Massive X or Hive 2. Need an opinion.

[EnGee]

I'll keep an eye on it

[chk071]

Look at those Envelopes from various synths and tell me which one you want to work with more (notice, I said work with not look at!)?!

Massive X envelopes.jpg

Massive envelope.jpg

Largo Envelopes.jpg

Point taken. I'd definitely prefer to work with the Largo ones. (It's great in terms of usability anyway)

[perpetual3]

Also what is this silly static illustration?!

Particularly the omission of several esoteric parameters which are not self explanatory, i.e. parameters which would have required a visual representation/feedback.

In this thread one could get the impression that some obvious flaws (monophonic complex envelopes weren't even mentioned?) were deliberate so that people only speak about that product and not about the others

#----

Anyhow, we're very happy with Hive 2. Its recent transformation has given it a big boost in customer satisfaction.

I have the impression that it's still often viewed as "the more simple synth in comparison", which, on the surface, it is - that's its concept, after all. Hence people ask "can you make this sound of synth X in Hive?". But that omits that Hive's is also capable of things no other similar synth can do, such as running modulation sequences of different lengths against each other and the vast options of randomness. I think people should be asking the opposite question more often: "How long will it take you to whip up this Hive patch in Synth X, if ever?".

Also, something I think we've never really mentioned, is Hive's new voice stealing algorithm. Play an exactly identical pad or piano type sound in Hive and in another synth for a while. I'm almost certain that the way Hive schedules its voices will be preferred. If you want to make it more obvious, set both synths to 4 voices, hold a chord with your left and and play a melody with the right hand.

Will Zebra 3 inherit the modulation and wavetable features of Hive 2?

[Stefken]

Hive's is also capable of things no other similar synth can do, such as running modulation sequences of different lengths against each other and the vast options of randomness. I think people should be asking the opposite question more often: "How long will it take you to whip up this Hive patch in Synth X, if ever?".

Exactely. The new modulation system transported Hive to a whole other level.
When I open up Hive 2 it always gives me a warm feeling. This product is so well made, be it on level of GUI, modulation, included presets, or sound that it's a real joy to use.
It also holds a vast potential to grow and experiment with as the modulation system seems simple on first sight but it's actually very deep.

[Urs]

Will Zebra 3 inherit the modulation and wavetable features of Hive 2?

Modulation system for sure, wavetable system maybe a bit differently. We won't give up on spline-based oscillators with continuous morphing as opposed to wavetables which have discrete steps. Also of course, Zebra will keep having oscillator effects, such that maybe we don't need those 2-dimensional wavetable options we have in Hive.

OTOH the variety and quality of the uhm based wavetables has been so good, we might just as well add an option for that in Z3.

[pixel85]

Look at those Envelopes from various synths and tell me which one you want to work with more (notice, I said work with not look at!)?!

Massive X envelopes.jpg

Massive envelope.jpg

Largo Envelopes.jpg

From these three? MX. Sorry MX have shapes, peak and hold - functionality that original Massive doesn't have and it was a major problem for me. Largo? I didn't used it but from the picture it looks like it's really tiny visually and it's also the most basic ADSR.
Obviously the best option would be a visual envelope that we can edit like in Absynth for example.

The "peak" is the same as "level"! What's the difference? Yes, there is no "shapes" in the original Massive but there is no "Morph" in Massive X and most importantly, you see a visual feedback what is going on, and you can change the GUI presentation from clicking the mouse on the visual dots and drag the slops, and ... there is a scroll mouse support ... and there are presets to save and load ... and ... Come on now!

If you prefer working with Massive X, then good for you but for me I really can't go back to inferior design and functions in a very important module like an envelope.

Oh well, for me slopes are much more important than everything that you mentioned. For example without slopes I can't do super fast and very sharp basslines. Also I got use to tweak knobs and I don't use mouse scroll. Different people different needs.

[pdxindy]

Hive's is also capable of things no other similar synth can do, such as running modulation sequences of different lengths against each other and the vast options of randomness. I think people should be asking the opposite question more often: "How long will it take you to whip up this Hive patch in Synth X, if ever?".

Exactely. The new modulation system transported Hive to a whole other level.
When I open up Hive 2 it always gives me a warm feeling. This product is so well made, be it on level of GUI, modulation, included presets, or sound that it's a real joy to use.
It also holds a vast potential to grow and experiment with as the modulation system seems simple on first sight but it's actually very deep.

The thing I would like with the modulation in Hive 2 is some indicator that a parameter is modulated without having to select the source modulator.

[Stefken]

Hive's is also capable of things no other similar synth can do, such as running modulation sequences of different lengths against each other and the vast options of randomness. I think people should be asking the opposite question more often: "How long will it take you to whip up this Hive patch in Synth X, if ever?".

Exactely. The new modulation system transported Hive to a whole other level.
When I open up Hive 2 it always gives me a warm feeling. This product is so well made, be it on level of GUI, modulation, included presets, or sound that it's a real joy to use.
It also holds a vast potential to grow and experiment with as the modulation system seems simple on first sight but it's actually very deep.

The thing I would like with the modulation in Hive 2 is some indicator that a parameter is modulated without having to select the source modulator.

Obviously there are always things that can be improved. Who knows, some might happen in an update.

E.g.

* Hovering over a source modulator's title instead of having to select the crosshair (more controlled mousing needed ) would be a faster way to see the assigned mod targets.
* Saturn rings could show the modulations going on (but Urs doesn't seem to be a fan of to many balls in orbit stuff )
* Personally I prefer a list based mod matrix that you can sort on source and target which I find easier to scan than the current solution.
* The two way assignment system in Pigments (from source to target and from target to source) is great of course


Still, I consider Hive2 a gift to work with and if Zebra get's its modulation system it will transform a power synth in even a whoppier power synth.

[perpetual3]

Will Zebra 3 inherit the modulation and wavetable features of Hive 2?

Modulation system for sure, wavetable system maybe a bit differently. We won't give up on spline-based oscillators with continuous morphing as opposed to wavetables which have discrete steps. Also of course, Zebra will keep having oscillator effects, such that maybe we don't need those 2-dimensional wavetable options we have in Hive.

OTOH the variety and quality of the uhm based wavetables has been so good, we might just as well add an option for that in Z3.

Thanks, Urs. Waiting for Z3, but just might splurge or Hive 2 to become acquainted with your west coast based mod system better.

Although I’ve been so impressed by the sound of MX, I’ve been wanting to commit myself to using the synth exclusively for awhile. Yet, like you, my ideas of synthesis have changed radically in in the last three years.

[perpetual3]

I still think, if we go back to the issue at hand, the best is to demo the synths side by side. Of course I’m biased because that’s what I did, and one of the drawbacks of that approach is that I was not able to dive deep enough into Hive 2’s Mod system. In light of this, I’ll probably re-evaluate how I demo synths and other complex instruments and effects from now on.

[pdxindy]

The "peak" is the same as "level"! What's the difference? Yes, there is no "shapes" in the original Massive but there is no "Morph" in Massive X and most importantly, you see a visual feedback what is going on, and you can change the GUI presentation from clicking the mouse on the visual dots and drag the slops, and ... there is a scroll mouse support ... and there are presets to save and load ... and ... Come on now!

If you prefer working with Massive X, then good for you but for me I really can't go back to inferior design and functions in a very important module like an envelope.

Yeah... the peak parameter seems redundant. There is a difference between peak and level. If you hold a note and adjust the peak control it does not affect the held note, only the following note. Level will reduce the level of held notes too. I assume there is some thinking behind that choice, but the purpose is not obvious to me.

I'm undecided about the Envelopes in MX. As is they are hard to look at and understand the shape. My eyes cannot take a glance at the MX envelope and 'see' the shape. I have to study it for a few seconds.

Also there are some odd things. If you put the Env in loop mode, then adjusting the decay slope parameter changes the loop speed. I'm assuming that is a bug since slope shouldn't affect speed. Also, there is no visual indicator on the shape knob which direction is concave and which is convex. The shape knob scaling behavior feels odd.

And because there are no parameter values and no visual representation, I feel like I am sorta blindly tweaking and not quite understanding what I am doing. Some places I would very much like to have parameter values. For example on the Env delay and in ms and/or grid steps.

Under the static graphic are two arrows showing the env loop points. They are not adjustable.

MX has a bunch of modulators, but even between them all, there are some basic limitations. The performers are global and there is no option to retrigger upon note on or one shot. So they are not particularly useful as regular LFO's or Envelopes. The Performer Rate knob has no indicator of speed.

The LFO looks complicated and there are what, 16 shapes... but 8 of them are one basic shape with variations. The LFO's are actually kinda limited. For example, there is only the single square shape and no option to control pulse width.

The Envelopes are fairly capable of a variety of shapes and they can loop, but they cannot loop on the grid (in sync).

So with all the visual complexity of the various modulators, it is not possible to make a per voice 50% pulse width square wave modulator that repeats on the grid.

[EvilDragon]

Peak is a per note parameter that is not changing for the duration of the note, whereas level is always adjustable, it's not redundant.

So with all the visual complexity of the various modulators, it is not possible to make a per voice 50% pulse width square wave modulator that repeats on the grid.

Yes it's possible. Set the LFO mode to Sync and loop mode to Loop RST (RST is per-key reset).

[recursive one]

"The performers are global and there is no option to retrigger upon note on or one shot. So they are not particularly useful as regular LFO's or Envelopes. "

There is that option, look for this on the performers manual.

It is hidden in a sorta unobvious place, though.

[zerocrossing]

(Hive) Staying with the idea to be "better than Sylenth1" is not going to save it. It should be developed to compete with Serum level in mind not Sylenth1.

Amen brother

Hive 2 is perfect as it is. I dont know serum, but I dont need more feature porn in hive. Hive 2 gets me directly to the sound that I want within a few minutes (with the eclipse skin from plugmon).

I wouldnt have commented this if urs wouldnt have joined this thread. If you read this urs ... please ignore them

I think we should close this thread, wait for Zebra3 and then we do a "Should I buy Massive X or Zebra3"-thread

Exactly.

[pdxindy]

Peak is a per note parameter that is not changing for the duration of the note, whereas level is always adjustable, it's not redundant.

So with all the visual complexity of the various modulators, it is not possible to make a per voice 50% pulse width square wave modulator that repeats on the grid.

Yes it's possible. Set the LFO mode to Sync and loop mode to Loop RST (RST is per-key reset).

yes, but there is no way to change pulse width... I meant 50% of standard half half... so 25-75