WANT IT.

How soon, and how much?

Brittnell

Pepe

Posted: 3rd September 2001 19:28

The first time I saw this beast the feeling was similar to what a grandma thinks when she sees a 48ch inline studio mixer for the first time in her life... but this mixer is not soooooo hard to understand, and also this synth... You know, you start turning knobs on the top left and line by line you're creating your sound, and when you come to the last line, then make the finish with really pro FX. It's really easy and logical.

Realmarco, try it again!

Something really great is the "simulator", this is a great alternative to the almost boring ups and downs with the cutoff settings...

Did I say before that I love this synth?

Congratulations, René! Oh, err, like Brittnell said: How much? BTW, maybe I should visit my grandma...

Pepe

Mind Corrosive

Posted: 3rd September 2001 20:45

ohh wow! serious bass and leads coming out of this. im very pleased with the demo and the presets. dont know about the graphics tho.. but who cares. im looking for big sounds and this has it

Posted: 3rd September 2001 21:03

Hi all again,

Pentagon I will be in final beta stage for a few weeks more. It's quite finished imho, but I'd really like to test it very well in every host before releasing the final.

While in this stage, introductory price of Pentagon I is $79, after that will raise to the final $99.

Users that purchased Square I before September 1 can get Pentagon I for $40.

Link for ShareIt Purchase is now up in our site.

Regards,
René

WilliamK

Posted: 3rd September 2001 21:46

Whoho! This is sure big, but me too didn't like the GUI. I'm at 800x600 with Orion, and I can't see all the parameters... arghs............

dusted william

Posted: 4th September 2001 02:54

I knew a smart guy like you would start to use Orion Pro 2.5. I think it kicks ass. trianle is phat, pentagon is cool too, but the 79 bucks too much for me. I try to save for a big synth like Reaktor or others and all of these little synth companies put out synths for $40 and less so I never get a chance to save, I'm just a sucker. $79 is a little to much for me to spend when i anticipate waiting for somethink else.
later
dw

prophet

Posted: 11th September 2001 06:40

i think it would look much better with some minor changes.

i would like to see it in its current retro style, and also a selectable new skin style. This would please everyone, retros and technos!

i think it would suit a silver/white background with knobs that resembled the mc303/505 type knobs. it wouldnt take much to change that!

come on, rgc, how hard would it be to implement those small changes? its obvious people want a different gui, some do some dont. why dont you cater for both, it can only be a positive thing for you.

Posted: 11th September 2001 07:13

I'd buy it in a second but despite all the posted tricks and techiques I havent ben able to keep it from crashing on startup here.

I continue to think that only a few companies really know the secrets of vsti initialization.

I continue to hope itll be fixed, as currently i cant even attempt to run any rgc plugs.

Posted: 11th September 2001 10:03

Hi all again,

Prophet: Thank you for your interesting point of view. Unfortunately, it's not "that easy" to successfully implement a new skin in a instrument that wasn't designed to be skinnable from scratch. There are > 200 graphic elements on Pentagon I, each one have it's own properties and most of them are hardcoded.

We are currently in the process of adding even more synthesis power to our instrument, and we'd like to keep working at this. I know, like some friends of me have told me, that sales are affected mainly because of the "instrument look" though. But at this point, rgcAudio thinks that most of the *limited* effort we have must be put in the quality, feature pack and... of course... the sound.

As I've said (and other users) before, I feel we are talking about the "look", and not about the "useability" of the interface.

Customers of your music will know nothing about the "look" of the instruments you used, and will know a lot about your sound.

However, that's only what we think, and customers opinion is much more important. If many Pentagon I *registed users* agree they need a new skin, we'll deliver it. We'll introduce skinnable abilities in every new plugin from rgcAudio as well.

midisax: would you mind to email me privately?

Regards,
René

Posted: 11th September 2001 10:26

Did it right away. I'm all for gettin it to work.

I installed triangle originally when it came out and it did the same thing, then when one of the cubase pb's came out it suddenly worked and I LOVED it! Not too many VSTI's are cool to play with midisax and triangle was by far among the best and insome aspects was actually the best and I started using it on tunes but then with the next triangle update it must've hit the same snag in my system.

So I am all for getting it to work, I just kinda, sadly, wish there was one other person out there who had similar symptoms cause I sure havent seen any!! I hate bein the only one with a compatibility problem!!!

Posted: 12th September 2001 16:19

And suddenly with a wave of Rene's wand all is fixed!!!

GREAT VSTI's!!!

GREAT CUSTOMER SUPPORT!!!!!

Posted: 12th September 2001 17:43

I just wish it would work in Buzz: I tried running Pentagon in it, and it crashes Buzz each time I try to load it.

I hope this is something fixable: Triangle works and sounds GREAT in Buzz!!

--Har

Posted: 12th September 2001 18:00

Did you email rene?? Hes very open to bug reports and sincerely wants to fix them from my experience.

Posted: 12th September 2001 18:23

I just did. Thanks for the tip!

--Har

Patrick de Caumette

Posted: 13th September 2001 01:05

When I first got the Triangle I i finally got the bass sounds i was looking for, phat, full of attack, nice body. so when i had the opportunity to get polyphony with Square I i didn't hesitate. yes, Pentagone I has every midi implementation you can think of and the sound is still that good. i agree the look could be improved but that's a minor anoyance after a few hours of getting used to it. and yes Rene is the nicest guy...

Posted: 13th September 2001 11:24

quote
Quote:
and yes Rene is the nicest guy...

I agree!!

FYI: Rene got back to me about the problems with Pentagon crashing in Buzz. He downloaded Buzz and duplicated the problem too, so he's going to look into it.

--Har

Posted: 15th September 2001 16:31

SEE? This is how customer support is DONE!, Instead of getting all crabby Rene gets right to the problem and fixes it. In my case he fixed it within minutes!!! and all this for a FREE vsti which sounds way better than Muon Tau Amateur!

Rene went a giant step further and made me a beta tester for Pentagon 1 and let me tell you this is THE kill-all analog modeling vsti. It is by far the closest thing to a real analog synth I've ever heard in a plugin and the mono mode (just like triangle) is the best mono mode Ive ever heard in a vsti, SMOOOOOOOOTH its perfect for wind synth use, which is a tremendous thing cause very very few vsti's have a smooth enough mono legato for windsynth use.

and in this case full midi implementation is actually delivered, smooth pitch bend, midi learn on all knobs, theres nothing left out here!!!!

Posted: 16th September 2001 07:42

Hi all,

Pentagon sounds like a great investment. The ultimate in analog modelling - I like that as an endorsement.

I must admit, I downloaded Triangle and Square and was a bit pissed off with the GUI - sorry. I think there are some real advantages with having minimal labelling on the knobs for a real analog synth programmer as it's all about the sound and programming the sound probably becomes more a feeling than a seeing thing.

However, this is not a hardware synth and it is hard to get a feel for those knobs when they are on the screen.

Be that as it may - my attention has certainly been pricked with this synth and if it really is that good I might be reaching for my credit card, but I would be interested to know whether it is going to be particularly CPU intensive. I only have a Pentium II 400MHz and I don't want it on its knees too quickly. Any comments on CPU utilization?

Regards
Caleb

kevvvvv

Posted: 16th September 2001 10:30

Dumb question:

Is there much real difference between Square and Pentagon?

I ask this as 4 oscillators tends to floor the cpu. And I'm not sure whether 4 oscs are ever really used.

To date: I love and use Triangle, and maybe I'd like some more of the same, but should I think Square or Pentagon?

GUI Thoughts: Functional, but needs colour coding, and I can hardly read the small text without leaning forward. It's like trying to spot your mate in a football crowd on tv.

Advice or thoughts welcome here. I don't want to spend a weekend trying to evaluate and compare the two. Square or Pentagon?

Posted: 16th September 2001 11:09

quote
Quote:
Rene went a giant step further and made me a beta tester for Pentagon 1 and let me tell you this is THE kill-all analog modeling vsti.

Same here: right now we're working on solving several issues that Pentagon has when running in Buzz, and so far one major one has been solved (it no longer crashes in Buzz!). Right now Rene's looking into the Dreaded Buzz VSTi Polyphony Problem (i.e. some VSTI's, such as the Pro-52, will only work in monophonic mode in Buzz for some weird reason)...I think that's gonna make a lot of Buzz'ers happy.

I'm with midisax: it's GREAT knowing that someone actually *listens* to user feedback and takes action!

quote:
Is there much real difference between Square and Pentagon?

I ask this as 4 oscillators tends to floor the cpu. And I'm not sure whether 4 oscs are ever really used.

I'm not too familiar with the Square, but I will say this: the Pentagon's 4 oscillators and filters provide a HUGE, thick punchy sound (I'm not gonna say "phat"...I think that phrase is becoming waaaaay too overused
).
Think Oberheim, Minimoog, Memorymoog (without the hardware overheating problems it had...heh)...just from messing with the Pentagon's presets (some with all 4 oscillators cranked up) I'm getting some massively ballsey punch-a-hole-in-your-wall kind of sounds with it. Also, the 4 oscillators allow for some really cool hard-sync and FM-style possibilities. So I'll give it a BIG thumbs-up.

And again: the fact that Rene actually LISTENS seriously to user feedback and acts on it is fantastic.

--Har

[ 16 September 2001: Message edited by: Har ]

Posted: 16th September 2001 12:21

Hi all,

I'd like to thank you everyone for the kind words, it is a difficult business and this kind of acknowledge makes me feel "energized" to continue working.

However, I have to say that, I'm also a customer of many other big and small VSTi companies including LinPlug, Muon, Fxpansion, reFX, etc. and I've always got an *awesome* support from them all.

Maybe it's not that we as developers don't "hear" sometimes I think, it's just that as you might imagine, some of the instruments we code are done partly for free, due the reduced market and other factors. So we (small companies) must have a very limited manpower to apply to their construction and we focus what we think it's the "company goal".

However, small companies usually makes very happy their users with their personalized support, custom mods in our instruments, reduced prices, etc. In my opinion, a *very good* compensation.

About the Square I vs Pentagon I comparison, feature list is *much more* longer in Pentagon I. Operation is a bit more complex though.
As this one seems to be a faq, I'll prepare a "Comparison Chart" and I'll let you all know when done.

Regards,
René

Jakebhoy

Posted: 16th September 2001 16:20

Har and Midisax have really got my attention on this one.

Is the sound of the Pentagon that good?
How does it compare to the Pro 52 which IMHO opinion is still the best analog style vsti available?

kevvvvv

Posted: 16th September 2001 17:35

It's a struggle to programme Pentagon from scratch without the manual.

I'm familiar with 4 osc synths, yet even with the one-page layout, it's by no means all obvious.

Jakebhoy ... download and have a go.

Some of the presets are compelling to listen to. Real synth.

But if you've invested loads of time learning your Pro-52 then it's going to be a big hike learning a synth of Pentagon's size 'cos nothing's quite the same.

I expect guys like Raven who particularly enjoy sound design will love it ... but it'll still need time.

Maybe creating a massive synth with broad appeal is a huge job for any designer.

SJ_Digriz

Posted: 17th September 2001 18:42

I am a huge fan of the Triangle. I own Model-E, Pro-52 and B4. I still use the Triangle in almost every song. The only problem I have with it is that it is HOT!!!!!. The patches clip even at very low volumes. They are also very spike happy. But to my ear it is the closest thing to the sweat sound of anolog synthesis.

I purchased Pentagon yesterday and can hardly wait to get my hands on it. My main concern is with the complexity of patch creation. Someone mentioned not having a manual. Is there going to be a complete manual with the final release? I can already hear all the kewl morphing tails and modulated overtones that should be possible with 4 oscillators. But it would require a serious mapping document to understand how to use it.

So to repeat the question, is there going to be or is there already extensive doc?

Posted: 17th September 2001 21:39

There will be a manual. I've seen a preliminary version.

Posted: 17th September 2001 21:57

quote:
Har and Midisax have really got my attention on this one.
Is the sound of the Pentagon that good?
How does it compare to the Pro 52 which IMHO opinion is still the best analog style vsti available?

IMHO: yep, it *is* that good.

As to how it compares to the Pro-52: it might be kind of off-the-mark to try to compare the two, as it's an "apples vs. oranges" kind of thing...both have their own merits and strengths....
The Pro-52 does a great job at what it's designed to do: emulate the Sequencial Circuits Prophet 5....it has a great, identifiable sound that makes you go "yep, that's the ol' P5 all right!"
The Pentagon1, on the other hand, is an analog-modeling synth that I think really isn't designed to emulate *one* specific synth or sound, but rather, a lot of the best parts from analog (and some digital) synths in general.
For example: I really can't think of any "classic/vintage" hardware synths that has 4 oscillators/voice, as well as two filters like the Pentagon does (short of a big old modular Moog IIIC system like Keith Emerson used to use)...but when you put the whole thing together, you have some amazing sonic possibilities at your disposal.
Surprisingly: I've been testing the Pentagon in Buzz, and even on the presets using all 4 oscillators, the CPU usage doesn't seem to go very high (and I'm using a PIII 450, not the newest/fastest CPU out there).

So, as for whether it's "better" than the Pro-52: it's all going to come down to what you plan to do with it, and really...whether *YOU* like the way it sounds or not. If you like the kind of big, thick synth sounds Oberheims and Moogs gave you, you're probably gonna love the Pentagon (I know I do!). But on the other hand, if your ears are more geared towards the 2-oscillator "early 80's" sound, you may find the Pro-52 more your flavour (but keep in mind: you don't HAVE to use all 4 of the Pentagon's oscillators).
So the best thing to do is go download the demo and check it out on your system with your favorite VSTi host app.

As for the learning curve: yep, there sure are a lot of knobs 'n' buttons on the thing! But IMHO I'd much rather have something that offers *too many* useful functions and options than *not enough*.
It kind of reminds me of how people initially reacted to the old DX7 and FM synthesis in general after having years of nothing but analog: suddenly you had people having to learn what the heck an "algorithm" was, and what "modulation" really meant beyond the usual "it makes stuff sound kinda warbly" definition people were used to (LOL).

In other words: it took a bit of work to figure out how to get what you want...but once you finally *DID* it was worth the effort in the long-run. Programming the Pentagon's going to probably be the same way (and I'm sure there will be useful doco available for it to make it easier): it'll take an effort, but in the end you're probably gonna really appreciate having all those options available to you.

Whoa, that was a kinda verbose answer...sorry about that!

quote
Quote:
So to repeat the question, is there going to be or is there already extensive doc?

I would assume so: on the Pentagon site at http://www.rgcaudio.com/Pentagon_I.htm it says: "Online user manual available for registered users."

--Har

[ 18 September 2001: Message edited by: Har ]

BONES

Posted: 18th September 2001 03:37

From my point of view the GUI that RGC uses definitely affects usability. It is just several rows of knobs, much the same as interfaceless VSTi's like JX10. It requires lots of concentration just to find the knob you changed before last. It was certainly enough for me not to bother persuing any of their synths, given the enormous competition.

dusted william

Posted: 18th September 2001 04:04

I can't stand circular motion on a knob, bring on the linear. My apologies if there allready is this function and I counld not find it in pentagon.
peace bruhtha's
dw

threeyedone

Posted: 18th September 2001 08:54

Im wondering when are we going to see developers break away from traditional interfaces and get creative. Is a virtual knob on a screen really the best way to interact with a synth?
One advantage to the knob on the screen is everyone that has used hardware knows the interface but something tells me there must be a better option for virtual instruments.
Also is anyone else sick of analog subtractive synths? How many analog subtractive VSTI do you need? Why dont we see more exotic synthesis stuff happening in vsti? How about a granular vsti or wave terrain vsti?
I havent been able to try absynth yet being that im on windows but one thing that looks SOO cool about it is you couldnt caste absynth in hardware. All those drawable envelopes and waveforms require a very large display surface... I have never read a bad review of absynth, probly because its SO cool and different.
more stuff like absynth please(and i dont mean an absynth clone)

Posted: 18th September 2001 12:04

I couldn't agree more - with both observations.

I've often been amused at how developers often try to reproduce a hardware interface on a computer screen as if people could actually use it like one. I used to make observations about it around the time of Rebirth. Why would you want to recreate one of the most unusable programming interfaces of all time...ie 303.

However, having said that, I haven't actually thought up a better option myself and in the end I would rather see a Pentagon interface on the screen anyday over what the GUI-less synths look like in the old Cubase. GOD I HATED THAT!

And about what synths are created...YOU BET. There actually have been some pretty creative synths out there already. I think Rainbow was a genuine attempt and merging synthesis methods to get something quite different. Rebel synth seemed to deliberately opt for a dirtier approach to sound generation. Instruments such as QuadraSID, B4, mda ePiano and Mysteron are all emulations, but they are certainly a move away from simple subtractive synthesis. Absynth seems to be a simply amazing creation but not Window yet *sigh*. But you are right - it would be wonderful to have more of these fantastic instruments.

The vapour synthesis of Crusher, instruments using granular and color synthesis all merged with great analog filters and complex modulation matrices. I do imagine incorporating these synthesis techniques into a VSTi would be quite CPU intensive though.

Have people been making experimental synths along these lines in Reactor and Dr Sync does anyone know?

Red

Posted: 18th September 2001 12:25

Just wanna say that we are doing a review of Pentagon I in issue 40 and I've been fiddling with the beta for most of last night after grabbing it yesterday - I have to say - FLIPPIN 'ECK!
This thing could well be the next big thing - warm, fat, thin, squeeky, resonant, you name it - I'm flippin impressed. Basslines, pads, effects, squalks and squeals, parps, warps - its all there.
If you havent already go fetch the demo - this beast will rock your synth world believe me...
Big Round of applause for rgcaudio!

[ 18 September 2001: Message edited by: Red ]

Pepe

Posted: 18th September 2001 13:21

> How many analog subtractive VSTI do you need?

One. Pentagon One.

... and Tau Pro, of course

Pepe

tufif

Posted: 18th September 2001 16:33

quote:
Originally posted by threeyedone:
Im wondering when are we going to see developers break away from traditional interfaces and get creative. Is a virtual knob on a screen really the best way to interact with a synth?
One advantage to the knob on the screen is everyone that has used hardware knows the interface but something tells me there must be a better option for virtual instruments.

Go to the Big Tick Rainbow website and take a look at the Rainbow 3 preview pics. It's got a pretty cool looking interface.

Pepe

Posted: 18th September 2001 23:44

It's a really interesting discussion about more ore less useful GUIs.

First we had analogue synths with zillions of knobs and switches and we were all right happy. Then came this digital monster from Japan, no, not Godzilla... the DX7, with one and a half switches and a LCD display. Everything became easier... and we all bought sound cartridges... and a sound editor for Atari ST. So I did...

Pentagon I is an analogue modelling synth with lots of knobs and switches...

Just a question, guys, what monitors are you using? I use a damn old 20" no name dinosaur (build between the Corean and Vietnam wars... I think

), but it works! The MIDI keyboard is between me and Dino so I can exactly watch all the funny events on the screen while playing. What's wrong about the P1 GUI? I can perfectly read everything there... OK, I wear glasses...

Guys, after buying a good soundcard invest your money on a big screen, actually it's not sooooo expensive... I "bought" mine from a company who replaced the old monitors with LCD screens... I got it for exactly 0 Swiss Francs.

BTW, can't wait for Rainbow 3!

Pepe

Posted: 19th September 2001 01:34

I gotta say Pentagon 1 is the first vsti that really sounds like it has wood panels, not just looks like it.

Theres an easy way to change knob control in Pentagon 1, and also theres a setting in cubase's preferences that affects how all knobs are controlled, either up and down linear or the default big circular motions. Check the manuals, as always.

adjustable RANGE on the pitch bend...SWOON!!

and alas they havent lost me on GUI, I remember the first time I saw those clear lucite (is it lucite or polyurethane(sp?)??) knobs and again this looks like what Pentagon 1 would really look like in reality if there were such a thing, again judging by its sound.

Indeed there are too many analog sims out there, but up until Pentagon 1 none of them have really captured the warmth of real analog this well.

dthree

Posted: 19th September 2001 06:29

I played around with the demo and its presets last night and its beefy stuff - incredibly powerful sounds, not much of a CPU hit.

However in Orion, it opens up four mixer channels and seemed to be playing most sounds through channels 1 and 2 which I find irritating - if I add a VSTi, I initially only want one stereo pair 'wired' into one channel the mixer. Although there is probably a way to limit it to just one output I couldn't immediately find it.

The GUI is okay - I personally don't like the colours and the fact that there could be better differentation between areas (and the knobs are too big!) - but I think if you spend the time writing patches, its relatively logical. Quite big for my small laptop screen though.

Uncle E

Posted: 19th September 2001 06:33

There are some very interesting things available for SynC -especially in the way of bizarre physical modelling patches- but no granular or "wave terrain" (what is this?) that I know of. Crusher comes with the VST effect Granner-X, have you given that much of a chance?

How 'bout Metasynth in a VSTi, sound interesting?

Posted: 19th September 2001 08:58

Hi all.

quote
Quote:
I can't stand circular motion on a knob, bring on the linear. My apologies if there allready is this function and I counld not find it in pentagon.

As already said, this is usually a host feature. However it is not available in *every* host. There is an option in Pentagon I to do this then.

quote
Quote:
However in Orion, it opens up four mixer channels and seemed to be playing most sounds through channels 1 and 2 which I find irritating - if I add a VSTi, I initially only want one stereo pair 'wired' into one channel the mixer. Although there is probably a way to limit it to just one output I couldn't immediately find it.

Orion, Buzz users should try this stereo-output demo.

quote:
Is a virtual knob on a screen really the best way to interact with a synth?

Definitly not. The best way imho is to use any external MIDI-controller. Any knob or light, even multiple knobs can be assigned to any MIDI controller with selectable polarity in Pentagon I. Please try this feature, you'll love it.

quote
Quote:
Go to the Big Tick Rainbow website and take a look at the Rainbow 3 preview pics. It's got a pretty cool looking interface.

It made my head spin too!

Big knobs? Yes. Have you ever tried doing several patches in a "small knobs" vsti? You end thinking "why all knobs aren't like the awesome Ohmforce's?"

Regards,
René

[ 19 September 2001: Message edited by: rgcAudio Software ]

realmarco

Posted: 19th September 2001 19:34

Im on a Mac so RGC's stuff doesn't concern me (yet?)

But I did however download
the Absynth demo and fiddle
with it .

And I think its GUI(maybe not all popups but the controls)
is the best...its quite a monster

sound-wise but its intuitive thanks to the GUI....

So RGC should maybe check out this one and
also use other things han knobs.

Knobs: filtercutoff,resonance

Faders: volume , panning, adsr

buttons: Waveforms, filter types,

just my two cents Canadian ie -10 cents US

[ 19 September 2001: Message edited by: realmarco ]

dthree

Posted: 19th September 2001 21:48

Good news about the second demo - I'll try it out in Orion Pro as soon as I can. Thanks.

quote:
Big knobs? Yes. Have you ever tried doing several patches in a "small knobs" vsti? You end thinking "why all knobs aren't like the awesome Ohmforce's?"

The only Ohmforce I've played with is the Frohmage and yeah its fun and pretty tongue in cheek but for the amount of knobs/controls on the screen, it could be a lot smaller.

Please remember not all of us can or choose to run in high resolutions - my laptop won't go higher than 1024x768.

Also, how about differing the sizes of the knobs? That would add to the differentiation between areas of the interface (one of the main problems with the Pentagon GUI). Some knobs (cut-off etc.) get used all the time but others are perhaps more minor and could be reduced.

Or maybe you could have something like WinAMP - a little button that when clicked, enlarges or reduces the GUI.

To be honest though, the Pentagon GUI is perfectly usaeble and it sounds lush enough that you could have given it the worst GUI ever and people would still be into it.

dusted william

Posted: 19th September 2001 22:02

RGC audio, thanks for the reply about the linear knob usage. I use Orion 2.6 and it does not let me choose. Also I like the idea of the stereo version, since Orion does not limit the amount of vsti's open at a single time. Right now multiple channel vst's are "clumsy" in Orion and it is my understanding that it is being worked on (and if Rich's track record speaks for itself it will be implemented better). For now though the stereo one is very good. Now I will have to take a closer look at it. I know that I said I was waiting for Reaktor but there is quite a few people who are high on this synth.
dw

kevvvvv

Posted: 20th September 2001 18:22

So I got round to putting in some time with Pentagon 1, and have been fairly blown away.

13 oscillator waveforms to choose from, and filters to die for.

Even as a 2 osc synth (the easy way) the sound is astonishingly good.

It has an individual wavetable for every single midi key across the keyboard, and is abusively oversampled.

The GUI and the price might put some people off, but if you're a Pro-52 owner ... well you gotta have one of these too.

I don't want to knock my Pro-52 but I think my Pentagon can do things Pro-52 could never dream of.

brittnell

Posted: 20th September 2001 19:18

Yep, I'll have to agree with Kevvvv.

I've been bringing some of my musician friends by over the past couple of days to have a listen to the Pentagon I, and every time, it's "Holy $h!t, that is SICK!!!".

I've been able to produce awesome sounds with it, with very little tweaking. Everything from super chunky, gritty, farty, synths to lush, beautiful, evolving, atmospheric pads.

As to the GUI, I really don't have any issues with it, and am finding it second nature after only a bit over a week of use. Besides, I'm a firm believer in function over fashion, and this has function by the bucket load.

Jakebhoy

Posted: 20th September 2001 21:29

"I'm a firm believer in function over fashion, and this has function by the bucket load".

Me to! At the end of the day its the quality of sound that interests me.
Im a Pro 52 owner (its my fav at the moment)
But from what everybody seems to be saying I simply have to dowload the demo of Pentagon as soon as I get a chance and give it a try :-)

Is the sound really as big as the Pro 52's in unison mode?

Jakebhoy

Posted: 20th September 2001 23:16

Iv tried the demo for about 40mins.
Not to sure of what Im doing Smile

Always wondered how to make "that" sound used on the preset jerra, problem solved Smile

Love it even though Im not sure how to use it yet!
I pressume Ill get a cd copy of the synth at that price?

Cheers.

SJ_Digriz

Posted: 21st September 2001 12:02

All I can say is that I'm am getting the smoothest pads and leads I have ever been able to achieve using a VSTi. The Mod-E is ok and the Pro-52 still has its uses, but I will probably switch to the P1 as the primary sound module as soon as I figure it all out.

I still have the problem that every rgc synth plays extremely hot. The attack on most of the patches slams to peak even after setting levels as low as -20 or lower. Are any of you having this issue or do you think I have a config problem?

Posted: 21st September 2001 12:42

F#*&ing Awesome Synth!

I finally got around to downloading the demo and having a go with it.

I like the idea of the wave type values being shown as you turn the dial. However, I wish the values were shown for all knobs as they are turned - particularly useful for coarse tuning etc.

Also, I'm curious about the filters. There's options for selecting several different filter types but it doesn't look like you can choose between 12dB and 24dB for the cutoff slope. Sorry if I actually have missed that. I have been known to overlook the obvious.

And I agree with the previous posting that this baby runs VERY hot. And it seems that the audio signal is always lopsided a little. Certainly the first patch I created seemed to be much heavier on the left audio channel and I wasn't aware that I was programming that into the patch.

Enough of the grievances though. I programmed my first patch and was IMPRESSED. Not with my programming skill because that doesn't exist, but with the fact that patch creation actually seems quite logical and fast. And there's so much that this synth seems capable of - I'm beginning to feel like I wouldn't need another analog-emulating subtractive synthesis instrument after this one and I could save my money for more exotic synths that come up. (Still looking forward to some wavetable synths etc)

So where do I sign?

Posted: 22nd September 2001 00:27

Hi all,

Just a brief line about output level:
Pentagon I features four outputs: one stereo pair and two individual outputs.

To check all the included presets, all what you need is the stereo outputs. If the individual outs 3 - 4 are ON when checking them, their output will push the volume too high making it clip in most hosts. As usually outs 3 and 4 are fully panned, unbalanced sound will be produced also.

Individual outputs 3 and 4 are designed to have a dry signal from the output of every filter + ampenv to apply external effects and still being able to mix it with the internal effects processed signal, as in many hardware synthesizers.

It means, if you route all oscillators to filter 1, all the dry sound will come from out3 and no sound will be generated by out4.

As stated in Pentagon I page, I suggest to set the volume of individual outputs to zero until you know the Pentagon I architecture a bit more.

I hope this helps,
René

Posted: 23rd September 2001 03:37

Still seems to run pretty hot with 3 + 4 channel muted in Orion Pro. Incidentally, how would you do this in a host like FruityLoops? It doesn't set up individual channel strips for each output. Does that mean it would be difficult to use Pentagon I in FruityLoops?

Also, the user waves seem to be very confusing. In the survival guide it says that 1 and 2 need some special format wave file and then you gave an example, but I can't load that into Cool Edit 2000 so I don't actually understand how to recreate that format with my own waves and I don't know what a 0.24 PCM means. Why wouldn't you just use standard WAV files or is there something I'm missing here. I'm kinda hoping that the full manual when it comes out is going to explain things like this in depth.

Still an awesome synth though. Smile

Posted: 23rd September 2001 15:08

Hi,

quote
Quote:
Still seems to run pretty hot with 3 + 4 channel muted in Orion Pro.

Ok, I'll revise the output stage, maybe add a master PAD parameter to fit well in all hosts.

quote
Quote:
Incidentally, how would you do this in a host like FruityLoops? It doesn't set up individual channel strips for each output. Does that mean it would be difficult to use Pentagon I in FruityLoops

There is a stereo-output version of Pentagon I for Orion Pro, Buzz, Fruity, SONAR and other hosts that doesn't support multiple outputs.

quote
Quote:
Also, the user waves seem to be very confusing. In the survival guide it says that 1 and 2 need some special format wave file and then you gave an example, but I can't load that into Cool Edit 2000 so I don't actually understand how to recreate that format with my own waves and I don't know what a 0.24 PCM means. Why wouldn't you just use standard WAV files or is there something I'm missing here. I'm kinda hoping that the full manual when it comes out is going to explain things like this in depth.

Cool Edit 2000 *can* load the sample wavetables, also Sound Forge. Please email me to rene@rgcaudio.com (couldn't get your address from profile), I'll send a more detailed operation guide on wavetables and will answer to any further question you have as you seem to have purchased Pentagon I already (sorry, several customers from Australia
)

Regards,
René