Quite a bit. MSF is a very technical environment, almost like working in Reaktor but without the headache of needing to know DSP (although with the Math module DSP is possible). MSF also excels in it's flexibility, having ways to modify any parameter in any way with any etc etc... The problem is, it's still a very complex synth. While it's effects section is a candy land and virtually unlimited, it's still hard to wrap your head around in a decent amount of time. I've had sessions where I'll spend a half hour just working on getting the dynamics right.sidesword wrote: Sun May 10, 2020 9:29 pm UVI Falcon and MSoundFactory seem like they could each reach the same result but from a different workflow, are they really that different?
Falcon on the other hand strikes a fantastic balance. While it's not nearly as flexible or versatile as MSF, it's much simpler to use and thus many times faster. It's easier to be in a creative mood with Falcon as it feels more like building a sound rather than building a machine to make sound. And while the effects section isn't as diverse or complete as MSF, it's straight forward to use and with Effect Racks and Busses (this is where it's DAW like in mixing in effects) you can be very creative with the effects even though they're not individually customizeable. Also Falcon has Lua scripting to make event handling, MIDI processing, and many other features more accessible and versatile. Though, you can't really do any DSP with the scripts so it's not as powerful as MSF or Reaktor in terms of synthesis.
MSF is a synthetic laboratory whereas Falcon is a sound design tool box. MSF is very specific and flexible, but takes a lot of time to master and work with. Falcon gets the job done even though it doesn't have all the tools. I love both of these tools, and would never claim one is better than the other. They have their purposes in my workflow. MSF is what I use to get a specific sound. Falcon is what I use to make complex sounds quickly, even if not exactly what I had in mind.
