I’m working on a Reaktor instrument and need some advice or suggestions. First of all, let me make a couple of points.

I don’t mind copying sections of the included libraries. There is not need for me to create this instrument totally from scratch. My only goal the end product. Once done anyone is welcome to use it and I will happily put a disclaimer stating that all parts are not original.

The other point is what I want the end product to be. I plan to name the product “The Tri-Tone” if that name is not already taken and the name is directly reflected in the design. The Tri-Tone is being designed to create those big pads you get from ROMplers in multi-mode. Three distinct sections will each provide a layer for the sound. The design of each section will be as follows.

Pinger – probably a simple FM synth with a stereo tap delay. I would love to tie an arpeggiator to this section if I can do it in such a way that the notes on the other two parts do not arpeggiate. Think of tuned wind-chimes or random pings in the background of the pad.

Singer – The base of the pad. This simple subtractive synth should create lush strings or ghostly formants. Your basic VA here with the usual ADSR’s for amp and filter. A course should be tied to this section.

Ringer – The movement or evolving section of the multi-timbre synth. I’m not sure if I should go with a second FM section designed for those slowly evolving overtones, or a subtractive section with more complex eg’s.

Some of you may have noticed my placement of the effects. Stereo tap delay should only effect Pinger and be intricate to that part of the sound while leaving the other parts un affected. The course in Singer should not effect Pinger because of want the tinkling bell sounds to remain clean. I’m not sure about Ringer but I think maybe a second delay and possibly a flanger. I might allow a single delay unit if I can control input separately through some type of effects send in a mixer section.

Now I have a basic design decision. Do I integrate all of these parts into a single panel and single patch structure, or do I create the three parts separately, create programs for each part, then tie them together into a master unit? Though the single panel structure may be cleaner and easier to program the separate panels may be more efficient once I have programs built for each individual part, much like a real multi-timbre synth. Also, I’m not sure if I can integrate the arpeggiator in such a way that it only effects Pinger.

Now you know what I want. I single instrument that will play a nice pad, give you some wind-chime or arp effects in the back ground, and have another sound slowly evolving. So now it is time for me to say

Heeeellllllppppp.

Any suggestions? Does anyone foresee problems with my design? Anyone know of something like this? Anyone want to suggest parts of the current Reaktor library I can use, or would like to contribute to this project? Any advice at all?

Robert

Robert,

first off I'm not a great designer by any stretch but I've very good at conceptualizing and have worked with other people in such a manner.

The idea is sound. You need to decide how to implement the eventual result although I would consider a different route. I would create each part of the instrument and make sure it does what you want. Then work on the effect associated with it. You have to make one design decision fairly quickly though. Do you want the effect to be integral to the individual synth section and do you care if the synth doesn't sound interesting without effects? If you have Absynth there are a couple of presets that lose any sense of interest when you shut off the effects. These patches are designed to take advantage of the effect associated. If you don't have a copy and can try the demo you should, it will be helpful.

If you don't need something tightly integrated then you can work on the synths and compare effects that will strengthen your vision of what you hope to accomplish.

Next, you need to decide if you want to make the effect exclusive to the synth element you are working on. If so it's a design choice to weigh. Will making each effect comprehensive to each part of the synth design gain anything in the complete design? The way you describe the instrument you don't need to create routing of effects to specific modules but if you do you need to add routing capabilities on each component of the synth.

I'd also advise creating the pannels in a way that has a good work flow. If you decide that all effects can be used by all modules then I'd suggest putting all your synth modules in one panel and your effects in their own space of the rack. That's my design choice, you may think differently. As this is primarily your ensemble it should match your work flow.

Others can adapt it to a their own and may find different approaches to whatever way you decide to go with the effects routing which seems one of your bigger decisisions.

I like the idea. Don't be offended but in many ways it has a PLEX like principle to it. In PLEX the multisample is restructured to feature the higher frequencies of a sound, the lower frequencies and the filtered frequencies. This is all sample restructuring but still fits within your idea. Similarly these three elements can then be combined by the user which is very similar to your approach except you are looking at multiple synthesis forms other than samples doiing specific tasks.

It's a good idea. I hope this attempt of contributing was helpful.