Arturia Pigments 3 is out!

VST, AU, AAX, etc. plug-in Virtual Instruments discussion
User avatar
KVRAF
19421 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds

Post Mon May 10, 2021 9:30 am

pixel85 wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:02 pm
In MX I see instantly to which three modulations certain parameter is assigned to and I can't assign modulation by mistake like in Pigments.
Where MX is difficult, is going the other way. If I want to see what targets are assigned to a particular source, there is no way to do that except by tabbing through lots of places (18 tabs to check every possible target).

Overall, I like Pigments modulation better than MX.

In MX, lots of parameters have a maximum of 2 mod sources. The rest are 3. Too limited for me as I often put more than that. Pigments is unlimited.

Also, MX does not have MSEG's and the LFO's are weak. No LFO phase adjustment and not much shape variety.

In terms of modulation capability, I prefer Vital to both of them.

User avatar
KVRian
1242 posts since 11 Apr, 2008

Post Mon May 10, 2021 11:43 am

pdxindy wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 9:30 am
pixel85 wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:02 pm
In MX I see instantly to which three modulations certain parameter is assigned to and I can't assign modulation by mistake like in Pigments.
Where MX is difficult, is going the other way. If I want to see what targets are assigned to a particular source, there is no way to do that except by tabbing through lots of places (18 tabs to check every possible target).

Overall, I like Pigments modulation better than MX.

In MX, lots of parameters have a maximum of 2 mod sources. The rest are 3. Too limited for me as I often put more than that. Pigments is unlimited.

Also, MX does not have MSEG's and the LFO's are weak. No LFO phase adjustment and not much shape variety.

In terms of modulation capability, I prefer Vital to both of them.
At this point, I'm pretty sure that all KVR users and their family members and co-workers know what you don't like in MX ;)

Ps. this is why I started my post with "controversy" - I know that everybody loves modulation section in Pigments and hate almost everything about MX :)
Beware! The software discussed in this topic has unacceptable aliasing at -386dBTP but it can be fixed by changing the sample rate to 12Bit

KVRAF
13015 posts since 13 Oct, 2009

Post Mon May 10, 2021 12:17 pm

pixel85 wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 11:43 am
Ps. this is why I started my post with "controversy" - I know that everybody loves modulation section in Pigments and hate almost everything about MX :)
I love MX, but, it was a rushed release and this shows in many of the ways that matter in terms of what we're discussing here. I agree with pxindy about the limitations of modulation in MX. Moreover, I don't think that Pigments can replace MX in the places that MX excels. Technically, MX is more interesting, but, Pigments is more fun for exploring certain ideas.

User avatar
KVRAF
19421 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds

Post Mon May 10, 2021 1:53 pm

ghettosynth wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 12:17 pm
I love MX, but, it was a rushed release and this shows in many of the ways that matter in terms of what we're discussing here. I agree with pdxindy about the limitations of modulation in MX. Moreover, I don't think that Pigments can replace MX in the places that MX excels. Technically, MX is more interesting, but, Pigments is more fun for exploring certain ideas.
I find the sound quality vs CPU use of MX to be very impressive. Not so Pigments. Pigments uses more CPU than MX and to me the fundamental sound quality of MX is higher. Of course they are also very different and in some respects not comparable.

Pigments first came out about 6 months before MX. Since then Pigments has received an impressive amount of new development. Massive X on the other hand, nothing much. Perhaps you are right that it was a rushed release... but 2 years later it is still in the same rushed release state (besides a few small improvements).

KVRist
58 posts since 29 Oct, 2004

Post Mon May 10, 2021 7:56 pm

I noticed that Plugin Guru said something about the sound of Pigments not being quite right also. IIRC he said it was cold?
I like Pigments ok but all the movement in the gui sometimes distracts me.
James

KVRian
1207 posts since 23 May, 2012 from London

Post Mon May 10, 2021 11:04 pm

pixel85 wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 11:43 am
Ps. this is why I started my post with "controversy" - I know that everybody loves modulation section in Pigments
No need to feel so lonely, I'm not exactly in love with the modulation section Pigments either :hug:

I find the animations distracting and wish there was an option to disable them, also having to click/ESC out of the assignment strip is quite tedious. Give me a well implemented mod matrix with curve/quantise modifiers and static rings/lines a la Hive or Vital, any day of the week.
Always Read the Manual!

User avatar
KVRAF
7178 posts since 7 Oct, 2005 from Auckland, NZ

Post Mon May 10, 2021 11:18 pm

Personally I don't like Plugin Guru reviews and presets. Strange he's saying that and most of his presets lack life!

I have Pigments, MX, Phase Plants, Vital, etc. Pigments and MX can easily sound warmer than other wavetable/additive synths. Maybe because they are already have nice analogue filters.

User avatar
KVRian
1242 posts since 11 Apr, 2008

Post Mon May 10, 2021 11:58 pm

ghettosynth wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 12:17 pm
I love MX, but, it was a rushed release and this shows in many of the ways that matter in terms of what we're discussing here. I agree with pxindy about the limitations of modulation in MX. Moreover, I don't think that Pigments can replace MX in the places that MX excels. Technically, MX is more interesting, but, Pigments is more fun for exploring certain ideas.
Topic beaten to death :) I do agree that not everything in MX is as good as it should. Some basic features are still missing and I don't like Performer at all. The one in OG Massive is more playful and faster for me.
pdxindy wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 1:53 pm
Pigments first came out about 6 months before MX. Since then Pigments has received an impressive amount of new development. Massive X on the other hand, nothing much. Perhaps you are right that it was a rushed release... but 2 years later it is still in the same rushed release state (besides a few small improvements).
Oh yes. Looking at the changelog between these two... it's like night and day. But as usual, NI has tons of excuses for a snail pace of updates. Arturia is lead by aliens from Mars so they don't have the same issues as NI ;)
I don't expect to see any major overhaul of MX. It's rather gonna stay how it is + M1 compatibility update at some point.
Beware! The software discussed in this topic has unacceptable aliasing at -386dBTP but it can be fixed by changing the sample rate to 12Bit

KVRist
362 posts since 14 Oct, 2006

Post Tue May 11, 2021 9:06 pm

I made a short comparison of sound between Diva, Massive X, and Pigments using the same sounding patch based on Van Halen's 1984 filter sweep. I didn't put a huge amount of effort into this, so please give me a break lol. Which do you think sounds the best?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l9y2APu_0g

User avatar
KVRAF
3797 posts since 12 Jan, 2018

Post Tue May 11, 2021 9:42 pm

3ptguitarist wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 9:06 pm
I made a short comparison of sound between Diva, Massive X, and Pigments using the same sounding patch based on Van Halen's 1984 filter sweep. I didn't put a huge amount of effort into this, so please give me a break lol. Which do you think sounds the best?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l9y2APu_0g
Good comparison. :tu:

Diva sounds the fattest (perhaps that's the reference preset here for recreation?). Massive X and Pigments were about the same in the low end, and while both sounded great, Pigments sounds surprisingly good for this type of sound. Massive X seems to have less resonance compared to others and still doesn't have that fatness - I wonder it is something to do with the recreation of the patch?

KVRAF
13015 posts since 13 Oct, 2009

Post Tue May 11, 2021 9:48 pm

nm

User avatar
KVRian
1242 posts since 11 Apr, 2008

Post Wed May 12, 2021 1:58 am

3ptguitarist wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 9:06 pm
I made a short comparison of sound between Diva, Massive X, and Pigments using the same sounding patch based on Van Halen's 1984 filter sweep. I didn't put a huge amount of effort into this, so please give me a break lol. Which do you think sounds the best?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l9y2APu_0g
Diva is the fattest indeed. Very nice 'squelch' of the filter - yummy.
Then MX - I would change the filter (Asimov is 'proud to be digital' and I think that Monark filter is much better). A bit of low-end EQ would probably get it closer to Diva's bottom.
Pigments is losing (mediocre) bottom very fast - it has the sound of an 'old vst synth' (or last-gen vst synth I should say?) - it's ok. No 'wow' effect.

it's not a big deal. Probably most people would say that they can't hear any difference or it would sound the same on a busy track. For me personally, the difference is huge enough to choose Diva and MX over Pigments for VA sound.
Beware! The software discussed in this topic has unacceptable aliasing at -386dBTP but it can be fixed by changing the sample rate to 12Bit

KVRist
177 posts since 9 Oct, 2020

Post Wed May 12, 2021 2:42 am

Fleer wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 7:41 am
So Pigments 3 came in like a breath of fresh air. Not many organic synths around, sadly. Here's hoping Phase Plant will also continue in that direction (even though it's bass-heavy too, but the Suspension sound pack is showing what it can do with organic wavetables).
What exactly do you think Phase Plant is missing in order to achieve more “organic sound” compared to something like Pigments?

The harmonic engine is the main driver for me giving Pigments any financial consideration at the moment, mostly for what the cluster mode can do in huge cliche Braaams. There’s a sound you can get modulating some of those harmonic parameters that I can’t recreate otherwise, and that’s essentially what I’d be buying. I wonder if Parsec/Razor or even Loom II can do that kind of thing.

KVRist
38 posts since 14 Nov, 2020

Post Wed May 12, 2021 2:54 am

3ptguitarist wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 9:06 pm
I made a short comparison of sound between Diva, Massive X, and Pigments using the same sounding patch based on Van Halen's 1984 filter sweep. I didn't put a huge amount of effort into this, so please give me a break lol. Which do you think sounds the best?
Interesting comparison though I note that on Diva you are using a classic analog filter where on Pigments you are using the default clean multimode filter. If you want a classic analog sound look on the filters tab, where you will find accurately modelled analog filters borrowed from V collection. You can choose from Moog ladder, SEM, Matrix, Roland Jupiter or Buchla filters. It would be interesting to see the same comparison when correctly matching the same type of filter across the synths.

User avatar
Banned
2290 posts since 24 Mar, 2015 from Toronto, Canada

Post Wed May 12, 2021 5:36 am

3ptguitarist wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 9:06 pm
I made a short comparison of sound between Diva, Massive X, and Pigments using the same sounding patch based on Van Halen's 1984 filter sweep. I didn't put a huge amount of effort into this, so please give me a break lol. Which do you think sounds the best?

Eddie says Diva sounds best.
🌐 Spotify 🔵 Soundcloud 🌀 Soundclick

Gear & Setup: Windows 10, Dual Xeon, 32GB RAM, Cubase 10.5/9.5, NI Komplete Audio 6, NI Maschine, NI Jam, NI Kontakt

Return to “Instruments”