Arturia Pigments 3 is out!

[aMUSEd]

Analog Lab V has just been updated to support Pigments 3 (also they appear to have released some more Pigments banks)

[Watchful]

Hmmm I just got this when trying to download the Pigments installer:


Arturia 050321-1.png


I was able to log in to my account without a problem and the ASC downloaded fine.

On your almost-advice, I uninstalled ASC and reinstalled it. That fixed it. Thanks for your help!

[Arashi]

Great video - thanks for sharing that. I couldn't hear any difference between any of the sample rates - I clearly haven't got the ears of a sound engineer.

I also want to thank Arashi for posting this great video...I, at least, learned a lot.

Dan Worrall is the best audio production tutorial person by far. He did most of the Fabfilter videos, has his own YouTube channel, and has done some videos for u-he as well. Everything is straightforward, with clear examples. So much signal, so little noise.

[WasteLand]

what cpu has you studio computer or is it a combination with an optimized asio driver?

It's a hardly state of the art i7 8700K not overclocked, 6 core 12 thread with a base speed of 3.7 GHz and a turbo speed of 4.7GHz.

I use Focusrite's ASIO drivers. I'll go between 512 to 256 samples latency depending on what I'm doing at the time. If I'm playing my keyboard then I use 256 for 6ms latency. I always run at 44K.

Anyway here are 10 patches for Pigments. Just import from the drop down menu in Pigments.


Pigments_Bank_Teksonik Free_20210504_12h51.zip

for my studio an overclocked i7-6700K, @4.4 (you must be very lucky to get better results..)
and old one, but still. but the difference in IPC per core, how ever small can make a big difference.

great to see some info about latency at higher sample buffer sizes. 256; 6 ms latency, nice; output latency i guess, which for ITB is important.
strange my motu, has 5.3 latency at 256 samples.. but at 512... very strange.. in pigments, 11 ms, while in all DAW's 21ms, and 1024 samples, 21.3 ms... while in all my DAW's, 43 ms...
i am in contact with MOTU, but this i didn't see before, i just fired up VM, and the same readings.

focusrite, the readings are from your DAW?

o well.. this isn't about soundinterfaces.. but i am resaarching, can get much info.. so i abuse this thread.. for one time...

EDIT: i checked my UMC204HD, also a slight difference, but not that dramatic as with my MOTU.

and i always run at 48.000Hz, compromise, or better: not a compromise, 24 bit. depended on the DAW, by the way, bitwig/ableton run internally at 32bit float, i believe.

o well... again contact MOTU (Motu ultralite MK3 hybrid, what is wrong with the drivers??).

i shall test the patch in my studio, for fun. and will work with Pigments 3 from scratch, with MPE i think. see how it is holding..
and what i can achieve... i am curious..

[pixel85]

I'd be interesting in seeing someone run Pigments at 96K.....

I do. Recently I did entire track with Pigments 2 in 96k, including drums (sample engine). It's not a big deal for a decent CPU. Pigments 3 with Harmonic osc is another story tho but I don't use it really (additive synthesis is not my thing).

In my tests that I did last year, I could use between 20 to 40-something of synths like MX, Super8 and Repro5 (pad sounds playing 3 note chords) in a single project in Cubase on 3900x CPU (which is already an old gen), 128 buffer (which is my safe setting for production/mixing). Of course it's less with a real project with Insert /Send effects but it's easily manageable for projects like electronic music or mixing sessions. For +100 tracks projects it would be a problem for sure

As I'm not making a music with 3 leads, pads and sfx playing at the same time anymore (aka Psytrance) , working in 96k is not a problem resource-wise.

[pixel85]

for my studio an overclocked i7-6700K, @4.4 (you must be very lucky to get better results..)
and old one, but still. but the difference in IPC per core, how ever small can make a big difference.

great to see some info about latency at higher sample buffer sizes. 256; 6 ms latency, nice; output latency i guess, which for ITB is important.
strange my motu, has 5.3 latency at 256 samples.. but at 512... very strange.. in pigments, 11 ms, while in all DAW's 21ms, and 1024 samples, 21.3 ms... while in all my DAW's, 43 ms...
i am in contact with MOTU, but this i didn't see before, i just fired up VM, and the same readings.

focusrite, the readings are from your DAW?

o well.. this isn't about soundinterfaces.. but i am resaarching, can get much info.. so i abuse this thread.. for one time...

EDIT: i checked my UMC204HD, also a slight difference, but not that dramatic as with my MOTU.

and i always run at 48.000Hz, compromise, or better: not a compromise, 24 bit. depended on the DAW, by the way, bitwig/ableton run internally at 32bit float, i believe.

o well... again contact MOTU (Motu ultralite MK3 hybrid, what is wrong with the drivers??).

i shall test the patch in my studio, for fun. and will work with Pigments 3 from scratch, with MPE i think. see how it is holding..
and what i can achieve... i am curious..

I moved from 6700 to 3900x. Oh maaan... It's like jumping from the stone age to current times. Seriously, 6700 is one of the worst CPUs I ever had to use. My 4790k which is 2 generations older than 6700 could beat it. When you upgrade, you'll be very happy for sure

About latency: isn't in DAW it read as sum of input+output latency? For Focusrite ASIO there's also a difference between DAW and Pigments App.128 buffer is 1.3ms in Pigments and in DAW it's 3.615. So it's doubled.

[WasteLand]

for my studio an overclocked i7-6700K, @4.4 (you must be very lucky to get better results..)
and old one, but still. but the difference in IPC per core, how ever small can make a big difference.

great to see some info about latency at higher sample buffer sizes. 256; 6 ms latency, nice; output latency i guess, which for ITB is important.
strange my motu, has 5.3 latency at 256 samples.. but at 512... very strange.. in pigments, 11 ms, while in all DAW's 21ms, and 1024 samples, 21.3 ms... while in all my DAW's, 43 ms...
i am in contact with MOTU, but this i didn't see before, i just fired up VM, and the same readings.

focusrite, the readings are from your DAW?

o well.. this isn't about soundinterfaces.. but i am resaarching, can get much info.. so i abuse this thread.. for one time...

EDIT: i checked my UMC204HD, also a slight difference, but not that dramatic as with my MOTU.

and i always run at 48.000Hz, compromise, or better: not a compromise, 24 bit. depended on the DAW, by the way, bitwig/ableton run internally at 32bit float, i believe.

o well... again contact MOTU (Motu ultralite MK3 hybrid, what is wrong with the drivers??).

i shall test the patch in my studio, for fun. and will work with Pigments 3 from scratch, with MPE i think. see how it is holding..
and what i can achieve... i am curious..

I moved from 6700 to 3900x. Oh maaan... It's like jumping from the stone age to current times. Seriously, 6700 is one of the worst CPUs I ever had to use. My 4790k which is 2 generations older than 6700 could beat it. When you upgrade, you'll be very happy for sure

About latency: isn't in DAW it read as sum of input+output latency? For Focusrite ASIO there's also a difference between DAW and Pigments App.128 buffer is 1.3ms in Pigments and in DAW it's 3.615. So it's doubled.

will be certainly a jump. the i7-6700K isn't that bad. but a new build is coming, at some point, motherboard/cpu and perhaps memory. i will wait what comes next..
it strangely performs quite well. i think. for an old cpu. i believe, no: i guess, the problem with Pigments 3 might also be, GUI handling, very touchy, when opening and closing windows. even softube modular can handle big patches, and i can browse.. i see that my gtx 1060 6gb (also an oldy, but quite good for a DAW's... even for video-editing..) isn't that taxed much, not as much as i expected.

no, the ms i reported, is the output latency. not the RTL latency. all DAW's provide that, or most, that i have.. ableton doesn't. cubase, reaper, certainly. no ableton also reports input & output latency.

i only refer to the output latency, because i work ITB, when i record vocals, i have a strange direct monitoring setup, that in the ends gives a lot of control. so input latency isn't something i have to worry about. only when i play (or better mangle) guitar...

the NI products i have report the same output latency as my 5, yes, DAW's.

so perhaps it is normal. for Pigments/arturia, and voltage modular and MusicDevelopments Syne, i have more standalone programs, will check, that use asio. that they report the half of the output latency, but still strange. 3 different programmed plugins/standalone apps.

and it is noticable..

but if you mean in your DAW the output latency is doubled, then it is normal behevior.
so or the reports are wrong, and i am biased by the reports, because 20ms isn't really noticable, the way i play, 40ms is noticable.

EDIT: the UMC204HD was also connected in my studio, but usb crosstalk, better cables, or other usb port (or do not connect 2 soundinterface, or 3...), now only the motu again. the reports of UMC204HD, yes slightly lower in Pigments 3, etc. but not half. slightly, 2-3 ms lower. overhead of the DAW??
and on my laptop same readings, withe UMC204HD, the MOTU is 2 x times more in all my DAW's... the UMC204HD in every standalone program, almost the same, or a difference of a few ms.

so have to more research, and check things.

[telecode]

I think there is a lot of misinformation (and plain stupidity floating around on the internet about latency). Most musicians, I mean real musicians with decades of experience playing in studios and live, can't notice latency until it hits above 12 to 13 ms. There is only one reported instance where Chris Squire, the bassist for the band Yes, (a virtuoso musician in a band of virtuoso musicians), was able to notice latency of 9ms and was having timing issues playing against synth parts. As reported by the producer Trevor Horn when they were making a record in early 80s.

[experimental.crow]

Great video - thanks for sharing that. I couldn't hear any difference between any of the sample rates - I clearly haven't got the ears of a sound engineer.

I also want to thank Arashi for posting this great video...I, at least, learned a lot.

Dan Worrall is the best audio production tutorial person by far. He did most of the Fabfilter videos, has his own YouTube channel, and has done some videos for u-he as well. Everything is straightforward, with clear examples. So much signal, so little noise.

Dan Worrall provides excellent video run-throughs ; i can't recommend him enough ...
His work for Tokyo Dawn Labs is worth noting , as well

[Teksonik]

I'd be interesting in seeing someone run Pigments at 96K.....

I do. Recently I did entire track with Pigments 2 in 96k, including drums (sample engine). It's not a big deal for a decent CPU. Pigments 3 with Harmonic osc is another story tho but I don't use it really (additive synthesis is not my thing).

What I meant to say is I'd like to see someone run the test patch I uploaded at 96K. Obviously if someone only uses a single analog Osc then Pigments is efficient enough but when you start making more complex sounds and pushing its boundaries then you'll get far different results.

I don't run 96K not because my system couldn't handle it but because in my opinion it's a placebo. However 96k vs 48k is one of those circular arguments like Mac vs PC or Analog vs Digital that has no hope of being anything more than an endless debate so I don't want to go there.

Yesterday I was working on a new project and tried to add Pigments. I ended up replacing it with another instance of Hive 2 that used half the CPU and quite frankly sounded better.

I was hoping Pigments would find a place on my A List of plugins that I use every day in multiple instances but I think it will be something I reach for rather sparingly.

But I still like Pigments. It's a ton of fun to program. Well worth the money.

[Double Tap]

Great video - thanks for sharing that. I couldn't hear any difference between any of the sample rates - I clearly haven't got the ears of a sound engineer.

I also want to thank Arashi for posting this great video...I, at least, learned a lot.

Dan Worrall is the best audio production tutorial person by far. He did most of the Fabfilter videos, has his own YouTube channel, and has done some videos for u-he as well. Everything is straightforward, with clear examples. So much signal, so little noise.

Dan Worrall provides excellent video run-throughs ; i can't recommend him enough ...
His work for Tokyo Dawn Labs is worth noting , as well

He made me interested in dithering for half an hour.

The man's a...


Wait. That sounds wrong.


Okay:

For half an hour, he made me interested in dithering.

The man's a genius.

[WasteLand]

I think there is a lot of misinformation (and plain stupidity floating around on the internet about latency). Most musicians, I mean real musicians with decades of experience playing in studios and live, can't notice latency until it hits above 12 to 13 ms. There is only one reported instance where Chris Squire, the bassist for the band Yes, (a virtuoso musician in a band of virtuoso musicians), was able to notice latency of 9ms and was having timing issues playing against synth parts. As reported by the producer Trevor Horn when they were making a record in early 80s.

i agree, and there are people that must play with a latency... a church organ... it can be done. the obsession with latency is too big. but a too big latency, is also not great. but you can get used to it..

[pixel85]

I'd be interesting in seeing someone run Pigments at 96K.....

I do. Recently I did entire track with Pigments 2 in 96k, including drums (sample engine). It's not a big deal for a decent CPU. Pigments 3 with Harmonic osc is another story tho but I don't use it really (additive synthesis is not my thing).

What I meant to say is I'd like to see someone run the test patch I uploaded at 96K. Obviously if someone only uses a single analog Osc then Pigments is efficient enough but when you start making more complex sounds and pushing its boundaries then you'll get far different results.

I don't run 96K not because my system couldn't handle it but because in my opinion it's a placebo. However 96k vs 48k is one of those circular arguments like Mac vs PC or Analog vs Digital that has no hope of being anything more than an endless debate so I don't want to go there.

Yesterday I was working on a new project and tried to add Pigments. I ended up replacing it with another instance of Hive 2 that used half the CPU and quite frankly sounded better.

I was hoping Pigments would find a place on my A List of plugins that I use every day in multiple instances but I think it will be something I reach for rather sparingly.

But I still like Pigments. It's a ton of fun to program. Well worth the money.

I did your test in 96k a few pages ago Except if you have a new one.
I like Pigments but so far, except that one project that I mentioned, more often I'm choosing my other synths like MX or Repro because I like their sound more and they use less CPU (especially MX). It's still a great synth and I'm glad that I have it tho

[pixel85]

for my studio an overclocked i7-6700K, @4.4 (you must be very lucky to get better results..)
and old one, but still. but the difference in IPC per core, how ever small can make a big difference.

great to see some info about latency at higher sample buffer sizes. 256; 6 ms latency, nice; output latency i guess, which for ITB is important.
strange my motu, has 5.3 latency at 256 samples.. but at 512... very strange.. in pigments, 11 ms, while in all DAW's 21ms, and 1024 samples, 21.3 ms... while in all my DAW's, 43 ms...
i am in contact with MOTU, but this i didn't see before, i just fired up VM, and the same readings.

focusrite, the readings are from your DAW?

o well.. this isn't about soundinterfaces.. but i am resaarching, can get much info.. so i abuse this thread.. for one time...

EDIT: i checked my UMC204HD, also a slight difference, but not that dramatic as with my MOTU.

and i always run at 48.000Hz, compromise, or better: not a compromise, 24 bit. depended on the DAW, by the way, bitwig/ableton run internally at 32bit float, i believe.

o well... again contact MOTU (Motu ultralite MK3 hybrid, what is wrong with the drivers??).

i shall test the patch in my studio, for fun. and will work with Pigments 3 from scratch, with MPE i think. see how it is holding..
and what i can achieve... i am curious..

I moved from 6700 to 3900x. Oh maaan... It's like jumping from the stone age to current times. Seriously, 6700 is one of the worst CPUs I ever had to use. My 4790k which is 2 generations older than 6700 could beat it. When you upgrade, you'll be very happy for sure

About latency: isn't in DAW it read as sum of input+output latency? For Focusrite ASIO there's also a difference between DAW and Pigments App.128 buffer is 1.3ms in Pigments and in DAW it's 3.615. So it's doubled.

will be certainly a jump. the i7-6700K isn't that bad. but a new build is coming, at some point, motherboard/cpu and perhaps memory. i will wait what comes next..
it strangely performs quite well. i think. for an old cpu. i believe, no: i guess, the problem with Pigments 3 might also be, GUI handling, very touchy, when opening and closing windows. even softube modular can handle big patches, and i can browse.. i see that my gtx 1060 6gb (also an oldy, but quite good for a DAW's... even for video-editing..) isn't that taxed much, not as much as i expected.

no, the ms i reported, is the output latency. not the RTL latency. all DAW's provide that, or most, that i have.. ableton doesn't. cubase, reaper, certainly. no ableton also reports input & output latency.

i only refer to the output latency, because i work ITB, when i record vocals, i have a strange direct monitoring setup, that in the ends gives a lot of control. so input latency isn't something i have to worry about. only when i play (or better mangle) guitar...

the NI products i have report the same output latency as my 5, yes, DAW's.

so perhaps it is normal. for Pigments/arturia, and voltage modular and MusicDevelopments Syne, i have more standalone programs, will check, that use asio. that they report the half of the output latency, but still strange. 3 different programmed plugins/standalone apps.

and it is noticable..

but if you mean in your DAW the output latency is doubled, then it is normal behevior.
so or the reports are wrong, and i am biased by the reports, because 20ms isn't really noticable, the way i play, 40ms is noticable.

EDIT: the UMC204HD was also connected in my studio, but usb crosstalk, better cables, or other usb port (or do not connect 2 soundinterface, or 3...), now only the motu again. the reports of UMC204HD, yes slightly lower in Pigments 3, etc. but not half. slightly, 2-3 ms lower. overhead of the DAW??
and on my laptop same readings, withe UMC204HD, the MOTU is 2 x times more in all my DAW's... the UMC204HD in every standalone program, almost the same, or a difference of a few ms.

so have to more research, and check things.

I also have 1060 Yes, Arturia plugins have 'not the most efficient' GUI implementation (tons of BMP files on HDD). On 6700 I could feel that their plugins are quite 'slow', (loading presets was definitely very slow) and are eating more resources, most likely because of GUI. On a new machine but with the same graphic card and the same OS drive (m.2, where I have all plugins), Pigments is loading way faster and changing presets is also fast. Faster RAM maybe?

I was disappointed about 6700 after moving from 4790k where I ended up with no difference in performance. It kept me for a while from upgrading. 2 generations and no difference? I was expecting that a newer CPU may not necessarily bring a performance boost adequate to the costs. But I was wrong. Maybe at that time, there was not much of technological progress between those generations.

About latency and audio interfaces I have only basic knowledge so I can't tell much. I hope someone will know what is really happening with your situation.

[WasteLand]

I also have 1060 Yes, Arturia plugins have 'not the most efficient' GUI implementation (tons of BMP files on HDD). On 6700 I could feel that their plugins are quite 'slow', (loading presets was definitely very slow) and are eating more resources, most likely because of GUI. On a new machine but with the same graphic card and the same OS drive (m.2, where I have all plugins), Pigments is loading way faster and changing presets is also fast. Faster RAM maybe?

I was disappointed about 6700 after moving from 4790k where I ended up with no difference in performance. It kept me for a while from upgrading. 2 generations and no difference? I was expecting that a newer CPU may not necessarily bring a performance boost adequate to the costs. But I was wrong. Maybe at that time, there was not much of technological progress between those generations.

About latency and audio interfaces I have only basic knowledge so I can't tell much. I hope someone will know what is really happening with your situation.

the plugins aren't slow. perhaps if i had a system like yours, i would see/feel the difference. but loading presets, fast, in my opinion, not immediately. but fast. 3 ssd's help..

i had to built a new system, the old one was very old, so at that time, the i7-6700K was a great choice, with 32gb ram, etc. and the 1060.. most of the times i rebuilt systems, but in this case all was new, except maybe the HD, yes one HD..

and maybe a half year later, AMD announced, you know the rest..

but at that time and no choice. and it still works fine, for me, how i work. so, i don't complain.
and i will wait, chips are expensive, and will be for years... perhaps second hand, only motherboard/cpu (and if it is AMD, new memory; high memory speed, and compatible..).

o well enough about, it is not completely off-topic, it seems that more and more plugins and DAW's require more and more, but you get more.

my knowledge about latency is also limited, know the basics, but there is no troubleshooting software for asio drivers, a kind of diagnostics. my hope, is that MOTU will return my 'calls'.

and i will work with the MOTU also for some time. soundinterface are also sold out, the ones i want...

and i can better do it, in one go, with enough money. computer - soundinterface.

the system i have performs quite well, for audio, and for this CPU. extremely well.

but i will wait for IPC, that cores also have a real distance from the i7-6700K, the distance is already enough, to give that extra, and avx512 is normal these days, it seems.
but not to invest yet, and i will await the race... AMD processors are quite expensive...

o well. Pigments 3, perhaps i will throw in a support ticket. but arturia, can program, although those hundreds png's....

still like arturia stuff, the first synths i worked with, ITB + korg collection.

(the 4970K and i7-6700K aren't that different, indeed, i get your disappointment. but i went from, hold your breath, from a Q8400, or so, still here... to a 3770K, that didn't last long, the motherboard, second hand.. o well..)