Hive 2.1 public beta 01 revision 10837

[poopinpants]

On

[surreal]

[The Nerdy Music Guy]

A digital pad using only the stock wavetables. It also makes use of the new modnoise modulator, sampled by an LFO and smoothed by the matrix

https://soundcloud.com/user-589036812-2 ... d-1-x-hive

[surreal]

A digital pad using only the stock wavetables. It also makes use of the new modnoise modulator, sampled by an LFO and smoothed by the matrix

https://soundcloud.com/user-589036812-2 ... d-1-x-hive

Stunning!! Do you mind sharing the patch with us Nerdy Music Guy?

[Urs]

You can make a FG phase that’s almost exactly a cycle long and use the Rise/fall/move gate to window the osc. Just keyfol rise or fall. I made a preset for this once. Control Rate gets a bit worse for high pitched Notes though.

How do you set the FG length and rise/fall keyfol? By ear?

There was a trick... can't remember... but I did use the Scope to find the ideal setting...

[Urs]

Any thoughts about a one shot mode for the oscillators for use as exciters/transients with the comb filters?

Just use the Shape Sequencer as an envelope for Osc volume... works great.

Have been using the FG to modulate Osc volume. It works, but to get consistent results across different pitches it really needs keytracking the FG rate and fiddly tuning by ear. I think, though I'm not sure, that one shot oscillators would make that unnecessary.

Accidentally selecting one shot could lead to confusion, though.

I'll think about it. Hive evolves incrementally, so it / a solution might not happen through this iteration, but possibly the next then.

[hakey]

Okay, thanks.

[Urs]

(For these kinds of edge cases I am pondering about a HighDef mode for Hive which then also makes FM possible... but CPU... dunno. Not even sure it’s possible...)

Urs if you Could do this and the engine-filter mix and match I think Hive would be the ultimate.. offcourse add OSC Sync 2 haha

We will look at mix and match once we deal with a new engine. No promise just yet, just a nod at a concept we like, for a stage we're not at yet.

The way we have expanded Hive from where it was has been a quite unusual but IMHO radically mature process. In each of 3 iterations we have asked ourselves, regardless of common feature requests, what would benefit Hive users the most while at the same time introducing the least amount of change? The wavetable/ModMatrix update was quite literally invisible unless you knew how to get there. It changed the UI only in the slightest bit. The "West Coast update" aka 2.0 added 90 lines of pixels of fun and rectified the understatement of the ModMatrix. Up to here we added 6 knobs. The 2.1 update is again almost completely hidden unless you dial in the corresponding filters which have those 2-3 sliders.

What I'm getting at is, for a Sync/FM update we would need to introduce significant change. I have once broken it down to 6 switches and two knobs for FM alone. Some of these would literally undo what we think is part of Hive's workflow. E.g. we would have to decouple sub oscillator pitch from oscillator pitch.

So we are --- I am --- reluctant to go there.

We kind of go extra miles to make up for it. I mean, look at what has become of Hive. Part of that is "ok, they want Sync and FM, but it doesn't really fit, so let's give them some extra on this other idea we're having".

That said, I will keep trying. I once went there with a refactoring to add those switches I've mentioned and I ended up with a bugfest. The architecture is highly optimised for what it is and it doesn't lend itself for that FM/Sync-kind of interaction.

We'll keep revisiting it another day.

[octaveup]

So we are --- I am --- reluctant to go there.

being 0.1% as knowledgeable as anyone at u-He (and many on the forum), i hesitate to say anything, but it seems to me this is a superb answer

questions for more knowledgeable people to confirm or deny:

- not every single synth will (or can or should) have every single feature?

- more fundamentally divergent features crammed in likely bring dilution and complexity?

- if we were each only allowed by law to own 1 vst synth, then there would be arguments to fit every single possible ability into a single synth (omnisphere, falcon, vps avenger looking at you...), but i *personally* would much rather have excellent synths that with optimised workflow but different capabilities, that compliment each other rather than overlapping every single known feature into a single behemoth?

- which isn't to say that i wouldn't probably die of happiness of u-He created a focussed FM synth, but just that it doesn't have to be Hive?

(am i right in even one of those points above?)

[neuromod]

Yeah, I personally get frustrated with many feature suggestions in synth threads, generally (not just here - I'm going back to my days lurking on Virus forums). People tend to fantasize about adding every feature they can think of, and they tend to do so with zero regard for implementation, and in a way that pushes all synths together.

I'm not saying all feature requests are like that - there are good, thoughtful requests in abundance. But there's also a lot of "wouldn't it be cool" daydreaming that isn't useful, and it pushes from "not useful" to "grating" when it's delivered in certain ways.

(I'm not meaning to be a scold ... I'm kinda struggling with whether certain things are worth calling out. They're probably not. Life is short. Eat good food, play synthesizers.)

[pdxindy]

What I'm getting at is, for a Sync/FM update we would need to introduce significant change. I have once broken it down to 6 switches and two knobs for FM alone. Some of these would literally undo what we think is part of Hive's workflow. E.g. we would have to decouple sub oscillator pitch from oscillator pitch.

So we are --- I am --- reluctant to go there.

I find Hive 2.1 to be pretty feature complete. IMO, Hive doesn't need Sync/FM (nor the added CPU cost). The Uhm possibilities cover those tones somewhat and there are other u-he synths that do that better anyway.

The main thing I want at this point is a bigger Mod Matrix in order to make full use of all the capability already added. Wouldn't mind a curve map to adjust incoming mod signals in addition to the hardwired curve choices (none of which are quite right for MPE stuff). I could live without that. The Mod Matrix though, really needs more slots and that wouldn't complicate the GUI or synth to add.

[Shiek927]

A digital pad using only the stock wavetables. It also makes use of the new modnoise modulator, sampled by an LFO and smoothed by the matrix

https://soundcloud.com/user-589036812-2 ... d-1-x-hive

That is absolutely gorgeous and takes me back to the Korg M1, Roland JD990 and the digital synths that I love. The only "critique" would be if there was this bassy saw-pad underneath, but it's so gorgeous and I love the filter at the end. It sounds so rich

[surreal]

(For these kinds of edge cases I am pondering about a HighDef mode for Hive which then also makes FM possible... but CPU... dunno. Not even sure it’s possible...)

Urs if you Could do this and the engine-filter mix and match I think Hive would be the ultimate.. offcourse add OSC Sync 2 haha

We will look at mix and match once we deal with a new engine. No promise just yet, just a nod at a concept we like, for a stage we're not at yet.

The way we have expanded Hive from where it was has been a quite unusual but IMHO radically mature process. In each of 3 iterations we have asked ourselves, regardless of common feature requests, what would benefit Hive users the most while at the same time introducing the least amount of change? The wavetable/ModMatrix update was quite literally invisible unless you knew how to get there. It changed the UI only in the slightest bit. The "West Coast update" aka 2.0 added 90 lines of pixels of fun and rectified the understatement of the ModMatrix. Up to here we added 6 knobs. The 2.1 update is again almost completely hidden unless you dial in the corresponding filters which have those 2-3 sliders.

What I'm getting at is, for a Sync/FM update we would need to introduce significant change. I have once broken it down to 6 switches and two knobs for FM alone. Some of these would literally undo what we think is part of Hive's workflow. E.g. we would have to decouple sub oscillator pitch from oscillator pitch.

So we are --- I am --- reluctant to go there.

We kind of go extra miles to make up for it. I mean, look at what has become of Hive. Part of that is "ok, they want Sync and FM, but it doesn't really fit, so let's give them some extra on this other idea we're having".

That said, I will keep trying. I once went there with a refactoring to add those switches I've mentioned and I ended up with a bugfest. The architecture is highly optimised for what it is and it doesn't lend itself for that FM/Sync-kind of interaction.

We'll keep revisiting it another day.

I do understand your thoughts here Urs.. thank you for all your Hardwork that goes into your synths

[Shiek927]

(For these kinds of edge cases I am pondering about a HighDef mode for Hive which then also makes FM possible... but CPU... dunno. Not even sure it’s possible...)

Urs if you Could do this and the engine-filter mix and match I think Hive would be the ultimate.. offcourse add OSC Sync 2 haha

We will look at mix and match once we deal with a new engine. No promise just yet, just a nod at a concept we like, for a stage we're not at yet.

The way we have expanded Hive from where it was has been a quite unusual but IMHO radically mature process. In each of 3 iterations we have asked ourselves, regardless of common feature requests, what would benefit Hive users the most while at the same time introducing the least amount of change? The wavetable/ModMatrix update was quite literally invisible unless you knew how to get there. It changed the UI only in the slightest bit. The "West Coast update" aka 2.0 added 90 lines of pixels of fun and rectified the understatement of the ModMatrix. Up to here we added 6 knobs. The 2.1 update is again almost completely hidden unless you dial in the corresponding filters which have those 2-3 sliders.

What I'm getting at is, for a Sync/FM update we would need to introduce significant change. I have once broken it down to 6 switches and two knobs for FM alone. Some of these would literally undo what we think is part of Hive's workflow. E.g. we would have to decouple sub oscillator pitch from oscillator pitch.

So we are --- I am --- reluctant to go there.

We kind of go extra miles to make up for it. I mean, look at what has become of Hive. Part of that is "ok, they want Sync and FM, but it doesn't really fit, so let's give them some extra on this other idea we're having".

That said, I will keep trying. I once went there with a refactoring to add those switches I've mentioned and I ended up with a bugfest. The architecture is highly optimised for what it is and it doesn't lend itself for that FM/Sync-kind of interaction.

We'll keep revisiting it another day.

to speak for everyone for a bit, I really appreciate the honesty. If it's simply not meant to be, it's not to be. What you're doing is not wizardry or magic -- you can't wave a magic wand and add whatever feature people want without consequence. If adding Sync/FM comes at the expense of too much of what Hive was supposed to be, that's okay since there's so much that's been added that makes up for it that initially wasn't going to be there at all. No one can look at Hive and be disappointed.

and again, guys, Sync/FM and (almost) any feature you can ask for is literally what Zebra3 is for haha

[Sound Author]

I just noticed that two of my patches are misbehaving but I solved the problem by turning the phase of both LFOs down to zero. So I'm guessing there's been some change to LFO triggered envelope behavior...maybe similar to the changes made to Bazille's LFO triggered envelopes?