u-he Hive 1.2 - free update - adds wavetables and more

[pdxindy]

On the topic of tabbing etc... (and also for those who are not following the thread about page-less synths)

Showing all ModMatrix slots at once would communicate "difficult synth" to many people - I won't risk it.

So, just like there is a gearporn skin in Bazille, you can make one for Hive that has all the mod slots visible.

Or maybe one of the skilled GUI makers will make one...

[pdxindy]

That said, you can of course already play different notes on left and right side using the sequencer, arpeggiator or any other modulation source with the ModMatrix and its funky new quantization modes.

You can also use 2 instances... instant dual arp!

[Urs]

On the topic of tabbing etc... (and also for those who are not following the thread about page-less synths)

Showing all ModMatrix slots at once would communicate "difficult synth" to many people - I won't risk it.

So, just like there is a gearporn skin in Bazille, you can make one for Hive that has all the mod slots visible.

Or maybe one of the skilled GUI makers will make one...

Sure, an alternative skin is always an option.

[tony10000]

I don't want Dual Arps because Dune has them (or luSH101 which has 8 arps etc) it's because I like the feature and can imagine sounds in my head that I could create with Hive.

What is a "Dual Arp"? Do you mean step sequencers?

From Dune 3's web page:

"Two arpeggiator units instead of just one greatly increase the sound design capabilities of DUNE 3. The Arpeggiators can be programmed independently and support both classic Up/Down arps, as well as playing back different sequences or even MIDI files. Furthermore, new features like the Random mode or programmable Arp Hold make the arpeggiator more powerful than ever before!"

So, they are combination arpeggiators and step sequencers with MIDI file loading capabilities.

The advantage of multiple independent layers: Dual Arps! The curse of multiple layers: Can't reuse/route stuff from one layer in another.

The advantage of non-independent layers: Economy, yay! The curse of non-independet layers: No Dual Arps.

We can have left side and right side in Hive play independent sequences/arpeggios only if we

- do not allow routing Osc1/VCF1 into VCF2 and vice versa
- do not allow ModEnv1 to be used in Osc2/VCF2 and vice versa
- and put similar restrictions on LFOs etc.

Obviously, if things can play at different tempo or with different keys, you need to separate them. But one of the greatest things about Hive is everything being freely routable. This is what allows Hive to be very flexible with very few parts.

I have some vague ideas for algorithmic pitching though, but I would not necessarily squeeze those into a second arpeggiator/sequencer pair.

That said, you can of course already play different notes on left and right side using the sequencer, arpeggiator or any other modulation source with the ModMatrix and its funky new quantization modes.

Yeah, I guess it would be pretty useless without multiple layers. Save that one for Zebra 3.

[Urs]

Hehehe, Zebra3 won't have multiple layers either.

I don't like layers. For me, they're the antithesis to elegance in synth design. "Make things look better by copying the same thing a dozen times". It was cool when a synth cost 8000 bucks and you wanted more than one sound at a time and you couldn't afford two. But nowadays? I don't know. From a synth design perspective it sounds lazy.

Sure, there's Dune with its voice based modifiers. We have similar things in Diva, ACE and Bazille. That's a kind of layering which I find less questionable. But I can't see myself design a synth where one set of modules is shielded away from another set of modules just because it enables to recall two sequences at once from a preset.

I'd much rather go for flexibility and more creative options.

[EvilDragon]

You did say there will be more triggering options in Z3, yes? So I suppose if there will be ways to trigger each column in the grid separately, we could have our layers. Yes?

[Urs]

You did say there will be more triggering options in Z3, yes? So I suppose if there will be ways to trigger each column in the grid separately, we could have our layers. Yes?

You might be able to trigger envelopes separately, yes. You can then set things up so that those envelopes align with lanes in the grid, sure.

(I'm nitpicking because restricting any for of separation to columns in the Grid is a cringeworthy thought for me... and Z3 will have a lot more ways for columns/lanes to interact)

[EvilDragon]

Sounds like a lot of fun to me

[AnX]

I don't like layers. For me, they're the antithesis to elegance in synth design. "Make things look better by copying the same thing a dozen times". It was cool when a synth cost 8000 bucks and you wanted more than one sound at a time and you couldn't afford two. But nowadays? I don't know. From a synth design perspective it sounds lazy.

a bit like copying hardware designs in software?

wow, Richard must be the laziest dev around, what with Legend and Dune....

[tony10000]

Hehehe, Zebra3 won't have multiple layers either.

I don't like layers. For me, they're the antithesis to elegance in synth design. "Make things look better by copying the same thing a dozen times". It was cool when a synth cost 8000 bucks and you wanted more than one sound at a time and you couldn't afford two. But nowadays? I don't know. From a synth design perspective it sounds lazy.

Sure, there's Dune with its voice based modifiers. We have similar things in Diva, ACE and Bazille. That's a kind of layering which I find less questionable. But I can't see myself design a synth where one set of modules is shielded away from another set of modules just because it enables to recall two sequences at once from a preset.

I'd much rather go for flexibility and more creative options.

I think layers are useful because they allow you to created layered sounds without having to use multiple synths on a track. Many DAWs have tools you can use to stack synths (rack, combinator, patcher, etc.) but those are less elegant that being able to save a patch and just pull it up in any DAW and play.

[Teksonik]

I don't want Dual Arps because Dune has them (or luSH101 which has 8 arps etc) it's because I like the feature and can imagine sounds in my head that I could create with Hive.

What is a "Dual Arp"? Do you mean step sequencers?

Yes Arp/Seq.

Hive 010419-1.png

Adding another Arp/Seq and having the ability to route the two Osc's into one of the Arp/Seq or to bypass them altogether for one Osc would be welcome here.

I was just using that as an example of a feature I like not because it is found in other plugins but simply because I find it musically useful.

The debate is that just because someone suggests a feature that is found in another plugin that doesn't mean they want Hive to be just like the other plugin.

It just means we find those features useful and wish for them to be added to Hive or any of the synths we own that don't already have them.

I've seen people ask for the Browser and Drag and Drop automation system that is found in Hive to be added to Dune. That doesn't mean people want Dune to be just like Hive it just means they find those features useful....in any synth.

I think it's pretty basic human nature to want the tools we find most useful and inspiring.

[Urs]

I don't like layers. For me, they're the antithesis to elegance in synth design. "Make things look better by copying the same thing a dozen times". It was cool when a synth cost 8000 bucks and you wanted more than one sound at a time and you couldn't afford two. But nowadays? I don't know. From a synth design perspective it sounds lazy.

a bit like copying hardware designs in software?

LOL, making exact emulation on the level of Legend and Repro is a lot, but it's certainly not a lazy job. Yep, it's lazy from a synth design perspective, but it's certainly a lot more work than just implementing an original design.

wow, Richard must be the laziest dev around, what with Legend and Dune....

I don't know if/how Dune does layers, but afaik it does that "Differential Unison" thing which I specifically excluded from the lazy part. Fwiw I always found it's a clever design.

But maybe it does layers in the classical sense too, where you have a simple synth like 2, 8 or even 16 times in one plug-in. That's something I dislike simply it falls short on the options to cross-patch between the parts. It's redundancy, redundancy, redundancy. These designs are IMHO often enough made for copy/paste even (the spectacular epitome of "lazy"), with an extra "part preset" format so anyone can just recombine somebody elses work blah blah. It's what romplers and multitimbral sound modules did. Not my cup of tea.

Thing is, once you can crosspatch between parts/layers/whatsoever, like you can in Hive or Zebra, you can get layered and complex sounds out of much fewer elements. It's more economic, uses less CPU, takes less screen estate (e.g. hidden in tabs). It's a simple logic.

Sure. These things often get the job done. But elegant, it is not.

[Teksonik]

That said, you can of course already play different notes on left and right side using the sequencer, arpeggiator or any other modulation source with the ModMatrix and its funky new quantization modes.

You can also use 2 instances... instant dual arp!

So let's take luSH101 for example. It has an Arp for each of it's 8 Layers. Would you then suggest loading up 8 different instances of luSH101 and then selecting 8 patches or resorting to using DAW Templates just to be able to play more than one Arp at once ?

So by your thinking let's make Hive a single Osc since you can just load another instance to get a second Osc. Can you see how inefficient that would be ? There are workarounds and there are solutions.

The bottom line is just because you don't understand a feature, any feature, that doesn't mean someone else doesn't find it incredibly useful.

This all started because someone else asked for more filters in Hive and used Dune 3 as an example. Someone responded "why not just buy Dune" ? I'm simply pointing out how ridiculous that way of thinking is. Let people ask for what they want without having to put up with words like "silly" and "rancid".

Taking my example of the Arp/Seqs, it is one feature that allows synths that have more than one to create sounds synths that only have one can't without resorting to inefficient workarounds like using multiple instances of the plugin.

Again I'm not really asking for Dual Arp/Seqs for Hive I was just using that as an example of a feature I find useful in other synths. Not because they are in other synths but because I find them useful. If they can't be added to a synth due to restrictions in architecture then so be it but that doesn't diminish the desire for the feature and that goes for any request made by any user.

[Teksonik]

I don't like layers. For me, they're the antithesis to elegance in synth design.

And that's why Dune 3 can do sounds that Hive could not even dream of doing.

I understand the desire to keep Hive simple but that simplicity comes at the cost of versatility.

I like using complex patches and using fewer synths. Some people like simple patches then layering them with more synths etc to build their song.

Both are legitimate ways of working but Hive lends itself better to the latter more than the former.

Bottom line for me is I love both Hive and Dune. Almost all of my projects will start with one or the other so I'm a huge fan of both.

I guess all I'm saying is that if people love a synth it's natural for them to want it to contain the features they find useful.

To me it's a sign of love not hatred and it's certainly no reason to be defensive........

[Teksonik]

Way off topic but am I the only one who would love to see Richard and Urs work together on a new synth project ? I know it won't happen but I'm willing to bet the house that the resulting Synth would rule the world.

I'd much rather see them work together than have one making snarky comments about the other since I respect them both.