Hive preview (April 1 update)

[Shiek927]

Hmm, is that a common practice or are both people who do this active in this thread?

Just asking because it has become hard to tell whether a feature request is esoteric or not. E.g. we're not sure if famous producers who allegedly use synths without microtuning capability are indeed using pythagorean tuning with A = 432Hz. Or maybe they've been using other synths all the way

(also, some synthesis techniques may be advanced enough to recommend using Zebra instead... similar layout as Hive, but broader range of features, hehehe)

Honestly, the sub panning request seems very modular-esque. It's true that I would like Hive to be more fleshed out, but not so that it begins to touch stuff that's really meant for Zebra. This is definitely it ^^;.

Heck, I don't WANT Hive to become Zebra and have every technique and feature under the sun. With our requests, KVR, let's focus on the really core stuff that Hive, as a VA synth, should have. E.g, FM, sync, ring mod, etc.

I can see the appeal of such a feature, but surely it's not make or break?

This may be my own inexperience, but I've yet to use microtuning either. It seems a really...out there feature ^^;

[gwok]

Hi,

I'm noticing and aliasing types distortion changing parameters in the effects sections. Especially when modulating them ie, distortion amt. Is this a known thing?

With the attached preset you can hear it, or reduce the modulation in MM01 and change the Distortion Amount

bumped cause it got buried

[takaii]

Sorry, but we can't just change the panning bahaviour of the subs. If we did, I'm sure the majority of users would be confused if the subs didn't pan with the main oscillators. A quick workflow is bought by a set of compromises and I think this one (sub inherits pan) isn't that big of a deal - there's always the second lane to achieve two distinctly panned signals.

FX bypass for the subs is outright impossible because their signal goes through the same filters as the normal oscillators. One can't just "unmix" them after the filters in order to send them elsewhere.

I dont think they would be confused if there was an know next to sub. i think its confusing that sub doesnt have its own pan knob.

About filter i understand that, but the bypass could also bypass it from filters. like having a sine nice untoutched from dist. i am sure you are able to pull this off... you are uhe atleast

[takaii]

Sorry, but we can't just change the panning bahaviour of the subs. If we did, I'm sure the majority of users would be confused if the subs didn't pan with the main oscillators. A quick workflow is bought by a set of compromises and I think this one (sub inherits pan) isn't that big of a deal - there's always the second lane to achieve two distinctly panned signals.

FX bypass for the subs is outright impossible because their signal goes through the same filters as the normal oscillators. One can't just "unmix" them after the filters in order to send them elsewhere.

Is there anyone who actually wants their subs panned?

As for a sub bypass, it could simply bypass filters as well and just go to the main out couldn't it.

Why i want pan for sub? well if you pan the osc 1 the sub pans with it. i would love to have it nice in center.
reason... be able to pan osc 1 left and osc 2 right and then have 1 sub in center! And i agree about bypass so it goes direct to main out option

[Shiek927]

I wonder if people would be satisfied with something like Diva's stacking feature where you can spread them across the stereo-field.

[billcarroll]

Sorry, but we can't just change the panning bahaviour of the subs. If we did, I'm sure the majority of users would be confused if the subs didn't pan with the main oscillators. A quick workflow is bought by a set of compromises and I think this one (sub inherits pan) isn't that big of a deal - there's always the second lane to achieve two distinctly panned signals.

FX bypass for the subs is outright impossible because their signal goes through the same filters as the normal oscillators. One can't just "unmix" them after the filters in order to send them elsewhere.

Is there anyone who actually wants their subs panned?

As for a sub bypass, it could simply bypass filters as well and just go to the main out couldn't it.

Why i want pan for sub? well if you pan the osc 1 the sub pans with it. i would love to have it nice in center.
reason... be able to pan osc 1 left and osc 2 right and then have 1 sub in center! And i agree about bypass so it goes direct to main out option

My point was panning subs seems like something we don't want. I was essentially making the case to keep subs in the middle rather than panning them with the main oscillator.

[takaii]

Sorry, but we can't just change the panning bahaviour of the subs. If we did, I'm sure the majority of users would be confused if the subs didn't pan with the main oscillators. A quick workflow is bought by a set of compromises and I think this one (sub inherits pan) isn't that big of a deal - there's always the second lane to achieve two distinctly panned signals.

FX bypass for the subs is outright impossible because their signal goes through the same filters as the normal oscillators. One can't just "unmix" them after the filters in order to send them elsewhere.

Is there anyone who actually wants their subs panned?

As for a sub bypass, it could simply bypass filters as well and just go to the main out couldn't it.

Why i want pan for sub? well if you pan the osc 1 the sub pans with it. i would love to have it nice in center.
reason... be able to pan osc 1 left and osc 2 right and then have 1 sub in center! And i agree about bypass so it goes direct to main out option

My point was panning subs seems like something we don't want. I was essentially making the case to keep subs in the middle rather than panning them with the main oscillator.

My point to, i dont like sub panned :/ since its panning with osc1 i thought it was better sub have panned so we could decide if its panned with osc1 or panned to centre, sub can also work as a second oscillator thats why i thought also second reason. But yes more i dont want it to pan with osc1

[WXLF]

Yes, why don't we just change the underlying signal routing after several thousand factory presets have been created?

It's not even officially released yet.

Sub being panned with the rest of the signal seems like a pretty big oversight IMO

Actually, by the sub not having it's own pan, it slows down workflow. Because now it creates more work for me to get it back in the center.

And nobody who understands synthesis is going to be confused. And the ones who don't understand... they use presets anyways.

[plexuss]

Im going to chime in. First I have been an electronic musician since the early 80s. I've owned almost all of the top tier analogue synths over the years. bla bla

Having a separate pan on the sub oscillator is not a synthesis feature. its a mixing or mastering issue.

I say keep it simple and keep it contextual. I was thinking maybe a comprimise might be a button that toggles the subs to centre. however it just doesn't fit with the idea of a synthesizer.

On the other hand, if Hive is being marketed to EDM creators then maybe it would be a useful addition. This is for Urs to decide. or, just buy one of brainworx's plugins that has the mono maker. that to me seems like the better course of action.

Keep Hive a synth and let plugins do the mixing work.

[takaii]

Yes, why don't we just change the underlying signal routing after several thousand factory presets have been created?

It's not even officially released yet.

Sub being panned with the rest of the signal seems like a pretty big oversight IMO

Actually, by the sub not having it's own pan, it slows down workflow. Because now it creates more work for me to get it back in the center.

And nobody who understands synthesis is going to be confused. And the ones who don't understand... they use presets anyways.

+1

[garryknight]

For me, the main two reasons I'd want to use the sub as a sub, i.e. 1 or 2 octaves below the main oscillators, and not just as a separate oscillator, are 1) for creating a rich bass sound, which is most likely going to be as mono as I can get it; and b) for a rich pad or lead, in which case I'd want to spread the sub across the panorama with the higher-octave oscillators. Yes, I can see how a nice rich, wide sound with a centered sub could sound good, but I can do that with two instances of Hive with little CPU hit. Or be satisfied with one osc+sub spread wide and the other osc+sub centered.

And do we really need "FM, sync, ring mod, etc." in Hive? I see it as a different design of synth from the few others I own and actually use, and as an additive synth it already has what I need for electronica, EDM, and laid-back easy listening Cafe del Mar style music. From what I've heard in the many OSC and Hive challenge tracks, it's a great synth for lots of different styles just as it is. And the more bells and whistles it has, the bigger the CPU hit is likely to be.

I think Urs has built a great synth, up there with the best of them, and just needs to put the finishing touches to it.

[Shiek927]

For me, the main two reasons I'd want to use the sub as a sub, i.e. 1 or 2 octaves below the main oscillators, and not just as a separate oscillator, are 1) for creating a rich bass sound, which is most likely going to be as mono as I can get it; and b) for a rich pad or lead, in which case I'd want to spread the sub across the panorama with the higher-octave oscillators. Yes, I can see how a nice rich, wide sound with a centered sub could sound good, but I can do that with two instances of Hive with little CPU hit. Or be satisfied with one osc+sub spread wide and the other osc+sub centered.

And do we really need "FM, sync, ring mod, etc." in Hive? I see it as a different design of synth from the few others I own and actually use, and as an additive synth it already has what I need for electronica, EDM, and laid-back easy listening Cafe del Mar style music. From what I've heard in the many OSC and Hive challenge tracks, it's a great synth for lots of different styles just as it is. And the more bells and whistles it has, the bigger the CPU hit is likely to be.

I think Urs has built a great synth, up there with the best of them, and just needs to put the finishing touches to it.

Hive is not an additive synth though...

As for more features - certainly. Hive can certainly do with plenty more without compromising it's fast work-flow, especially on the digital front. New waveforms, more effects (plate reverb, rotary distortion, vowel phasers, etc), FM/Sync/CrossMod/Ring/Formant and Comb-filters/etc...not the least of which is the third hexagon we're all debating about in another thread. While it's true that Sylenth was the inspiration behind Hive, it's not to say that it should only be as feature-rich as that synth. Especially since it already has more as-is.

It's all about having a right balance of expanding what it can do whilst maintaining it's fast workflow and low-cpu. I think there is still plenty room without slowing things down.

[2ZrgE]

Im going to chime in. First I have been an electronic musician since the early 80s. I've owned almost all of the top tier analogue synths over the years. bla bla

Having a separate pan on the sub oscillator is not a synthesis feature. its a mixing or mastering issue.

I say keep it simple and keep it contextual. I was thinking maybe a comprimise might be a button that toggles the subs to centre. however it just doesn't fit with the idea of a synthesizer.

On the other hand, if Hive is being marketed to EDM creators then maybe it would be a useful addition. This is for Urs to decide. or, just buy one of brainworx's plugins that has the mono maker. that to me seems like the better course of action.

Keep Hive a synth and let plugins do the mixing work.

Back in the day it wasn't 'mandatory' to have a sub bass lying underneath the bass as there was no bass heavy genre like Dubstep, Neurofunk or whatever. Basslines were programmed mainly with melody not timbre in mind.

These days a lot of people seem to want that feature, and synths like Serum do deliver, whether it's a mixing thing or not.

[dr zog]

AUTO-ADMIN: Non-MP3, WAV, OGG, SoundCloud, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter and Facebook links in this post have been protected automatically. Once the member reaches 5 posts the links will function as normal.

Hi, I've used Hive extensively and really enjoyed how easy it is to use and the quality of the presets.
Having said that, my tracks (in Live and in .wav) have terrible scratching sounds on a regular basis (every minute or so). I realised it was due to Hive (when disabled no scracth sounds any more). I seem to remember it was embedded on purpose in the Beta version, is it really the case ? I did not get that in the first week I used it.

Please confirm, otherwise I won't purchase the final version !!!

By the way, here was my contribution to the Hive contest on Blend, using only Hive as synth:
https://blend.io/project/5517dc3d2703f4d347003e4b (https://blend.io/project/5517dc3d2703f4d347003e4b)

[Elektronisch]

I dont know if this has been asked, but...

Different color schemes, skins...just to match the mood