The triangle synth is absolutely lovely and so is pentagon,but i think the filters on triangle are really very weak,they are by far not doing what they should be(they simply DONT have the sound of a 24db filter),please take this into consideration and try and improve on this aspect of the synth.As far as pentagon is concerned i think it could use some better envelopes(these too dont do what they are supposed to well) and also the filters need to be improved as it doesnt have the FAT sound of the legendary synths.

I really like ur synths and i would be MOST happy to see these improvements as i think it can really take the synth to a new level.

Hi,

Thank you very much for your suggestion. I'll do my best to take it into account in my future projects.

René

Dear Rgc
From a Very Satisfied user (me)... I would have to say ...Please Don't change nothing in the Filters.
I don't want them to sound like every other 24db filter.
Pentagon and T2 are two of my most used synths right now, and thier smooth character is what does it for me.
The way they sound now, seems to suit alot of Folks just fine. Don't mess with a Good Thing!
Just my 2 bits.
Paul
But as I know ...you are always Coding, so I am sure you will have new and Great ideas to try.

[ 05 April 2002, 18:10: Message edited by: manytone ]

Sorry Mr teejay I have to jump in and say that I 101 % dissagree, the filters in both P1 and T2 sound fantastic, without anoying you too much
I would say that if P1 is not doing it for you I dont know what will ? this has to be a personal vibe on your side because so far you are the 1st person to say this out of 100,s of fans.

"one mans pleasure is another (mans < ) poison.

quote:

---

Originally posted by teejay:
The triangle synth is absolutely lovely and so is pentagon,but i think the filters on triangle are really very weak,they are by far not doing what they should be(they simply DONT have the sound of a 24db filter),please take this into consideration and try and improve on this aspect of the synth.As far as pentagon is concerned i think it could use some better envelopes(these too dont do what they are supposed to well) and also the filters need to be improved as it doesnt have the FAT sound of the legendary synths.

I really like ur synths and i would be MOST happy to see these improvements as i think it can really take the synth to a new level.

---

I dunno about u guys but i certainly feel that the envelopes and filters in rgcaudio synths could defenitly use some work.I am not saying that they are bad synths,on the contrary they are wonderful and i think they are setting the tone for future vsti's,but i just feel these aspects of the synths are letting them down.

jus my 2cents

Well i for one noticed a LOT of improvements in filter design when i use the more recent pentagon demo as opposed to the first one, same goes for triangle, it's filter(s) may not sound like the preconcieved idea of how it's "suppoused" to sound, but it totally screeches and growls. Most importantly you have a higher degree of control over the frequency point now than in triangleI, and the filter stays bassy, much more full and powerful sounding than the earlier filters, my opinion.
One of the only things i could think of that is "bad" about the 24db filter is the digital-alais-sounding piercing sounds that come with high resonance at the HIGHEST frequncies.. but, i would rather have it this way, than have everything above 14khz blocked out or something.

I think the origonal poster is expecting more "mooglike" behaviour from the filter, ie very wide and loud at low resonance and turning quickly into a thin more screamy squelchy form with more resonance.
Maybe not, just a guess. If so the solution wouldnt be to change the nice 24 db filter, but if anything, to try to develop a differant algorithm which behaves in that way.
The 24db being talked about dosent really have the "liquidic" sound of an actual analog circuit filter.. well, it does and it dosent, i mean what vsti does?, they all sound digital in a way. I think it's really pretty good as far as digital filters go. None of the digital filters out there really have that liquid feel, not even some of the ones on hardware VA's. One of the better filter designs out there, is waldorf's in my opinion (in soft and hardware). A lot of that has to do with minimizing alaising and having high clarity, i think.
I think the rgc filters are approaching that smoothness, they just behave in a unique way. I think the 24db filter in question has some major bass power, good sweeps too. I guess it could be more crisp or accurate sounding, i'm not really sure what it's missing, if anything. i'm no expert, i just listen. Sound is what counts in the end anyway.
Just some of my aimless thoughts..

So teejay i have a question, what is it about the envelopes that you want to be differant? What are you looking for, more of a time and level based envelope like older ensoniq and roland synths? ie T1 L1 T2 L2 T3 L3 T4. Or graphical breakpoint envelopes like Fm7/Quadrasid/Anamark2? Or is it the value scaling across the range of the controls? Or is it that you think the SOUND of the envelopes is strange etc..
You really dont specify what your thoughts are about it, so how can anyone know what you really are referring too, even rene?

What is it about the filters? When you say they dont sound like legendary synths, what synths do you mean? Jupiter8, arp odyssey? prophets? moog? junos? sh101/mc202/303? oberheims? (ob8, matrix12, expander) chroma polaris? A lot of those synths used the same filterchips, a lot of them didnt. I think we take your point, but it dosent seem very clear what you mean by "fat" etc..
Fat can mean, warm, liquid,.. but it can also mean squelchy and cold and THIN..depending on what filters are your reference.. yes, sometimes people call thin sounds "fat"

Just slap Zapfilter 1.5 across the Pentagon/Triangle output, it sounds too incredible for words

Well, that's the thing, I think Dr. Dave touches upon a very important point...

When I used to have my old Prophets, etc., I would always throw all sorts of things at them. I would almost venture to say we all did to a degree.

So, when you are referring to the sound of the legendary synths, are you making dry comparisons synth to synth or are you referencing perhaps some album, etc.? If you are referencing an album, then you have to take into account that whether it's obvious or not (reverb, delay), there might be any manner of processing on the synths in question, including compression, etc.

I'm with some of the others in that whether it matches up with some of the old analog beasts or not, I very much like the individual character of the sound that the RGC synths have.

I also agree with Manytone, that if there is room for improvement, I'm sure Rene will take any suggestions very seriously, so ultimately, it's good that you are expressing your concerns!

Good points, Liondream and exponent...!

I think the main thing to consider here is: rather than think in terms of how well Pentagon I and Triangle II can act as clones of "legendary synths"...it would be better to think in terms of the P1 and T2 being their own stand-alone entities, with their own unique sounds. Rene never stated anywhere that his synths "sound just like a Moog/Oberheim/Prophet 5/whatever"...the P1 and the T2 sound just like the P1 and T2.

And like Dr Dave and Liondream said: you can always post-process them with additional effects to get things closer to what you're looking for...use the raw sound and tweak from there if you like! It's what people have been doing on "legendary" recordings containing synths for years and years....not too many of them were ever recorded completely sans effects and processing...

As for me: count me amoungst those who prefer the P1 and T2 just the way they are.

Yeah Har, i see the rgc synths that way too, more as futuristic than as being retro-emulation of any synths. Also, they're very broad synths, capable of a wide range of sounds, especially pentagon, there are not any vintage synths i know of offhand with those features all in one synth..
I was just trying to see if teejay wanted to clairfy more what direction he/she couldnt go with the current filters or envelopes, that's why i mentioned all those synths, because it wasnt clear what type of "fat" filter response he was talking about.
Oh well, at least we're all passionate about synths, especially developers like rene. It may be odd, but it's a good thing.

If Jennifer Connelly dyes her hair, does plastic surgery to her nose and wares blue contact lens, she might get to look similar to Sharon Stone……….

Sorry, I know all the comments here were serious till mine, but I could not help it.

Pentagon sounds great. The only changes that should be allowed are those that RgcAudio lucubrate, as Pentagon is always getting better thanks to Rene’s craftsmanship and genius.
I would not mind (not that I personally need any) additions to allow even more and further possible results in terms of sound variation, but why modify what already sounds good?. Modify, based on which parameters or whose subjectivity?.

I think that Rembrandt’s pictures were a little dark and I am not sure if I would have not made a different use of the yellow colour (I am not being serious, obviously). Come on, I can’t even take a photograph as good as any of Rembrandt’s sketches. Rene has proved to be a master in the creation of sound and VSTi.
Maybe there are many people that don’t like a Rembrandt, but I would not suggest to use a pair of scissors and glue and try to make it seem as a Picasso if he was my favorite. As Har and others suggested, better to use some effect processor (visual effect processor in my ridiculous and presumptuous metaphor) to do the trick.

[ 05 April 2002, 22:45: Message edited by: Alejandro_ar ]

I love P1 and T2 as they are, in fact I reckon one day, in many years time, we'll all be sitting in our armchairs, wearing our slippers and smoking our pipes and telling the grand kids about the *legendary* *classic* sound of the rgc synths... back in my day... they don't make em' like they used to... etc. etc.

Actually from the brief play I've had I would like to see both the detune and wet/dry reverb control of the T2 to have less range or a more exponential curve so that I don't have to just nudge the knob a hair from nothing to get, for example, a slight detuning.
This is similar to what I wrote to you about with the T1 portamento and that was improved nicely with the T2, Rene.
Do others feel the same on this issue?
As for the filter issue, you have to be careful with the setting of the envelope amount as well as the velocity and keyboard scaling. Since they all add to the amount that the cutoff is opened it can be hard to hear any effect of the filter opening and closing if more than one of these knobs is maxed. Just a thought.
Cheers .

[ 06 April 2002, 01:08: Message edited by: PushServer ]

ben ... ha ha ... right

Dear René,

please make Triangle III less phat sounding and please take some of the features out and make it's sound like my little Casio when I push it through my Soundblaster16 while adding some playground noise for that HiFi polish AddOn.
You know that I'm a true customer who invested a true download to get this overpriced freeware synth and so you have to listen and care about my comments. Not that I'm pushing you but I only have to tell you that Triangle II doesn't sound like the MacroHeim I used to play fifty years ago through my MarshMellow stacks with dozens of LoFi stomp boxes and I'm absolutely sure you understand these feelings of your downloading customers.

P.S.: Don't forget to fix these envelopes and these filters, you know what I mean, right? Come on, you HAVE to know what I meant, right? What, you don't know because I didn't tell you?

Oh boy... these developers! I tell ya!

Oh I forgot one thing:

Will there be an ATARI version?

Well I have to say I love the Pentagon I and although I have Triangle II I'm yet to do anything incredible with it. I experienced a delay when I had to fix a glitch in my setup to get it working.

But I have to say that I haven't managed to get an enormous amount of use out of it. Why is that? Well, not because it's filters are bad or anything, but because it is a very versatile and fairly complicated synth and I have to admit - I'm not that good with synths. There, I've said it.

I think the Pentagon is a fantastic synth that I for one find hard to program.

It must be why I'm such a fan of TauPro.

I'll eventually "get it", but I'm far behind you guys, so whether its filter isn't a Moog one or not is going to be less importance to me than the fact that I just can't seem to do what I want with it.

Sorry, my post didn't really contribute at all to the conversation.

Caleb