20 years Native Instruments

[.jon]

Not true. Chromaphone is a Ferrari compared to Prism. I understand what Prism is, it's just not as good as others of it's kind.

No, you don't understand.

[gentleclockdivider]

Prism uses the modal bank ( exciter +steep bandpassfilters ) and is not capable of coupling different 'physical engines ' interaction of energy between differentmodels/engines .
Chromaphone does , and I suspect chromaphone uses more then just modal synthesis .
I like prism , but chromahone really is in another league

[waltercruz]

Mike Daliot confirmed on "Modeling" on Driver and there's an additional "Application Development" by two other people there.

Max Zagler confirmed on Rounds concept and development.

there was some speculation that some people left NI and this is the reason why development (Massive 2, FM8 update, Absynth 6) 'stopped', so this is not true, I guess.

[loachm]

Not true. Chromaphone is a Ferrari compared to Prism. I understand what Prism is, it's just not as good as others of it's kind.

...and this comparison is apples to my oranges (btw. have you driven a Ferrari or have an expertise in cars)? I wasn't comparing Prism to Chromaphone, if you've noticed.

[sharke]

...on another note - after carefully reading all the comments here I'm now totally convinced that Prism is in fact a very crappy synth and that it's all NI's fault that the majority of users doesn't understand or is used to how physical modelling works or that it's in the synthesis' nature to react a bit quirky at times. It's the same reason why I really hate AAS String Studio or Chromaphone. Why can't everything work the way I want it to...

That's not what I'm saying though. My point is that they could explain it better. Physical modeling is clearly a complicated subject, but (I'm guessing) nothing so complicated that a well written manual or video tutorial couldn't explain to the average user. I'm reminded of years ago when I read a book on quantum physics written "for the layman." I got lost very easily, and concluded that maybe I was just dumb. A friend lent me a layman's tract he had on the same subject, and the explanations were so much better I breezed through it. I'm not saying Prism is anything like quantum physics, just making the point that explaining complicated subjects to a non-specialist is an art which I don't think NI is very good at. Another example would be the manual for Molekular. Many of the effect explanations are pure gibberish unless you're familiar with DSP.

[loachm]

...and it's not that I'm saying that people aren't smart enough to understand what's been written in the manuals. I'm just adressing what I think is a common misconception about synthesizers and music in general.

Just because someone knows the elements or the single modules, it doesn't mean that he knows how it works (or should know). In fact, I don't think it's even possible. Though experience (and/or talent) plays a big role here, I think, the the beauty lies in a way in "not knowing" (and don't confuse it with being or playing dumb).

Stephan Schmitt probably knows all there is to know about synthesizers. He has built Prism and yet, he probably doesn't know what different kind of sounds the thing is capable to produce. He certainly has an idea, but surely isn't capeable to imagine the entire picture. And that's what make synthesizers beautiful instruments - that you can't know them up to the last detail and that they will always surprise you. I guess, even the most experienced sound designers create patches on a regular basis, of which they say "I don't know how I did it & and I certainly did not expect or plan that". It's the synthesizers nature to have a manageable set of modules and parameters, that are able to produce a practically infinite amount of sounds.

A manual can only tell you what a module does, it can also tell you a bit about what basic elements a certain kind of sound needs or has, but then it is totally up to the user. And, to be honest, if someone has a basic knowledge about synthesizers, that video tutorial about Prism sums it up quite nicely. If someone then takes his time to try out how the different modules and their parameters work "in general" and also tries to analyse the factory presets and what has been done there (something that a lot of people probably don't do), that's actually all there is to do. It's just about time, patience & talent - and maybe some nice help from other people in forums. However, it is totally fine, if someone (even very fast) comes to the conclusion, that xy synth isn't for him or maybe even isn't worth the effort - but then again, it's still a personal choice and - since there are people disagreeing with good reason - not a commonly acknowledged fact.

Still, Prism and also Molekular are niche products - they are not meant for everybody, but everybody can decide for himself to go deep.

[Cinebient]

Prism is my favourite NI synth
I like it more than Chromaphone, personal thing.
But Sculpture is still king above all these modal and/or physical modeling tools when it comes to very organic sounding morphing goodness from outa space!

[.jon]

Physical modelling = algorithmic models built around parametrisation of real-world objects (musical instruments or their parts). You interact with the model by adjusting the "real" parameters, like length, hardness and radius. AAS is very good at making these, Chromaphone is just one of their excellent products.

Modal synthesis = one of the synthesis techniques used in physical models to produce sound. Prism gives direct and familiar access to modal synthesis without the parametrisation layer,therefore it isn't a physical model in the strictest sense. It's a generic synthesiser-style approach that produces sounds resembling acoustic or electro-acoustic sounds.

This is why I love it, I don't want a delusional synth that thinks it's a f**king tuba.

[loachm]

This is why I love it, I don't want a delusional synth that thinks it's a f**king tuba.

[ghettosynth]

This is why I love it, I don't want a delusional synth that thinks it's a f**king tuba.

+1

[sharke]

...and it's not that I'm saying that people aren't smart enough to understand what's been written in the manuals. I'm just adressing what I think is a common misconception about synthesizers and music in general.

Just because someone knows the elements or the single modules, it doesn't mean that he knows how it works (or should know). In fact, I don't think it's even possible. Though experience (and/or talent) plays a big role here, I think, the the beauty lies in a way in "not knowing" (and don't confuse it with being or playing dumb).

Stephan Schmitt probably knows all there is to know about synthesizers. He has built Prism and yet, he probably doesn't know what different kind of sounds the thing is capable to produce. He certainly has an idea, but surely isn't capeable to imagine the entire picture. And that's what make synthesizers beautiful instruments - that you can't know them up to the last detail and that they will always surprise you. I guess, even the most experienced sound designers create patches on a regular basis, of which they say "I don't know how I did it & and I certainly did not expect or plan that". It's the synthesizers nature to have a manageable set of modules and parameters, that are able to produce a practically infinite amount of sounds.

A manual can only tell you what a module does, it can also tell you a bit about what basic elements a certain kind of sound needs or has, but then it is totally up to the user. And, to be honest, if someone has a basic knowledge about synthesizers, that video tutorial about Prism sums it up quite nicely. If someone then takes his time to try out how the different modules and their parameters work "in general" and also tries to analyse the factory presets and what has been done there (something that a lot of people probably don't do), that's actually all there is to do. It's just about time, patience & talent - and maybe some nice help from other people in forums. However, it is totally fine, if someone (even very fast) comes to the conclusion, that xy synth isn't for him or maybe even isn't worth the effort - but then again, it's still a personal choice and - since there are people disagreeing with good reason - not a commonly acknowledged fact.

Still, Prism and also Molekular are niche products - they are not meant for everybody, but everybody can decide for himself to go deep.

Yeah I appreciate that you don't have to have a deep understanding of how these synths work. But a strong overview of what the controls do is extremely conducive to successful sound design. I don't have a deep understanding of the physics behind synths like Massive, Absynth or FM8 either, but I understand them enough to be able to move toward a sound in my head, or shape a preset in a specific predetermined direction. I understand what the controls are doing to the sound. I have read the manuals and I fully understood what I was reading. I don't think it's impossible for me to understand exactly what's going on in Prism - it just hasn't been explained to me well enough. That's my only beef with it. Just because a manual exists doesn't mean that it's adequate. Some technical people are very good at explaining complicated concepts to the layman - others aren't. When I was first learning to program in C I would frequent C forums for advice and was struck by how bad some forum members were at answering questions I had - they didn't seem to be able to couch their answers in terms that were understandable by someone at my level. Whereas there were other forum members who were very good at it, presumably because they could mentally put themselves in my brain and think about what I would understand and what I wouldn't understand. NI needs more of the latter kind of people writing manuals for synths like Prism and Spark.

[loachm]

...so the FM8 manual is explaining FM synthesis better (i.e., so that you know what timbre you get by doing this or that) than the Prism manual does its synthesis method? (Don't worry - just playing devil's advocate here) But like I said, if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't mean it's the same for other people. And for everything else there are forums, where friendly people will try to help, if one asks specific questions and tries to explain the current problem.

You don't have to like Prism or its manual - it's OK, as it definitely isn't a general purpose synth and it doesn't employ a widely-used synthesis method (like Kontour, that's another really interesting toughie). But the good thing with these Reaktor synths is, that you can really take your time with them. Since they run on the Reaktor platform chances are very high that the synth will still work in 10-15 years. You can't say that about a lot of other plug-ins and that is in fact an advantage of Reaktor (as annoying as it may be), that's overlooked quite often...

[sharke]

...so the FM8 manual is explaining FM synthesis better (i.e., so that you know what timbre you get by doing this or that) than the Prism manual does its synthesis method? (Don't worry - just playing devil's advocate here) But like I said, if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't mean it's the same for other people. And for everything else there are forums, where friendly people will try to help, if one asks specific questions and tries to explain the current problem.

You don't have to like Prism or its manual - it's OK, as it definitely isn't a general purpose synth and it doesn't employ a widely-used synthesis method (like Kontour, that's another really interesting toughie). But the good thing with these Reaktor synths is, that you can really take your time with them. Since they run on the Reaktor platform chances are very high that the synth will still work in 10-15 years. You can't say that about a lot of other plug-ins and that is in fact an advantage of Reaktor (as annoying as it may be), that's overlooked quite often...

Yes, really, I think the FM8 manual explains how the synth works a lot better than the Prism manual explains how it works. Actually a common complaint I hear about Prism is that although it sounds great, they have no frigging idea what's going on. Like I said earlier, that's probably why synths like FM8, Massive, Absynth, Rounds and Razor have in depth video tutorials on Groove3, but Prism doesn't (and indeed I've never found an in depth tutorial on it anywhere). I'm sure there are a LOT of people who would love a good Prism tutorial, and I don't think Groove3 has skipped it because it doesn't feel there is a market for one. I wouldn't be surprised if they had approached their course instructors about creating a Prism course, a couple of them said "let me look into it" and then they came back and said "you know what, I don't understand that synth well enough to do a video tutorial."

I think one of the reasons why Prism so badly needs a good video course is because it's not one of those synths where you can easily figure out what each control does through experimentation with the presets. A lot of the controls seem to do nothing or very little for many of the patches. Parameters like timer, f max, bend, multi, RM, 2nd H, the time and phase in the delay module, even the "sat" control in the mixer seems to have very little effect in many cases. Fruitlessly playing with those controls probably makes a lot of people think "Ok, I really need to know what's going on with this synth."

[ew]

I think one of the reasons why Prism so badly needs a good video course is because it's not one of those synths where you can easily figure out what each control does through experimentation with the presets. A lot of the controls seem to do nothing or very little for many of the patches. Parameters like timer, f max, bend, multi, RM, 2nd H, the time and phase in the delay module, even the "sat" control in the mixer seems to have very little effect in many cases. Fruitlessly playing with those controls probably makes a lot of people think "Ok, I really need to know what's going on with this synth."

Actually, those controls you mention *do* have an effect, though in some cases it's very subtle, or only really affecting the lower notes as far as hearing goes. Watch the harmonics display to see what's going on for things such as f max and bend.

Something that might help you understand what's going on is to use the modal bank module and build something around it. I've got a couple things I'm working on that use it; I learn more about how to use it the more I try incorporating it in other places.

ew

[jancivil]

You do realize how much this depends on the type of music a person makes?

No I dont because these are tools. A hammer is good for driving nails into timber but it's also good for other things. All kinds of tradesmen have hammers.

No, they are musical instruments, not hammers. Not everyone musician or composition uses an upright bass, church organ or accordion.

They aren't they're just bloody hammers!
An upright bass can only do one thing, whereas a hammer can do many.

Really poor analogy. An upright bass for that matter can do many things, most of which one supposes you're not aware of. A hammer cannot do all that many things actually, you want an awful lot from that as a model for this, ah, useless argument...