about to replace C5000 with Cube 2

[mcdonalk]

I've been using C5000 for about a year or more, and while I respect its cleverness and innovation, it has two problems which I just cannot ignore as time goes on:

1) It is essentially monaural, providing neither static or dynamic panning capability, either for individual parts of for an entire program. (Therefore, it will not replace my wavestation, as originally hoped).

2) It just doesn't sound that good. Beneath its bundled workmanlike effects, it lacks dynamic range and defined lows and clear highs.

I've mentioned issue 1 on the CVA forum some time ago and was politely thanked for my input.

So, I'm thinking of migrating to Cube 2, which I haven't heard but theoretically should sound better, since it processes more harmonics, and it provides the panning capabilities which I sorely miss.

Having started out on a DKI Synergy, I have always been interested in additive synthesis, and I hope to continue. I am more interested in basic additive synthesis than resynthesis.

So ...

Is there any reason why I should stick it out with C5000 (in hope that these shortcomings will eventually be addressed), or should I switch to Cube 2?

thanks

Keith

[ugo]

So, I'm thinking of migrating to Cube 2, which I haven't heard but theoretically should sound better, since it processes more harmonics, and it provides the panning capabilities which I sorely miss.

since you havent heard cube yet, i'd suggest downloading the demo first, just to make sure you like the synth. i dont own cube but i've tried the demo a bit and yes, i do think that you will at least hear more of what you are looking for in the way of range and clarity in the lows and highs.

you might also find discodsp's vertigo more to your liking than cameleon...both in tonal/frequency range, and in function. (and its resynthesis is one of the best out there.) when set to 256 harmonics, vertigo is not the most cpu friendly synth out there (to say the least) but it sounds excellent. however, even when turned down to far fewer harmonics, i still think vertigo tends to have more punch and presence than cameleon.

however, one other thing to note about vertigo is that it offers 2 way morphing, not 4. also, unfortunately, i really dont like vertigo's filters. i love the rest of the synth though.

-ugo

[PaulSC]

Hi mcdonalk,

I own and use both synths. Cameleon has advantages in a few areas (notably, more flexibility when programming inharmonic sounds from scratch), but Cube is more capable in most respects, and will probably give you the sonic richness you're seeking. Do give the demo a try (and check out the "demo tunes" at www.virsyn.com if you haven't already). I can't comment on Vertigo, since I use AudioUnits on Mac OS X.

Here is a lengthier Cube/Cam comparison I posted in another thread.

[Alex@ProgressAudio]

You might like the try SOUP a try.

Each sound has a separate envelope for panning, which can have as many breakpoints as you want. This means that for each individual partial you can control the pan position at any moment in time. You can't really ask for more flexible panning control!

In terms of morphing features, it has the advantage over the others of being able to morph between any number of sounds (as many as your CPU can handle basically). So no limit of 2 or 4 sounds.

I have had good feedback on the sound quality of the synth, so give the demo a try.

Thanks,
Alex

[rockin1]

Definitely go for Cube. The sound is definitely much more clear, defined, and realistic. You will love it!

[tconrardy]

One thing about Cameleon is the huge number of presets, commercial and user. To be honest, I don't know if there is a huge number of presets for Cube or Vertigo. Just an example, you can go to Patch arena and download at least 15 banks for cameleon alone!

and probably Ben has something up his sleeve to address your other issues and is working on'em.

[geoslake]

yeah check Soup !
Presets are maybe not up to Cube standards (if i remember well), but i worths a look for sure !

[DevonB]

One thing about Cameleon is the huge number of presets, commercial and user. To be honest, I don't know if there is a huge number of presets for Cube or Vertigo.

Does it really matter if there is a bunch of presets for Cube? The random patch generator on Cube is amazing, and comes up with amazingly good sounds. The demo should show that to you.

Devon

[tconrardy]

One thing about Cameleon is the huge number of presets, commercial and user. To be honest, I don't know if there is a huge number of presets for Cube or Vertigo.

Does it really matter if there is a bunch of presets for Cube? The random patch generator on Cube is amazing, and comes up with amazingly good sounds. The demo should show that to you.

Devon

well...just to be fair..Cameleon also has random patch generation, as well as a random Effect generator..actually a lot of its parameter pages has it's own randomizing function.

Edit: I guess the thing is: you can't expect Additive to sound like analog..it has it's own sound. Some comments say it does not sound beefy..it sounds thin...thats what they siad about the DX7 when it came out.

My Question is: how do software additives sound like compared to the hardware additives like Kawai's K5000 series? Some say that sounds thin...but beef is not what it's about..its about transparent sounds that add to the mix in a special way

[rockin1]

Edit: I guess the thing is: you can't expect Additive to sound like analog..it has it's own sound. Some comments say it does not sound beefy..it sounds thin...thats what they siad about the DX7 when it came out.

That's true, but the fact remains that Cube has a much clearer, more defined sound. That is a very desirable thing to my ears. I spent a day going through all the presets for both of them side by side and it was an enlightening experience to say the least...

[droolmaster0]

Edit: I guess the thing is: you can't expect Additive to sound like analog..it has it's own sound. Some comments say it does not sound beefy..it sounds thin...thats what they siad about the DX7 when it came out.

That's true, but the fact remains that Cube has a much clearer, more defined sound. That is a very desirable thing to my ears. I spent a day going through all the presets for both of them side by side and it was an enlightening experience to say the least...

yeah - I owned them both for awhile, but I thought that the sound quality of Cube was so superior that I rarely used Cameleon and sold it.

[ugo]

One thing about Cameleon is the huge number of presets, commercial and user.

true, cameleon has tons of presets available...far more than vertigo. i dont know about cube. however, keith didnt mention if he prefers to roll his own patches or not.

Edit: I guess the thing is: you can't expect Additive to sound like analog..it has it's own sound. Some comments say it does not sound beefy..it sounds thin...thats what they siad about the DX7 when it came out.

i apologize if i am misunderstanding something, but imho, we're not debating the overall tonal characteristics of digital additive synthesis in general, but rather how the sound of different additives compare and contrast with each other. all the additives out there sound different, be they hardware or software. some are smoother than others, or more nasal, or punchier, brighter, better on the lows, clearer, etc., etc.

cameleon is a cool synth, but if keith has already worked with it for a year and has decided that the tone is not quite to his liking, thats a plenty good reason to look towards some other additves to see if perhaps they can give him a sound that is more of what he has in mind. judging by the issues he's stated, i dont think his problem is with addtives in general but possibly just with cameleon because there are other vst addtives that do have a more clear and defined sound, as well as have the panning he's looking for.

-ugo

[ugo]

My Question is: how do software additives sound like compared to the hardware additives like Kawai's K5000 series? Some say that sounds thin...but beef is not what it's about..its about transparent sounds that add to the mix in a special way

i've got a K5000S (had it since 98'.) its tone definitely has the tendency to lean towards the nasal end of things, but not at the sacrifice of clarity or quality. it holds a kind of unique place in a mix because of that. the K5K proudly embraces its digital additive nature, and as such it tends to sound thinner than some other types of synthesis. however, a lot of synthesists throw around the word "thin" like its a synonym for cheep, and the K5K definitely does not sound cheep at all, it sounds expensive, just not fat or beefy.

actually, one of the traits of the K5K i find most endearing is that it, imho, always has a kind of dreamlike quality to it. everything a smoothness about it and feels like its drifting out of reach. even when the K5K is being a nasty, harsh, screaming, digital bastard (which is most certianly can be, if you want it to be), it still has that distanced vibe. it can be a nice dream, a nightmare, or just normal...but its still a dream.

i feel that a good example of the opposite of this, in digital synths, is the microwave XT. that one always sounds very up front and in your face, even when its trying to lay back. its much more tangible than the K5K.

as far as comparisons go between the K5K and the vst addtives...
just as none of the vst additives sound like each other, none sound like the K5K either. i think the closest comparison i can make would be to say that K5K's sound is probably somewhere in between cube and white noise's addtive.

-ugo

[Ben [Camel Audio]]

Hi Keith,

It is essentially monaural, providing neither static or dynamic panning capability, either for individual parts of for an entire program.

Actually, you can pan the whole program. Go to the mod page and choose an LFO or Envelope as the source, and Pan as the target (you'll have to scroll down a little) and there you go. The stereo chorus, delay and reverb also help to give the sound more width.

it lacks dynamic range and defined lows and clear highs.

Try upping the number of partials - this often increases the brightness of sounds - even presets often have more high frequency content which is not played back by default, in order to reduce CPU load. If you're having problems with not having enough dynamic range, then try reducing the amount of compression, and you could also try more radically altering the high and low velocity layers.

I will release an update to Cameleon which improves it in a number of respects. Also, in the longer term there will be great things coming from Camel Audio

Of course different synths suit different people and different applications. For the record, a few of the things which Cameleon does which you can't get in the other additive synths are:
- multisampling additive resynthesis, which allows for more tonally interesting sounds over the whole keyboard range
- separate morphing control over the harmonic aspects, noise aspects, and amplitude aspects. This opens up a new world of sound design posssibilities by combining different aspects of sounds. Its a fun and simple way to create new instruments - it does something along the same lines of Plex.
- more detailed control over the harmonics of sounds you resynthesise, in the sense that you are able to manipulate envelopes that define the amplitude and frequency of the harmonics at up to 128 points in time
- more detailed control over the noise profile, in the sense that you are able to manipulate its frequency content via 128 point envelopes defining the spectrum at up to 128 points in time
- a larger library (including those available from the website) of presets than any other additive synth
- ability to export your sounds as images
...

There's plenty of professinal musicians who still absolutely love the sound of Cameleon (and who would naturally be familiar with all the other competitor products). For example, here's an email I received a week or two ago from BT who scores lots of Hollywood films and such like:

Camelon 5000, is the most impressive, liquid, evocative sounding soft synth I have ever heard. I will play my Neuron and then Camelon and can't figure out why they dont charge 5 grand for it like they do the Neuron. It shows us where we are with software today.....it is at the top of it's game, you can't touch it for moving, evocative textures.....I have used it on every single film score I've done since it's come out. [These films include Monster, The Underclassman and Stealth].

Thanks
Ben

[ugo]

For the record, a few of the things which Cameleon does which you can't get in the other additive synths are:
[:snip:]
- ability to export your sounds as images

dopplemangler can do this too. though, to be fair, it is more of a dedicated resynthesizer, so its different than in a standard additive synth.

-ugo