Software vs Hardware

[pdxindy]

for most people there is no advantage to CLAP, which is why most of the industry ignores it, just like Bitwig

Fortunately for me, whether others find an advantage with it doesn't affect how great it is for me.

Bitwig's polyphonic modulation, Note Expressions, CLAP and MPE combine to allow me to do stuff in Bitwig that's unique. For me, it's the best sound design platform available.

[pdxindy]

it's now software vs software?

Yup... the software people gave up their losing argument about hardware and went for a more level playing field.

[IvyBirds]

for most people there is no advantage to CLAP, which is why most of the industry ignores it, just like Bitwig

Fortunately for me, whether others find an advantage with it doesn't affect how great it is for me.

Bitwig's polyphonic modulation, Note Expressions, CLAP and MPE combine to allow me to do stuff in Bitwig that's unique. For me, it's the best sound design platform available.

But I have all of of that in my favorite plugins, Cubase, and Gig Performer

There is nothing unique about using CLAP or Bitwig for that

And everything that makes Gig Performer awesome for live work also applies to sound design

But amazing you think so

It's like you are unaware polyphonic note expression is built into the VST3 spec, as is support for MPE controllers

[vurt]

it's now software vs software?

Yup... the software people gave up their losing argument about hardware and went for a more level playing field.

[Ah_Dziz]

Basically you need to understand the modulation system and how to combine them. Maybe its not as straight forward as drawing a curve, but close enough for your purpose…

ok, i see.
Then no, that would not doing for me.
In some cases this could work out functionality wise. But i suppose to work in this way would be way too time consuming for me.
I make way too many fresh patches, and even then with the direct "draw curvature freely" feature is the whole thing extremly workloady. I mean, this is allready really **hard** work as is.

The other thing, creating morphs requires sometimes ***extreme precision*** to make these do work good.
Many parameters have **extremly** reduced ranges vs. within what range a morph sometimes has to happen. Complex EQ morphs for example.

I do morphs allready nearly impossible to set it up fine enough, even by having sayed "draw curvature freely by hand" feature allready available.
Anything lesser capable than what GP delivers would nolonger be workable for many many things i do. Sometimes GREAT things.

Thanks for clarifing this up for me !

Will GP allow you to enter functions for your curves? Just curious. It's pretty simple math to convert a line into whatever curve you need if you know the parameter range the line covers. This all gets screwed by midi in many circumstances but in things like filters and eqs that have large floating point parameter ranges, you could very easily calculate the points. I tend to go by feel with this sort of thing so I just draw in a transfer curve (or use breakpoints or whatever is available) or I have to get something to track pitch/ notes (or a range of notes) that wasn't set up to do so (delays are often hard to press into pitch tracking when they weren't designed to). If you have the start value, end value, and step size you should be able to remap automation incredibly accurately with some algebra (or the help of some online calculators if math isn't your thing).

[Funky40]

Will GP allow you to enter functions for your curves?

I don´t understand this.
please tell me

In GP, you draw the curves freely by hand, with your mouse pointer.
This edit page is for my taste *very* rudimentary ! It is -for me- very PITA to do that job thoroughly.

Functions ? i can smooth my shaky drawn lines by a button press.
That´s all i use. (takes me useually 40-160 presses, haha)
There are some more functions available on another edit page.
I was personally never able to get any use out of that for me.
Some people seem to like it. I even don´t know how it´s supposed to work. feels all so counter intuitiv to me.
I deal with 30-40 widgets ( control elements) allready on a first evening vs. a patch creation.
60-80 soon after. finished patches easily around 120 widgets. Bigger and exzessivly CC mapped patches even way above that

personally i think that the curvature editor in GP is just the bare minimum.
***Yet, i never saw anywhere else something equal or better.***
It finally allows me -as is- to set any curve as i like to have it.


Midi? no, i have no problems. I never perceived any stepping.
if it´s there, then it´s not something i´d perceive.
Well, wait: i perceive it on some plugins, some specific functions, usually on pitchshifters.
Yeah, could be that this is sometimes just the midi resolution. ....Well, yeah, it looks so.
Else ? no, no problems.
I´m in that regard absolutely happy with how things work for me within GP
( to notes, i´ve dealt over a major part of the last 19 years with modulars -nearly- only. I´m used to deal with control voltages. ...that unstepped stuff )

[Ah_Dziz]

So if your input is 0-127 on whatever midi cc , could you create your curves to be "y=x^2 + 2x+ 1" or any other function and defined that way rather than drawing it out?
I don't really know enough about GP to comment in a way that I know would be useful to you. You just mentioned that you spent lots of time trying to get parameter transitions to "move" the way you want. I was curious if the editor for these curves could be defined by a mathematical function. In things like max or PD etc you could convert your x (input midi or automation) into a smoothed Floating point value and then map it to Y (another smoothed Floating point value) and do things relatively quickly that would give you logarithmic control of linear parameters for instance or the inverse or really anything you could imagine. If GP only really does midi this will be a bit problematic due to resolution issues for simple CC data but you can use NRPN and other midi to get more resolution if it's supported. Being this precise is often more than is needed ( I often just draw and redraw curves until I get what I want for a given process) but can be very useful for pitched effects (using a multiband eq as a pitched resonator). Just curious.

[Funky40]

So if your input is 0-127 on whatever midi cc , could you create your curves to be "y=x^2 + 2x+ 1" or any other function and defined that way rather than drawing it out?

hmm, there is the "curve designer".
Maybe look it up yourself in the manual.
Panels and widgets / widgets / 6. How to scale Widgets with curves.
Look at point 6. Scroll down a bit......(60%)
https://gigperformer.com/docs_5_0/UserM ... urves.html

i´m totally unfamilair with that edit tool.
i never could grasp it when i tryed. It was just not working out for me.


Yes, GP -how i use it- is working based on common midi. Can´t tell about NRPN possibilities or anything other in this regard.

( I often just draw and redraw curves until I get what I want for a given process)

where do you do that ? So you have another platform/Tool where you can draw curvatures ?

using a multiband eq as a pitched resonator

I see. Yes, ofcoarse could we take the things to points where math plays a role.
I would say GP is NOT made for that ! (vs. to where you point towards )
Reaktor, Max, etc.........guess you work allready with such tools ?


i DO understand the power of resonators.
I understand to where this could be taken........

No, no, no,...GP is NOT made for anything like that.

[IvyBirds]

So if your input is 0-127 on whatever midi cc , could you create your curves to be "y=x^2 + 2x+ 1" or any other function and defined that way rather than drawing it out?

You could use the scripting language to write your own script for that, if you really wanted to

You can also just work numerically without dealing with drawing any curves

[Ah_Dziz]

So if your input is 0-127 on whatever midi cc , could you create your curves to be "y=x^2 + 2x+ 1" or any other function and defined that way rather than drawing it out?

hmm, there is the "curve designer".
Maybe look it up yourself in the manual.
Panels and widgets / widgets / 6. How to scale Widgets with curves.
Look at point 6. Scroll down a bit......(60%)
https://gigperformer.com/docs_5_0/UserM ... urves.html

i´m totally unfamilair with that edit tool.
i never could grasp it when i tryed. It was just not working out for me.


Yes, GP -how i use it- is working based on common midi. Can´t tell about NRPN possibilities or anything other in this regard.

( I often just draw and redraw curves until I get what I want for a given process)

where do you do that ? So you have another platform/Tool where you can draw curvatures ?

using a multiband eq as a pitched resonator

I see. Yes, ofcoarse could we take the things to points where math plays a role.
I would say GP is NOT made for that ! (vs. to where you point towards )
Reaktor, Max, etc.........guess you work allready with such tools ?


i DO understand the power of resonators.
I understand to where this could be taken........

No, no, no,...GP is NOT made for anything like that.

I don't use GP and probably won't be starting anytime soon. As I said before, I'm just curious how it handles these things.
I use reaktor and Pure Data most of the time when I need something very specific and I often just use a function to force something into the range I want. Or I use a 2d array to draw a curve. Also there's lots and lots of software that uses curves for modulation (all the melda stuff has a curve for each mod destination). Bitwig can remap modulation or automation or midi to a custom curve.

In my experience there's always a way.

[BONES]

When did this stop being about music? It's turned into a discussion from the Dev forum.

[BONES]

The tale of two dogs is that a woman sees two dogs emerge from a room at different times. One is wagging its tale and very happy, the other is growling and upset. When the woman looks into the room she sees a hall of mirrors. The first dog saw a thousand dogs wagging their tales and the second saw a thousand angry dogs.

It's a roundabout way of saying that we get out what we put into it and our frustrations and pleasures can be amplified by our perceptions.

Really? What I get out of it is that the hall of mirrors made no difference to how either dog was feeling when they went in and, therefore, has nothing to tell us.

[mangopango]

The tale of two dogs is that a woman sees two dogs emerge from a room at different times. One is wagging its tale and very happy, the other is growling and upset. When the woman looks into the room she sees a hall of mirrors. The first dog saw a thousand dogs wagging their tales and the second saw a thousand angry dogs.

It's a roundabout way of saying that we get out what we put into it and our frustrations and pleasures can be amplified by our perceptions.

Really? What I get out of it is that the hall of mirrors made no difference to how either dog was feeling when they went in and, therefore, has nothing to tell us.

mirrors and dogs ,thats a good take.but i think the point of the story is that the hall of mirrors did reflect and amplify what the dogs brought with them,literally and metaphorically.the first dog saw joy reflected back because it approached the space with friendliness,while the second angry dog saw hostility because it entered already feeling aggressive.Its less about the room causing those feelings and more about how our internal state can shape what we perceive in the world around us . so my opinion is that the lesson isnt about the room itself,but about selfawareness and how our mindset influences our experience

[kraster]

The tale of two dogs is that a woman sees two dogs emerge from a room at different times. One is wagging its tale and very happy, the other is growling and upset. When the woman looks into the room she sees a hall of mirrors. The first dog saw a thousand dogs wagging their tales and the second saw a thousand angry dogs.

It's a roundabout way of saying that we get out what we put into it and our frustrations and pleasures can be amplified by our perceptions.

Really? What I get out of it is that the hall of mirrors made no difference to how either dog was feeling when they went in and, therefore, has nothing to tell us.

The basic premise is that how we perceive the world is a reflection of who we are.

If we're happy or angry we will see the world reflected back to us accordingly.

[JO512]

I recently got my first hardware synth, an analog one, the Behringer Neutron (I know, I know!). I have been using VSTs for years and have most of the good ones. I wanted to see what it's like to turn real knobs and also to see if I can hear anything special in the sound. I should also add that I think the Neutron gets unfairly reviewed. Many don't like the tone you get with the overdrive that is wired in by default. I actually really like it for some things. But I also patch around it and the BBD to get a clean tone, which seems to me comparable to many other analog synths based on my listening to demos.

Comparing the Neutron closely to the sound of VSTs, I have to say I can often get very close, where it would be hard for me to tell the difference blind between a certain Diva patch and the Neutron. However, when using it, it is hard to avoid feeling like there is a bit of magic and richness in the real analog signal. It is pretty nice to have all the knobs too. So immediate!

If I set up a patch where I am doing something like FM, using one oscillator to modulate another and just exploring the space of possible sounds there, or doing some feedback experiments, and so on, there is definitely some advantage to analog. There is no aliasing, for one thing, and there are no steppy changes from 7-bit CC signals. And interesting and subtle little feedback things happen that don't seem to happen when I try to replicate it in software. There is more smoothness and continuousness to things. It also just seems like there is a little more sharpness or crispness, but that might be my imagination!

In Reaktor Blocks, I can almost approximate the smoothness of making adjustments by running a macro through a slew limiter and controlling that macro knob with an encoder on my MIDI controller, but to get the smoothness, you also get lag. And I can hear aliasing artefacts that are not present in the analog version.

For certain intricate modulations, especially with a lot of high frequency stuff, analog seems clearly better. But for most of the sorts of sounds used for actual music, it seems to me there is little advantage sound-wise to analog, and there are many, many advantages to VSTs. You can automate and modulate anything with anything. You have incredible control over it all. There are many things you can do with digital that would be very hard to do with analog, if not impossible. And it is repeatable. And you don't run out of things like attenuators (two are not enough on the Neutron!). And you don't have a problem with noise.

I'll probably get another analog synth or two, since I am quite enjoying the Neutron. But I have also found that I now appreciate more many of the incredible advantages of software, and how close it is to analog hardware these days. Both are amazing and have different strengths! But the sound is very close.