Twin 2... Released Today!!!

[PaulSC]

To follow up on my earlier post, I'm going to hope, for now, that the little "star" symbol (*) between OSC 1 and OSC 2 in this image represents some kind of cross-modulation between them.

[elxsound]

That is some amazing UI design. I absolutely love software synths that take full-advantage of a mouse-driven interface instead of trying to mimic some out-dated hardware design.

Woohoo! I'm not the only one at KVR!!

I couldn't agree more. I know I probably shouldn't take the thread here, but I always feel like software is artificially limited when its made to imitate hardware. There's just so much more freedom in design and function when you don't attempt to mimic hardware. This release I'm hoping proves that point, just as I believe it was proven with the release of Volcano 2.

[ouroboros]

To follow up on my earlier post, I'm going to hope, for now, that the little "star" symbol (*) between OSC 1 and OSC 2 in this image represents some kind of cross-modulation between them.

could be.

[Arksun]

I do rather like the look of this GUI too

[tomg]

That is some amazing UI design. I absolutely love software synths that take full-advantage of a mouse-driven interface instead of trying to mimic some out-dated hardware design.

Woohoo! I'm not the only one at KVR!!

I couldn't agree more. I know I probably shouldn't take the thread here, but I always feel like software is artificially limited when its made to imitate hardware. There's just so much more freedom in design and function when you don't attempt to mimic hardware. This release I'm hoping proves that point, just as I believe it was proven with the release of Volcano 2.

You guys do realize there is no other way to simulate a hardware studio other than to simulate a hardware studio, right?

I mean, it's all based on multi-track audio recording and midi sequencers. The instruments are played with keyboards and mics are recorded through mixers. This is in no way a break from that mold.

It's the same old modular patching concept, with knobs, switches and patch cables. Take away the ultra-nice gui and you've got a pretty standard synth and mod matrix. I'll admit it's slick and cool. The work flow is amazing and only really practical in software form.

But still... It's based directly on hardware modulars.

[casiosk1]

With my laundry list of softies, I can't justify the purchase, despite the neat GUI.

[elxsound]

That is some amazing UI design. I absolutely love software synths that take full-advantage of a mouse-driven interface instead of trying to mimic some out-dated hardware design.

Woohoo! I'm not the only one at KVR!!

I couldn't agree more. I know I probably shouldn't take the thread here, but I always feel like software is artificially limited when its made to imitate hardware. There's just so much more freedom in design and function when you don't attempt to mimic hardware. This release I'm hoping proves that point, just as I believe it was proven with the release of Volcano 2.

You guys do realize there is no other way to simulate a hardware studio other than to simulate a hardware studio, right?

I mean, it's all based on multi-track audio recording and midi sequencers. The instruments are played with keyboards and mics are recorded through mixers. This is in no way a break from that mold.

It's the same old modular patching concept, with knobs, switches and patch cables. Take away the ultra-nice gui and you've got a pretty standard synth and mod matrix. I'll admit it's slick and cool. The work flow is amazing and only really practical in software form.

But still... It's based directly on hardware modulars.

Bro, we're not even on the same subject.

I'm talking about workflow and how results are achieved. Recreating the same methods that you find on hardware IMO is limiting because it requires making space for every possibly knob and function.

Now compare that with the concepts from Fabfilter, where you only see what you use.

It allows for a cleaner space and it offers more possibilities since most hardware won't allow for this many options in modulation due to space availability and hardware also won't allow you to remove the knobs and functions you don't need.

IMO Fabfilter makes the most out of creating a software synth because of its flexible interface... which again is something hardware does not do, nor could it replicate this workflow.

[psychematic]

That is some amazing UI design. I absolutely love software synths that take full-advantage of a mouse-driven interface instead of trying to mimic some out-dated hardware design.

Woohoo! I'm not the only one at KVR!!

I couldn't agree more. I know I probably shouldn't take the thread here, but I always feel like software is artificially limited when its made to imitate hardware. There's just so much more freedom in design and function when you don't attempt to mimic hardware. This release I'm hoping proves that point, just as I believe it was proven with the release of Volcano 2.

You guys do realize there is no other way to simulate a hardware studio other than to simulate a hardware studio, right?

I mean, it's all based on multi-track audio recording and midi sequencers. The instruments are played with keyboards and mics are recorded through mixers. This is in no way a break from that mold.

It's the same old modular patching concept, with knobs, switches and patch cables. Take away the ultra-nice gui and you've got a pretty standard synth and mod matrix. I'll admit it's slick and cool. The work flow is amazing and only really practical in software form.

But still... It's based directly on hardware modulars.

Bro, we're not even on the same subject.

I'm talking about workflow and how results are achieved. Recreating the same methods that you find on hardware IMO is limiting because it requires making space for every possibly knob and function.

Now compare that with the concepts from Fabfilter, where you only see what you use.

It allows for a cleaner space and it offers more possibilities since most hardware won't allow for this many options in modulation due to space availability and hardware also won't allow you to remove the knobs and functions you don't need.

IMO Fabfilter makes the most out of creating a software synth because of its flexible interface... which again is something hardware does not do, nor could it replicate this workflow.

Yup... or concepts like drawing your own waveforms in Zebra or freeform FM algorithms in software FM synths. With touchscreens hardware should be there but hasn't really been implemented yet.

[Per Lichtman]

I wonder about the upgrade price. I bet you're having second thoughts about having sold me your original Twin now.

[lococarlos]

oh HELL YEA!!!

and to the person who said make an FX version... I believe it's called Volcano

[tomg]

IMO Fabfilter makes the most out of creating a software synth because of its flexible interface... which again is something hardware does not do, nor could it replicate this workflow.

I absolutely love software synths that take full-advantage of a mouse-driven interface instead of trying to mimic some out-dated hardware design

But it's not a break away from hardware. Unless I'm mistaken it's got knobs, switches and patch cables. In other words it's "trying to mimic some out-dated hardware design".

[tomg]

Yup... or concepts like drawing your own waveforms in Zebra or freeform FM algorithms in software FM synths. With touchscreens hardware should be there but hasn't really been implemented yet.

Just where do you think those concepts came from?

Herbie Hancock jams with his Fairlight CMI

[ouroboros]

no patch cables- it draws lines between the modulation points which disappear like volcano 2.

[elxsound]

IMO Fabfilter makes the most out of creating a software synth because of its flexible interface... which again is something hardware does not do, nor could it replicate this workflow.

I absolutely love software synths that take full-advantage of a mouse-driven interface instead of trying to mimic some out-dated hardware design

But it's not a break away from hardware. Unless I'm mistaken it's got knobs, switches and patch cables. In other words it's "trying to mimic some out-dated hardware design".

Tomg, is the behavior of Twin (or Twin 2) EXACTLY like hardware? Before you answer that, let me be very specific... Can hardware hide knobs and function with a simple click (or touch) in the same way the Fabfilter products do?

[elxsound]

no patch cables- it draws lines between the modulation points which disappear like volcano 2.

Yeah, but Tomg is on a mission, so that falls on deaf years.