BigTick

Spe3D · Post by **Spe3D** » Sat Jun 21, 2003 2:49 am

Right I have been reading through this forum with regard to Rainbow and its possible future. I would like to read what all of these existing Rainbow users that Tick mentions have with regard to issues about change for this synth.

The mind boggles that at one point Rhino could have been Rainbow three and apparently this was all to bad for you….Man that just nuts, where are you all now?

So here is a new thread Lets Make Rainbow Better.

What I would like is some positive input from existing users or even those who have balanced on the edged of purchasing this synth, What do you think, needs changing Or adding to make this Synth better.

No doubt I will start this off with a better GUI and more OSC shapes please.
User selectable wave shapes from a predefined list, more wave shaping options.
An extra filter
Large Modulation Matrix

Regards,

Spe3d

Big Tick · Post by **Big Tick** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:17 pm

Spe3D - is it me or nobody cares ?

'Tick

dougsyo · Post by **dougsyo** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:40 pm

Big Tick wrote:Spe3D - is it me or nobody cares ?
'Tick

Having started messing with VSTI's after both Rainbow and Rhino were out, I viewed Rainbow as "Rhino Lite"... perhaps it'd be different if I'd played with Rainbow before Rhino came out.

I think both are solid, but if I'm gonna shop that price range, I might as well get Rhino, unless there's a compelling reason to get both.

Just my IHMO.

Doug

x_bruce · Post by **x_bruce** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:56 pm

There should be a distinction Rhino and Rainbow and the two synths are fairly close in timbral range.

I'd like to see a tabbed interface that is less dense. I'd like to see filters that are easily accessable for tweaking of resonance and frequency. If possible go in a colder, digital direction that is distinct from Rhino's turn towards warm sound.

Instead of making Rainbow an all inclusive synth look at it from the FM/AM aspect and see what can be done there. Adjustable frequency, a multi-pole oscillator would allow people to create their own savable waveforms. At least two, preferably four would be good. Take back a lot of redundant controls and have everything on one page with options to go between oscillators. Use Angelina as an example of how layered, drawable oscillators would work.

OR

expand on the step sequencing, allowing for multiple sound snapshots per cell, extend the synthesis engine as discussed above or by working like Angelina with two osc and instead of noise, filter morphing.

Better yet, allow morphing thoughout the synth and make it animated specifically (if desired) through the step sequencer.

Hope this provides a launchpad for directions to take Rainbow, far from Rhino Lite imo.

Spe3D · Post by **Spe3D** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 7:43 am

It’s no wonder then that updates to this synth are getting slim if this is how the Rainbow user base reacts when presented with a chance to offer ideas.

Many thanks to X-Bruce for your input looks very detailed and quite exciting idea. And to Doug for your suggestion as a bundle deal, sounds a good one. And to BigTick for showing concern towards the development of his synth and user base.

OK! So it was the weekend maybe some Rainbow users don’t frequent the forums then, most likely case, or they are all on holiday or something.

Any last takers?

Regards,

Spe3d

ksn · Post by **ksn** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 7:47 am

x_bruce wrote:There should be a distinction Rhino and Rainbow and the two synths are fairly close in timbral range.
...
If possible go in a colder, digital direction that is distinct from Rhino's turn towards warm sound.
...
Instead of making Rainbow an all inclusive synth look at it from the FM/AM aspect and see what can be done there

i second this!

geoslake · Post by **geoslake** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 8:55 am

maybe some Rainbow users don’t frequent the forums

Or maybe we dont have any idea...

Actually, the synth is good as is imho. I mean, peaople would expect every vst to have all that -absynth-z3ta+....have..
Its sometimes also good to have a "simple" synth, with its own parameters...but yes, maybe more wavefoms...

Spe3D · Post by **Spe3D** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 9:06 am

Thank you, Easymode and Ksn

For a horrible moment there I was starting to think there were actually only two Rainbow users or the users who thought it was spot on could not care to share an opinion, even if a small adjustment if any at all.

Yep the overall mechanics of the synth is good but I found the wave forms restrictive at times, it would be great if I could load my own in this instance. I don’t think its particularly important to see it, as I would know what I loaded.. from a user bank of say 64 wave shapes..

Great things

Spe3d

ThoughtExperiment · Post by **ThoughtExperiment** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:26 pm

Here's a late, LATE reply: I was under the impression that Rhino was intended to be Rainbow3.

But I'm glad if that's not the case. I'd vote to keep Rainbow fairly simple. Interface-wise, slider control of envelope parameters and step sequencer pitches would be nice. Four oscillators is enough if there were a separate LFO (or two). An extra filter would be cool, and also some basic oscillator>filter routing controls.
Like I said, simple....

GSauve · Post by **GSauve** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 8:17 pm

I like Rainbow but it never finds it's way into my tracks. I'm not sure why. It always seems to sound a bit wrong, unlike Rhino. One thing I would like to see is smoother control responses to midi CC messages. I do also find some of the hgh notes painful at moderate volume - is this due to aliasing?

Thanks,
Gordon

Kriminal · Post by **Kriminal** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 8:56 pm

Bring back Zippy

Spe3D · Post by **Spe3D** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 9:36 am

Only The Weak Believe In Fate

Phew! You got do some processing to understand that one

What feature was Zippy?

Regards,

Spe3d

zvon · Post by **zvon** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 4:56 am

I like the fact that Rainbow is a different synth and I would definitely
keep it that way, I appreciate the fact that it's not too demanding on the CPU. I love monster synths and I like simpler and/or specialized synths too and I think Rainbow is a good example of the latter.

I agree that expanded features should in FM/AM direction.
Another direction should be the step sequencer:
1- having a bigger window even if it means to have it on another page.
2- being able to see how many notes from the played note each step is.
3- ability to have some steps silent in the sequence.
4- a kind of swing or shuffle feature
5- maybe have more steps in a sequence, but the first 4 features I just mentionned are more important for me.

Keep what I like about it: simple, clean, not processor hungry, 4 osc, different, FM/AM, step sequencer (better than an arpeggiator)

Zvon

Spe3D · Post by **Spe3D** » Thu Aug 21, 2003 7:30 am

So I guess Rainbow stays as it is then?

What is the upgrade path to Rhino?

Regards,

Spe3d

Big Tick · Post by **Big Tick** » Thu Aug 21, 2003 7:35 am

I'll add new waveforms and step sequencer improvements (no ETA yet).
Since Rhino and Rainbow are 2 different beasts, there is no upgrade path.
'Tick

BigTick

KVR Audio

Rainbow - Lets make it better