Bazille 1.1.1 RC revision 10667

[audiot]

I've said it before, for my money, Tokyo Ghost is the absolute best third-party skin for any synth I've ever used. It makes Bazille much easier to use/understand. The modules are logically laid out, everything's on one page, the modulation depth and visualizations are crystal clear, great contrast and a nice, clean look. Reminds me of a Eurorack or VCV setup. I probably wouldn't use Bazille much if not for Tokyo Ghost TBH. Every time I open up Gearporn, I feel lost. When I use Tokyo Ghost I feel right at home with Bazille.

Definitly one of the most talented UI designers Even "The Unfinished" is using his skins lately ...

https://vimeo.com/482532649

[yellowmix]

The manual file size shrunk by half!

Is it possible for VST3 installations on Windows to go into a u-He subfolder off Common Files/VST3? I always move it manually. Some devs dump it into VST3 and others put it into their company name subfolder, and some are extra nice and give the user the option to choose.

[JoeCat]

As good as the original U-he UI (oh, baby, we gotta go ) are, Plogmon is the only time I've paid for skins (may pick up the Neumann for Zebra - looks incredible!)

[pdxindy]

I have the Tokyo Ghost skin. I like it and used it for a while. Then I ended up back on the Gearporn skin.

Can i ask why? The overall structure is more logical to me. Then you have the mod depth rings and the the larger controls? But i agree, that the tokyo skin is not perfect. He promised to release a dark version a few moths ago (i prefer dark skins). At the moment it's the best option (in my opinion ... i know, that it's a highly subjective topic ).

I reinstalled Tokyo Ghost and just tried it again. All the Plugmon skins are amazing. I have lots of praise for their impressive efforts.

I find the Gearporn skin easier to see all the parts individually. The inputs and outputs stand out better to me. It is calm and easy on the eyes. Also, I appreciated the mod circles in Tokyo Ghost, but don't find them better. Not worse, just not better. I'm a tough audience, cause I have never had any complaint about the Gearporn skin. I love using it. - Hard to top it in that case

[liv]

I have over 100e invested in Leap Into The Void Bazille Soundsets which are very good, was Mikael one of the sound designers that responded btw ?

@BSB.
Thanks for the heads up.
I'm indeed in contact with Viktor (u-he) since awile. He's been very helpful.

[Urs]

Bump for Urs or U-he team. Merci

Merci for all the hard work here.

Would there be a way to run the old and new versions of Baz at the same time ?

I have over 100e invested in Leap Into The Void Bazille Soundsets which are very good, was Mikael one of the sound designers that responded btw ?

I did not save my old Bazille installers but can I go back to the old version if worse come worse ?

It's complicated but I think it is somehow possible, using two different plug-in formats. Maybe @Tasmaniandevil can chime in tomorrow...

[audiot]

I'm a tough audience, cause I have never had any complaint about the Gearporn skin. I love using it. - Hard to top it in that case

Seems so As i said, it's a highly subjective topic. Although i have to say that good design can be measured. It's simply the number of people prefering design A over design B. So all you have to do, is asking lots of users

UI design is more important than some might thing. It's the direct interface between human and machine (or software). You dont have to make a rocket sience out of it, but the success of synths like Serum has a reason (in my opinion).

[KBSoundSmith]

Sadly, Bazille is one of our least popular synths. Normal companies would have discontinued it. Normal companies would also have discontinued Hive before we added wavetables. With normal companies, sound designers would lose their work a lot quicker than they do with the way we think. And out thinking is based on the question "how do we bring Bazille into the future, like we did with Hive?"

1) I'm not surprised to hear this about Bazille
2) I'm happy to hear that is your line of thinking about both Bazille and Hive

Now, I found Hive 1 unappealing, but I adore Hive 2. Bazille, upon the alpha, had a lot of appeal to me... but once it was actually released, it took several years for me to finally buy and use it. Maybe I can shed some light on why it is "underperforming" (one man's perspective, of course).

First, Hive.

If, as I see it, Hive 1's goal was to be simple, it achieved that goal too well. It was boring and brought nothing to the table that I couldn't already adequately achieve with Zebra and Diva. Hive NEEDED more complexity of some kind (unless someone desperately wanted the benefits of Hive's unison voicing). Wavetables, UHM, and new modulation options hit it out of the park. Plus, the experience of using it is so pleasurable -- yes it's an intangible, but truly, the subjective quality of enjoyment matters a lot. There are plenty of very capable synths I don't use simply because they are a PITA (plus becoming yet-another-interface/workflow to learn). Hive is painless to program and easy on my eyes. If I could keep only one synth, for capabilities it would be Zebra... but for pleasure of use, it would be Hive.

Now, Bazille.

Bazille, while being in many ways U-he's finest synth IMO, suffers from a number of issues that depress its appeal. It is, at the same time, both too complex and too simple.

Let's talk about Bazille's complexity first.

Bazille is intimidating. It is intimidating partly due to being modular and partly due to being an FM synth -- both require knowledgeable users (or users willing and able to become knowledgeable). If there were ever a synth that desperately needed educational material to accompany it as a matter of course, Bazille is it (although I'll add, the manual is excellent). It is a wild stallion most users aren't going to be able to tame without expert intervention.

Another bit of complexity is the interface itself -- patch cables get messy, and one of the reasons it took so long for me to buy Bazille is because I HATE PATCH CABLES... the visual mess gets me unnerved. Yes, I'm neurotic -- no, I'm not alone in that. But as I became more knowledgeable, the more I was willing to put up with cable mess -- it doesn't bother me as much now (inoculation, I suppose), but cable mess was still something that I needed to contend with, both in programming patches and reverse-engineering them (I will not tolerate patch cables in real life though -- virtual only!!!!).

And as a last User Experience matter, Bazille is not as fast to program as something like Hive -- a user needs to put in much greater time and effort to get something usable, whereas it's pretty hard to screw up a sound in Hive.

Before moving on, let me be clear: I have no opposition to Bazille being complex in these ways; in fact, such complexity is what draws me to Bazille (aside from cables...). I wouldn't have made this...

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=532621&hilit=bach

...if I didn't think Bazille was worth the effort (there were 43 iterations of that patch) -- I repeat, in many ways Bazille is U-he's finest creation.

But it does mean that the number of users willing to put the effort into learning it will be depressed. In my estimation, as the demand on users by a product increases, the realistic demand of users for that product decreases -- particularly if it isn't something guaranteed to make them lots of money (or any at all), which let's be honest, musicians and sound designers mostly won't be earning anything substantial. Even if a user imagines themselves to be an up-and-coming God of Synthesis, most will stop using the synth when faced with the actual difficulty of using it, regardless if they dropped serious amounts of cash for the synth or if it's free. Others (more realistically grounded) simply won't cross the threshold for a purchase, being scared off. I don't know that this can be addressed as easily as Hive, since Hive had the reverse problem -- too much simplicity.

Moving on.

Obviously, quite a bit of Bazille's mojo is creative patching and use of modulation in non-obvious ways (emergent versus inherent complexity). But I'd venture that (seemingly) simple modulation is where things get a bit uninspiring for most users.

Before buying Bazille, I bought FM8 specifically to learn FM programming... one reason being to eventually get and use Bazille (note that I felt the need to do this -- to buy a synth to prepare learning a different synth). Anyway, one quickly learns the importance of envelopes in FM programming. So it a bit deflating to come over to Bazille and find a limitation to ADSRs... or ADSRs controlling a ModMap, of which there only two (and if I want a triangle wave for oscillators, I have to sacrifice one of the two... leaving only one ModMap for modulation usage... so mostly just ADSRs for FM programming!).

I don't have much to complain about with LFOs and Ramps. However, they can run into the same issue of the ModMaps previously mentioned. Separately, an oscillator (or oscillators) can be used to get more elaborate LFO shapes... but then there are fewer oscillators to use for FM programming, etc.

Lastly, one other issue is sometimes in getting very precise modulation shapes such as one might expect from an MSEG.

Now, how often are issues like these *really* a problem? Not often enough to ever imaginably come close to being a deal breaker, but often enough I can't help but comment on it. It begs the question "In a synth that is otherwise this complex, why can't I more easily do the complex thing I have in mind?"

To summarize more clearly, the "negative" aspects of Bazille are the complexity of tonal control and the simplicity of individual modulators... which can then become a frustration when the emergent complexity of combining modulators is faced, confounding the desire for fast, deliberate, precise results.

Some complexity problems can only really be solved by users becoming educated. It seems an effort in teaching potential users how to come to grips with FM, routing signals, and so on is the only way forward -- dumbing down Bazille defeats the purpose of Bazille. Unfortunately, a potential customer being willing and able to learn is not too reliable -- however, there are almost certainly those who can be encouraged to do so, provided learning materials are available (and I really don't think programming synths is as hard as it is sometimes made out to be).

As for the other problems, I can think of a few interesting possibilities, some quite minor, others perhaps a bit much to ask:

1) The addition of Triangle Waveforms to the oscillators, to preserve ModMaps for more interesting tasks
2a) Additive Synthesis via ModMap
2b) Additive Resynthesis (see Additive/resynthesis + FM + frame concept as used in Arturia Synclavier V for the inspiration of this request -- Bazille would be wild with anything even remotely close to this -- perhaps a ModMap with an A + B state that a modulator can morph between?)
3) More ModMaps. ModMap greed is good (at least one for each envelope). And/or...
4) Possibly some MSEGs -- I get that usage of ModMaps and the Sequencer, etc, are supposed to be a creative alternative to MSEGs... that MSEGs almost make programming too easy and encourage neglect of combining other modulators via ModMaps and multiplexes... but something to consider. The results would often be more immediate and easily controllable than current options. Again, while individual modulators are simple, combining them intelligently and deliberately is non-trivial. MSEGs, while somewhat against the spirit of Bazille as I see it, would make detailed modulation more approachable for a greater number of users (and if in addition to what's already there, would simply be multiplicative in power)

[The Nerdy Music Guy]

From my experience, people buy synths with a certain intention in mind and the intention of Bazille may just not be entirely clear to many people and if it is clear, it may simply not be something they want.

Like, in my experience, people strangely buy synths mainly to emulate a certain flavor of sound, like vintage sounds or the latest EDM sounds or whatever. To those people, it may not be obvious why they would want Bazille.

People who simply like to explore sounds on the other hand (I would say I'm in this category, for example), seem to love Bazille and rate it very highly.

Not judging anything, by the way.

Also regarding the preset compatibility issue: We ran into a very similar situation with Surge recently. The comb filter was apparently tuned incorrectly by a very small amount the whole time. This is an obvious bug that has to be fixed (and it has been fixed), but it would obviously break all existing presets that use the comb filter. There is no easy and "right" solution to this kind of thing. I think in this case, U-He made the right call.

[EvilDragon]

Also regarding the preset compatibility issue: We ran into a very similar situation with Surge recently. The comb filter was apparently tuned incorrectly by a very small amount the whole time. This is an obvious bug that has to be fixed (and it has been fixed), but it would obviously break all existing presets that use the comb filter. There is no easy and "right" solution to this kind of thing. I think in this case, U-He made the right call.

Yep, so we added a context menu option to toggle the old comb filter (only shown in the filter subtype menu when you actually have comb chosen), and it is automatically activated when old patches are loaded. Not unlike Zebra 2.3 mode, but done for this one specific thing only.



Oh also, let me just say that I didn't TL;DR KBSoundSmith's post - there is some excellent insight in there!

[tasmaniandevil]

Would there be a way to run the old and new versions of Baz at the same time ?

It's complicated but I think it is somehow possible, using two different plug-in formats. Maybe @Tasmaniandevil can chime in tomorrow...

Of course, he can.

Running Bazille 1.1 and 1.1.1 side by side

Usally this would be fairly easy to do, but it's a bit complicated, due to the fact that the update introduces the new browser. If the old plugin sees the new browser, it gets deeply depressed, panics, and then simply crashes out of frustration.

There are ways to have both versions installed side by side, but they come with some caveats, and should only be temporary solutions. Once you're done with comparisons and adjustments, remove the old, and reinstall the new version, to make sure everything is up to date.

Windows

You will have to do a completely separate installation of the new version. I.e. install the Bazille.data folder of the update in a different location than the old version.
You also have to install the VST2 plugin into a different folder because of the shortcut to the Bazille.data folder.
Problem is, some hosts can display two versions of the same VST2 plugin (e.g. Reaper), but many hosts will only display one, and most times you don't know which one.

The best option would be a host that can load VST2 and VST3 versions.
In this case the easiest way would be to only update the VST3 version, and omit the VST2 during installation.

Example if you want to use the VST2 for old and new Bazille:

Old Bazille.data: C:\Users\USERNAME\Documents\u-he\Bazille.data
Install update to: C:\Users\USERNAME\Documents\u-he\temp\Bazille.data

Old VST2 plugin: C:\...\VST2\u-he\Bazille(x64).dll
Install updated VST2 to: C:\...\VST2\u-he\temp\Bazille(x64).dll

Example if you want to use the old VST2 and new VST3:

Data folder same as above.
During installation, uncheck the VST2 option, so it doesn't get updated.
VST3 gets updated in this location: C:\Program Files\Common Files\VST3

Note that both options will create two completely separate Bazille.data folders.
This means you will end up with two sets of Bazille factory presets, user presets, and preset database files. So any presets you want to compare have to be installed in both locations.

Mac

Since plugins are installed to default system and user locations on Mac, it's not possible to have two completely separate installations.

If you have a host that supports multiple plugin formats (VST2, VST3, AU), you can still make it work, with some caveats.

Install the update first, but during installation, omit the one plugin format you want to use as the old version (e.g. uncheck the VST2 format).

Now run the installer for the old version again, rev. 3899. Currently this is the version you can still download from the main Bazille product page. After the update is released, you will find it in the Bazille release archive.
But uncheck all plugin formats during installation. This way it only updates (or downdates, in this particular case) the application support files, i.e. the scripts and GUI elements.

Now you should have a working VST2 of the old Bazille 1.1 and a VST3 and AU version of the new Bazille 1.1.1. The caveat is that the new version will also load with the old GUI. This includes the preset browser, meaning you can't access the features coming with the new browser.
Thus this should only be a temporary solution while comparing and adjusting your presets.

Note that on Mac, you don't end up with two sets of presets. So it's best to simply create two new preset folders, and copy all the presets you want to compare into both folders.

If you run into trouble (which can happen easily), then please contact our support, so we can help you fix any problems arising from the side by side installation of both versions.

[audiot]

@KBSoundSmith

I agree at some points, but packing new features into Bazille wouldnt make it more attractive (in my opinion). Bazille is unique. It is what it is and a good compromise somewhere between a modular architecture and less complex fixed architectures.

Some less complex improvements, that i can imagine would be:

- new default UI (similar to plugmons): one-page design, lager controls, mod depth rings

- mod matrix slots on the left or right side, so anybody can decide wether to use the cables or the mod matix. The mod matrix would of course need a vertical scrollbar if you have lots of routings in a patch and could be ideally sorted by sources and targets. That would be ... and would also facilitate the overview. It can be damn hard to follow the cables from patches made by others ... and also your own patches

[Urs]

Now, Bazille.

Thank you - very good analysis & interesting thoughts!

- U

(I'm currently elsewhere, mentally, so can't write a reply which would do yours justice, but I dig your ideas and I will keep them in mind!)

[Howard]

I vaguely remember a 'spectralise' map mode being teased somewhere (additive oscillators?), did I dream that or is it something we'll see in future?

It's not a map mode, but a map "Shape" option. Look again (and read the manual )

Additive synthesis (spectralize)
Load init, set OSC1 to ‘TapMap’, then right-click in Mapping Generator 1 and select Reset. Right-click again and select e.g. ‘9’. Raise just two or three of the values (e.g. 2, 5 and 9). Right-click once more and select Shapes / Spectralize...
The Spectralize function interprets the map as the levels of partials in the harmonic series and transforms them into the corresponding waveform.

[surreal]

I wish bazille and hive could interconnect into each other.. I like bazille but I am still paying off Zebra wich I bought a year ago on Black Friday