Comparing Dune 3.5 With Hive 2

[Teksonik]

So from a usability aspect Hive has the edge over Dune 3 and there is no way to change that from the users-end script-wise.

It's utterly ridiculous to compare a 4 Osc single layer synth with a 24 Osc 8 Layer synth.

They're two different instruments. That is painfully obvious. Just stop.

For the record, they are not two different instruments. It's not like we are comparing a sampler and a pure subtractive synthesizer.

Well then apparently you've never used either one. Where are the 3 OP FM Oscs in Hive? Where is the full single Sample import in Hive? Where are the other 20 Oscs and 7 layers in Hive? Where is the second FX rack in Hive, the second Arp/Seq, the Dual Filters (up to 8 pairs) and so on and so on and so on?

Look, you could say any two synths are alike just because they both have a saw wave and a filter or that they both make a sound. But once you get past the beginner's level of these two synths then yes they are different instruments. If you focus on what's coming out of the speakers then the difference becomes obvious. They're both absolutely fantastic synths and I know this because I use both all the time including today but they are too different to make a valid comparison especially when it comes to counting "tabs". More complex synth, more complex interface.

Comparing the workflow of the two is utterly pointless. Pointless. Point...less.

As for people learning anything from a thread like this I'll say it to everyone once again....try....the....Demos. Don't let what anyone of us say sway you one way or the other.

If anyone has questions about the operations of either plugin that's fine and I'm always willing to help if I can but asking "what do you think" is pointless because no other opinion than your own matters and asking "which is better" is too subjective to be correctly determined by anyone other than the individual themself.

There is no substitute for putting in the time and effort to learn a synth and that goes for both the demo and after a purchase.

[chagzuki]

The quality settings in Dune are mentioned mainly in relation to audio-rate modulation, but there are four tiers. Do they affect sound quality in ways aside from precision of audio-rate modulation? I see one of the distortion units has oversampling, suggesting that the global quality settings don't affect oversampling in the distortion effects(?).

[wagtunes]

So from a usability aspect Hive has the edge over Dune 3 and there is no way to change that from the users-end script-wise.

It's utterly ridiculous to compare a 4 Osc single layer synth with a 24 Osc 8 Layer synth.

They're two different instruments. That is painfully obvious. Just stop.

For the record, they are not two different instruments. It's not like we are comparing a sampler and a pure subtractive synthesizer.

Well then apparently you've never used either one. Where are the 3 OP FM Oscs in Hive? Where is the full single Sample import in Hive? Where are the other 20 Oscs and 7 layers in Hive? Where is the second FX rack in Hive, the second Arp/Seq, the Dual Filters (up to 8 pairs) and so on and so on and so on?

Look, you could say any two synths are alike just because they both have a saw wave and a filter or that they both make a sound. But once you get past the beginner's level of these two synths then yes they are different instruments. If you focus on what's coming out of the speakers then the difference becomes obvious. They're both absolutely fantastic synths and I know this because I use both all the time including today but they are too different to make a valid comparison especially when it comes to counting "tabs". More complex synth, more complex interface.

Comparing the workflow of the two is utterly pointless. Pointless. Point...less.

As for people learning anything from a thread like this I'll say it to everyone once again....try....the....Demos. Don't let what anyone of us say sway you one way or the other.

If anyone has questions about the operations of either plugin that's fine and I'm always willing to help if I can but asking "what do you think" is pointless because no other opinion than your own matters and asking "which is better" is too subjective to be correctly determined by anyone other than the individual themself.

There is no substitute for putting in the time and effort to learn a synth and that goes for both the demo and after a purchase.

This post should be made a sticky at the top of this forum because it's the crux of this whole "which synth should I get/is better" nonsense.

Unless you're going to ask specific questions like, "I am looking for a synth that has PWM" or "I am looking for a synth that you can import your own samples" the whole "what do you think about synth X versus synth Y" who cares? John Does opinion about Synth X should in no way influence my decision to buy or not buy that synth. I never let it. I listen with my ears and if I like what I hear, I get the synth. What anyone else thinks of that synth is 100% irrelevant.

What we really need at this forum is more tutorials on how to actually use each synth because I remember when I first started using them, I was totally lost. Something like THAT could be so invaluable. In fact, a tutorials sub forum would be amazing here. Each synth gets its own thread. And inside each thread are tutorials on how to use the synth, covering every aspect of it. Naturally, the more complex synths are going to have more tutorials but I think there would be a vast number of people here who would benefit enormously from something like this.

But of course that's just my opinion.

But something like that sure would have helped me 45 years ago.

[Teksonik]

The quality settings in Dune are mentioned mainly in relation to audio-rate modulation, but there are four tiers. Do they affect sound quality in ways aside from precision of audio-rate modulation? I see one of the distortion units has oversampling, suggesting that the global quality settings don't affect oversampling in the distortion effects(?).

The manual explains it far better than I can......

Modulation rate
The modulation rate determines how frequently the modulation matrix is evaluated.
• The Normal rate is almost always sufficient, and the best choice for the vast majority of sounds.
• The (Very) Fast rate is useful when you use rapid LFO modulations (>100 Hz), or when you
use MSEGs with very fast envelopes.
• Audio Rate mode processes the entire synth engine sample by sample. This allows to e.g. use
oscillators as modulation sources and modulate any (!) sound parameter with them accurately.
Note that audio rate modulation is very CPU-intensive and should be only used when really
needed. Also note that a higher modulation rate does not equal better sound – if you cannot
hear a difference, do not use a higher modulation rate, this will just waste precious CPU cycles

[Teksonik]

What we really need at this forum is more tutorials on how to actually use each synth

I agree 100%.

[chagzuki]

On the subject of the pointlessness of these types of threads, I entirely disagree. The interaction between a person and synth is structured around, funnily enough, the person and the synth. The synth has objective properties, and so does the person. The interaction between those things has patterns that unfold over time. When someone talks about their views on synths (or whatever) it's a reflection of the historic interaction that unfolded over time. Hearing those views gives incites that can be conceptualised around the idea of the synth as a discrete entity, and the idiosyncratic usage of it by an individual and indeed the two aren't entirely separable. This gives additional information that can feed into one's own usage: the shared ideas structure one's own attention as one's own interaction continues to unfold over time. That's why casual chat between civilised folk is nice.
That sounds like wank, but that's because reality is wankish.

[Boy Wonder]

What we really need at this forum is more tutorials on how to actually use each synth

I agree 100%.

I agree as well. Some synths intimidate me, especially the FM ones, or ones with multiple pages like Falcon.

[Boy Wonder]

On the subject of the pointlessness of these types of threads, I entirely disagree. The interaction between a person and synth is structured around, funnily enough, the person and the synth. The synth has objective properties, and so does the person. The interaction between those things has patterns that unfold over time. When someone talks about their views on synths (or whatever) it's a reflection of the historic interaction that unfolded over time. Hearing those views gives incites that can be conceptualised around the idea of the synth as a discrete entity, and the idiosyncratic usage of it by an individual and indeed the two aren't entirely separable. This gives additional information that can feed into one's own usage: the shared ideas structure one's own attention as one's own interaction continues to unfold over time. That's why casual chat between civilised folk is nice.
That sounds like wank, but that's because reality is wankish.

I hear what you're saying. The problem, though, is very often, someone would pipe in and say "this synth sucks" without giving any good reasons. Or, when pressed, they say ridiculous shite like "it has no character", "it has no soul" and other nonsense.

[THE INTRANCER]

There is no substitute for putting in the time and effort to learn a synth and that goes for both the demo and after a purchase.

You clearly misconstrued the point of this thread from the outset and didn't bother reading the first few pages. It's about identifying the differences, regardless of what they are, but that doesn't mean that I've excluded individuals' viewpoints on any particular feature that one or indeed two instruments have.

There are a whole host of different mediums that one can look for information on, be that youtube, magazines, blog posts and forums besides developer's websites. It's not for you to decide in which way people learn about anything that they may be interested in and dictate to them that they should just go and find out for themselves by using the demo.

Not everyone has time, time may be limited in any offers that are out there to buy any plugin they are interested in. Dune 3 has an expire date in the time they have to demo it properly where it locks you out of the GUI with no way to trial it again on the computer you installed it on. Hive 2 doesn't have that restriction and instead creates noise at random times.

For reference, I've only created GUIs for synths that are free or that in which I've bought, which I'm sure you know about to some extent, besides my own synthesizer projects with Reaktor. I can tell you this, that, I wouldn't have developed a dozen Dune 3 GUIs using a demo version due to it timing out within minutes of testing it.

In case anyone doesn't know, the Dune 3 skins are freely available to find on KVR

[chagzuki]

I hear what you're saying. The problem, though, is very often, someone would pipe in and say "this synth sucks" without giving any good reasons. Or, when pressed, they say ridiculous shite like "it has no character", "it has no soul" and other nonsense.

That's true, but it does point towards just how difficult it is to conceptualise aesthetic things particularly in the domain of audio. I see advice commonly given that mixing takes years of practice, which I agree with: it's hard to understand what you hear, I suppose because part of hearing is the understanding (which develops through repetition). And it's not clear that learning in the area of producing and mixing has an end-point, though there are parts of the learning process that seem rather like 'conclusions'. Because synthesis, despite often using a fairly limited number of controls, has such an array of possible outcomes, and because non-coders don't actually know the deeper structure of the synths they're using, it's quite common that one develops a general impression of how a synth 'sounds' without knowing exactly what factors are generating that impression. Hence so long as someone can elaborate on the impression, that's additional incite.

[BONES]

If I may digress momentarily, on the subject of mixing, I've never really thought of it as a particular skill. To me it's always been something that just happens as you work. However, if I look back over my oeuvre, I can see how terribly, awfully bad I used to be at it, compared to my current standard.

I still don't think it is something you can necessarily learn, beyond some basic things, I believe it is something that you develop naturally, over time, by doing it time and again. I can see the progression with my bandmate, too, who has been doing a lot of side-project work that just gets better and better, the more he does it. It won't be too long before he works out that he doesn't need me any more, but we should be good for at least one more album, I reckon.

[THE INTRANCER]

This post should be made a sticky at the top of this forum because it's the crux of this whole "which synth should I get/is better" nonsense.

Unless you're going to ask specific questions like," "

Then just stay out of these types of threads. It's that simple.

[THE INTRANCER]

If I may digress momentarily, on the subject of mixing,

No BONES... this thread has nothing to do with mixing, nor your band. Stick to the thread topic.

[BONES]

Someone else brought it up, not me.

[wagtunes]

If I may digress momentarily, on the subject of mixing, I've never really thought of it as a particular skill. To me it's always been something that just happens as you work. However, if I look back over my oeuvre, I can see how terribly, awfully bad I used to be at it, compared to my current standard.

I still don't think it is something you can necessarily learn, beyond some basic things, I believe it is something that you develop naturally, over time, by doing it time and again. I can see the progression with my bandmate, too, who has been doing a lot of side-project work that just gets better and better, the more he does it. It won't be too long before he works out that he doesn't need me any more, but we should be good for at least one more album, I reckon.

Everyone is different though. I started recording my own songs in 1977. I didn't become decent at it until i finally went to Youtube and watched video after video on how to mix. I was never going to get better on my own because I had no idea what I was doing and wasn't going to learn just by trial and error. Obviously, after almost 40 years, that became painfully obvious.