Reaktor Blocks vs. Softube Modular

[felis]

What a lot of people don't fathom is that reaktor Blocks is just an added framework build on unified core cells , they are just instuments operating on S.R. ..connectionwise .....

S.R.....?


This is going to sound bizarre, but I got Reaktor mainly because I could build synths that respond to
release velocity that my keyboards can send. It should be relatively simple stuff.
I've got it pretty much together by using note off velocity along with an inverter, multiplier, and
adder and the basics are working.
I just need to bundle it into a macro and figure out how to distribute it to various destinations.

It was simple to do with my Clavia G2.
Reaktor seems to make it unnecessarily complicated. I'll get it figured out though.

It would be cool if there was a keyboard module that had all the essentials that you could just plug in.
That's basically what I'm after, is a representation of keyboard functions,
that I can just plug in to any synth that comes in further down the line.

[martinjuenke]

Have to say that Reaktor blocks are far more accessible to me than Softtube Modular which UI is at least in my opinion too complicated. Blocks have far more clear interface to deal with especially when you are not a nerdy cable fiddler.

[gentleclockdivider]

What a lot of people don't fathom is that reaktor Blocks is just an added framework build on unified core cells , they are just instuments operating on S.R. ..connectionwise .....

S.R.....?


This is going to sound bizarre, but I got Reaktor mainly because I could build synths that respond to
release velocity that my keyboards can send. It should be relatively simple stuff.
I've got it pretty much together by using note off velocity along with an inverter and multiplier, and the basics are working.
I just need to bundle it into a macro and figure out how to distribute it to various destinations.

It was simple to do with my Clavia G2.
Reaktor seems to make it unnecessarily complicated. I'll get it figured out though.

It would be cool if there was a keyboard module that had all the essentials that you could just plug in.
That's basically what I'm after, is a representation of keyboard functions,
that I can just plug in to any synth that comes in further down the line.

Modulations / audio processing are @ Sample Rate

I too have a nord modular , there audio is processed @ 96khz , control rate a 24 khz ( which is still huge )..and yes in the G2 almost every audio module can be modulated at 96 khz ( except the 1 pole hp ...which I fid bizarre ) .
Too give you an example ,reasons control rate is S.R./64 ..so at 44Khzz ..control rate is around 689 Hz ( talking about yellow cv cables here )

[exmatproton]

Understood. And I didn't buy Reaktor just for blocks. In fact, I bought Reaktor 5 about 2 years ago with Komplete 9. I bought it to put together my own synths. What I discovered was that the learning curve was exponentially above your basic modular synth (MUX, KarmaFX, Softube, etc) to the point where I just gave up. And even with blocks, the structure of patching them together is beyond me. So okay, maybe I'm an idiot. I'll accept that. But there is no way Reaktor patching is as easy as your basic modular synth.

I was fortunate enough to be able to play a lot on a Moog Modular (long time ago though). Great experience, but just as hard/easy as Reaktor, if you ask me. Especially with the new lay-out on R6 (double screens, so you can see what is getting patched to where without extra clicking).

I dunno. I just like Reaktor. It is easy, quick and hugely versatile (once you get the hang of it; but that is the same with every 'new-to-the-user' synth, imho).
I must admit i was underwhelmed by SM. Yes, the sound quality is very good, but in my mixes that is not the most important thing. The Reaktor synth is giving me way more possibilties.

[wagtunes]

Are you stupid , I don't now ..thing is it needs some persistence and understanding of the modules , DO NOT ignore the event modules .
They arent necesary when doing basic stuff , but eventually you will need them in the long run .
DO NOT ignore the power of the voice module (shown in example )
Building an 128 voice vocoder/ resiner , took me 4 minutes ..can't do that in softube

People bashing the primary modules have no idea they are superefficient when doing stuff like this ( vocoders ) 1024 band pass filters with a moderate cpu hit .
You either learn the shit , or don't ..

I'm not bashing the modules. I'm not bashing the sound. All I'm saying is it's harder to put something together FOR ME in Reaktor than in SM.

End of story.

[wagtunes]

Understood. And I didn't buy Reaktor just for blocks. In fact, I bought Reaktor 5 about 2 years ago with Komplete 9. I bought it to put together my own synths. What I discovered was that the learning curve was exponentially above your basic modular synth (MUX, KarmaFX, Softube, etc) to the point where I just gave up. And even with blocks, the structure of patching them together is beyond me. So okay, maybe I'm an idiot. I'll accept that. But there is no way Reaktor patching is as easy as your basic modular synth.

I was fortunate enough to be able to play a lot on a Moog Modular (long time ago though). Great experience, but just as hard/easy as Reaktor, if you ask me. Especially with the new lay-out on R6 (double screens, so you can see what is getting patched to where without extra clicking).

I dunno. I just like Reaktor. It is easy, quick and hugely versatile (once you get the hang of it; but that is the same with every 'new-to-the-user' synth, imho).
I must admit i was underwhelmed by SM. Yes, the sound quality is very good, but in my mixes that is not the most important thing. The Reaktor synth is giving me way more possibilties.

Can't argue with any of this. Reaktor gives you much more than SM. Tons more.

All I'm saying is it's harder for me to put something together in Reaktor than SM. Nothing more, nothing less.

[exmatproton]

Understood wag.
It has something to do with the approach as well ofcourse. I like to be able to get one or two layers deep. Once i realized that SM won't allow that, sure, the 1 layer approach with only pre-baked modules, is easier.

To me, easier, isn't always '1-screen' synths. Easier to me is also being able to get a certain sound in multiple ways for instance. So that my workflow don't have to be adjusted. Reaktor fits very nicely in how i like to work. So, subjectively, Reaktor is much easier for me.

[wagtunes]

Understood wag.
It has something to do with the approach as well ofcourse. I like to be able to get one or two layers deep. Once i realized that SM won't allow that, sure, the 1 layer approach with only pre-baked modules, is easier.

To me, easier, isn't always '1-screen' synths. Easier to me is also being able to get a certain sound in multiple ways for instance. So that my workflow don't have to be adjusted. Reaktor fits very nicely in how i like to work. So, subjectively, Reaktor is much easier for me.

And I'm sure once you actually understand Reaktor it is much easier to get the things you want because it's so much deeper than SM could ever be. Unfortunately, after more than 2 years of wrestling with this thing and not being able to wrap my head around it, I'd given up. I'm going to give it yet another go after reading or watching some tutorials. Why it isn't as intuitive for me as all the other modular synths is beyond me, but it is.

Like I said, I'm probably just stupid.

[exmatproton]

Understood wag.
It has something to do with the approach as well ofcourse. I like to be able to get one or two layers deep. Once i realized that SM won't allow that, sure, the 1 layer approach with only pre-baked modules, is easier.

To me, easier, isn't always '1-screen' synths. Easier to me is also being able to get a certain sound in multiple ways for instance. So that my workflow don't have to be adjusted. Reaktor fits very nicely in how i like to work. So, subjectively, Reaktor is much easier for me.

And I'm sure once you actually understand Reaktor it is much easier to get the things you want because it's so much deeper than SM could ever be. Unfortunately, after more than 2 years of wrestling with this thing and not being able to wrap my head around it, I'd given up. I'm going to give it yet another go after reading or watching some tutorials. Why it isn't as intuitive for me as all the other modular synths is beyond me, but it is.

Like I said, I'm probably just stupid.

Well, i wouldn't call it stupidity. Maybe it takes more time to get yourself used to the UI, possibilities and workflow. That, ofcourse, is very subjective. And maybe you're more of a '1-page-synth' kind of guy. I remember you calling Falcon quite hard to learn as well. While i think Falcon is one of the most easy synths out there.

Maybe we consider and use the word 'easy' a bit different.

[egbert101]

<delete>

[dave dove]

Often my end goal is the instrument....
Don't do much music...

Dave

[deastman]

Understood wag.
It has something to do with the approach as well ofcourse. I like to be able to get one or two layers deep. Once i realized that SM won't allow that, sure, the 1 layer approach with only pre-baked modules, is easier.

I think you're looking at SM wrong if you view it as only one layer of pre-baked modules. Blocks is an abstraction on top of a graphical programming language. If anything, it is a hack, a workaround to conceal the complexity of developing with Reaktor. SM, on the other hand, is a software emulation of a eurorack modular- nothing more, nothing less. It isn't a programming language or an instrument building framework. It is an exacting recreation of specific, real hardware modules which exist in the real world. In this respect, it has more in common with U-he's emulations, or specifically Monark in the NI ecosystem, rather than all of Reaktor itself. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I have both and enjoy both. But it is important to understand the different design objectives of these two modular frameworks.

[JoeCat]

Understood wag.
It has something to do with the approach as well ofcourse. I like to be able to get one or two layers deep. Once i realized that SM won't allow that, sure, the 1 layer approach with only pre-baked modules, is easier.

To me, easier, isn't always '1-screen' synths. Easier to me is also being able to get a certain sound in multiple ways for instance. So that my workflow don't have to be adjusted. Reaktor fits very nicely in how i like to work. So, subjectively, Reaktor is much easier for me.

And I'm sure once you actually understand Reaktor it is much easier to get the things you want because it's so much deeper than SM could ever be. Unfortunately, after more than 2 years of wrestling with this thing and not being able to wrap my head around it, I'd given up. I'm going to give it yet another go after reading or watching some tutorials. Why it isn't as intuitive for me as all the other modular synths is beyond me, but it is.

Like I said, I'm probably just stupid.

LOL - since we all know that's not the case:

You mentioned some connections you can't figure out; care to elaborate?

Keeping in mind I'm talking about Blocks, and not building a synth (or any ensemble) from scratch: those are two different beasts. Since Blocks are "instruments" (in Reaktor terms, but do function more like modules in module synth terms), they are generally much easier, especially in the sense that, to build most things (like the subtractive synth in your example), you don't have to muck with the audio math, algorithms, tricky event handling, etc.. And you know your way around plenty of synths so you're not a novice with the basic signal flow.

Try opening the Monark Mikro included with the Factory library. That's probably the simplest to start. The only "Reaktor specific" signals are Mod A and Mod B - I mentioned these before; every block allows you two modulating signals (at audio rate). So, for example, connecting an envelope to a Filter is as simple as connecting the Env "Out" signal to "Mod A" or "Mod B" of the Filter.

(Once that's wired, to set Modulation to the Filter cutoff, you do this from the Panel on a per-Snapshot (Patch) basis, without ever having to work with the cables again. You click "A" and bi-polar amount sliders will appear for Cutoff (and all the other Filter controls), allowing you to set the assignment and amount)

Another of the other obvious choices for "Mod A" and "Mod B" inputs on the Filter would be an LFO (not included in the Monark Mikro), Mod Wheel, Aftertouch, Velocity (you'll see these on the Note In module).

So, besides "Mod A" and "Mod B", you have the ins and outs which are pretty self-explanatory - Pitch from Note In to Pitch for Osc 1, Out from Osc 1 to In on Filter, etc....

Getting a little deeper (and perhaps) trickier are things like sending Pitch from Note In to Filter Pitch. No need to use a separate Mod here, since the Monark Filter already has key tracking built in.

Not as obvious are some things like the two little "Out" modules - there's no "auto out" from the VCA, etc. - only the Out modules will "connect" to audio out for the plug-in.

My suggestion for your first project is to start with the Monark Mikro, and substitute a different Filter, Osc, etc., maybe add an LFO, and get a feel that way. Save along the way, and if something doesn't work as expected, you can easily go back and have less variables.

Once you get going you'll have a few "Aha!" moments then it will click. Stock up on food and water since you may not want to leave the house after.

Good luck! If I still lived on Fifth Ave. I'd stop buy and work with you for beer

[wagtunes]

Understood wag.
It has something to do with the approach as well ofcourse. I like to be able to get one or two layers deep. Once i realized that SM won't allow that, sure, the 1 layer approach with only pre-baked modules, is easier.

To me, easier, isn't always '1-screen' synths. Easier to me is also being able to get a certain sound in multiple ways for instance. So that my workflow don't have to be adjusted. Reaktor fits very nicely in how i like to work. So, subjectively, Reaktor is much easier for me.

And I'm sure once you actually understand Reaktor it is much easier to get the things you want because it's so much deeper than SM could ever be. Unfortunately, after more than 2 years of wrestling with this thing and not being able to wrap my head around it, I'd given up. I'm going to give it yet another go after reading or watching some tutorials. Why it isn't as intuitive for me as all the other modular synths is beyond me, but it is.

Like I said, I'm probably just stupid.

LOL - since we all know that's not the case:

You mentioned some connections you can't figure out; care to elaborate?

Keeping in mind I'm talking about Blocks, and not building a synth (or any ensemble) from scratch: those are two different beasts. Since Blocks are "instruments" (in Reaktor terms, but do function more like modules in module synth terms), they are generally much easier, especially in the sense that, to build most things (like the subtractive synth in your example), you don't have to muck with the audio math, algorithms, tricky event handling, etc.. And you know your way around plenty of synths so you're not a novice with the basic signal flow.

Try opening the Monark Mikro included with the Factory library. That's probably the simplest to start. The only "Reaktor specific" signals are Mod A and Mod B - I mentioned these before; every block allows you two modulating signals (at audio rate). So, for example, connecting an envelope to a Filter is as simple as connecting the Env "Out" signal to "Mod A" or "Mod B" of the Filter.

(Once that's wired, to set Modulation to the Filter cutoff, you do this from the Panel on a per-Snapshot (Patch) basis, without ever having to work with the cables again. You click "A" and bi-polar amount sliders will appear for Cutoff (and all the other Filter controls), allowing you to set the assignment and amount)

Another of the other obvious choices for "Mod A" and "Mod B" inputs on the Filter would be an LFO (not included in the Monark Mikro), Mod Wheel, Aftertouch, Velocity (you'll see these on the Note In module).

So, besides "Mod A" and "Mod B", you have the ins and outs which are pretty self-explanatory - Pitch from Note In to Pitch for Osc 1, Out from Osc 1 to In on Filter, etc....

Getting a little deeper (and perhaps) trickier are things like sending Pitch from Note In to Filter Pitch. No need to use a separate Mod here, since the Monark Filter already has key tracking built in.

Not as obvious are some things like the two little "Out" modules - there's no "auto out" from the VCA, etc. - only the Out modules will "connect" to audio out for the plug-in.

My suggestion for your first project is to start with the Monark Mikro, and substitute a different Filter, Osc, etc., maybe add an LFO, and get a feel that way. Save along the way, and if something doesn't work as expected, you can easily go back and have less variables.

Once you get going you'll have a few "Aha!" moments then it will click. Stock up on food and water since you may not want to leave the house after.

Good luck! If I still lived on Fifth Ave. I'd stop buy and work with you for beer

Thanks Joe. You're the best. I don't drink beer but I'll have some on hand.

No, I think my problem is simply a mental block.

With SM, the interface is what I call one dimensional. I pick my module, pick my next module and so on and so on, and then just patch chord them together. Naturally, you need to know what goes into what, but it's one view.

With Reaktor, you pull up a block and you have two views. The block view is wonderful and wish I could just do the same thing I do with SM, patch chord one thing into another. But you can't do that. You have to go to the view below and find the ins and outs and put them together. The problem is, without that same graphical crutch (for lack of a better term) that SM gives me, I'm having trouble determining what goes into what. There are too many options and the graphical representation of them doesn't register with my brain.

Here's what I'm going to try. I'm going to pull up the simplest SM config that I have and see if I can duplicate it in Reaktor. Where I am going to get stuck, based on what I've done so far, is with the names of the blocks. If they don't match or if they seem to have wordings for their connections that I'm not familiar with, essentially what's going to happen is I'm going to look at SM, see X connected to Y and then go to Reaktor and not be able to connect that same X to Y because there is too much difference either in the visual, the terminology, or both.

I wish I could explain it better than that but for whatever reason, I look at SM and I know exactly what to do and I look at Reaktor and I'm guessing at best and plain lost at worst.

There is no logical explanation for it. It just is what it is.

[exmatproton]

Understood wag.
It has something to do with the approach as well ofcourse. I like to be able to get one or two layers deep. Once i realized that SM won't allow that, sure, the 1 layer approach with only pre-baked modules, is easier.

I think you're looking at SM wrong if you view it as only one layer of pre-baked modules. Blocks is an abstraction on top of a graphical programming language. If anything, it is a hack, a workaround to conceal the complexity of developing with Reaktor. SM, on the other hand, is a software emulation of a eurorack modular- nothing more, nothing less. It isn't a programming language or an instrument building framework. It is an exacting recreation of specific, real hardware modules which exist in the real world. In this respect, it has more in common with U-he's emulations, or specifically Monark in the NI ecosystem, rather than all of Reaktor itself. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I have both and enjoy both. But it is important to understand the different design objectives of these two modular frameworks.

You can call it whatever you want. It still is a 1-layer instrument with pre-baked modules. This isn't its weak point. Sry if i came across bashing SM for that. Because that was not my intention

I am aware that it is intended as an 'emulation'. However, i was "hoping" for a bit more depth.