Arturia Pigments 5 out now

[Hanz Meyzer]

Ah yes, indeed, it seems to be a marketing decision. If marketing decisions cripple the product's potential, something is seriously wrong with that marketing, in my opinion...

You also could come to a different conclusion: Using Minifreak v vst is nice if you have the hardware, and cheaper than pigments (not 100% sure here), if you only intend to use the software version. Or people like simplicity over vast amount of features.

I think that's why I don't like auturia software anymore, because marketing is more important than the actual product and its features. Don't need an endless stream of semi capable plugins, instead I need a single proper, flexible workstation in "arturia flavour".

[jules99]

Whether it's DAWs or plugins, the entitlement and opinions formed purely out of one's own needs is as strong as it is wrong these days.

Calling Pigments a "semi capable plugin" because it does not include all engines of all the synthesizers Arturia (and by extension of all the other synths out there) is a liiiiittle bit of a stretch.

I don't work for them, I use Arturia's stuff daily, there are things I like (the GUI, the MS-20, the granular) and stuff I don't like (the lack of analog oomph), but there is nothing that has made me think that Arturia is (intentionally or not) "crippling a product's potential" or any other plugin makers product policy.

Weird take.

[IvyBirds]

Ah yes, indeed, it seems to be a marketing decision. If marketing decisions cripple the product's potential, something is seriously wrong with that marketing, in my opinion...

You also could come to a different conclusion: Using Minifreak v vst is nice if you have the hardware, and cheaper than pigments (not 100% sure here), if you only intend to use the software version. Or people like simplicity over vast amount of features.

I think that's why I don't like auturia software anymore, because marketing is more important than the actual product and its features. Don't need an endless stream of semi capable plugins, instead I need a single proper, flexible workstation in "arturia flavour".

So you trash Arturia because they don't include every feature from every plugin they sell in Pigments?

If you want the features if the Minifreak you can ***wait for it*** buy the Minifreak

[whyterabbyt]

Weird take.

But if a company makes a whole load of hardware emulations, then surely they should stuff every last feature of all of them into the one they do that isnt a hardware emulation.
Marketing gone mad. Next you're going to tell me they havent made a hardware version of Pigments with all the circuits of their other hardware in it.

[Hanz Meyzer]

There are much less limited workstation vsts around. It makes no sense then to me that Arturia is limiting their own products. It's not the end of the world for me, will then use the other ones

Minifreak V is very limited, in filters, env, etc. etc. I have no interest in that software, if it is such limited. Also I already have 3958329832 vsts and mainly looking for streamlined workstations only these days.

There is clearly a tendency visible in Arturia product lines, that they will only once build some concept for a synth, and then trying to resell it over and over again, with only slight additions, no conceptual extensions at all. I don't call Pigments a bad software, not at all, but the OSC choices are kind of limited already.... I mean, they already developed much more OSC types...???¿¿¿?

[whyterabbyt]

It makes no sense then to me that Arturia is limiting their own products. I

Agreed. Unless they add Pigments' granular oscillators and the little blinky lights from the Synclavier UI into their lofi tape emulator, they're just limiting it.

[Hanz Meyzer]

Hm, I think you don't get the point. I am talking about their "flagship" synth, a.k.a. workstation synth. Usually all the bigger VST vendors have one. And in my opinion, it is dumb to limit a flagship synth, because there are no negative marketing implications. People who like Minifreak V, like it because of the simplicity, the existing 1:1 hardware, and maybe because it is cheaper in price. They won't stop buying it, if Pigments also had Minifreak OSCs, because of said simplicity and lower pricing. Also Minifreak V is only that limited exactly because of that 1:1 hardware. I don't even believe that Minifreak V is bought that often right now, if the hardware isn't bought.

That marketing is not well thought at all.

[Ou_Tis]

Hm, I think you don't get the point. I am talking about their "flagship" synth, a.k.a. workstation synth. Usually all the bigger VST vendors have one. And in my opinion, it is dumb to limit a flagship synth, because there are no negative marketing implications. People who like Minifreak V, like it because of the simplicity, the existing 1:1 hardware, and maybe because it is cheaper in price. They won't stop buying it, if Pigments also had Minifreak OSCs, because of said simplicity and lower pricing. Also Minifreak V is only that limited exactly because of that 1:1 hardware. I don't even believe that Minifreak V is bought that often right now, if the hardware isn't bought.

That marketing is not well thought at all.

Or at least let us purchase them as add-ons for Pigments? I'd assume that Analog Lab doesn't essentially allow us to do the same thing right? Or even better, let us add more active engines to Pigments at once, make it at least semi-modular... could let it be a different version of Pigments, so people who want the simplicity of Pigments Lite can stick with that.

[IvyBirds]

Hm, I think you don't get the point. I am talking about their "flagship" synth, a.k.a. workstation synth. Usually all the bigger VST vendors have one. And in my opinion, it is dumb to limit a flagship synth, because there are no negative marketing implications. People who like Minifreak V, like it because of the simplicity, the existing 1:1 hardware, and maybe because it is cheaper in price. They won't stop buying it, if Pigments also had Minifreak OSCs, because of said simplicity and lower pricing. Also Minifreak V is only that limited exactly because of that 1:1 hardware. I don't even believe that Minifreak V is bought that often right now, if the hardware isn't bought.

That marketing is not well thought at all.

I have all the "Flagship" VSTs. Unlike Pigments they never go on sale for $99. I got Pigments with version 1. Paid $99 for it. I now have version 5 never paid another dime for it it's been free upgrade after free upgrade

The beauty of Pigments is that it's not as deep and complex as say Falcon or HALion. It's deliberately lighter and more streamlined while still offering a bunch of handy features. It's Goldilocks

[mothra]

Hm, I think you don't get the point. I am talking about their "flagship" synth, a.k.a. workstation synth. Usually all the bigger VST vendors have one. And in my opinion, it is dumb to limit a flagship synth, because there are no negative marketing implications. People who like Minifreak V, like it because of the simplicity, the existing 1:1 hardware, and maybe because it is cheaper in price. They won't stop buying it, if Pigments also had Minifreak OSCs, because of said simplicity and lower pricing. Also Minifreak V is only that limited exactly because of that 1:1 hardware. I don't even believe that Minifreak V is bought that often right now, if the hardware isn't bought.

That marketing is not well thought at all.

No, actually, their marketing is right on point.. People are buying Pigments, and people are buying the Minifreak V, that's what is known as 'successful marketing'.

Who ever said Pigments was their 'flagship' synth to begin with, and who are you to determine what comes in it or not?

[Stirner]

But being a flagship doesn't mean being a complete package. UVI Falcon doesn't have all of the UVI's effects and of course nothing from their sample libraries. Zebra 3 won't have Repro's filter or all the modules from their other synths. I think it's the same with Halion or other similar products. These are still very good and deep products.

[Hanz Meyzer]

Ok, if you like what Pigments currently is, then I congrat you on this. For sure there is a market. But I don't think I am alone. There are many people who collected zillions of plugins over maybe decades, and in the end, you want the most streamlined workflow. And that is a completed workstation.

My point is, adding OSCs from Minifreak to Pigments does not even hurt their sales, instead it increases it.

[starflakeprj]

My point is, adding OSCs from Minifreak to Pigments does not even hurt their sales, instead it increases it.

With the same logic it will decrease the sales of Minifreak instead.

[IvyBirds]

Ok, if you like what Pigments currently is, then I congrat you on this. For sure there is a market. But I don't think I am alone. There are many people who collected zillions of plugins over maybe decades, and in the end, you want the most streamlined workflow. And that is a completed workstation.

My point is, adding OSCs from Minifreak to Pigments does not even hurt their sales, instead it increases it.

I have collected zillions of plugins over decades including every major "Flagship" synth plugin

I have yet to find one with a "Streamlined" workflow

I take it you have never used Falcon, HALion7, or other similar plugins?

I also fail to see how adding more to Pigments will make it more streamlined? That would make it more complex

[aMUSEd]

My point is, adding OSCs from Minifreak to Pigments does not even hurt their sales, instead it increases it.

With the same logic it will decrease the sales of Minifreak instead.

I'm sure Pigments will continue to add new OSC types but as with the granular OSCS added a couple of versions ago, just because Minifreak now also has granular OSCs doesn't mean Minifreak's granular OSCs are based on the granular OSC in Pigments, or that the Pigments Harmonic (additive) OSC is based on the one in Minifreak. They are very much separate products. Minifreak is really intended as a compendium of MACRO Oscillators, more building on the legacy of Braids and Plaits than being like a Mini Pigments. The engines in Pigments are much more complex and detailed, but even when they are covering a similar kind of synthesis, it does not look like they have that much in common really.