KNIFONIUM synth released

[BONES]

Both of these synths claim a tube sound. Knif is simply closer to that sound.

So what? Why would anyone care?

Another way to put it is a synth is not necessarily better because it's vastly complex and great at huge pads, almost any synth can be great at huge pads with a couple of FX added.

Even without. I rarely use effects on anything these days and have no problem getting massively huge sounds.

[Ploki]

Both of these synths claim a tube sound. Knif is simply closer to that sound.

So what? Why would anyone care?

because they advertise it as such?

Another way to put it is a synth is not necessarily better because it's vastly complex and great at huge pads, almost any synth can be great at huge pads with a couple of FX added.

Even without. I rarely use effects on anything these days and have no problem getting massively huge sounds.

Not everyone has such insane skills as you tho

[machinesworking]

Both of these synths claim a tube sound. Knif is simply closer to that sound.

So what? Why would anyone care?

If you see nothing in tube distortion that's special or that you like why would you buy this synth? That might be the dumbest comeback from you ever. Why would anyone buy a boutique soft synth with a huge CPU footprint that promises to mimic a tube synth without caring whether it sounds like tubes?

Another way to put it is a synth is not necessarily better because it's vastly complex and great at huge pads, almost any synth can be great at huge pads with a couple of FX added.

Even without. I rarely use effects on anything these days and have no problem getting massively huge sounds.

Another zinger, I am scorched to the core. I must rest and lick my wounds to fight another day!

[spelling edit]

[KrupaX]

Well, I’m liking it more and more each day and feeling daft that I didn’t jump on it as it properly floats my boat, even though it took a mighty worry of system optimisation to get it to run nicely on my old laptop... I’ll definitely keep my eyes peeled for the next sale, or a disappointed bargain buyer who wishes to get some of the value of their loyalty voucher back...

[plexuss]

Yeah, if my bandmate gave me a piece like that I'd probably remove half the parts and he'd thank me for it. On my headphones at work it's kind of soupy- lots of bits bobbing about, trying to get noticed. [snip...]Emphasis mine.

Excelllent, that's exactly what I was trying to get across, musically ... the sense of storm sailing on epsilon. My job is done...

https://soundcloud.com/musicofplexus/st ... on-epsilon

Hi plexuss,
OT now: Are you a paraglider?
Greets

No. But I do watch Tucker Gott.

[bite_me]

https://soundcloud.com/musicofplexus/st ... on-epsilon

Hi plexuss,
OT now: Are you a paraglider?
Greets

[BONES]

because they advertise it as such?

Yeah, and we advertise our TV shows as exciting and worth watching, doesn't make it true.

Not everyone has such insane skills as you tho

Only because you don't bother, you've learned in an age when you can just keep adding stuff and so that's what you do. Doesn't make it the only way and it certainly doesn't make it the best way.

If you see nothing in use distortion that's special or that you like why would you buy this synth?

I use distortion all the time, I just don't value "tube distortion" in particular over, say, a bit of wavefolding. Of course it will always depend on the situation, sometimes a nice bit of saturation is just the ticket but it's something I'll always experiment with, not pre-decide upon.

Another zinger, I am scorched to the core. I must rest and lick my wounds to fight another day!

What? Do you think I am having a go at you? A little self-centred, don't you reckon? I am simply offering a different perspective and attempting to understand yours.

[Ploki]

Yeah, and we advertise our TV shows as exciting and worth watching, doesn't make it true.

TV show excitement is subjective and is based on taste.
Authenticity of a replica is objective. It's literally measurable and can objectively evaluated. If it says "it's an authentic emulation of X" while it's not at all, that means its false advertising and the seller is of dubious reputation.
It has nothing to do with liking said emulation or not, it's simply the correlation between advertisement and reality.

I.e. a car is advertised as "safest in its category" then crash test proves it's actually shit. It can still go fast and its still a car. But it's not what it says it is.

Or food is advertised as "eco friendly locally harvested" but it has palm oil from idk where. It can still taste good. But it's not what it says it is.

i.e. a synth emulation is touted as best tube synth ever coded. But it aliases like hell, which no tube gear ever does. It can still sound good to you. But it's not what it says it is.

Only because you don't bother, you've learned in an age when you can just keep adding stuff and so that's what you do. Doesn't make it the only way and it certainly doesn't make it the best way.

I have 6 or so synths of which manuals I read thoroughly and can navigate with ease.
You keep talking about having 100 one-knob synths. How am I adding stuff?

[dellboy]

The whole idea of "digital TUBES" sounds nonsense to me.

But what do I know ?

[KrupaX]

Talking of non digital tubes, is there anything interesting to be had from that Korg thing, Nubass? (Besides the obvious bass stuff)

[BONES]

TV show excitement is subjective and is based on taste.

Maybe but the promos we make for them, where I work, are based on misdirection and lies. You can pretty much say anything you want when promoting a product and you'll almost always get away with it.

Authenticity of a replica is objective. It's literally measurable and can objectively evaluated.

No it's not and no it can't. To me something might sound close enough but to you it may not. We all have our expectations and that makes any assessment of these kinds of things completely subjective. With something like valve distortion, you could probably find a hundred different standards to compare it to and it would probably be close enough to one of them to justify the marketing boast.

If it says "it's an authentic emulation of X" while it's not at all, that means its false advertising and the seller is of dubious reputation.

But what is meant by "emulation"? Maybe they just mean that it has all the same features - 2 x Osc, 1 x SV Filter, 2 x LFO, 2 x ADSR envelopes - hooked up in the same way. Perhaps that was their only goal? There are certainly enough examples of that to make it feasible.

It has nothing to do with liking said emulation or not, it's simply the correlation between advertisement and reality.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that a good advertisement will have minimal correlation with reality. Think of the way a hamburger looks on a poster compared to how it looks when you buy one.

i.e. a car is advertised as "safest in its category" then crash test proves it's actually shit.

In that case the advertising standards board would have it removed and that company's competitors would make sure it was. Because it is an objective fact, easily proven in a court of law. Whether something sounds the way you expect it to is impossible to prove in any way. We all just have to take your word for it. OTOH, a car ad could claim it offers "the most incredible driving experience of your life" and even Lewis Hamilton could not get that ad banned. Even terms like "accurately modelled" can't be argued against because if the real item goes from 1 to 10 and your "emulation" also goes from 1 to 10, then that is, in fact, accurate, even if it sounds completely different. It's just how this stuff works and if you believe anything you read or hear or see in an advertisement, you're a fool.

i.e. a synth emulation is touted as best tube synth ever coded. But it aliases like hell, which no tube gear ever does. It can still sound good to you. But it's not what it says it is.

Impossible to prove, though, especially if other tube emulations also alias. The company could argue they were talking about a specific aspect of the emulation and they felt the trade-off with aliasing was worth it for the accuracy it gets elsewhere.

I have 6 or so synths of which manuals I read thoroughly and can navigate with ease.
You keep talking about having 100 one-knob synths. How am I adding stuff?

It's not about what you have so much as how you use it. Most of my songs have only 5 or 6 tracks, plus vocals. A few are a little more complex but my track count has never gone above 10. As in, never-ever. Similarly, with the 52 covers I've worked up over the last few months, I don't think any of them use more than 5 or 6 effects. Drums get a couple, I put a limiter on the master, plus FireCobra, but for most of the songs that's all they need. No EQ, no nothing, except for on-board effects. And they sound great, probably the best production work I've ever done. Maybe that's Studio One but I don't think so, I think it's making a conscious decision to do more with less and putting in the effort to make it work. Of course, having amazing sounding synths like Knifonium helps a lot, too.

[BONES]

If you see nothing in tube distortion that's special or that you like why would you buy this synth?

Because it sounds great and is very easy to work with. What more would anyone need?

[machinesworking]

If you see nothing in tube distortion that's special or that you like why would you buy this synth?

Because it sounds great and is very easy to work with. What more would anyone need?

Sure, but dismissing the sound of tube distortion is just more your philosophical stance than anything concrete or logical. It sounds much closer to tube overdrive than other supposed tube synths. That doesn't disqualify other types of synthesis, but if you were looking to save time testing demos and someone told you that this synth did a great job modeling that type of distortion, it would be useful information, not unlike discussion on whether the granular section on a synth is useful or not.

I bought it the other day without demoing it, (internet was out when it was on sale), and mostly because people rave about it sounding close to what it's modeling. I figured the quality of the built in FX would make it at least worth $39.

[ericj23]

So I got an M1 Mac mini to replace my aged i7. Also got Knifonium but seem to have found an issue that is either Knifonium or Bitwig. Now, before anyone feels the need to point out that I am using Rosetta based software and that I should have waited until everything was working well can I just say I know. I am very happy with the current performance and it will only improve as M1 versions appear.

Anyway if I play an 8 note chord on Knifonium on Bitwig it uses a lot of CPU (30 -40% on the Bitwig meter). There are fairly frequent instantaneous jumps to 100% causing crackles. If I load the same thing, playing the same thing in Maschine no problem. I appreciate that this is probably a Bitwig problem but I thought it was mysterious enough to ask if any KVRians had any ideas how to reduce the crackles. I like Knifonium and would rather work with Bitwig.

I have already tried loading Knifonium in Machine in Bitwig, using the VST 2.4, and putting Maschine and Knifonium as separate processes in Bitwig. Still crackles.

Any help appreciated

[Ploki]

Maybe but the promos we make for them, where I work, are based on misdirection and lies. You can pretty much say anything you want when promoting a product and you'll almost always get away with it.

"misdirection and lies" about show? well you probably don't advertise a sci-fi show as a romcom.

No it's not and no it can't. To me something might sound close enough but to you it may not. We all have our expectations and that makes any assessment of these kinds of things completely subjective. With something like valve distortion, you could probably find a hundred different standards to compare it to and it would probably be close enough to one of them to justify the marketing boast.

Knifonium is not "a valve distortion", it's a software replica of a very specific synth with very specific distortion. It's supposed to sound like that. It's not a random thrown together piece of software that supposed to be a generic tube.

But what is meant by "emulation"? Maybe they just mean that it has all the same features - 2 x Osc, 1 x SV Filter, 2 x LFO, 2 x ADSR envelopes - hooked up in the same way. Perhaps that was their only goal? There are certainly enough examples of that to make it feasible.

And Jonte Knif confirms that it sounds and behaves just like the real thing. Brainworx engineers modeled the complete circuits of the original hardware, including all 26 tubes, applying their patented Tolerance Modelling Technology (TMT, US Patent No. 10,725,727) to recreate the natural variations in envelope parameters, pitch, LFO speed, and so many other characteristics to make this digital recreation sound as realistically analog and natural as possible.

As i said, realistically analog is an antithesis of synth changing parameter response when you change sampling rate.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that a good advertisement will have minimal correlation with reality. Think of the way a hamburger looks on a poster compared to how it looks when you buy one.

On the other hand, a good product will be exactly as advertised.
u-he advertisements promise exactly what they deliver.
Even the hyper-corpo Apple's M1 advertisements turned out to be performing exactly as advertised.

i.e. a car is advertised as "safest in its category" then crash test proves it's actually shit.

In that case the advertising standards board would have it removed and that company's competitors would make sure it was. Because it is an objective fact, easily proven in a court of law. Whether something sounds the way you expect it to is impossible to prove in any way. We all just have to take your word for it. OTOH, a car ad could claim it offers "the most incredible driving experience of your life" and even Lewis Hamilton could not get that ad banned. Even terms like "accurately modelled" can't be argued against because if the real item goes from 1 to 10 and your "emulation" also goes from 1 to 10, then that is, in fact, accurate, even if it sounds completely different. It's just how this stuff works and if you believe anything you read or hear or see in an advertisement, you're a fool.

it sounds and behaves just like the real thing.

i.e. a synth emulation is touted as best tube synth ever coded. But it aliases like hell, which no tube gear ever does. It can still sound good to you. But it's not what it says it is.

Impossible to prove, though, especially if other tube emulations also alias. The company could argue they were talking about a specific aspect of the emulation and they felt the trade-off with aliasing was worth it for the accuracy it gets elsewhere.

It's not impossible to prove, and other tube emulations don't alias.
Yes they could, but it proves that the company is misleading and unreliable.

I have 6 or so synths of which manuals I read thoroughly and can navigate with ease.
You keep talking about having 100 one-knob synths. How am I adding stuff?

It's not about what you have so much as how you use it. Most of my songs have only 5 or 6 tracks, plus vocals. A few are a little more complex but my track count has never gone above 10. As in, never-ever. Similarly, with the 52 covers I've worked up over the last few months, I don't think any of them use more than 5 or 6 effects. Drums get a couple, I put a limiter on the master, plus FireCobra, but for most of the songs that's all they need. No EQ, no nothing, except for on-board effects. And they sound great, probably the best production work I've ever done. Maybe that's Studio One but I don't think so, I think it's making a conscious decision to do more with less and putting in the effort to make it work. Of course, having amazing sounding synths like Knifonium helps a lot, too.

So the quantity is not about what you have now, but how much of it you use?
Bunch of pop/mainstream has tens of tracks and plugins and sounds amazing tho.

I hope you didn't just sort-of open "Studio One just ~sounds~ better"

Link me one of those tracks if you will, you can over DM.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you because the better my monitoring got, the less I EQ and mangle sounds.