Filerbank: Quad-Frohmage or Antares Filer?

[meister eder]

The preset compatibility is a great concept indeed, but could as well be accomplished by adding a "snap isolate" function. Very elegant solution!

Uh dear Doctor, could you explain me that further ? I don't get it.

Sure.

SHORT ANSWER:

Sorry, I should have called them "preset load exclusion filters", because that's about what it is and what you have already in Symtohm:Melohman. It would be a "preset load exclusion filter" solely for the new filter set (classic/hardcore) switches.

LONG ANSWER:

I tend to call it "snap isolate", because that's what it is called in Reaktor. What it does is about the same as your "preset load exclusion filters" do: If you choose to set a parameter to "snap isolate", then it will keep it's current value regardless of what preset ("snapshot" in Reaktor) you load.

So, assuming the "more than 30" filters that you are talking about are more than 30 in the sense of the 30 filters we have now, and not in the sense of the 8 basic types (incl. ringmod) we have now, then you would add a "classic/hardcore" switch to each filter channel, spread the more than 30 filters between the current selection scheme and assign them the same IDs as the current 30 filters. I assume the latter (i.e. all but the switches) is how you wanted to do it anyway for the separate 'hardcore' version.
Now if the user choses to set the new switches to "preset load exclusion" (that's one other global switch you would have to add), and he would have set them to the hardcore filter sets before, then he would have perfect preset compatibility. He would load his old presets but hear them with the new filters.

Still, with the switches not set to "preset load exclusion", he would be free to load previously saved presets where he combined 'classic' and 'hardcore' filters as he likes.

BUT:
I do see how tempting it is to release a seperate plugin to point out the importance of the difference, and having the freedom to even design a seperate hardcore skin.

[whyterabbyt]

The disadvantage of a separate 'hardcore' edition is that you wouldnt be able to combine filters from both types in a single instance...

[Kim Lajoie]

Hardcore skin! Hardcore skin!

Forever,




Kim.

[Red_Force]

Ok, got it. There are technical reasons against it (keeping preset compatibility would be terrible... and probably implying some annoying downside for the user) although I agree it would be nice to play with.

Anway, the general idea of keeping architecture and changing sound is something yet largely unexploited in soft for now, and I think we have to invent something new along with user's comments like yours. Interesting times

[spaceman]

Anway, the general idea of keeping architecture and changing sound is something yet largely unexploited in soft for now, and I think we have to invent something new along with user's comments like yours. Interesting times

any chance of a toaster?

[Red_Force]

The disadvantage of a separate 'hardcore' edition is that you wouldnt be able to combine filters from both types in a single instance...

Certainly... Or just let say it would be a bit more heavy, depending on your host. But sometimes cutting off functionnality can also a good way to bring fun, and then inspiration back, which is something we feel very sensitive for such a complexe beast than the QF.

[meister eder]

Ok, got it. There are technical reasons against it (keeping preset compatibility would be terrible... and probably implying some annoying downside for the user)

Now this I don't get now , since "snap isolate" is exactly what one would use in Reaktor to keep preset compatibility. Ok, the separate hardcore version will be easier to program, as you 'only' have to exchange the filter-types, but making that 'exchange' dynamic shouldn't be that hard? I'm not a programmer though...


While we are at it (annoying downsides for the user that is ) and you are at updating Quadfrohmage to stereo anyway, may I point out one major drawback with about all your plugins (but especially Mobilohm and Quadfrohmage):
The fact that the phase of the LFOs can not be synced to the song start. Especially when working with drumloops, but also with any type of rhythmic sounds, you can design great groove patches using the bpm synced LFOs. But then: As soon as you stop the sequencer and start again, you get a completely different rhythm/groove, because the LFOs start somewhere else in relation to the audio file. This is nice to get variations of course, but quite often it was exactly this groove that was so great, and one would like exactly this groove every time the sequencer starts.
Adding a phase sync option for the LFOs would instantly push the usefulness of your plugins by 200% - for me at least; but I guess I'm not the only one.

Another thing, but it was discussed before, and I hope this will be in the update, is a copy/paste function for the filter channels (despite the possibility of ctrl-clicking on each parameter).

[meister eder]

Anway, the general idea of keeping architecture and changing sound is something yet largely unexploited in soft for now, and I think we have to invent something new along with user's comments like yours. Interesting times

Glad that finally someone sees the potential of this! SoundDiver was able to do this to some extend for hardware synths for years, and it's a great concept!

[Red_Force]

Now this I don't get now , since "snap isolate" is exactly what one would use in Reaktor to keep preset compatibility. Ok, the separate hardcore version will be easier to program, as you 'only' have to exchange the filter-types, but making that 'exchange' dynamic shouldn't be that hard? I'm not a programmer though...

AFAIK, like many NI plugs (and most of the modular synths), Reaktor doesn't declare any parameter to the VST host - automation are made via Midi exclusively. This is one of the key choices any PI designer has to face at start (and one of the big rant about many PI standard, inclueding VST).
VST automation has always been a must to us which has dictated our tech policy on this. Once you declare the number of parameter thus, you face troubles if you have to change it later... That's the why, grossly explain by someone who's not a dev

The fact that the phase of the LFOs can not be synced to the song start.

It can, using NRPN. It's in the manual... Now I agree NRPN are f***g tricky stuff for f***g midi nerds ... Last time I had to check the features I was completely unable to find out how to do what the Ohm Force's manual was asking, because it wasn't explained either in the host doc, nor in my MIDI doc... Also searching in the forums (including here...) only told me that apparently no one really knows how it works... LOL, MIDI!

Anyway, I had to ask Ivory, who told me, and it ends up to be pretty easy to do (once you know how to). Basically you use one Midi CC to define what NRPN another Midi CC will control. Then you set a value to this Mici CC at a desired point in your song (in that case, LFO phase at start...). Apart from that, it's something not easily handled by the GUI, so it does make sense to have an "advanced" feature to be handled in an "advanced" way IMO.

If you don't find how to... Well mail support, it's a classic

[pummel]

i am a bit vague on effects, and would like to learn more.

how do these filter plugs work ? is it midi-audio in (with keytracking options), audio out ?

and what would be the primary usage then, to extend the sonic capability of a rompler / synth ?

if so, would a post filter be more effectve down stream of something bright and clear (like an albino) as opposed to something which already has its own character (like an imposcar) ?

if any of this is true, then some of us might be better off with fewer synths and more post effects in the tool box.

[Red_Force]

how do these filter plugs work ? is it midi-audio in (with keytracking options), audio out ?

Audio & midi in, audio and midi out in QF case - thus this in an exception, outside of OF ones few FX allow that (while it's a must for an instrument)

and what would be the primary usage then, to extend the sonic capability of a rompler / synth ?

There are grossly two ways of using an FX : production (improve sound) or creation (design sound by changing it's character). QF allow both - actually compared to other filter banks it can do a lot to produce - although you have to know how sounds work.
Thus creative use is certainly the main one when it come to filterbanks. It's typically used to create all those impressive gimmicks in nowadays production (such as filter sweep on the voice/drum/whatever at the 16 bars), give your drums/synth/bass/guitar a unique sound (everyone can have the same instrument than you but chances are very small that they put the same filter setup on it, for instance) or basically be the key item of your electro set.

if so, would a post filter be more effectve down stream of something bright and clear (like an albino) as opposed to something which already has its own character (like an imposcar) ?

Yes and no. If you consider a mono synth, you can set it's filter to neutral setting, put a QF as an insert, use the synth's part as a mono in and set the filter one to use the midi to trigger ADSR and at that point you have just replaced your synth's filter by another (custom) one. This is something really great to do, that opens a lot more possibilities.

Thus if the synth is poly it's not the same, as its filter are per note, while QF would work on the global signal. It's also interesting (actually Symptohm is partially based on such a routing) but it's not the same.

if any of this is true, then some of us might be better off with fewer synths and more post effects in the tool box.

Here at Ohm's we think than more than your host, that's your plugs that makes your sound, and that if you want to do things well, you need creative FX in addition to your instrument arsenal that do the job (which explains why we are doing what we are doing ).

While instruments are the basic of your set, only smart use of FX (apart of course from songwriting) while bring something really unique to your sound. To find something really new that works with a synth, you have to know the synth. Same with an FX. But with both, just by combinging presets you can quickly find fresh idea, then finetune it without being an expert. Something to consider depending on how you work and what you aim to do...

Note in general that if synth comes rather often with embeded FX such as delay or chorus, it's a different world that will be bring to you by say an FX top delay unit...

Basically, why not to dl a demo, plug it on you synth, play with it and see if you enjoy the ride ?

[Muff Wiggler]

To find something really new that works with a synth, you have to know the synth. Same with an FX. But with both, just by combinging presets you can quickly find fresh idea, then finetune it without being an expert.

You just summarized, perfectly, why I love Ohm Force plugins.

Combine this with the aforementioned brilliant lfo management system of the Ohm, and you are in sound heaven.

Thanks again

[meister eder]

AFAIK, like many NI plugs (and most of the modular synths), Reaktor doesn't declare any parameter to the VST host - automation are made via Midi exclusively. This is one of the key choices any PI designer has to face at start (and one of the big rant about many PI standard, inclueding VST).
VST automation has always been a must to us which has dictated our tech policy on this. Once you declare the number of parameter thus, you face troubles if you have to change it later... That's the why, grossly explain by someone who's not a dev

Understood. Makes sense.

The fact that the phase of the LFOs can not be synced to the song start.

It can, using NRPN. It's in the manual... Now I agree NRPN are f***g tricky stuff for f***g midi nerds ... Last time I had to check the features I was completely unable to find out how to do what the Ohm Force's manual was asking, because it wasn't explained either in the host doc, nor in my MIDI doc... Also searching in the forums (including here...) only told me that apparently no one really knows how it works... LOL, MIDI!

Anyway, I had to ask Ivory, who told me, and it ends up to be pretty easy to do (once you know how to). Basically you use one Midi CC to define what NRPN another Midi CC will control. Then you set a value to this Mici CC at a desired point in your song (in that case, LFO phase at start...). Apart from that, it's something not easily handled by the GUI, so it does make sense to have an "advanced" feature to be handled in an "advanced" way IMO.

Well thanks alot! NRPN ! Yeah, I see it now right at the bottom of the manual...
To be honest, I've spent enough of my lifetime building needless MIDI toys in Logic's environment and setting up editors for hardware synths, even wasted time creating my own adaptions in Sounddiver - reading SysEx implementation charts as bed lecture ... but now I want to make music!
Certainly for plugins that are predestined for creating rhythmic effects locking the LFO phase is not an expert feature but an essential one and needs to be there right in front of your eyes. And I really can't see what would be the difficult part to be handled by the GUI about this. Have a look at Xphraze, they've done it.
No, really, this time I can't follow your argument. To me it seems you absolutely underestimate the power of this feature when being handled in an intuitive way (i.e. right in front of your eyes).

There you even have a challenge for your programmers to make something unique [again! you've done it before! ] that no other plug has right now: Have the LFOs in free running mode, and when you like the rhythm it currently plays, hit a button that automatically sets the phases to the right degree relative to the songposition and locks them so that the rhythm would be the same next time you start the sequencer!

[Red_Force]

Well, it's a design matter. I can undersand you see it as a key feature, but when you start on this, you realise you have way too much key feature for something that stands on 700 per 700 pixel with no panels. Then you have to cut things, and of course there is no "right" choice.

I think the reason why we did it this way is that if you want to use an LFO in a "composing" way (by opposition to a " general sound design way"), the best is to use an LFO creation tool in the automation track - something that a lot of host allready provide. All in all, we feel like it's the right way to do it, a bit like saying arpeggiator should be on host side, not plug in side.

OTOH there is the annoyance of not having the plug sounding the same when you reopen the song (well, sounding the same, but not at the same time). This is really annoying, but with an FX you don't have the help of a midi sequence plugged in by default to give you a time reference. VST is not VSTi and it's not really design to tell the plug where is the play pos in the bar, for insance... So you would at least have to automate it, then make sure the part you listen start with the automation (else you... loose sync), etc... As you can see there is no convenient solution for an FX to handle this smartly - in any case you user will have to investigate things to get what you want.

[Muff Wiggler]

the best is to use an LFO creation tool in the automation track - something that a lot of host allready provide

yep, I always use cubase's 'AutoPanner' midi plugin for this.

It sounds like a panning plug, but really it's basically an 'LFO' plug. You pick the CC# used, you set the rate and pick the shape, and off ya go..