E-Phonic Invader 2 v1.0.11 (WIN / OSX)

[BONES]

Why? Why not just sequence the bassline? Why do you need to set up a split? Aren't you just deliberately looking for ways to make your life harder than it needs to be? I can do what you want to achieve half-a-dozen different ways. Your insistence that it has to be done this one particular way makes no sense.

I never let what I want stand in the way of what the song needs. If there is something I can play live, I will play it, but if the songs works best with me just standing there picking my nose, then I will just stand there and pick my nose.

[Teksonik]

Having everything contained in a single patch is efficient

No, it isn't. As I said, it restricts it to the patch you save it with. OTOH, saving it in the project makes it available everywhere, easily.

Yes it is far more efficient. Especially if you use more than one DAW. Being able to simply call up a patch is far more efficient than having to load an instrument then assign and set the DAW's arp and then figure out how to modulate the same parameters a built in Arp is modulating. Loading a single instance of a complex synth is far more efficient than having to load two or more instances of a simple synth then faffing about in the DAW trying to set up what can be done in a single patch.

Not having an onboard Arp leaves you with one option and that is to use the DAWs Arp or a third party option. Having an Arp onboard gives you two options and allows the Arp to become an integral part of the patch and of course you still have the ability to use external options.

That's a (poor) description, it's not a reason. An on-board arp might expand your options by a few percent, at best, but 3rd party options will invariably offer you a lot more.

No, it's a perfect description if you're capable of understanding that an onboard Arp doubles your options. If you have an onboard Arp you can use it or you can use an external option like the DAW's Arp or a third party plugin. With no onboard Arp your options are cut in half. Now some DAW's Arps can be more feature rich than some built in Arps but again some built in Arps can be programmed to modulate other parameters like cutoff etc. What about synths with more than one Arp like Parawave Rapid that has an Arp for every one of its 8 layers? You couldn't possibly emulate that efficiently if at all in a DAW. Sure you could faff about in your DAW and perhaps emulate the connection between an onboard arp and other patch parameters but that throws the "simple synths are efficient" argument right out of the window.

It's the same advantage as with onboard effects. Useful if you want to share patches...

OK, so it's there for "sound designers", not for people who actually produce music. It's a marketing tool. Great.

If you use any patch it has been designed by someone. Either by yourself or someone else. Try to understand that people can be "sound designers" and also "actually produce music". Those are not mutually exclusive talents and in fact compliment each other quite well if you have the talent to do more than one thing or the ability to think outside of a tiny little box.

Whether you understand the advantage of built in Arps or not some people do and I for one am glad they exist since I use them all the time.

Look, I get it you prefer simple sounds and that's fine. But not everybody feels the same way. If any feature is missing it limits those who prefer complex sounds but if any feature is present it can simply be ignored by someone who only prefers simple sounds.

Don't use onboard Arps? Simply ignore them.

I would say to E-Phonic please don't let some people stunt the growth of Invader 2. They claim to want simple synths because "they are more efficient" then advocate using multiple instances and faffing about in a DAW which actually makes things far more complicated.

Invader 2's core sound is of very high quality so please let it grow. Expand the range of sounds it can make. More Oscs, more filters, the ability to route Oscs through different filters, more effects and routings, expand the Arp, etc etc. Perhaps call Invader 2 finished and then work on an Invader Pro for more advanced users.

I'd donate again for a more feature rich synth with that excellent core sound.

[dellboy]

Why? Why not just sequence the bassline? Why do you need to set up a split? Aren't you just deliberately looking for ways to make your life harder than it needs to be? I can do what you want to achieve half-a-dozen different ways. Your insistence that it has to be done this one particular way makes no sense.

I never let what I want stand in the way of what the song needs. If there is something I can play live, I will play it, but if the songs works best with me just standing there picking my nose, then I will just stand there and pick my nose.

Has it come across as "insisting" ? I hope not, its just how I work, other ways are just as viable.

Why can't a virtual analogue synth having a split keyboard feature ? It was quite common on real hardware synths back in the day. One of my first was a Siel Expander 80 that was bi-timbral and splittable which I sold for next to nothing. A little list........

Roland Jupiter 6
Roland Juipter 8
Roland Paraphonic(split the bass/synth/strings)
Oberhiem Matrix-6
Oberhiem OB-8
Oberhiem OB-Xa
SCI Multi-Track
SCI Split-8
Siel DK-70
Welson Symphony Concert
Wersi String-Orchestra
ARP Solina String Ensemble
ARP Solina String Synthesizer
Akai AX-60
Kawai SX-240 8
Crumar Bit

[AnX]

Software can have splits, of course, but there is little point when you can load endless instances

With hardware you are limited to one (usually) instance, so splits are handy (tho usually half polyphony)

[e-crooner]

Having the arp right there on the plugin allows you to save arp settings with patches.

So what? The patch still ends up being saves with the project so I don't see the difference.

It's the same advantage as with onboard effects. Useful if you want to share patches...

OK, so it's there for "sound designers", not for people who actually produce music. It's a marketing tool. Great.

And it's simply more fun to use than the DAW

Why is it? It seems shit to me because you can't experiment with other sounds or instruments, you're stuck using it with whatever patch it's stored with. I see no fun at all in that. I think the most useful/fun place for an arpeggiator is either in your sequencer - maybe a scratch pad in Studio One, for example - and/or built into your controller, where it can be independent of any particular instrument or patch. That's where you can really get stuck in and have some "fun".

Most of it has already been addressed by Tek, so I won't repeat it in my own words.

Personally I often have a sound that sounds nice and I think to myself, that could sound nice with an arp. It is not the other way round, I never plan to use an arp and then look for a sound that fits.
So, that whole idea of using the same arp to trigger different synths is not my cup of tea.

Actually, I rarely play around with arp's, it's just a nice gimmick every now and then.

I think there is also a difference between arp and sequencer, which, however, are often the same module on synths. To me an arp is the simple thing, you know, an 1-4 octave switch, a speed control, and a few up/down options. Those settings are easily recreated on another synth within 5 or 10 seconds.
An onboard sequencer is for more complex stuff and there it might make sense to use an external one.

[BONES]

Yes it is far more efficient. Especially if you use more than one DAW.

If you are using more than one host, then efficiency is out the window from the get-go. That said, the arp built into KeyStep neatly side-steps that issue anyway. A much better arrangement.

Being able to simply call up a patch is far more efficient

Unless/until you decide you want to try a different patch with that same arp set-up.

a built in Arp is modulating.

An arpeggiator doesn't modulate anything, it's just note on/off, up, down, up/down and random. You're talking about a sequencer. You know, like the thing you load a VSTi into so you can use it. That makes even less sense.

Loading a single instance of a complex synth is far more efficient than having to load two or more instances of a simple synth then faffing about in the DAW trying to set up what can be done in a single patch.

To what end? Your assertion only makes sense if you never save anything in your host. Never save a project, never save any MIDI, only ever save patches. Who works like that? And if we are talking proper sequences, then it's even more of a hassle to have that work locked up in a single patch on a single instrument. How do you not see that?

No, it's a perfect description if you're capable of ignoring reality.

There, I fixed that up for you.

an onboard Arp doubles your options. If you have an onboard Arp you can use it or you can use an external option like the DAW's Arp or a third party plugin.

That's two extra options already so, at best, an on-board arp multiplies your options by one-third. But that's not how it works because the result is the same - applying the arp at the instrument level doesn't add options you don't have if you apply it at the host level. Quite the opposite, it reduces your options when it comes to finding the best timbre to go with your sequence. You lose the options of trying it with all your other instruments or of trying it on two (or more) different instruments at once, etc.

Now some DAW's Arps can be more feature rich than some built in Arps but again some built in Arps can be programmed to modulate other parameters like cutoff etc.

You mean like automation in every host application you care to name? That's hardly broadening anyone's horizons, is it?

What about synths with more than one Arp like Parawave Rapid that has an Arp for every one of its 8 layers?

Just 8? Studio One can manage hundreds and they can be applied to any instrument you care to load into it.

You couldn't possibly emulate that efficiently if at all in a DAW. Sure you could faff about in your DAW and perhaps emulate the connection between an onboard arp and other patch parameters

Are you suggesting that the arp in Rapid is easier to set up than the piano roll and arranger in your host? I'm not seeing how that is possible. At some point you still have to set it all up.

but that throws the "simple synths are efficient" argument right out of the window.

You cannot possibly be serious? Who would ever need 8 layers of arpeggios to do anything? It's absurd on the face of it.

It's the same advantage as with onboard effects. Useful if you want to share patches...

How? You'll always need to change them to fit them into a mix. It's often more of a hindrance than a help.

If you use any patch it has been designed by someone. Either by yourself or someone else. Try to understand that people can be "sound designers" and also "actually produce music".

No, they can't. If they produce music, creating patches is just something they need to do. It doesn't make them a "sound designer" because that's just a misappropriated title for a job that's not really a job. It's like calling the apprentice who hoses the mud off the shovels before he puts them away a "maintenance engineer".

Whether you understand the advantage of built in Arps or not some people do and I for one am glad they exist since I use them all the time.

Oh, I understand exactly what they are good for - marketing. They make the factory presets sound gooderer.

If any feature is missing it limits those who prefer complex sounds but if any feature is present it can simply be ignored by someone who only prefers simple sounds.

Sounds like someone who doesn't know his craft well enough to be able to work with a limited feature set to me. I don't like simple sounds, I like really complex, evolving timbres. I just don't need a lot of features to get that out of a decent synth. Invader is the perfect example of that. Thick, lush, evolving timbres practically fall out of it with little or no effort, as do wicked, aggro things. It's all in the subtle details.

Invader 2's core sound is of very high quality so please let it grow. Expand the range of sounds it can make. More Oscs, more filters, the ability to route Oscs through different filters, more effects and routings, expand the Arp, etc etc.

That just turns it into every other synth on the market. What's the point? It is close enough to perfect, just how it is. There are plenty of other synths with everything that opens and shuts for people who never actually do anything.

Why can't a virtual analogue synth having a split keyboard feature ? It was quite common on real hardware synths back in the day.

Are you serious? You don't get that no-one was going to buy two Jupiter 8s just so they could play two patches at once? A softsynth doesn't need a split, you can just keep loading up instances until your CPU gives up. My bandmate has two MiniLabs so he can play two things at once and I've got several controllers I can set to different MIDI channels to play different instruments. We have an embarrassment of riches today, the old ways of doing things no longer apply.

Personally I often have a sound that sounds nice and I think to myself, that could sound nice with an arp. It is not the other way round, I never plan to use an arp and then look for a sound that fits.

Do you not write songs? Produce tracks? Synths are tools designed to be used in the context of a piece of music. The two things work hand-in-glove. It is extremely rare that the sounds I was using when I wrote a song are the sounds it has when it's finished. And over time those sounds will evolve further but that little repeating pattern or arp won't change. e.g. I bought Saurus a couple of weeks ago and I am using it in two songs from our old albums because it has breathed new life into them. I haven't touched the parts themselves but I've tweaked the hell out of the patches to make them work in the context of the song.

[dellboy]

Are you serious? You don't get that no-one was going to buy two Jupiter 8s just so they could play two patches at once? A softsynth doesn't need a split, you can just keep loading up instances until your CPU gives up. My bandmate has two MiniLabs so he can play two things at once and I've got several controllers I can set to different MIDI channels to play different instruments. We have an embarrassment of riches today, the old ways of doing things no longer apply.

This thread is going off track so we should bring it back to Invader.

You are over thinking things. Invader has an ARP/Sequencer. I did not put it there, the developer did.

I have a 61 note keyboard. I was playing with the ARP presets and just naturally wanted to play a bass line with my left hand and a lead line with my right, but this is not possible because the ARP plays across the whole keyboard range. I was not intending to use this method to write a song but purely just for fun, the joy of playing. I have now found a way to set the keyboard up in Cubase to do it using "midi modifiers" and two instances of Invader, but its buggy and not worth the hassle really.

[BONES]

Surely it is obvious that's what would happen? Why would you expect any other behaviour? That's stuff you take car of in your host, not in the instrument.

[dellboy]

Surely it is obvious that's what would happen? Why would you expect any other behaviour? That's stuff you take car of in your host, not in the instrument.

Yeah, I am beginning to think you are right. I should know better because my Juno 6 has an ARP and that plays right across the keyboard.

[steb_osc]

Once you get into having keyboard splits, you're into the territory of patch layers. This is something that I think should be avoided with Invader 2, as its single screen workflow is the draw of the synth.

As someone that spends more time playing synths than sequencing them, I understand the interest in having a split feature, but in this case I think that the DAW is the way to go.

I can see both sides in the built-in arps debate. I think that arpeggios sit in two camps in that they are applicable to both areas:
- sound design, responsibility of the VST
- sequencing, responsibility of the DAW

When you look at sound designers such as Luftrum, you'd argue that many of their top-notch patches would be incomplete if the VST didn't have a built-in arpeggiator. I think it's a tool that is required for sound design.

However, I must say that I always go straight to my DAW when I need an arp, or any step sequence, rather than using the VST.

Invader 2's core sound is of very high quality so please let it grow. Expand the range of sounds it can make. More Oscs, more filters, the ability to route Oscs through different filters, more effects and routings, expand the Arp, etc etc. Perhaps call Invader 2 finished and then work on an Invader Pro for more advanced users.

I'd love that! Fishing: "for more advanced users" haha

[Teksonik]

An arpeggiator doesn't modulate anything, it's just note on/off, up, down, up/down and random

Once again you simply don't know what you're talking about. This is just one example in one synth....

Arp 081021-1.png

As you play the Arp it is changing the sound. Oh sure you might be able to faff about in your DAW and set up the same connectivity while playing but it would in no way be more efficient. You're just not understanding the connection between onboard arps and the patch that is created around them. You can't just swap out the DAW's Arp and get the same results.

No, it's a perfect description if you're capable of ignoring reality.

Your problem has always been that you are incapable of understanding that your reality isn't reality for everyone else.
Your way of working is in no way superior to the way other people work. You will simply never understand that fact.

You cannot possibly be serious? Who would ever need 8 layers of arpeggios to do anything? It's absurd on the face of it.

Once again you fail to understand that not everyone is as myopic as you are.

No, they can't. If they produce music, creating patches is just something they need to do. It doesn't make them a "sound designer" because that's just a misappropriated title for a job that's not really a job.

Yes they can. Are you trying to tell me talented people like Kevin Schroeder who has done sound design for major motion pictures can't also make great music? Sound designer is in the credits of almost every movie. We get it you have no respect for sound designers as you've said it over and over and over again but obviously it's a "real job".

Oh, I understand exactly what they are good for - marketing. They make the factory presets sound gooderer.

No you don't understand and that's the problem. You can't understand anything that's outside of your little box. I use built in Arps all the time. The fact that you don't is irrelevant. The salient point is having an onboard Arp allows me and others use it all the while allowing you to simply ignore it....win win.

I like really complex, evolving timbres.

That's the problem, your definition of "complex" it far too primitive, too simple, too unrefined. It's not possible to get the same complexity out of a simple 2 Osc VA synth as a competent user could get out of more complex synths with Wavetable, Multi-Sample, FM, etc forms of synthesis or VA synths with more features.

That just turns it into every other synth on the market. What's the point?

The point would be to make allow it to compete with other synths. To make it a better synth for those who have long outgrown simple 2 Osc synths.

E-Phonic, I'll be keeping an eye on the future of Invader 2. You have created a very high quality core sound so I hope you will expand the capabilities of Invader 2 in order to take full advantage of that great core sound.....

[Teksonik]

Once you get into having keyboard splits, you're into the territory of patch layers. This is something that I think should be avoided with Invader 2, as its single screen workflow is the draw of the synth.

As someone who spends a lot of time playing and sequencing synths I don't judge a synth based on the number of screens it has. I don't even concentrate on "workflow". I concentrate on the quality and range of sounds it can make because in the end that's what really matters....what's coming out of the speakers.

Invader 2 certainly has a high quality sound but its range of sounds is too limited in my opinion.

Like I said maybe call Invader 2 finished so people who favor simple synths can continue to use it while developing Invader Pro for people who prefer more complex synthesis.

If you love the core sound of any synth why wouldn't you want to expand the range of sounds it can make? As just one example wouldn't you like to be able to route the Oscs through their own Filters instead of both through the same filter? I can already think of patches I would make if this feature were added and so on. I could easily find uses for more Oscs, more FX etc etc...

Once again I would be more than willing to purchase an Invader Pro version because I really do enjoy the core sound.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Can we get a new version of Drumatic before we go all "Invader Pro?"

Clearly, this is a side hustle and e-phonic's synth development time is very limited. I'd personally like to see it spent modernizing Drumatic. Even if the core-sound engines stayed the same, I'd love to have better browsing for kits and kit pieces, a larger GUI, and maybe even a sequencer (here comes BONES with the "why - your DAW already is a sequencer" in 3...2...1...).

But if doing a sequencer, I'd want options for velocity, per-lane length, multiple patterns (assignable to keys), and hit probability. In fact, Stochas is pretty good at the last two pieces, is open source, and could probably make for a good foundation of a drum VST sequencer.

[sinkmusic]

Can we get a new version of Drumatic before we go all "Invader Pro?"

+1

[steb_osc]

I have to say I find the idea of an Invader Pro is really exciting because as you say the core sound of Invader 2 is excellent. You’ve made some great suggestions.

As it stands Invader 2 is superb. It’s the first synth I tend to drag in each day for a quick saw fix!