Available soon: Tone2 ElectraX

[jamieblac]

So is this the Tone2 flagship now?

[himalaya]

Hi himalaya,

Did you designed some presets for it if I understood right ? How cool is that new synth ?

Can we say it's surgical, or warm, if you see what I mean ?!

Hi Mr Funk!

Yes. But as of now, I really don't know how many will be included.
The sound is anything you make it! It can be very meaty, solid, silky, warm, and it can be very cutting, cold, thin. It's all there. Personally, I wouldn't want to comment about the sound too much as everyone will find the sound different, which is normal. Rest assured, that there are enough oscillator types and synthesis options to keep you busy for ages. The main thing is, for the amount of power available, this synth is exceedingly easy to use.

[jamieblac]

Alright I really want to hear some audio demos!

Yeah, me too!

ME3

[K-Slash]

Hi himalaya,

Did you designed some presets for it if I understood right ? How cool is that new synth ?

Can we say it's surgical, or warm, if you see what I mean ?!

Hi Mr Funk!

Yes. But as of now, I really don't know how many will be included.
The sound is anything you make it! It can be very meaty, solid, silky, warm, and it can be very cutting, cold, thin. It's all there. Personally, I wouldn't want to comment about the sound too much as everyone will find the sound different, which is normal. Rest assured, that there are enough oscillator types and synthesis options to keep you busy for ages. The main thing is, for the amount of power available, this synth is exceedingly easy to use.

Alright, thanks for the reply.

Time to break the bank... Do anyone have some kind of big hammer ?

[himalaya]

So Himalaya, how do you think this compares to alchemy since I know you have alot of experience with that one. They seem pretty similar

There is more differences than similarities, I'd say. There are common features, like the obligatory unison waves. Alchemy makes it just too easy to create lush unison VA sounds, so does ElectraX, albeit you can't select any VA waveform and apply unison. There are three to choose from, but they sound l-u-s-h !

Both synth will create lots of interesting digital-sounding patches. In Alchemy the Additive and resynthesis engine will be mostly responsible for that, in ElectraX, some of the digital oscillators, and wavetables.

Both will create a 'wall of spaced out sound' though !

[pdxindy]

Why are you being silly ?
What did you do in your workflow list, at the second stage? Did you not select a Zebra preset? Yes you did. Same, you can do that in ElectraX, except all the layering is accomplished much faster than creation of your layerd Instrument Rack.

Silly huh...

So you are claiming that if I start with an ElectraX single layer preset... say a string sound... that I can make a multi-layer version of it much faster than doing the same with an instrument rack?

Okay, I just started with an empty midi track...go - drag Zebra instance from browser, select string preset, make it a rack, make 2 copied layers, move 1 an octave lower and detune the second and save the rack as a preset... 34 seconds...

In ElectraX you would start with a single layer preset, copy/paste layer1 into layers 2 and 3... lower 2 an octave down, detune the 3rd and save the preset... Same basic workflow yes? Explain how it could be faster?

Btw, can you load a specific layer from a preset into say Layer 3?

[pdxindy]

And yes, suggesting that somneone buys another product, spend money and time having to learn in order to do some easy layering is silly.

Oh the irony!! You are suggesting he buy another product, spend money and time having to learn it in order to do some easy layering.

Only if he is interested in such a synth, which his participation in this thread proves that he is. He did not participate in a 'The Kore' thread.
In case you failed to notice, ElectraX is not *JUST* about layering, it has original synthesis options which other synths do not have, so yes, him buying The Kore and using other synths will not accomplish what he could do with one instance of ElectraX.

Which returns to my original point... I would be just as happy with ElectraX if it had 1 layer cause then I could do anything the 4 layer version can do, but in the instrument rack where I also have the flexibility to use others synths and effects as well...

we are in a beat sync'ed... lfo lfo lfo lfo lfo...lfo lfo lfo lfo lfo... with a larger loop... hehehe

so tell us something about the other oscillator types! or are you not released yet to do so?

[himalaya]

Silly huh...

Well, yes, and it was sarcastic at best. No need for such 'tone' in a conversation. It is now settled that you have a different workflow and I respect that. Myself, I just LOVE to work with one synth and do as much in one open instance as I can. It's like I used to work exclusively in my Yamaha SY77, doing all layering in one synth. Sure, it was limited: no multitimbral effects, rubbish filters, (and rubbish effects). The reverb was as grainy as the Brighton beach. Most of the samples were substandard, etc. But I still loved creating whole compositions in that one synth, with a sequencer that used to drive me up the bloody wall. But I loved it! Fastforward to 2010, and ElectraX has reminded my of that time. Albeit, ElectraX' quality is infinitely better ! DCAM's Fusor is similar in this regard ( layering).

But if you boil down the conversation to how many seconds it takes to do this or that, then I'm not interested. You do not see how a layer system can be beneficial to your working method, and that is fine ! Move on.


edit:typo

[Brittlestem]

Silly huh...

Well, yes, and it was sarcastic at best. No need for such 'tone' in a conversation. It is now settled that you have a different workflow and I respect that. Myself, I just LOVE to work with one synth and do as much in one open instance as I can. It's like I used to work exclusively in my Yamaha SY77, doing all layering in one synth. Sure, it was limited: no multitimbral effects, rubbish filters, (and rubbish effects). The reverb was as grainy as the Brigton beach. Most of the samples were substandard, etc. But I still loved creating whole compositions in that one synth, with a sequencer that used to drive me up the bloody wall. But I loved it! Fastforward to 2010, and ElectraX has reminded my of that time. Albeit, ElectraX' quality is infinitely better ! DCAM's Fusor is similar in this regard ( layering).

But if you boil down the conversation to how many seconds it takes to do this or that, then I'm not interested. You do not see how a layer system can be beneficial to your working method, and that is fine ! Move on.

SY77 was my workstation for 10 years, I was soooo productive when that was all I had!

[himalaya]

re_mute,
You hit the nail on the head.
Productivity. Since I'm from the hardware school of synth use, I prefer working within a synth, and not synth+daw+plugin effects, etc ( even though I do work like that as well). I was also very productive with my SY. I still have hundreds of floppy disks with tracks that would make me cringe today. But they hold a great sentimental value. There is something about working with a workstation and not having to stare at a computer monitor all day, isn't there. I used to regard SY's blue LCD screen as the gateway to infinity!

[Echoes in the Attic]

Well I'm glad we've all agreed that people enjoy different workflows! That is a very important discovery.

I haven't even touched this new synth yet but I can tell you I won't be looking at it as 4 layers but as a 12 Osc synth.........

It's not a 12 oscillator synth unless you can send all 12 oscillators through the same signal path - same filters, effects and modulations, which you can't. Not that I would ever want a 12 oscillator synth! Three is the max I'd ever need personally.

Why would you want to route everything through the same signal path?

Never said I would. My point was just that if the separate layers are completely self-contained and don't have common sound shaping, I think of them more as separate instruments played at the same time. Which is fine and totally cool! As I said before, better to keep everyone happy! Just my personal preference to load layer as separate instances is just preference that I think offers more flexibility. Nothing against those who prefer a different workflow. Probably shouldn't have said anything, but was just agreeing with someone else's choice of workflow.

As for your point about loading all 4 layers as one preset rather than 4 presets in different instances; Well sure, but why stop there, I want to load an entire song as a preset! Arps and all, then I really won't have to do any sound design or even writing of music at all!

That's a really lame and silly analogy...............

Ah lighten up man, just having a little fun. It's a decent analogy if you think about the trend with presets these days - sometimes they are compositions in themselves! What with a pad and a bass and some arps going etc. Come on, you know whatI'mtalkin'boutwillis...

[Echoes in the Attic]

There is something about working with a workstation and not having to stare at a computer monitor all day...

I agree about not wanting to stare at a computer screen. I do it all day at work and certainly don't want to use a mouse any more than I already do!

That's why I'm so big into the whole automap thing. Although it doesn't get you completely away from the computer screen and mouse for more complex synths, there are some where it does, especially the more simple structured analog types. Gladiator is one of those too. I can design patches without looking at the screen or touching the mouse, although I usually do end up because it is faster to check something on the screen. But generally I strive for less screen, less mouse. This one looks like it will be great be automap as well. So to be honest, the main reason I do like to keep my synths in separate instances is because repeating an entire set of synth controls in the same automap layout is just unmanageable. Too much page scrolling. Too bad novation didn't put some functionality to instantly jump to a page using the buttons like you can now for regular midi templates, that would change everything...

[himalaya]

Well I'm glad we've all agreed that people enjoy different workflows! That is a very important discovery.
ice of workflow.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I do respect that there are different workflow methods. The issue is, a continuous insistence that four layers is not a cool feature worthy of highlighting. So we know by now, that some people will not favour using a four layered synth, however, other musicians will find this system a great help in creating huge sounds, very quickly! Que pdxingy, "but I can do it faster in in my host"!

Look at other features though ! The layers is only a small part of the synth.

[himalaya]

This one looks like it will be great be automap as well. So to be honest, the main reason I do like to keep my synths in separate instances is because repeating an entire set of synth controls in the same automap layout is just unmanageable. Too much page scrolling. Too bad novation didn't put some functionality to instantly jump to a page using the buttons like you can now for regular midi templates, that would change everything...

I hear you.

I think the best solution will await us with huge touch sensitive LCD monitors, which are being pioneered with music software as we speak, which we could use with both hands, accessing many parameters at the same time. Personally, I would love to get away from using the mouse as soon as possible. Perhaps a new generation of touch sensitive screens is the answer.


The funny thing is I felt healthier when I had to use my hardware synths/rack/mixes, than now, sitting motionless in front of the monitor.

[1-2-Many]

But am I the only one who is reminded of this when looking at the GUI:

I very well see your point, but I was reminded more of this:




I'm sure it will sound great though