Hive 2 or Vital?, that is the question.

[matamoris]

Hive. That is the answer. I have a lot of synths, and Hive has become my most used VST since the release of version 2.

[fisherKing]

hive2 is great, but i don't use it a lot; meanwhile, am using vital everywhere.

i don't get these endless comparisions; they're 2 very-different synths, & i wouldn't trade one for the other.

[BONES]

I'd choose Pigments over either of these. It has excellent wavetable capabilities, as well as a very good V/A engine and a decent (if not outstanding) granular engine. Overall, I think it is ultimately more flexible than Hive or Vital and much easier to work with than either, too. I'd also rate ANA 2 over either of the others. It's got an amazing sound to it, really clean and lush.

My go-to wavetable synth is still Union. It's a fairly straightforward synth that has a sound that really works for me, whether I'm working on New Wave covers or our main EBM/Industrial project. To be fair, though, its wavetable capabilities are pretty restricted compared to the others but it's really cheap and you'll have it worked out in a heartbeat.

[Ploki]

I demoed pigments and would never pick it over Hive 2.
I tried vital, but it didn't really catch my attention enough.
ANA2 is cool, but i'd still pick Hive 2 over it any day. (Or Spire over ANA2)

I think Hive is insanely fun and easy to program and tweak.
Bones will disagree, but he has stated before that he likes romplers over synths anyway

[BONES]

I demoed pigments and would never pick it over Hive 2.

Why not? I think Hive is hugely over-rated. It sounds alright on it's own but I have never, as in not even once, been able to get it to work in a mix. I haven't even bothered installing it on my new Surface Pro.

Bones will disagree, but he has stated before that he likes romplers over synths anyway

I'd be just as happy if you didn't tell flat-out lies about what I may have or have not have said. I f**king hate ROMplers, which is why I don't own any at all. I fact, the last one I owned was a Korg microX, which I sold in 2009 or 2010, I think. To be fair, though, it is the only hardware synth I have ever used in an album song. Realistically, though, every wavetable synth is ROMpler - it uses samples as its sound source - but, again, I am no big fan of wavetable synths, either.

If you want to talk about usability, compare Hive to Pigments. Look at the GUI layout of the filters - Hive has 20 controls spread across each side of the interface, whereas Pigments has all the filter controls in the same place, laid out far more intuitively. As a result, Pigments is about 10 times easier to work with. Pigments also offers up different parameters for different filter models, giving you a lot more sonic flexibility. Look at the oscillators - Pigments has a really simple, easy to use "engine" paradigm, where as Hive has stuff all over the place, especially if you are using wavetables. Finally, look at the elegance of Pigment's modulation system - all the modulation sources represented visually in bold colours - compared to Hive's mod matrix being hidden away where you can't see it. Honestly, it's chalk and cheese.

[Ploki]

I demoed pigments and would never pick it over Hive 2.

Why not? I think Hive is hugely over-rated. It sounds alright on it's own but I have never, as in not even once, been able to get it to work in a mix. I haven't even bothered installing it on my new Surface Pro.

Bones will disagree, but he has stated before that he likes romplers over synths anyway

I'd be just as happy if you didn't tell flat-out lies about what I may have or have not have said. I f**king hate ROMplers, which is why I don't own any at all. I fact, the last one I owned was a Korg microX, which I sold in 2009 or 2010, I think. To be fair, though, it is the only hardware synth I have ever used in an album song. Realistically, though, every wavetable synth is ROMpler - it uses samples as its sound source - but, again, I am no big fan of wavetable synths, either.

If you want to talk about usability, compare Hive to Pigments. Look at the GUI layout of the filters - Hive has 20 controls spread across each side of the interface, whereas Pigments has all the filter controls in the same place, laid out far more intuitively. As a result, Pigments is about 10 times easier to work with. Pigments also offers up different parameters for different filter models, giving you a lot more sonic flexibility. Look at the oscillators - Pigments has a really simple, easy to use "engine" paradigm, where as Hive has stuff all over the place, especially if you are using wavetables. Finally, look at the elegance of Pigment's modulation system - all the modulation sources represented visually in bold colours - compared to Hive's mod matrix being hidden away where you can't see it. Honestly, it's chalk and cheese.

Aren't you against tabs and chucking too much functionality into a single GUI? That's what pigments is. 5 tabs at the bottom, Engine tabs. Blargh

I kinda like the GUI, i kinda like the sound, i kinda like the flexibility, but it doesn't click with me.
On top, I wanted to adjust phase of one OSC of the multiosc VA engine and it wasn't possible. It makes it a real pain in the ass to do accurate bass stuff.

I find Hive -much- more intuitive than Pigments and much faster to work with.
I'll probably get pigments if i get it for 50$, but that's as much as i think it's worth.

[BONES]

$50 is all I paid for it and I got Hive even cheaper (second-hand). I prefer the way Pigments does its tabbing to the way Hive does it. In Pigments, it very much feels like it is driven by workflow whereas, in Hive, it feels like it's driven by running out of space in the GUI. Wavetables being the perfect example - no room to deal with them in the oscillator section so chuck all the extra stuff into the centre "screen". I definitely feel like I am swapping tabs a lot more often in Hive than I am in Pigments, especially when I am only using one engine in Pigments, which is very often the case. Maybe if you use lots of modulation sources and make more complex patches, Hive is faster but I prefer a synth like Pigments, where simple things are quick and easy. That's why my go-to synths are all really simple things, like bx_oberhausen, MonoFury, JP6K and DCO-106. I only go looking for something like Pigments or Hive on the rare occasions I can't get what I want out of one of those.

[mixyguy2]

Which is nobler?

I have no idea what that means-?

Money is not the issue, I only have time to learn one.

Then as someone else said, learn the free one. If you decide you don't care for after awhile, give Hive a shot.

[cax459]

If you want to talk about usability, compare Hive to Pigments. Look at the GUI layout of the filters - Hive has 20 controls spread across each side of the interface, whereas Pigments has all the filter controls in the same place, laid out far more intuitively. As a result, Pigments is about 10 times easier to work with. Pigments also offers up different parameters for different filter models, giving you a lot more sonic flexibility. Look at the oscillators - Pigments has a really simple, easy to use "engine" paradigm, where as Hive has stuff all over the place, especially if you are using wavetables. Finally, look at the elegance of Pigment's modulation system - all the modulation sources represented visually in bold colours - compared to Hive's mod matrix being hidden away where you can't see it. Honestly, it's chalk and cheese.

I'm also a Pigments user and never demoed Hive...

I love the workflow with pigments, it's so pleaseant to program with it. For sound-design purposes I would choose pigments instead of anything out there but I guess context matters...

If someone wants a good WT Synth with tons of 3rd party presets then pigments become less relevant.

[databroth]

Vital hands down
Hive is cool, but lacks oscillator fx
vital has 3 oscs, better fx, 8 custom lfos, mod remapping, 4 random mods
and audio rate modulation

synths aren't just a list of features though, they are also sound, and I think vital just sounds incredible
hive is cool and all, but it's just far too simple sounding, and simple can be useful, is often times more useful
but I can also do simple in vital

[Ploki]

you can pry hive out of my cold dead hands

[killmaster]

Which is nobler?

I have no idea what that means-?

Money is not the issue, I only have time to learn one.

Then as someone else said, learn the free one. If you decide you don't care for after awhile, give Hive a shot.

I was just extending the lame Shakespeare joke subject line. And I agree that would be logical but I have a u-he bias.

[killmaster]

you can pry hive out of my cold dead hands

You have the right to bear Hive.

[pdxindy]

Vital hands down
Hive is cool, but lacks oscillator fx
vital has 3 oscs, better fx, 8 custom lfos, mod remapping, 4 random mods
and audio rate modulation

synths aren't just a list of features though, they are also sound, and I think vital just sounds incredible
hive is cool and all, but it's just far too simple sounding, and simple can be useful, is often times more useful
but I can also do simple in vital

It's funny how subjective it is... I like the FX in Hive much more than Vital FX. The FX in Vital have more parameters and I often spend time tweaking them and still not being satisfied whereas in Hive, the FX are simpler and sound good with no effort.

I don't love the sound quality of Vital. The synth is flexible enough to get sounds I am happy with but Vital tends towards a fuzzy tone so it takes some wrestling to get what I want from it . I like the fundamental tone of Hive better. Hive is clean, clear and strong.

[Ploki]

considering the quality of u-he's standalone FX and knowing the synths practically have watered down variants of those - they can't be bad