Camel Audio ceasing sales? [Update: CA acquired by Apple]

[wagtunes]

Sorry, I'm still a little confused. When I see something that costs $300 just to make sounds, it's gotta be more than you're making it out to be or it's ridiculously overpriced.

As I said it can and does make great sounds, and in the shape of Simon's patches at least has some great addons (though more for 1 due to their stupidity in not supporting v1 patches properly), it also comes with a large sample library. But their own patches for version 2 are really weak compared with those for version 1.

What if you're not into factory patches at all and are just interested in creating your own sounds? How versatile is the synth itself? Is it as versatile as say something like Zebra 2 or MUX?

All respect, but Harmor and Alchemy better at Spectral editing....uhhh, I'd have to get back to you on that. Again, I need to delve into Harmor more, but from my experience with Iris 2...I just can't see how either are "better". Please be more specific, exactly how are those synths "better".

Iris 2 offers all kinds of ways to make your own sounds, I'm more and more mystified by the above posts. You can import four different samples (your own included) and toss them any which way and loose...I guess I'm crazy (completely baffled at this point).

I guess I should just say it outright: in my useless opinion, if you're looking for top shelf in spectral editing, Iris 2 is it. It might just be me that feels that way, so be it.

From past discussion between you and me on a variety of synths, I've come to the impression that our "tastes" are very similar as we seem to feel more or less the same about most things. So I'm inclined to take your word for it and thus may try out the demo one day.

Still, $300 for a synth is a hell of a lot of money LOL.

[Apostate]

Sorry, I'm still a little confused. When I see something that costs $300 just to make sounds, it's gotta be more than you're making it out to be or it's ridiculously overpriced.

As I said it can and does make great sounds, and in the shape of Simon's patches at least has some great addons (though more for 1 due to their stupidity in not supporting v1 patches properly), it also comes with a large sample library. But their own patches for version 2 are really weak compared with those for version 1.

What if you're not into factory patches at all and are just interested in creating your own sounds? How versatile is the synth itself? Is it as versatile as say something like Zebra 2 or MUX?

Not at all, it's a specialist, not a generalist like Zebra or Mux - but then they don't touch it in the spectral domain so it's apples and oranges really. What it does it does well enough, and the whole point is not to stick to factory patches but create your own, but it's not intended to be versatile (and Izotope are fooling themselves in trying to position Iris 2 as a more mainstream synth).

Okay, this is less unequivocal. So, Iris 2 is a one trick pony...but you can't beat that trick anywhere else, at least that's what I've learned. $200 on ebay buys you a vast canvas...

[Shabdahbriah]

...I just checked out Iris 2. For $300, that better be one of the greatest things out there. Most expensive VST next to Omnisphere that I can think of.

Well, even at the 'upgrade' path price of $99 (IIRC) from V.1, it is far short of "spectacular". V.1 was quite novel, and created a 'niche' for itself amongst experimenters/sound designers, but that doesn't "pay the rent", so V.2 was/is disappointing by comparison, as it lost its edge in making a bid for a broader, presets oriented, "general audience". [2c]

I'll admit some reticence in having included it in my list. VirSyn CUBE on the other hand...

[Apostate]

...I just checked out Iris 2. For $300, that better be one of the greatest things out there. Most expensive VST next to Omnisphere that I can think of.

Well, even at the 'upgrade' path price of $99 (IIRC) from V.1, it is far short of "spectacular". V.1 was quite novel, and created a 'niche' for itself amongst experimenters/sound designers, but that doesn't "pay the rent", so V.2 was/is disappointing by comparison, as it lost its edge in making a bid for a broader, presets oriented, "general audience". [2c]

With all respect, I disagree completely. But, to each his or her own. More power to you!

From past discussion between you and me on a variety of synths, I've come to the impression that our "tastes" are very similar as we seem to feel more or less the same about most things. So I'm inclined to take your word for it and thus may try out the demo one day.

Still, $300 for a synth is a hell of a lot of money LOL.

Brand new on ebay for over $100 less. If you're into making sounds that are completely your own, you don't want to miss out on Iris 2. And if you've even partly mastered Massive, you'll have an easy (dare I say fun) time programming it in general. I want to break it out now, but I've taken on the heady task of juggling the studies of two synths at once (Bazille and my newly acquired XILS 4).

[aMUSEd]

All respect, but Harmor and Alchemy better at Spectral editing....uhhh, I'd have to get back to you on that. Again, I need to delve into Harmor more, but from my experience with Iris 2...I just can't see how either are "better". Please be more specific, exactly how are those synths "better".

More 'powerful' is what I said, Iris has the 'better' interface for spectral editing in terms of usability, but it actually doesn't allow you to really edit anything in the audio file itself, it just masks and selects areas. Harmor and Alchemy enable actual manipulation and editing of the audio itself both spectrally and through resynthesis to additive data, but sacrifice much of the immediacy and usability of Iris.

[Cinebient]

Okay, I have to ask. What is it that Alchemy did that no other synth on this planet can do? I find it almost impossible to believe that this ONE SYNTH was one of a kind and nothing else can duplicate its sonic

Who here who has used Alchemy extensively can describe in detail the architecture so I can see what pieces are missing from all the other "complex" synths.

There are many plugins that can do parts of what Alchemy can do, some of them better (for those specific parts e.g Padshop for granular, possibly Harmor for raw resynthesis quality). I think it's the total combination of features, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, plus the fantastic performance features, and the true spectral and additive morphing, which at the time was state of the art in software (only really bettered by the likes of Kyma), the excellent resynthesis and (probably what sold it for lots of people) an outstanding series of addon banks by Camel and third parties (particularly Simon Stockhausen's) that made it into a platform for innovative sound design drawing on its multiple synthesis engines, impressive modulation capabilities and performance features (which no other synth had apart from NI Kore 2, which for me it was a natural partner for).

Correct me if I'm wrong. But it sounds to me like what you're saying is that at the time it was unique and blew everything else out of the water as far as versatility but today, maybe not so much?

Se let me ask this. Can any of these synths that I have, that I consider top of the line synths, do what Alchemy could do?

ABSynth 5
Harmor
Omnisphere
Reaktor 5
Serum
Synthmaster
Zebra 2

I only listed those few because I felt that they were the most "flexible" of the synths I own outside of something like MUX which probably falls way short in several areas in spite of its modular nature.

Or to put it better. If somebody took your Alchemy away from you, what would you replace it with?

No!

But f.e. i have also some 10 bucks iPad synth which beats all these too in some areas or for expression and performance control. Animoog is one of a kind. Then i love Mitoysynth which can blend per limitless (really 100+ and more) LFO's between 32 samples (or included additive or self painted waveforms) and i could assign 100 of parameters to 4 XY pads etc. Of course my iPad Air crap can't handle it Still nothing in the desktop world here. It's not always about the best filters and crazy features and so on.

But for me (and maybe just for me) Alchemy was and is the best sample mangler synth hybrid. The remix pads where you can assign 8 different settings and morph very fast and smooth trough them gives the patches a lot more life then in most other synths. It has lots of LFO's and mod. envelopes to offer (16 from each per patch). Some of the libraries like Steamworx, Dreamvoices and Water f.e. are so unique and great. It loads SF2 so i can use more than a single shot sample..... and a lot more. BUT.... no synth can replace another. Some can do similar things but the ONE will never exist. Alchemy was just for me the one which comes close to it. So with the expected update i was dreaming...... then it ends in this nightmare thread

[Shabdahbriah]

All respect, but Harmor and Alchemy better at Spectral editing....uhhh, I'd have to get back to you on that. Again, I need to delve into Harmor more, but from my experience with Iris 2...I just can't see how either are "better". Please be more specific, exactly how are those synths "better".

More 'powerful' is what I said, Iris has the 'better' interface for spectral editing in terms of usability, but it actually doesn't allow you to really edit anything in the audio file itself, it just masks and selects areas. Harmor and Alchemy enable actual manipulation and editing of the audio itself both spectrally and through resynthesis to additive data, but sacrifice much of the immediacy and usability of Iris.

Ditto... perhaps I should have qualified my Iris 2 statement with the fact that it IS really "fun" to play with, and still unique with how it 'paints', etc... but as stated above, it falls short by comparison to both Harmor and Alchemy "functionally". From a marketing standpoint, it is (IMHO at best a $129-149, synth, not $300.00

Having used all of these since their inception, I maintain that Iris v.1 is superior to v.2, if only for the lack of fulfilling a self-evident "potential" in the latter, to be at least brought UP to 'on par' with either Alchemy or Harmor.

[Apostate]

Well, this makes me feel glad I have both Iris 2 and Harmor, and I'm looking forward to delving deeper into the latter more than ever.

One thing I like a lot about Harmor is that it's not entirely dissimilar to its older sister, Sytrus, in workflow. So that's makes things easier for me right off the bat.

[wagtunes]

All respect, but Harmor and Alchemy better at Spectral editing....uhhh, I'd have to get back to you on that. Again, I need to delve into Harmor more, but from my experience with Iris 2...I just can't see how either are "better". Please be more specific, exactly how are those synths "better".

More 'powerful' is what I said, Iris has the 'better' interface for spectral editing in terms of usability, but it actually doesn't allow you to really edit anything in the audio file itself, it just masks and selects areas. Harmor and Alchemy enable actual manipulation and editing of the audio itself both spectrally and through resynthesis to additive data, but sacrifice much of the immediacy and usability of Iris.

Ditto... perhaps I should have qualified my Iris 2 statement with the fact that it IS really "fun" to play with, and still unique with how it 'paints', etc... but as stated above, it falls short by comparison to both Harmor and Alchemy "functionally". From a marketing standpoint, it is (IMHO at best a $129-149, synth, not $300.00

Having used all of these since their inception, I maintain that Iris v.1 is superior to v.2, if only for the lack of fulfilling a self-evident "potential" in the latter, to be at least brought UP to 'on par' with either Alchemy or Harmor.

That was my impression after reading the specs at the site. To me, this isn't a $300 synth. Somewhere between $150 and $200 tops and I think I'm being generous.

So I have to wonder. What are their marketing people thinking?

[Shabdahbriah]

Well, this makes me feel glad I have both Iris 2 and Harmor, and I'm looking forward to delving deeper into the latter more than ever.
One thing I like a lot about Harmor is that it's not entirely dissimilar to its older sister, Sytrus, in workflow. So that's makes things easier for me right off the bat.

Indeed. The only thing I wish Harmor had is a BIGGER spectral screen view, and the ability to *paint* selections, like Iris does. Otherwise, it is just so incredibly versatile, it is tough to walk-away from. Not to dis Iris either, as it IS really cool for what it does, but all of these are "tools" and/or "palettes" (if you will) in and of themselves, not necessarily just a means to an end. Exploring them is a worthwhile journey, regardless of any perceived "limitations".

... So I have to wonder. What are their marketing people thinking?

The general consensus [well, 'mine'] is that the appeal (read that: "sales/revenue") didn't meet their expectations, even though it was well received as "unique", that ended up making it somewhat of a "specialists" tool, for those willing (or knowledgeable enough) to delve into it, and so was/became limited to the tweakers/sound designers, and as a "toy/novelty" by those people who prefer to have definitive sounds they can dial-up according to a need. So, it seemed to lack a musically appropriate immediacy, for the larger audience.

Thus, Izotope included all of their add-on libs with v.2, (which many others had paid for, with v.1) to address that immediacy, and changed the interface to a more readily approachable/predictable layout/form, whilst not expanding on, or refining its inherent spectral editing strengths.

just my 2c.

[aMUSEd]

Thus, Izotope included all of their add-on libs with v.2, (which many others had paid for, with v.1)

But only the samples, not the actual patches as they screwed up patch compatibility (which imho was stupid and a double slap in the face for people who had paid a lot for those sound libraries as well as various third party ones).

[Shabdahbriah]

Thus, Izotope included all of their add-on libs with v.2, (which many others had paid for, with v.1)

But only the samples, not the actual patches as they screwed up patch compatibility (which imho was stupid and a double slap in the face for people who had paid a lot for those sound libraries as well as various third party ones).

Yes, all true. Totally lame (at best) on all counts.

[Apostate]

Am I naïve to hope that there will at least be some kind of Alchemy-esque synth coming from the Apple merger? Perhaps one even better? Or are we Alchemy enthusiasts out of luck entirely?

[wagtunes]

Am I naïve to hope that there will at least be some kind of Alchemy-esque synth coming from the Apple merger? Perhaps one even better? Or are we Alchemy enthusiasts out of luck entirely?

As much as I detest Apple and have lived through their crap since the Apple III, don't hold your breath.

[Apostate]

Am I naïve to hope that there will at least be some kind of Alchemy-esque synth coming from the Apple merger? Perhaps one even better? Or are we Alchemy enthusiasts out of luck entirely?

As much as I detest Apple and have lived through their crap since the Apple III, don't hold your breath.

That's a shame. I guess my next synth is either going to be a Camel account in full, or Omnisphere. And after hearing your specific praises regarding Omnisphere, I'm leaning way more toward that. Plus, I just might already indeed own outstanding "parts" of what makes Alchemy great, including pretty much all the aforementioned other synths.

However, though I only have the Camel player, I must admit I've had a lot of great times programming that synth. I love the sound, the way it looks, and the multiple program options. Great synth, a terrible shame if I lost the option to buy someone's account.