Avenger vs. Rapid

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Instruments Discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

chk071 wrote:All in all, yeah, good synth. But, for that price, it should offer me some arguments why i should choose it over my existing synths.
One big point is the whole mindset that comes with layers. Of course, in most DAWSs you can redirect your note sequence to different plugin instances. Route every instance into different mixer channels and then use additional sends together with delays, verbs and gated volume automations. But isn't that kind of tedious?
Especially if you want to save that setup an reuse it later. If you use Rapid, you shift most of these problems into a single plugin window. A plugin setup that normally requires multiple buses and fx plugins is now entirely created within Rapid. That means, quick save and quick copy/paste without bothering about the mixer setup.

Also you can filter notes per layer, so you could create triad chord sequences with different timbres per note. e.g. for a C Major chord C, E, G

C = 1.Layer = Sine Bass
E = 2.Layer = Mid Bass
G = 3.Layer = High Saw

And because the filtering happens at runtime, playing C, D#, A# would automatically redirect these notes into the selected layer. This is settable in the voicing tab.

Also 32 Step arpeggiator, or MIDI sequence per layer! Some synths don't even include a normal arpeggiator. It's very inspiring to just play simple chords and multiple layers with different patterns create complex sequences.

Another thing is crazy effect chains, like 8 parallel stereo delays with different timings.

Or build a dry base sound on layer 1, send it to 2,3 and 4 and split the frequency bands there with the EQ effect and apply different effects.

All these kinds of tricks are very easy to pull off within Rapid.

Post

recursive one wrote:I just saw at another forum somebody asking if there is any difference between Massive and Monark and if it worth buying another if you have one of them.
:lol:

Post

recursive one wrote:I just saw at another forum somebody asking if there is any difference between Massive and Monark and if it worth buying another if you have one of them.
It kind of makes you wonder if synth names are starting to get lost in the soup. Are they doing the job they're supposed to do? Or are too many of them close to forgettable?

Post

wagtunes wrote:
recursive one wrote:I just saw at another forum somebody asking if there is any difference between Massive and Monark and if it worth buying another if you have one of them.
It kind of makes you wonder if synth names are starting to get lost in the soup. Are they doing the job they're supposed to do? Or are too many of them close to forgettable?
Good question. Also, where does it end? It is just like "original" track title names.

Post

parawave wrote:One big point is the whole mindset that comes with layers. Of course, in most DAWSs you can redirect your note sequence to different plugin instances. Route every instance into different mixer channels and then use additional sends together with delays, verbs and gated volume automations. But isn't that kind of tedious?
It was. 8)

Image

Post

elassi wrote:
parawave wrote:One big point is the whole mindset that comes with layers. Of course, in most DAWSs you can redirect your note sequence to different plugin instances. Route every instance into different mixer channels and then use additional sends together with delays, verbs and gated volume automations. But isn't that kind of tedious?
It was. 8)

Image
Well,,,no. Patchwork is awesome, but you still have an extra layer that way. Everything in 1 UI wins for me.

Post

elassi wrote:
parawave wrote:One big point is the whole mindset that comes with layers. Of course, in most DAWSs you can redirect your note sequence to different plugin instances. Route every instance into different mixer channels and then use additional sends together with delays, verbs and gated volume automations. But isn't that kind of tedious?
It was. 8)

Image
I agree this is a big +1. Why? Because I can use the fx plugins I'm used to. Like a ProQ, an AA Reverb, some Tonebooster or ohmforce distortion after that, layer an additional diva instance, ... . So the layer thing isn't a point to me. Also I doubt I'd reuse a big layer preset. New song, new sounds :-D

Post

Soundplex wrote:Also I doubt I'd reuse a big layer preset. New song, new sounds :-D
8)

@exmatproton: Dig your debate "skills". That's how it should be. :tu:

Post

8 x 8 = 64 :roll:
Either way, with or without, it's still a workflow improvement.

Reusing leads to further modifications and inspirations, which is better than recreating everything from scratch every time you open a DAW. And it's usable in different DAWs.

Post

parawave wrote:
exmatproton wrote:The harsh (default) sound, is just that treble settings. Nothing more (luckily)
Some call it harshness, some call it brilliance :)
It always depends on your desired sound..
Does the filter-treble in center make it sound like a yellow Waldorf Q?
- WonderEcho -

Post

parawave wrote:One big point is the whole mindset that comes with layers. Of course, in most DAWSs you can redirect your note sequence to different plugin instances. Route every instance into different mixer channels and then use additional sends together with delays, verbs and gated volume automations. But isn't that kind of tedious?
Especially if you want to save that setup an reuse it later. If you use Rapid, you shift most of these problems into a single plugin window. A plugin setup that normally requires multiple buses and fx plugins is now entirely created within Rapid. That means, quick save and quick copy/paste without bothering about the mixer setup.
Everything you said describes Patcher
https://www.image-line.com/support/FLHe ... atcher.htm

Image


Not only that, but Image-Line back in 2014 developed Minihost Modular
https://www.image-line.com/support/FLHe ... odular.htm

Image

which is a FREE tool, it stayed in beta because the main programmer went programming other stuff
for Image-Line, but the project has not been abandoned.
It's available for Windows and Mac OS X, both 32bit and 64bit.

I have zero experience with Minihost Modular because I'm a FL Studio user, I have Layer and Patcher at my disposal, so I had zero interest in testing it so I can't tell how it behaves or to talk about its CPU usage, stability, etc.

But non-FL Studio users should try it, if it works fine then it will open up a new dimension for you for sure, if your DAW has nothing even close to FL Studio's Patcher.

Just please don't fall after that marketing shenanigans like Rapid offers something new and something unseen, because FL Studio users had Patcher for the last 5 years and had Layer since 2007 and if you go to Image-Line forums you can see people sharing their Patcher presets....

If Image-Line wasn't busy doing other things, if Minihost Modular was pushed all the way through maybe we would have people sharing their presets by using free synths and free effects, etc. and people using other DAW's would be accustomed to using Minihost Modular, just like FL Studio users are accustomed to Patcher, and then nobody would see Rapid's 8 layers as some sort of big advantage or something as "wow!".

Post

brainzistor wrote:
parawave wrote:One big point is the whole mindset that comes with layers. Of course, in most DAWSs you can redirect your note sequence to different plugin instances. Route every instance into different mixer channels and then use additional sends together with delays, verbs and gated volume automations. But isn't that kind of tedious?
Especially if you want to save that setup an reuse it later. If you use Rapid, you shift most of these problems into a single plugin window. A plugin setup that normally requires multiple buses and fx plugins is now entirely created within Rapid. That means, quick save and quick copy/paste without bothering about the mixer setup.
Everything you said describes Patcher
https://www.image-line.com/support/FLHe ... atcher.htm

Image


Not only that, but Image-Line back in 2014 developed Minihost Modular
https://www.image-line.com/support/FLHe ... odular.htm

Image

which is a FREE tool, it stayed in beta because the main programmer went programming other stuff
for Image-Line, but the project has not been abandoned.
It's available for Windows and Mac OS X, both 32bit and 64bit.

I have zero experience with Minihost Modular because I'm a FL Studio user, I have Layer and Patcher at my disposal, so I had zero interest in testing it so I can't tell how it behaves or to talk about its CPU usage, stability, etc.

But non-FL Studio users should try it, if it works fine then it will open up a new dimension for you for sure, if your DAW has nothing even close to FL Studio's Patcher.

Just please don't fall after that marketing shenanigans like Rapid offers something new and something unseen, because FL Studio users had Patcher for the last 5 years and had Layer since 2007 and if you go to Image-Line forums you can see people sharing their Patcher presets....

If Image-Line wasn't busy doing other things, if Minihost Modular was pushed all the way through maybe we would have people sharing their presets by using free synths and free effects, etc. and people using other DAW's would be accustomed to using Minihost Modular, just like FL Studio users are accustomed to Patcher, and then nobody would see Rapid's 8 layers as some sort of big advantage or something as "wow!".
I don't see how that is any relevant, if you can have it all in the plugin itself. Apart from that, Minihost is discontinued anyway, and was pretty buggy last time i tried. Unfortunate that IL didn't seem to find it beneficial to continue developing it.

Post

elassi wrote:
parawave wrote:One big point is the whole mindset that comes with layers. Of course, in most DAWSs you can redirect your note sequence to different plugin instances. Route every instance into different mixer channels and then use additional sends together with delays, verbs and gated volume automations. But isn't that kind of tedious?
It was. 8)

Image
I had no idea you could use plugins that output midi in patchwork. going to have to buy it!

Post

chk071 wrote: I don't see how that is any relevant, if you can have it all in the plugin itself.
Patcher IS "the plugin itself" which can contain endless number of synths and effects.
If you don't even know what it is, if your brain is not capable of understanding what Patcher is even after looking at the picture of it, then don't make really stupid comments that make no sense whatsoever.
Apart from that, Minihost is discontinued anyway, and was pretty buggy last time i tried. Unfortunate that IL didn't seem to find it beneficial to continue developing it.
Minihost is not discontinued and you would know it if you actually visited Image-Line forums.

Post

brainzistor wrote:
chk071 wrote: I don't see how that is any relevant, if you can have it all in the plugin itself.
Patcher IS "the plugin itself" which can contain endless number of synths and effects.
If you don't even know what it is, if your brain is not capable of understanding what Patcher is even after looking at the picture of it, then don't make really stupid comments that make no sense whatsoever.
Apart from that, Minihost is discontinued anyway, and was pretty buggy last time i tried. Unfortunate that IL didn't seem to find it beneficial to continue developing it.
Minihost is not discontinued and you would know it if you actually visited Image-Line forums.
Patcher is a patcher not a plugin but a routing option within fl studio as a alternative window how to route things. You use plugins within that window. not same as have a large set of effects in one plugin, workflow difference. Bitwig has a superb version of putting things in containers which is kinda cool and more cool when the modulare section opens up. You can pass through midi and call for midi from another track right before lfo device etc etc pretty cool and also call for audio anywhere from anytrack from any chain. a like patcher but without patcher like. Avenger is a vsti. Patcher is just an option for routing so there is a difference. I prefer having great workflow in one plugin instead off the trouble of routing outside and not being able to use lfo from another plugin to another oscillator on another plugin, thats not possible you need peakcontroller for that. very irrelevant comparing a synth to routing options in a daw offered

Post Reply

Return to “Instruments”