Getting Hive?

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Instruments Discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS
Hive 2

Post

Hmm, I usually roll my own presets, but some of them in those videos are really good. I may have to give Hive a second look... I think I demoed it for about 5 minutes, tops.

Post

Well, I've had WAY too much vodka, but here's a high quality internet posting of a strait hive preset called Hindi with no processing... off the cuff. Good night.

*drunkposting*
Last edited by Dasheesh on Wed May 24, 2017 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post

just for S&G and to take some heat off wags, like I said I bought Hive and I pretty much just like to jam with my guitar. So here is a 4 hour song (never done that before), 3 instances of Hive, I made the pad from scratch (hence the name my pad :hihi: ), there is one bass preset that I added an arp and another preset I tweaked with Magix Filtox (that jumpy sounding thing), Magix Robota for drums and my Warmoth strat through a Frenzel tube amp not using any od, just a cheap wah wah

http://www.soundclick.com/html5/v3/play ... i&newref=1

Not mixed, no ending, mistakes everywhere, but my hard drives are full of stuff like this where I just jam and have fun...sometimes I actually hit record...hah! I have responded to two threads, yes I like Hive and as this thread inspired me yes KvR inspires me (though feel free to consider that negative inspiration I still had fun :hihi: )
The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another's world. It requires profound, purpose‐larger‐than‐the‐self kind of understanding.

Post

Dasheesh wrote: What's the difference between playing presets and playing samples in a rompler?
That completely depends on what one is trying to get at? Are you talking about difference in terms of musical talent to play such presets, or, are you talking about the differences in sonic output?

A rompler can take an accurate, really multiple accurate, snapshots of a sound across several dimensions, e.g, pitch, velocity. Even round robin, in essence, presents another dimension of variation. As you add more variation, the sonic differences may become quite small. I'd argue for many of us, the difference between a recording of a piano and the same recording of a modern piano sample library is quite small. I'm not sure that I could tell the difference.

But, when you start talking about the really deep details of an instrument, whether that be a grand piano, the subtle variation in guitar picking, or the subtle detail of a modulated analog resonant filter, I'm not convinced that, to those for whom such things matter, that detail doesn't matter.

Preset libraries just exchange one search space for another. I'm sure that there's a preset for any sound that I want, but to find it, I have to find the library that has it, and then find the preset within that library. To get the exact sound that I want, that search space, though finite, might as well be infinite in size. To create it, I only have to find the right settings of knobs, also a very large space. For me, there's no competition, one search algorithm yields rewards that matter to me, one doesn't. I learn much less from looking for a preset than I do trying to create a sound. The value of presets is that they are a form of simulated annealing, in a sense, they start you in different places in the search space, and if viewed that way, can be an asset to the learning approach.

The thing is, and bringing this back around on topic, the differences between synths don't matter at all until you are at some boundary in the sonic search space that the synth that you are trying to use is unable to cross. All synths have such boundaries, or, at the very least the boundary cannot be approached practically. I can, for example, imagine a very simple synthesizer, i.e., a list of numbers representing sample points, that has no such boundaries from theoretical point of view up to the limits of sample rate.

So, if your interests lie in a place where you never cross such a boundary, all of this discussion about which synth is rather immaterial. It is probably also true that the overlap in sonic area that synths are able to cover is probably much greater than the differences, that is, if we assuming some fairly linear definition of the space to begin with. This is why, I think, that it's often quite easy to create videos that seem to suggest that some particular synths does a good job of emulating some particular hardware. They are far more similar than they are different. For many sounds, for example, a Rev 3 Prophet 5 won't sound that much different than an OBXA and, similarly, as different as they are from one another, people will still say that the OBXA and the original OB8 both sound very Oberheim.

What's not clear, however, is that the differences are small when magnified appropriately by the perceptions that we value. I'm sure that the classical pianist will tell you that even the best piano library is miles away from a proper acoustic grand. Which is why, to me, Diva is miles away from Hive, but Hive is not miles away from Sylenth.

YMMV and all that.

Post

ghetto I'm going to need more coffee before I tackle that, but I have 2 much simpler questions.

1: what if I record a synth and load the sample into a rompler?

2: What is talent? Because, it took me a real long time to answer that question for myself, and the dictionary answer is extremely vague and unsatisfying.

Post

ghettosynth wrote:Preset libraries just exchange one search space for another. I'm sure that there's a preset for any sound that I want, but to find it, I have to find the library that has it, and then find the preset within that library. To get the exact sound that I want, that search space, though finite, might as well be infinite in size. To create it, I only have to find the right settings of knobs, also a very large space. For me, there's no competition, one search algorithm yields rewards that matter to me, one doesn't.
Not only that, but the thing that bugs me is that, if I'm looking for a particular sound, *I have no idea how long it will take to find it*. The search is completely indeterminate until it's done. We've all done the "Click to load preset, play, nope... Click, play, nope..." dance. Will I find a sound I want to use in the next ten clicks? In the next hundred? In the next thousand? No idea. "Click, play, nope..." And all the time I just want to get back to making music.

At least if you make your own sounds as and when, it still takes time, but it's time that leading you to an acceptable solution of find a sound and giving you an idea of how long it will take.

For my needs, I generally find the most useful synths are ones that are populated with my own sounds, therefore I know all the sounds I will already like (I made them, you don't tend to make/save sounds you dislike) which already removes the 85% of sounds that are useless to you from any given library) and I already have knowledge of the sound content, rather than having thousands on unauditioned sounds.

Next to that, is patch libraries/factory content that I've gone through and rated/organised to weed out the crap and highlight the stuff I like, as well as having a useful tagging system.

And in general I tend to separate sound-making activities from music-making activities, where possible. The only sound editing I tend to do when making music is slight necessary sound tweaks to fit, but I understand that for some people, the sound-making process *is* part of the music making process - but that doesn't tend to work for me so much.

Perhaps my next album should be titled "Click, Play, Nope..."? :)

Post

Such a simple question that one. What is talent? The kind of thing that philosophy was conceived to answer for us. I think about these things and ask myself these kinds of questions.

For that one I had to reverse engineer it. First... it's kind of like porn, you know it when you see it right? There are various levels of talent right? I can tell you what talent isn't, computers are not talented, people are talented, computers don't play music, computers play algorithms. A person who plays a tune horribly is still way more talented then the computer. A person who can't play a tune but still puts their hands on an instrument and improvises something is more talented then a computer. So, perfection does not equal talent. We must separate perfection and talent. Talent is when a person reaches a thresh hold of compitancy at a skill. There are also natural factors that can enhance talent, such as, long dextorius fingers tend to be able to play better then short stubby ones. Then there is the man made talent, such as, bust ass hard work trumps half assed natural talent all day long. If you put your fingers on an instrument and play something horribly I'm going to give you a lot more credit then if you show up with a preprogrammed algorithm and hit play.

Does it even matter though? Because people are paying and buying in to the pre programmed algorithm. What they want is perfection... not talent. I'm different. I don't think that production work that cuts out everything and leaves nothing behind sounds good. I think people who know what not to cut out have better ears. I would call some imperfection more talented.

Post

I guess my little demo tune just doesn't fit in :cry: :hihi: :hihi: :clown:
The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another's world. It requires profound, purpose‐larger‐than‐the‐self kind of understanding.

Post

... and let's not forget... there is NO original work or song anymore. Every conceivable note arrangement you could possibly come up with has been done numerous time through out history. There are only 12 notes in equal timbre after all. Songs get continually rewritten through out history. One of my favorite things to do is turn on popular radio and match the current rewritten rehashed song to past ones. Everything is a remake now. What's funny about today's radio is they are not stealing from the past that long ago. Today they will blatantly steal from songs only a few years old and act like it's their own and nobody gives a flip because young people didn't know the original and people in general have short memories.

Post

Hink wrote:I guess my little demo tune just doesn't fit in :cry: :hihi: :hihi: :clown:

It was perfect for making coffee to... except for the small matter of all those explosions going on between my ears.

It did start my day nicley though.

Post

Dasheesh wrote:Such a simple question that one. What is talent? The kind of thing that philosophy was conceived to answer for us. I think about these things and ask myself these kinds of questions.

For that one I had to reverse engineer it. First... it's kind of like porn, you know it when you see it right? There are various levels of talent right? I can tell you what talent isn't, computers are not talented, people are talented, computers don't play music, computers play algorithms. A person who plays a tune horribly is still way more talented then the computer. A person who can't play a tune but still puts their hands on an instrument and improvises something is more talented then a computer. So, perfection does not equal talent. We must separate perfection and talent. Talent is when a person reaches a thresh hold of compitancy at a skill. There are also natural factors that can enhance talent, such as, long dextorius fingers tend to be able to play better then short stubby ones. Then there is the man made talent, such as, bust ass hard work trumps half assed natural talent all day long. If you put your fingers on an instrument and play something horribly I'm going to give you a lot more credit then if you show up with a preprogrammed algorithm and hit play.

Does it even matter though? Because people are paying and buying in to the pre programmed algorithm. What they want is perfection... not talent. I'm different. I don't think that production work that cuts out everything and leaves nothing behind sounds good. I think people who know what not to cut out have better ears. I would call some imperfection more talented.
I think talent in music is the ability to convey your emotions to a listener via organised sound waves. It doesn't matter if it is palyed or programmed, if it is something avatgarde/innovative or uses a conventional pop or "danceable synth music" form (i hate the term EDM), etc. The form does not matter, substance does. If I hear something that blows my socks off and sends shivers down my spine then it's talented, simple as that. If I dislike something but still can perceive the emotions put into the music, I still call it talented (e.g. I hate most music in major keys and I mostly dislike rock and songwriter stuff but I still can recognize it as talented when it is).

But in the end of the day that's the matter where everyone has his/her own definition.
You may think you can fly ... but you better not try

Post

Sounds a bit like ZZ Top 8)

Post

So a songwriter who doesn't play an instrument is not talented?

Post

wagtunes wrote:So a songwriter who doesn't play an instrument is not talented?

What do I always say? You have to separate song writer, composer, producer, musician, etc.

These are all different skills. You can be talented at different things, or a particular skill, but you are not good at all of them I guarantee you. There is not enough time in your life to be good at all of them. If you are going to go around calling yourself talented though (and I never have), you need to define what skill you are talented at. For me, the more I separate and compartmentalize, the more I'm able to clearly define who and what I am and what it is I'm trying to achieve.

Post

Dasheesh wrote:
wagtunes wrote:So a songwriter who doesn't play an instrument is not talented?

What do I always say? You have to separate song writer, composer, producer, musician, etc.

These are all different skills. You can be talented at different things, or a particular skill, but you are not good at all of them I guarantee you. There is not enough time in your life to be good at all of them. If you are going to go around calling yourself talented though (and I never have), you need to define what skill you are talented at. For me, the more I separate and compartmentalize, the more I'm able to clearly define who and what I am and what it is I'm trying to achieve.
Well, I don't particularly think I'm talented at much of anything and a lot of people would sure agree with me. But I've never let that stop me at doing the things I enjoy.

Take from that what you wish.

Post Reply

Return to “Instruments”