Buchla 259e Twisted Waveform Generator for modular

[shroom81]

Wag, aren't you a grown man? In fact your'e ancient right ? Why are you spending all this time whining on forums man ? That truly baffles me

You know you can download the files straight from the website and skip Gobbler right ?

[Daags]

Reaktor is very nice but it can't compete at all with Softube Modular for making banging Techno straight out of the synth.

More horse manure.

It's my opinion

Yes. I realise that. Your opinion is horse manure. There's no confusion here. And until such time that either you or Christian f illustrate and substantiate your shared opinion in some reasonable way, it will remain horse manure ... stinking the place up.

Carry on

[wagtunes]

Wag, aren't you a grown man? In fact your'e ancient right ? Why are you spending all this time whining on forums man ? That truly baffles me

You know you can download the files straight from the website and skip Gobbler right ?

I actually looked for them. Can't find them.

Anyway, doesn't matter. I just started from scratch (uninstalled Gobbler) and sure enough, once I reinstalled it the modules showed up.

Screwiest system I've ever seen in my life.

[ghettosynth]

If you're actively producing,releasing and playing out those specific genres you know what I'm talking about.

First you retreat into saying it is just your opinion, but then say the above, which is not a statement of opinion... that is a universal claim that everyone playing in those genres would agree with you that Reaktor is a mess and is 100 times harder to use than STM

so back it up

Your comprehensive reading is at an all time low.
First you are trying to make a question out of someone else's sarcastic statement, then when your intentions fail you took the time to quote me and give your confusing spin to something that is pretty clear the way I said it.

I also read your claim as pdxindy describes. It seems that you're trying to imply that anyone who doesn't agree with you must not know techno, and if they did, they would agree. So, if that isn't what you meant, then maybe you want to clarify?

You made some pretty bold claims about Reaktor and STM and I think that more than a few of us, who don't confuse berlin techno for wooshes and builds and who do know a thing or two about modular synths, were not on board with what you were saying.

It's not unreasonable to ask what you're specifically getting at with respect to techno production and what exactly is it, technically, about Reaktor that drives your belief that it "all sounds the same." Also, what exactly do you think, again technically, contributes to this claimed unique quality of STM?

You could easily demonstrate that you have some skill with the technology by talking about it yourself. It not necessary to reveal your track, but, OTOH, you did claim that it was a "banger" and well supported, which I assume that you mean is selling, so why wouldn't you want to promote your track?

[wagtunes]

Well, I'm starting to do some patching with this thing and just making very simple (relatively speaking) patches, the sounds coming out of this are really cool. Absolutely worth getting, especially if you can save a few bucks through JRR Shop.

When I'm done with this library, I'll put up a demo so you guys who have Reaktor can compare. Personally, I think they're both excellent sounding products and you can't go wrong with either one. And at least Reaktor HAS a patch management system.

[shroom81]

Reaktor is very nice but it can't compete at all with Softube Modular for making banging Techno straight out of the synth.

More horse manure.

It's my opinion

Yes. I realise that. Your opinion is horse manure. There's no confusion here. And until such time that either you or Christian f illustrate and substantiate your shared opinion in some reasonable way, it will remain horse manure ... stinking the place up.

Carry on

Man your head is full of it, carry on internet soldering

[christian f.]

Reaktor is very nice but it can't compete at all with Softube Modular for making banging Techno straight out of the synth.

More horse manure.

It's my opinion

Yes. I realise that. Your opinion is horse manure. There's no confusion here. And until such time that either you or Christian f illustrate and substantiate your shared opinion in some reasonable way, it will remain horse manure ... stinking the place up.

Carry on

Then what is your opinion worth ?
Do you even use both softube modular and reaktor intensively ?
Are you even a producer or are you just a forum troll ?
So far nothing valuable from your part that's on topic, just negativity towards people
that actually show love for a certain product.

[Stan Navi]

Wag, aren't you a grown man? In fact your'e ancient right ? Why are you spending all this time whining on forums man ? That truly baffles me

You know you can download the files straight from the website and skip Gobbler right ?

I actually looked for them. Can't find them.

Anyway, doesn't matter. I just started from scratch (uninstalled Gobbler) and sure enough, once I reinstalled it the modules showed up.

Screwiest system I've ever seen in my life.

I had the same issue, but i just relaunched Gobbler and got all updates. No need to uninstall.
Also broweser managment sysyem is under development, so i hope we will see it in the near future.

[christian f.]

I also read your claim as pdxindy describes. It seems that you're trying to imply that anyone who doesn't agree with you must not know techno, and if they did, they would agree.

In the same post I clearly said, you can make everything with anything ...
So if there's only a stock Ableton available you still can make anything you want.

For the rest,

That bad sherlock Daags completely disqualified himself from any discussion by first showing how simple minded he is by googling my kvr handle christian f. , then posted the search result only to reveal his ears are not even refined enough to tell the difference between EDM and Techno

Pdxindy .. on his vague site I saw either a picture of him or Willie Nelson .. in either case.. deep understanding of Current Techno is far far away.

Why would I even consider proving anything to these fools ?
They probably never even tried STM to the max with all modules in full glory.

By support I mean charts and played by DJs that matter, so I don't need a cheap forum battle to prove or promote myself to them or anyone.

I'm just recommending STM for anything Berlin Style Techno or IDM just like I would with Sylenth for anyone doing EDM.

That's a positive message.
Some people here are so bitter that they just have to drag that into negativity and completely go off topic only to prove ... what ?

[lnikj]

Pdxindy .. on his vague site I saw either a picture of him or Willie Nelson .. in either case.. deep understanding of Current Techno is far far away.

Why would I even consider proving anything to these fools ??

[christian f.]

Pdxindy .. on his vague site I saw either a picture of him or Willie Nelson .. in either case.. deep understanding of Current Techno is far far away.

Why would I even consider proving anything to these fools ??

I stereotyped right there which I usually consider a wrong thing, but every music genre has a stereotype (especially when you live in LA) and in that context I used/meant it.

Not to hurt.

By the way, you are very selective.
Certain individuals are very "ad hominem" towards others, but then you don't feel the need to play "PC" police.

[Urs]

Multi-threading isn't simply a matter of developing software in a certain year. Sometimes it takes some truly clever tricks and lots of nasty code.

how about compartmentalizing the modular by type across the cores then? you'd have the osc modules on core 1, filters on 2, other modulators on 3 and fx on 4. I know that the hard part is keeping the parallel dsp synced because of the non-realtime nature of the operating system but it CAN be done, through nasty code, right? or does that not make any sense?

The problem is, one can typically only ever compute algorithms in parallel if the data they munch has no overlap, and is large enough to justify the overhead.

In a simple patch with a typical envelope, LFO, VCO, VCF and VCA situation, where the envelope controls LFO rate, cutoff and volume, the envelope needs to be processed first, then the LFO, then the VCO and so on - because for each sample any of the modules needs the outcome of the previous module. Therefore, the algorithms in synthesizers typically process on a shared set of data. In a modular synth, each cable represents such a dependency, with few exceptions (e.g. MIDI input, or any module that has only outputs but no inputs).

Furthermore, "large enough data to munch on" in any audio process means, it's not worth doing multicore on a sample per sample basis. It's only worth doing if a module (VCO, VCF...) can process 50+ or so samples in one go, before the next module is processed. In a modular synth however you'll typically want to process no more than 4 or so samples per module in order to minimize latency in feedback loops. Thus you need to keep modules which are interconnected on the same core and compute them in a as tight as possible loop.

Hence, it doesn't work to paralellize by module type. One can only parallelize by sections within a patch that are fully independent, e.g. if there's a synth voice and drum sequence which share no cable connection whatsoever. Then one could render the synth voice on one core, the drum sequence on another. But as soon as you patch a drum into your synth voice, they're not independent anymore. So it might not be worth doing in the first place, as this is what modular synthesis is about.

[lnikj]

Multi-threading isn't simply a matter of developing software in a certain year. Sometimes it takes some truly clever tricks and lots of nasty code.

how about compartmentalizing the modular by type across the cores then? you'd have the osc modules on core 1, filters on 2, other modulators on 3 and fx on 4. I know that the hard part is keeping the parallel dsp synced because of the non-realtime nature of the operating system but it CAN be done, through nasty code, right? or does that not make any sense?

The problem is, one can typically only ever compute algorithms in parallel if the data they munch has no overlap, and is large enough to justify the overhead.

In a simple patch with a typical envelope, LFO, VCO, VCF and VCA situation, where the envelope controls LFO rate, cutoff and volume, the envelope needs to be processed first, then the LFO, then the VCO and so on - because for each sample any of the modules needs the outcome of the previous module. Therefore, the algorithms in synthesizers typically process on a shared set of data. In a modular synth, each cable represents such a dependency, with few exceptions (e.g. MIDI input, or any module that has only outputs but no inputs).

Furthermore, "large enough data to munch on" in any audio process means, it's not worth doing multicore on a sample per sample basis. It's only worth doing if a module (VCO, VCF...) can process 50+ or so samples in one go, before the next module is processed. In a modular synth however you'll typically want to process no more than 4 or so samples per module in order to minimize latency in feedback loops. Thus you need to keep modules which are interconnected on the same core and compute them in a as tight as possible loop.

Hence, it doesn't work to paralellize by module type. One can only parallelize by sections within a patch that are fully independent, e.g. if there's a synth voice and drum sequence which share no cable connection whatsoever. Then one could render the synth voice on one core, the drum sequence on another. But as soon as you patch a drum into your synth voice, they're not independent anymore. So it might not be worth doing in the first place, as this is what modular synthesis is about.

Very clear explanation Urs.

So, if you have got a patch where there are voices that are genuinely independent, you are better off running them in separate instances of your modular plugin and relying on your DAW to assign them to different cores?

[As you say, kind of defeats the object though.]

[Urs]

So, if you have got a patch where there are voices that are genuinely independent, you are better off running them in separate instances of your modular plugin and relying on your DAW to assign them to different cores?

[As you say, kind of defeats the object though.]

Well, what I meant was, those independent voices lend themselves to parallel processing. This is where a software could automatically do this.

But then modular synthesis is about being economic. In Eurorack your currency is modules. In Modular your currency is CPU. Both situations beg for economic patching, where no module is half wasted. Therefore I have yet to see an interesting Eurorack patch which does not contain a hell of a lot of overlap between voices. Hence, if I was Softube, I wouldn't bother with multicore either.

[lnikj]

So, if you have got a patch where there are voices that are genuinely independent, you are better off running them in separate instances of your modular plugin and relying on your DAW to assign them to different cores?

[As you say, kind of defeats the object though.]

Well, what I meant was, those independent voices lend themselves to parallel processing. This is where a software could automatically do this.

But then modular synthesis is about being economic. In Eurorack your currency is modules. In Modular your currency is CPU. Both situations beg for economic patching, where no module is half wasted. Therefore I have yet to see an interesting Eurorack patch which does not contain a hell of a lot of overlap between voices. Hence, if I was Softube, I wouldn't bother with multicore either.

OK. Got you. I guess this will remain one of those situations where a fast i7 outperforms a multicore xeon monster.