Kyma & Its Alternatives

Anything about hardware musical instruments.
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

Have a look to spectrumwork, I don't really know Kyma spectrumwork seems to be a good choice for phase vocoder and cross synthesis effects :
http://www.littleendian.com/
For voice transformation :
http://www.fluxhome.com/products/plug_ins/ircam_trax

Other FFT effects : http://www.michaelnorris.info/

Is anybody know the difference between those app/plugins and Kyma?

Post

auricle wrote:If you're on a Mac then Metasynth has MASSIVE sound mangling capabilities. If you're not on a Mac it's worth getting a MacMini for.
Really? I just put OSX 10.6 on my PC (dual boot with Windows 7) to run the demo. Its ok but not worth more than £100.

Post

i'm in agreement with the Haken Continuum being a very important ingredient in that sound demonstration. Then, i also think that there are few examples of Kyma that AREN'T just a bunch of crazy-ass noises, so i guess you have to really be a sound addict to get your money's worth, or it's only sound addicts that can justify buying them ;) (jeeze i had to stop that video at 6:33 because it just got too annoying to type this message) i think a very important part of sounds like these, and creative sound performance, is the performance tools/interface. If the sound generation tools can make fantastic sounds, what's the use when you can't operate them in a way that feels natural and expressive to you?

Yeah, i want a Continuum.
No, i won't be affording one. Ever.
- dysamoria.com
my music @ SoundCloud

Post

Syncretia wrote:CSound (CS), MetaSynth, and SuperCollider (SC) all look great!

I'm a little put off by MetaSynth costing $600 while the other two are free. But I'd be totally willing to pay that price if it offered functionality similar to Kyma.

Part of my problem at the moment is that it's hard t compare apples with apples. SC and CS are both programming platforms and when you download them, they don't really seem to come with anything out of the box. So, I've got no real idea of their capabilities or the kinds of instruments that other people have built. Has anyone got any resources on actual downloadable CS or SC instruments? Something with example code that is a really interesting instrument would really help to understand the capabilities.

As for Kyma, I've never seen this thing under the hood, so I can't possibly know why you would pay $4000 for the system when there are plenty of other systems out there that boast the same kind of functionality. All I know is that artists that use Kyma get great sounds out of it. That's the only fact I have to work with.
I hear you. I first became interested in this back in my K2000/Nord Modular days when DSPs were really important because PCs weren't just that fast. It's not super clear to that Kyma has really evolved that much. Like so many academic-esque tools (yes noatikl, you too), the developers appear to be just a bit out of touch and somewhat behind the curve in terms of modern software practices.

One thing that might be worthwhile would be to order their book on Kyma-X; this may also be a waste of $35, but at least you be able to make a better evalation as to whether kyma is something that you want to invest in.

http://www.symbolicsound.com/cgi-bin/bi ... aXRevealed

Looking at their limited screenshots, however, I'm not really groking what kyma has that MAX/PD/CSound does not. One thing that I've experienced is that the interests of the community appear to have a huge impact on what libraries and modules become available. The MAX and Reaktor communities are vastly different, for example, and it actually makes sense to get one over the other, based on interests, just for the value of the library.

Again, of course, it's really damn hard to tell what is available or even if there is anything like the Reaktor/MAX libraries for Kyma.

As far as the need for hardware, I doubt that it's truly necessary anymore other than for symbolic sound's business model. Because of that, it's probably very unlikely that they are that interested in releasing a native version of Kyma-X as I imagine that it's a small market to begin with.

Everyone that I have ever talked to about it perpetuates the mystique about Kyma as if it somehow cannot be duplicated. I don't buy it. I think part of that is justification for spending 4Gs on the system.

I think that the strength is that Symbolic Sound is probably well connected to the sound research community and has the capability and willingness to integrate results into their product.

Image

Of course, I don't know this, I'm only guessing.
Last edited by ghettosynth on Thu May 24, 2012 4:09 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post

Jace-BeOS wrote:(jeeze i had to stop that video at 6:33 because it just got too annoying to type this message)
I'm impressed, you lasted a full minute and a half longer than I did.

Post

ghettosynth wrote:
Syncretia wrote:CSound (CS), MetaSynth, and SuperCollider (SC) all look great!

I'm a little put off by MetaSynth costing $600 while the other two are free. But I'd be totally willing to pay that price if it offered functionality similar to Kyma.

Part of my problem at the moment is that it's hard t compare apples with apples. SC and CS are both programming platforms and when you download them, they don't really seem to come with anything out of the box. So, I've got no real idea of their capabilities or the kinds of instruments that other people have built. Has anyone got any resources on actual downloadable CS or SC instruments? Something with example code that is a really interesting instrument would really help to understand the capabilities.

As for Kyma, I've never seen this thing under the hood, so I can't possibly know why you would pay $4000 for the system when there are plenty of other systems out there that boast the same kind of functionality. All I know is that artists that use Kyma get great sounds out of it. That's the only fact I have to work with.
I hear you. I first became interested in this back in my K2000/Nord Modular days when DSPs were really important because PCs weren't just that fast. It's not super clear to that Kyma has really evolved that much. Like so many academic-esque tools (yes noatikl, you too), the developers appear to be just a bit out of touch and somewhat behind the curve in terms of modern software practices.

One thing that might be worthwhile would be to order their book on Kyma-X; this may also be a waste of $35, but at least you be able to make a better evalation as to whether kyma is something that you want to invest in.

http://www.symbolicsound.com/cgi-bin/bi ... aXRevealed

Looking at their limited screenshots, however, I'm not really groking what kyma has that MAX/PD/CSound does not. One thing that I've experienced is that the interests of the community appear to have a huge impact on what libraries and modules become available. The MAX and Reaktor communities are vastly different, for example, and it actually makes sense to get one over the other, based on interests, just for the value of the library.

Again, of course, it's really damn hard to tell what is available or even if there is anything like the Reaktor/MAX libraries for Kyma.

As far as the need for hardware, I doubt that it's truly necessary anymore other than for symbolic sound's business model. Because of that, it's probably very unlikely that they are that interested in releasing a native version of Kyma-X as I imagine that it's a small market to begin with.

Everyone that I have ever talked to about it perpetuates the mystique about Kyma as if it somehow cannot be duplicated. I don't buy it. I think part of that is justification for spending 4Gs on the system.

I think that the strength is that Symbolic Sound is probably well connected to the sound research community and has the capability and willingness to integrate results into their product.

Image

Of course, I don't know this, I'm only guessing.
I'm a Kyma user and the best thing about Kyma is that you can do almost anything imaginable on it - and it is easy to use. I guess you can do anything Kyma does on stuff like Csound, but that would require serious programming skills. Most Kyma users are not programmers; they are sound designers, make sound effects for movies etc. They often have a busy time schedule and don't have the time to do something on Csound that would take hours or even days, when it can be done in minutes in Kyma.
When compared to Reaktor, Kyma is actually easier to use IMO. You just choose a prototype from the prototype strip, start playing with it and see what it does (if you don't know already). From there you just add more and more prototypes and you can end up with very complex patches in just a few minutes.
Or you can choose something from the Kyma library and start playing with it or modify or expand directly out of the box with very little previous knowledge.
If you want to dig deeper, then things rapidly become more difficult. You have to start typing Capytalk messages in the parameter fields and eventually start writing expressions in Smalltalk, but that is still a lot more logical than the horrible Reaktor Core.
Summary: Kyma can be both a Nord Modular-type synth or a combined graphical/textual programming language (or anything between). There is nothing magical or mythical about it - it's just a very usable tool. A basic Paca is also cheaper than most workstation synths.
Another thing that has to be mentined is the fabulous support. When I've had problems I just sent a mail and a few hours later I got an answer from Carla herself. A bit different from the big companies!

Post

bulvanskägg wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:
Syncretia wrote:CSound (CS), MetaSynth, and SuperCollider (SC) all look great!
As for Kyma, I've never seen this thing under the hood, so I can't possibly know why you would pay $4000 for the system when there are plenty of other systems out there that boast the same kind of functionality. All I know is that artists that use Kyma get great sounds out of it. That's the only fact I have to work with.
I hear you. I first became interested in this back in my K2000/Nord Modular days when DSPs were really important because PCs weren't just that fast. It's not super clear to that Kyma has really evolved that much. Like so many academic-esque tools (yes noatikl, you too), the developers appear to be just a bit out of touch and somewhat behind the curve in terms of modern software practices.

...

Everyone that I have ever talked to about it perpetuates the mystique about Kyma as if it somehow cannot be duplicated. I don't buy it. I think part of that is justification for spending 4Gs on the system.
I'm a Kyma user and the best thing about Kyma is that you can do almost anything imaginable on it - and it is easy to use.
From my perspective you just said absolutely nothing. This is true about many environments.
I guess you can do anything Kyma does on stuff like Csound, but that would require serious programming skills.
Of course that must be true. Specifically though, like what? What things can Kyma do that you must program in Csound. My guess is that anything that you name, someone has already done something similar.
Most Kyma users are not programmers; they are sound designers, make sound effects for movies etc. They often have a busy time schedule and don't have the time to do something on Csound that would take hours or even days, when it can be done in minutes in Kyma.
Such as?
When compared to Reaktor, Kyma is actually easier to use IMO. You just choose a prototype from the prototype strip, start playing with it and see what it does (if you don't know already). From there you just add more and more prototypes and you can end up with very complex patches in just a few minutes.
I can make complex patches in Rekator in just a few minutes. I just choose an ensemble/instrument/macro from the macro library, start playing with it, and see what it does, from there I just add more and more ensembles/instruments/macros and I end up with very complex patches in just a few minutes.
Or you can choose something from the Kyma library and start playing with it or modify or expand directly out of the box with very little previous knowledge.
Or, I just choose something from the Reaktor library and start playing with it, or modify or expand directly out of the box.

Now, here's the rub, specifically, what allows "with very little previous knowledge", describe a specific use case. Are you simply saying that you can use parametrized modules without knowing what's in them, because that's also true about reaktor/max.
If you want to dig deeper, then things rapidly become more difficult. You have to start typing Capytalk messages in the parameter fields and eventually start writing expressions in Smalltalk, but that is still a lot more logical than the horrible Reaktor Core.
That's a matter of opinion, of course. That said, I'm not defending reaktor core as a great low level programming model. I wish that NI would publish the reaktor file formats so that one could generate and read reaktor files programatically. Again, a specific use case would be a lot more informative than your somewhat general description.
Summary: Kyma can be both a Nord Modular-type synth or a combined graphical/textual programming language (or anything between). There is nothing magical or mythical about it - it's just a very usable tool. A basic Paca is also cheaper than most workstation synths.
So when you say "prototype", you are really talking about nord-modular level modules just with more variety? Because you can do this with reaktor as well so long as you understand that the level of abstraction that you work with is the macro.
Another thing that has to be mentined is the fabulous support. When I've had problems I just sent a mail and a few hours later I got an answer from Carla herself. A bit different from the big companies!
Generally, programmer types don't really need or value support that much. The kinds of questions that we have are rarely answerable by support.

The fact that it's comparable price-wise to a workstation is not really the point, it's not a workstation, it doesn't have a keyboard, a big name sample library etc. It's a programming environment. I think that my point was quite valid in that there's really not much incentive for Kyma to deliver a native version. A native version would simply undercut sales of their current systems, not really generate that much new business, but at the same time raise their support costs.

So, to me, it sounds like it's much closer to max than it is to Reaktor but perhaps with a user library that's some hybrid of both.

Post

bulvanskägg wrote:I'm a Kyma user and the best thing about Kyma is that you can do almost anything imaginable on it - and it is easy to use. I guess you can do anything Kyma does on stuff like Csound, but that would require serious programming skills. Most Kyma users are not programmers; they are sound designers, make sound effects for movies etc.
Just so you know, most Csound users are not programmers, they're composers.

Post

ghettosynth wrote:
bulvanskägg wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:
Syncretia wrote:CSound (CS), MetaSynth, and SuperCollider (SC) all look great!
As for Kyma, I've never seen this thing under the hood, so I can't possibly know why you would pay $4000 for the system when there are plenty of other systems out there that boast the same kind of functionality. All I know is that artists that use Kyma get great sounds out of it. That's the only fact I have to work with.
I hear you. I first became interested in this back in my K2000/Nord Modular days when DSPs were really important because PCs weren't just that fast. It's not super clear to that Kyma has really evolved that much. Like so many academic-esque tools (yes noatikl, you too), the developers appear to be just a bit out of touch and somewhat behind the curve in terms of modern software practices.

...

Everyone that I have ever talked to about it perpetuates the mystique about Kyma as if it somehow cannot be duplicated. I don't buy it. I think part of that is justification for spending 4Gs on the system.
I'm a Kyma user and the best thing about Kyma is that you can do almost anything imaginable on it - and it is easy to use.
From my perspective you just said absolutely nothing. This is true about many environments.
I guess you can do anything Kyma does on stuff like Csound, but that would require serious programming skills.
Of course that must be true. Specifically though, like what? What things can Kyma do that you must program in Csound. My guess is that anything that you name, someone has already done something similar.
Most Kyma users are not programmers; they are sound designers, make sound effects for movies etc. They often have a busy time schedule and don't have the time to do something on Csound that would take hours or even days, when it can be done in minutes in Kyma.
Such as?
When compared to Reaktor, Kyma is actually easier to use IMO. You just choose a prototype from the prototype strip, start playing with it and see what it does (if you don't know already). From there you just add more and more prototypes and you can end up with very complex patches in just a few minutes.
I can make complex patches in Rekator in just a few minutes. I just choose an ensemble/instrument/macro from the macro library, start playing with it, and see what it does, from there I just add more and more ensembles/instruments/macros and I end up with very complex patches in just a few minutes.
Or you can choose something from the Kyma library and start playing with it or modify or expand directly out of the box with very little previous knowledge.
Or, I just choose something from the Reaktor library and start playing with it, or modify or expand directly out of the box.

Now, here's the rub, specifically, what allows "with very little previous knowledge", describe a specific use case. Are you simply saying that you can use parametrized modules without knowing what's in them, because that's also true about reaktor/max.
If you want to dig deeper, then things rapidly become more difficult. You have to start typing Capytalk messages in the parameter fields and eventually start writing expressions in Smalltalk, but that is still a lot more logical than the horrible Reaktor Core.
That's a matter of opinion, of course. That said, I'm not defending reaktor core as a great low level programming model. I wish that NI would publish the reaktor file formats so that one could generate and read reaktor files programatically. Again, a specific use case would be a lot more informative than your somewhat general description.
Summary: Kyma can be both a Nord Modular-type synth or a combined graphical/textual programming language (or anything between). There is nothing magical or mythical about it - it's just a very usable tool. A basic Paca is also cheaper than most workstation synths.
So when you say "prototype", you are really talking about nord-modular level modules just with more variety? Because you can do this with reaktor as well so long as you understand that the level of abstraction that you work with is the macro.
Another thing that has to be mentined is the fabulous support. When I've had problems I just sent a mail and a few hours later I got an answer from Carla herself. A bit different from the big companies!
Generally, programmer types don't really need or value support that much. The kinds of questions that we have are rarely answerable by support.

The fact that it's comparable price-wise to a workstation is not really the point, it's not a workstation, it doesn't have a keyboard, a big name sample library etc. It's a programming environment. I think that my point was quite valid in that there's really not much incentive for Kyma to deliver a native version. A native version would simply undercut sales of their current systems, not really generate that much new business, but at the same time raise their support costs.

So, to me, it sounds like it's much closer to max than it is to Reaktor but perhaps with a user library that's some hybrid of both.
Well, from my perspective you certainly didn't offer anything constructive in your answer either, just a lot of BS.

Post

bulvanskägg wrote: Well, from my perspective you certainly didn't offer anything constructive in your answer either, just a lot of BS.
Well I guess you told me, didn't you! I asked specific questions about Kyma, which it seems, you either don't know the answer to, or are too put off by my approach to answer them.

I've never talked to a Kyma user who can clearly articulate the differences. You seem to amplify this by asserting that the users aren't programmers.

This comparison and discussion here is pretty much more of the same and, clearly, this isn't the first time someone has asked about how relevant kyma is today.

http://www.delora.com/tips_and_trends/k ... evant.html
The similarities between Max/MSP, Reaktor, and Kyma are only skin deep. Sure, all use a "patching" analogy to assemble signal processing or synthesis devices. But each has its own, deeply ingrained personality that inevitably influences your creative workflow and what you create.

Reaktor follows in the footsteps of classic modular synthesizers. Workflow is by and large one of creating a synthesizer or effect from various "primitive" elements and then using the result in a manner little different than one uses any synthesizer or effect. In other words it's a two part workflow: during the first your role is that of the instrument creator; during the second your role is that of the instrument player. As it turns out, few Reaktor users venture much in the first part of the workflow. Instead they leverage the work of a few who assemble Reaktor creations and use them in the second part of the workflow.

Max/MSP has its roots in traditional computer music technology. Its spiritual ancestor is the "Music N" family of computer music languages pioneered by such renowned contributors as Max Mathews (hence the derivation of the name "Max"). Kyma too shares this important heritage but the manifestation is quite different.

In this regard Max/MSP and Kyma are far closer in workflow than Reaktor, but there are very important differences in their respective "languages".
As I suspected.
Max/MSP treats "sound" and "processing" as two distinct elements. You create Max/MSP "patches" to "generate" sound, and/or to process sound. You can combine previously created processing or generator elements to create new processing or generating elements but the results are still distinctly processing or generating.

Kyma, on the other hand, has a single unifying construct: the sound. Everything you construct in Kyma is a sound, whether it is a simple sample player with a specific sample loaded, or an elaborate network of effects processors knitted together. These derived sounds become the building blocks for future sounds. Once created you no longer need worry about how they were made; you just use them.
This, to me, makes no sense. A distortion is a sound? I don't think so. What does this even mean?
All of these "modular" approaches offer some degree of this kind of reusability but with Kyma it's a deeper part of the entire system. Symbolic Sound suggests this is an "object oriented" way of generating and manipulating sound.
Ugh.
Everything in Kyma is a "sound object" of equal stature, whether it is a "primitive" construct or one assembled with hundreds of other sounds objects. Kyma's workflow exudes this object central philosophy. Indeed one of the many benefits of Kyma's workflow is that over time you assemble a personal collection of sound objects, which in effect means Kyma becomes your personalized tool.
Again, more fluff. The same is true for Reaktor and Max. It seems that the only real difference, other than the choice to not create a native port, IS workflow.
Last edited by ghettosynth on Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post

It occurred to me that since the roots of the Kyma system are in academia that there might be papers available that do a better job of conveying what kyma is than its users seem to be able to do. As it turns out, Scaletti has quite a few papers on the system and its development. If you have access to academic journals, just scholar.google kyma Scaletti for a number of papers which discuss the evolution of the system.

Also, nice and to the point thread over on muffwiggler.

http://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewto ... bd1ff49eae

Interestingly, the first system was implemented in 68k assembler and the DSP implementation was an (one) order of magnitude faster.

Post

There is a relatively old thread at Gearslutz that includes a nice comparison of Kyma, MAX/MSP and the Nord Modular. Post #4 is particularly detailed ...

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/electron ... dular.html

Peace,
Andy.
... space is the place ...

Post

ZenPunkHippy wrote:There is a relatively old thread at Gearslutz that includes a nice comparison of Kyma, MAX/MSP and the Nord Modular. Post #4 is particularly detailed ...

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/electron ... dular.html

Peace,
Andy.
Funny you found that. I forgot about it but I read it some time ago. I think that I ran across it when I was considering upgrading to a G2. Changed my mind, went with Reaktor.

Post

I know this thread is a few months "stale" now but I too am in the "shall I buy Kyma" predicament.

After trying (and owning) many of the classics (including nord modular and reaktor) and the new comers, the biggest thing I see Kyma having over others is the quality of it's morphing and the fact that the processors are set up for realtime/parallel processing.

The morphing is the thing I want it for and I haven't found anything that comes even close.

I haven't ventured into Csound/max MSP first hand yet but I have searched for examples of it doing proper morphing (well morphing like Kyma's TAU) and not found any. If anyone has audio/video of this that would be amazing to see as it will save me £2000 and I've got to get into programming at some point anyway! ;) lol

Post

This thread has been a bit stale but it's an age old question: to buy Kyma, or not to buy Kyma.
I have searched for examples of it doing proper morphing (well morphing like Kyma's TAU) and not found any.
Totally. A few synths boast "morphing", but they sound nothing like Kyma from my experience.

I can surely say that Reaktor is a great modular synth. The new patch called Skanner XT create really good Kyma like sounds. But, I find Reaktor really clunky and if I even attempted to build anything like a Kyma patch, it would just sound like rubbish.

Where I'm at right now is this:

After at least a year of hunting around, asking questions, trying various different modular synths, reading and generally trying to get as much information as possible about the kind of sounds I want to create, I'm left unsatisfied. I've seen glimmers of hope here and there, but I basically feel that I'm no closer to achieving my original goal. My gut now tells me that if I want to get the "Kyma" sound, I have to buy a box.

The only question for me now is how badly I want that sound.

Post Reply

Return to “Hardware (Instruments and Effects)”