Hive 2 vs Synthmaster One

[a9k1tp]

offering freely drawable LFOs und ENVs is dumbing things down and condescending users, while offering 4 sliders on an ENV amd a ton of hidden modulation options is providing a nice challenge, which make us proud and happy to master?

MSEGs provides a fantastic user experience. They can be incredibly powerful while remaining very easy and quick to work with.

It is so fun and inspiring to work with plugins like Serum, Phaseplant, Infiltrator and Shaperbox. Guess what! they are a huge success.

Dumb people can easily work with MSEGs and people whose job is to create sound patches 24/7 can also use them to create any sound they want.

[Urs]

I have a bit of a different stance here. We did analyse gazillions of presets using freely drawable LFO and MSEG shapes in various synths. In by far most cases we found those to be set up in very simple and ordinary ways - nothing one couldn't achieve with the much faster and convenient methods available in Hive. Out of those cases that are not, i.e. where the "freely drawable" part is used to great extent, a mind boggling number of these shapes have no musical relevance. It could be any random shape and the sound would do pretty much the same kind of whatever thing. So while Hive can't do the exact same sound, in most cases it can certainly do a sound that has the same musical purpose, and usually faster.

There are of course great examples where freely drawable things are used in creative and musical ways. But that's where one wouldn't use a synth like Hive, it's where one would use a synth like Zebra. It's where one spends hours of serious work on a sound that does a certain thing where samples or fixed architecture synths or whatever can not deliver.

There's another dimension to this, and that is screen estate. Complex editors take up space, and thus freely drawable LFO waveforms etc. typically result in additional tabbing. It's not just that one gains a degree of freedom, one also loses a degree of comfort.

So the decisions we made for Hive go hand in hand: Simple modules require less screen estate than complex ones. They also require less explanation and thus less visual feedback. It's usually quicker to get results from simple modules. And yet, they still cover most ground of anything that's ever done in any synth with more complex features - mostly because of the ways they can be combined and universally used for such many purposes.

Remember, when we set out to do Hive, we wanted to create something "dual layer" akin to Sylenth1, condensing the feature set so that we can fit everything on one page - but without giving up flexibility. What we came up with had only about 2/3s of the parameters of Sylenth1, but it could still recognisably do the vast majority of the presets available in these synths. Very few weren't doable. But then, because the single page interface allowed us to add a few extra parameters (audio/modulation routing, fx order etc.) it could to a lot of sounds that other layer-based synths simply could not.

[SamDi]

So while Hive can't do the exact same sound, in most cases it can certainly do a sound that has the same musical purpose, and usually faster.

Same musical purpose - yes. Faster - not when I need to do self modulation or switch through the modes...

There are of course great examples where freely drawable things are used in creative and musical ways. But that's where one wouldn't use a synth like Hive, it's where one would use a synth like Zebra. It's where one spends hours of serious work on a sound that does a certain thing where samples or fixed architecture synths or whatever can not deliver.

Especially Zebra (3) would benefit from freely drawable shapes and skipping this timebase and quadric, linear, v-slope thing and would reduce some of the hours needing to spend.

There's another dimension to this, and that is screen estate. Complex editors take up space, and thus freely drawable LFO waveforms etc. typically result in additional tabbing. It's not just that one gains a degree of freedom, one also loses a degree of comfort.

This might be true, as long as you are happy with the ENV slopes as they are. As soon as you need to switch through the modes or through transformation curves or do self-modulation, the directly-drawable shapes offer more comfort, even if you would need to go through tabs.

What I don't get, why almost all plugin synth still rely on this old structures: ENVs, LFOs, optionally MSEGs. Why not just having one curve model as modulators, where you can define loop points and a sustain point, so you can use it as ENV, LFO, multi-step modulator or what you want. Imagine, all the space where the modulators of Hive are would be a scrollable lane of 6-x of these modulators. Furthermore there would be preset loading to have fast access to classical ADSR-ENV or LFO-shapes. Everything you want to do would be possible in the easiest way with the biggest comfort.

mostly because of the ways they can be combined and universally used for such many purposes.

what I said above - then you lost definitely the comfort over drawable shapes


Summary: please give us freely drawable shapes in Zebra 3 (with left double-click !!!)

[GHOST19]

I'm in the MSEG boat too: any synth without multipoint Env/LFO is simplistic and isn't worth more than €50 for me.

[nakst]

What I don't get, why almost all plugin synth still rely on this old structures: ENVs, LFOs, optionally MSEGs. Why not just having one curve model as modulators, where you can define loop points and a sustain point, so you can use it as ENV, LFO, multi-step modulator or what you want. Imagine, all the space where the modulators of Hive are would be a scrollable lane of 6-x of these modulators. Furthermore there would be preset loading to have fast access to classical ADSR-ENV or LFO-shapes. Everything you want to do would be possible in the easiest way with the biggest comfort.

Traditional ADSRs don't map very well to the multi-segment curve editors. With ADSRs, you have the ability to dial in both precise short times for each segment, as well as long times, because the scale is typically logarithmic. However with a curve editor the x-axis is typically linear, so for example it would be very difficult to set the attack time to 50 ms but the release to 5 seconds -- that's a difference of 100x! Furthermore, most curve editors don't allow you to automate/modulate the position of the points (usually for good technical reasons), but you can easily automate/modulate the timings for an ADSR.

Perhaps the best thing to do is something where you can add modulators by type as you need them. I think this is how Phase Plant works?

[Urs]

Well, freely drawable shapes are usually not automatable or modulatable. Or of they are, then they are maybe not automatable or modulatable in a predictable way. But classic modules that are based on a standard set of parameters are usually very predictable.

[Urs]

I'm in the MSEG boat too: any synth without multipoint Env/LFO is simplistic and isn't worth more than €50 for me.

Well, that's confusing information for me. In a previous post you say that in your opinion Hive does require a PhD in sound design, but now you seem to imply that it is too simplistic. I don't know what to take from this feedback.

[Urs]

Especially Zebra (3) would benefit from freely drawable shapes and skipping this timebase and quadric, linear, v-slope thing and would reduce some of the hours needing to spend.

I would bet that if we did not offer any form of traditional envelope in Zebra, we'd have a lot more people complaining about it being too complicated than there are people who only want MSEGs for everything.

But yes, of course part of the work on Z3 is making MSEGs available for VCA duties. I think they'll redefine what MSEGs are doing, but I also predict that people will complain that they'd rather have Hive's Shape Sequencer instead. One can't please everyone in every way...

[Jac459]

I'm in the MSEG boat too: any synth without multipoint Env/LFO is simplistic and isn't worth more than €50 for me.

Well, that's confusing information for me. In a previous post you say that in your opinion Hive does require a PhD in sound design, but now you seem to imply that it is too simplistic.

I don't know what to take from this feedback.

Mmm, I have an idea... trash 🗑.

[Trancit]

Well, freely drawable shapes are usually not automatable or modulatable. Or of they are, then they are maybe not automatable or modulatable in a predictable way. But classic modules that are based on a standard set of parameters are usually very predictable.

Sorry, but you are wrong here:
First.... why does it have to be either or...?
Standard envelopes (while Hive´s are very limited imho as you cannot even really bend the shape) + a more advanced system with visual feedback...
And in regards of your screen estate argument... kHs have shown the perfect way to go... a simple resizeable editor window when you need more control... perfect... job done...

When it comes to modulating/automating LFO´s, Serum does this in a very clever manner and the results are very predictable and useful... and even if it´s just to alter the shape a bit with note random to have a bit of a change in the sound which is absolutely great...

Second I think you very much underate the second aspect of envelopes or at least LFO´s like Serum and Vital got when it comes to curve bending... and this makes a huuuuuge difference... like day and night... afaik not possible in Hive without wonky workarounds without any visual feedback which is not absolutely necessary but much easier to work with...

Third such types of Envelope/LFO´s allow for very easy tempo syncing which is absolutely crucial for some tasks like i.e. in PsyTrance and especially for tempo syncing visual feedback is very welcome as our eyes are much more precise than our ears and this prevents often having to load an extra timesynced Oscilloscope to check the results...

Again, I am sorry, but I cannot agree with many of your statements in regards of MSEG´s and drawable LFO´s alá Serum... Serum got so famous for a very very good reason and it´s modulators are a huge aspect and heavily copied in nearly everything which came later... surely not because standard ADSR are at the end more useful...

It might be that when you and your team analyzed a lot of sounds you didn´t noticed crucial aspects of the sound differences because you don´t know about some demands of certain genres...

I mean do what you want... it´s your product... but saying that in most cases standard and fixed shaped ADSR´s/LFO´s would be equally fine to the freedom what synths like i.e. Serum/Hive/Avenger offer, is again plain wrong...
That´s like saying a single Sine wave Oscillator would be as flexible as a modern Wavetable Osc...

[Jac459]

I mean do what you want... it´s your product... but saying that in most cases standard and fixed shaped ADSR´s/LFO´s would be equally fine to the freedom what synths like i.e. Serum/Hive/Avenger offer, is again plain wrong...
That´s like saying a single Sine wave Oscillator would be as flexible as a modern Wavetable Osc...

I agree with you but I didn't understood Urs saying differently. He is just saying there is a variety of tastes (because we all do different music differently). And as it is planned for Z3....

[GHOST19]

I'm in the MSEG boat too: any synth without multipoint Env/LFO is simplistic and isn't worth more than €50 for me.

Well, that's confusing information for me. In a previous post you say that in your opinion Hive does require a PhD in sound design, but now you seem to imply that it is too simplistic. I don't know what to take from this feedback.

My PhD reference is about what is supposed to be a simple synth requiring messing with uncommon concepts such as slew limiters in the mod matrix to emulate 1 click WYSIWYG actions in other synths. Powerful features are the ones end users will actually use. How many do you expect to bother with stuff such as UHM scripting?

[Urs]

Well, in Hive you can change the slope of various envelopes with an LFO for instance, or per step with the built-in sequencer. That's very useful, but not at all possible in any of those other synths commonly mentioned. Or maybe one needs a PhD for them to figure this out. I can't.

But yeah, if a slew limiter is an obscure concept which doesn't inspire curiosity - reading the manual, watching the videos or checking out examples - then sure, Hive may not be for them, no need to argue.

[imrae]

The "every modulator is an MSEG" synth has been done, it's called Absynth and while it is a great synth I absolutely do not want to use it for the same job as Hive.

[pdxindy]

My PhD reference is about what is supposed to be a simple synth requiring messing with uncommon concepts such as slew limiters in the mod matrix to emulate 1 click WYSIWYG actions in other synths. Powerful features are the ones end users will actually use. How many do you expect to bother with stuff such as UHM scripting?

You sound like a grumpy old dude who cannot stand anything new.

U-he synths are for people who are still capable of creating new neural pathways and enjoy it.