Softube Modular

[DrGonzo]

This, I've been waiting for something like this for a while!

I agree. I tried to jump on the Eurorack bandwagon some time ago - but got seriously frustrated by tuning issues (spoiled brat I know). This might be the best of both worlds - can't wait to check out the demo.

/C

[stardustmedia]

Interesting concept... hopefully the GUI is sized well and/or resizable, so the modules don't get crammed too much. Even more important, when having a lot of modules: Zoom out for overview and cabling, zoom in for tweaking. How is that handled? Did someone played with it in Berlin?

[SLiC]

This, I've been waiting for something like this for a while!

I agree. I tried to jump on the Eurorack bandwagon some time ago - but got seriously frustrated by tuning issues (spoiled brat I know). This might be the best of both worlds - can't wait to check out the demo.

/C

Or the worst of both worlds....

Why limit yourself to the eurorack paradyme (which is limited by the hardware cost per input/output etc) when with software you can do anything? It's still just a VSTi, something like UVI falcon or Reaktor will give you almost unlimited modular flexibility in a format/GUI that worjs well with WIMP interfaces (dragging virtual cables is frankly a daft approach on a computer screen unless the simulation is more important than ergonomics...I personaly think simulation is for computer games!)

[whyterabbyt]

dragging virtual cables is frankly a daft approach on a computer screen unless the simulation is more important than ergonomics

Onscreen cables ergonomically are still the best visual representation of signal flow you'll find. Anything else is the daft approach, when the synth is fully modular.

[SLiC]

dragging virtual cables is frankly a daft approach on a computer screen unless the simulation is more important than ergonomics

Onscreen cables ergonomically are still the best visual representation of signal flow you'll find. Anything else is the daft approach, when the synth is fully modular.

I think putting pretend cables in pretend holes Is unnessesey, Reactor has a visual representation of gate and CV without cluttering the display.

[whyterabbyt]

dragging virtual cables is frankly a daft approach on a computer screen unless the simulation is more important than ergonomics

Onscreen cables ergonomically are still the best visual representation of signal flow you'll find. Anything else is the daft approach, when the synth is fully modular.

I think putting pretend cables in pretend holes Is unnessesey,

And yet you still need to make point-to-point connections with cables to join anything in Reaktor. They're still exactly the same thing; cables and connection points.

So it sounds like you're not talking about the ergonomics of cables at all; you're fine with them as long as they're not skeumorphic.

Reactor has a visual representation of gate and CV without cluttering the display.

That's a different thing again. Many skeumorphic cable representations could do with better means of managing the cabling (layers, groups etc) but its not as if Reaktor cant be ridiculously cluttered.

[gassle]

This, I've been waiting for something like this for a while!

I agree. I tried to jump on the Eurorack bandwagon some time ago - but got seriously frustrated by tuning issues (spoiled brat I know). This might be the best of both worlds - can't wait to check out the demo.

/C

Or the worst of both worlds....

Why limit yourself to the eurorack paradyme (which is limited by the hardware cost per input/output etc) when with software you can do anything? It's still just a VSTi, something like UVI falcon or Reaktor will give you almost unlimited modular flexibility in a format/GUI that worjs well with WIMP interfaces (dragging virtual cables is frankly a daft approach on a computer screen unless the simulation is more important than ergonomics...I personaly think simulation is for computer games!)

The product is all about eurorack paradigm in software form and people who enjoy it. Otherwise it would be a different product and yeah, reaktor and falcon already exists.

[felis]

Slept on it, and decided I'm going to stick with Reaktor.

I still wish Clavia would do the G2 softsynth thing, other than the demo.

[do_androids_dream]

I still wish Clavia would do the G2 softsynth thing, other than the demo.

If only..

[elxsound]

I have yet to see an elegant and efficient or ergonomic software solution to this that doesn't include some limitation as a result.

I'm not exactly advocating for this as a better approach, but I see the benefit, as it will or should allow for quite a bit more freedom, which is something that can already be seen with Reaktor (and as already pointed out requires a similar, but not as elegant system compared to the cable system here... and a quick disclaimer... IMO Reaktor should be the more flexible beast between the two because of the ability to create custom modules for those that enjoy that).

I do like MadronaLabs' approach to this, but it can get jumbled quickly due to the overlapping of "cables" and also it has fixed modules. Similarly I've liked ACE and Bazille, but again fixed modules on both as well as the issue of being required to view unused modules alongside used modules can quickly get messy.

Anyway... To put it more simply... A cable system coupled with a modular system offers flexibility not found in other software.

Any alternative runs the risk of either forcing the user to click away from the modules in use (as would be the case with a dedicated matrix module), or adding additional steps to the process. Clicking outputs and dragging to inputs is a pretty damn easy system and offers instant visual representation, which is very nice.

dragging virtual cables is frankly a daft approach on a computer screen unless the simulation is more important than ergonomics

Onscreen cables ergonomically are still the best visual representation of signal flow you'll find. Anything else is the daft approach, when the synth is fully modular.

[Lotuzia]

dragging virtual cables is frankly a daft approach on a computer screen unless the simulation is more important than ergonomics

Onscreen cables ergonomically are still the best visual representation of signal flow you'll find. Anything else is the daft approach, when the synth is fully modular.

No. I presonnaly think EMS had 50 years advance on everything else with their PIN Matrixes.

You can 'see/decypher' your patch in a glance. No obstrusive cables everywhere. And you can still connect everything with everything.



Besides that, full modular implies beeing able to connect modules from different manufacturers . Now one might prefer cables. And i have no worries when I have to deal with some. But 'the best' ... only translates here, as most often, in 'my opinion'.

[feralsystems]

I still wish Clavia would do the G2 softsynth thing, other than the demo.

If only..

have you heard of Wren? it's been mentioned on KVR before. while not directly based on the G2 software, it seems to be a similar in many respects. i have yet to get it working with my soundcard, but those who've had success have given it positive reviews.

http://bluehell.electro-music.com/modules/

apologies for going OT.

[softska]

No. I presonnaly think EMS had 50 years advance on everything else with their PIN Matrixes.

You can 'see/decypher' your patch in a glance. No obstrusive cables everywhere. And you can still connect everything with everything.

Besides that, full modular implies beeing able to connect modules from different manufacturers . Now one might prefer cables. And i have no worries when I have to deal with some. But 'the best' ... only translates here, as most often, in 'my opinion'.

IMO matrix is a great idea until you get things that has unlimited amount of modules like this or Reason. I don't like cable but matrix isn't a good solution if it starts to get too big. The display of the cabling can be better though imo.

Ultimately hardware metaphor isn't all that good on a screen I guess

[Uncle E]

No. I presonnaly think EMS had 50 years advance on everything else with their PIN Matrixes.

I like it, too, but I don't see how it can be applicable to modulars.

[Robmobius]

I can see it being difficult to buy boutique virtual modules for $49 each when the entire host program is only $99. That would definitely add up quickly. I guess we'll see how that goes. Still, I'd been thinking about picking up some of the Mutable Instruments modules, and it would be rather enticing to buy them in software for a fraction of the price. I wonder how many manufacturers are going to jump on board...

+1

First i was excited , and after i realise it will be like kilohearts multipass , you paid for x free module and after you have to paid for every modules...

It depends... Kilohearts is way too expensive if you want all their modules. And for their '$99 intro price' you get nothing that's all that interesting, just basic FX stuff. So you really have to spend the 250e if you want the good stuff.

I'm not too sure how ST will do their prices. But they will be much higher quality then the KH 'snapins' I would say - I wasn't too impressed with the KH demo. I thought the FX they were okay but nothing special (imho).

Softube usually excel at most things, so I'd expect very good add on modules. But their prices can be over the top. So I guess we will just have to wait and see.