New Pigments 2 Thread (On Topic Discussion Only, Please)

[WatchTheGuitar]

It was a couple of months ago I tried the demo so this might have been fixed, but is it possible to remove the constantly moving LFOs in the middle of the GUI? I don’t want that distraction when programming patches.

I find it a really useful visual aid that enhances patch creation. One man’s meat...

Great for you, but I was not asking for someones opinion. It was a simple YES/No question.

Oh I’m sorry I thought this was a forum rather than your personal Q&A site.

Since you cannot answer my question with an opinion, you are only wasting your time . Plus, there are countless of questions similiar to mine on this forum, which people are able to interpret and answer correctly. Anyway, will let you know when I’m asking for an opinion because I cannot decide for myself what I like or don’t like.

It's a forum you egocentric muppet. And not the official Arturia forum either.
I didn't PM you about it, I posted something that quoted you. The difference is we can have discussions based around posts, not necessarily asking your opinion on my opinion of...


...see how it works?

Now I've explained how a forum works we can move on. I apologise* for the tangent.

* to the other members of the forum

[Ohlson_M]

It was a couple of months ago I tried the demo so this might have been fixed, but is it possible to remove the constantly moving LFOs in the middle of the GUI? I don’t want that distraction when programming patches.

I find it a really useful visual aid that enhances patch creation. One man’s meat...

Great for you, but I was not asking for someones opinion. It was a simple YES/No question.

Oh I’m sorry I thought this was a forum rather than your personal Q&A site.

Since you cannot answer my question with an opinion, you are only wasting your time . Plus, there are countless of questions similiar to mine on this forum, which people are able to interpret and answer correctly. Anyway, will let you know when I’m asking for an opinion because I cannot decide for myself what I like or don’t like.

It's a forum you egocentric muppet. And not the official Arturia forum either.
I didn't PM you about it, I posted something that quoted you. The difference is we can have discussions based around posts, not necessarily asking your opinion on my opinion of...


...see how it works?

Now I've explained how a forum works we can move on. I apologise* for the tangent.

* to the other members of the forum

And I apologize to myself for arguing with random people on the internet. How KVR-ish of me. I should spend my time writing music instead. We all should.

[teilo]

Did anyone notice that Pigments 2.1.1 supposedly added a convolution reverb? The release notes say: "New convolution reverb engine." But I don't see any such thing.

[DocAtlas]

Did anyone notice that Pigments 2.1.1 supposedly added a convolution reverb? The release notes say: "New convolution reverb engine." But I don't see any such thing.

I'll have to check that out; I haven't updated since I bought it last year, when 2.0 was released.

[Biome_Digital]

this was an error! there's no update to the reverb

[chagzuki]

I've been using Pigments for a month or so now, and for the most part I don't run up against limitations that prevent me from designing the sounds I'm aiming for. Of course, there are also times when the architecture doesn't allow for a certain option. I'm curious as to what features people would like to see in future updates?

Some of the parameters on the fx section currently can't be modulated, not sure why, such as the output gain for the compressor. There are times when I've wanted to be able to control that with an envelope. Also the controls for the EQ in the FX section can't be modulated... designing sounds like snare drums would benefit from being able to do so. Currently the only way to e.g. control the noise tail of a synthetic snare is to modulate the filters, but an EQ would be more suited to that purpose.

I'd also like more pan controls... it's very cool that the reverb has a width control and I can use it in mono if I want to, but it create a lot more options if I could also position that reverb in the stereo field, and modulate that position.

Also, pan controls for the engines would be very useful. The sample engine has a pan control on the edit screen, but the other generators don't, and the sample pan control can't be modulated. Currently I have to creatively use the filters as pan controls in order to strategically place things in the stereo field, but it's a workaround really and means that the filter signal path options get determined by that factor... and that disallows other filter options. I haven't looked at many competing synths in much depth but I noticed that Serum has pan controls on the oscillators; it seems to be a bread-and-butter feature.

[WatchTheGuitar]

My number 1 Pigments request would be for a version I could use on my iPad which would let me share presets with my PC, because it’s Sunday and I really like my sofa.

[Sampleconstruct]

Pigments update released.

V 2.1.3
Bug fixes:
Instruments state is now properly recalled when reloading an FL Studio project
Reduced projects loading time and size optimisation
No more missing samples when browsing sound banks in the Store

[c_voltage]

Also, pan controls for the engines would be very useful.

Yep, that would be good. (Though it can organize somehow thru filters, but anyway. Frankly it always seems strange to me, when more priority pan knob in filters than in oscillators.)

[MadDogE134]

thnx for the heads up on the update

[BONES]

Great update, it brought a project I couldn't load back to life! I still can't see the Pigments GUI, I just get whatever's behind it in the window, but at least I can open the project now, which I couldn't a few days ago. Of course, there was a Windows update on Thursday night, too, which might also have fixed the problem.

(Though it can organize somehow thru filters, but anyway. Frankly it always seems strange to me, when more priority pan knob in filters than in oscillators.)

I imagine it's because the filters are the same in left and right whereas UNISON in the oscillators can spread the oscillators across the stereo field, making it harder to implement a pan feature that works consistently whether you are using unison or not.

[c_voltage]

I imagine it's because the filters are the same in left and right whereas UNISON in the oscillators can spread the oscillators across the stereo field, making it harder to implement a pan feature that works consistently whether you are using unison or not.

Well, perhaps yes. (But for example in Falcon we can easily make unison any kind of complexity, and control general pan for this result.)

[chagzuki]

I just tested, in Pigments the pan control on the filters are... I don't know the names of the varieties of pan types, but it's not just increasing/decreasing left or right signals, it's summing one side into the other side to preserve the whole signal, so there wouldn't be a problem in having pan controls on the generators.

Edit: nope, I forgot to set the stereo width and did the experiment wrong. Bones is right, the pan type is just a left/right channel increase/decrease, and so it will deform unison voices. But the solution to that would be to simple set 'stereo' to 0, or a low number.

I need to read up on the technical aspects of types of panning.

[chagzuki]

There's also something weird going on with Pigments unison mode once it goes above 4 voices, the unison gets concentrated in the center of the stereo field. I was just playing with supersaw type sounds and in order to get a good spread on 8 voices one has to use two generators at 4 voices each, detuned. Or chorus on the FX. Not sure why the unison mode behaves that way.

That's the classic unison, not the 'super', which is a different thing entirely.

[BONES]

Yes, that's doing the SuperSaw thing, just as "Chords" does chords. But the really weird thing that happens in Classic mode is that if you turn the Detune to zero and the Stereo to max, then every key press gives you a note with the voices in a different spot in the stereo field.

Well, perhaps yes. (But for example in Falcon we can easily make unison any kind of complexity, and control general pan for this result.)

And Falcon costs how much? If pan control is so crucial, just use two instances and pan them however you like. Or use Falcon when you need that. What would be the point of owning more than one synth if every synth had every feature you've ever heard of?