Korg Collection 6 with PS-3300, Trinity and SGX-2 Piano

[soulata]

And that's the thing. You can't please everyone.. Some people love Valhalla GUI's.. I don't..
I am curious what software does soulata consider having 2025 standards?
What I do wish for the PS-3300 is a way (sort of like Gforce does it with their OB-E, and in a sense Omnisphere does) where you can enlarge/zoom in a specific section of the synth to work on that section of the instrument and then zoom it back out.
rsp

I find Valhalla's stuff pretty timeless and easy on the eye. Korg took skeumorphism too seriously. Arturia generally, but not always, does it better, imho.

The newer Korg synths, the ones that are not part of the collection, fare better in accepting digital nature of vsts.

Gforce is generally ok. I own some of their plugins, did not demo all of them.

[zvenx]

Ok thanks for answering.. but you see the problem there... what you like may not be what I like.
(generic you and generic I of course)
rsp

[c_voltage]

@danatkorg
Hmm, ok thank you for all replies, did read all.
That what i wanted to know.

[c_voltage]

Regards UI - idk i very liked it, especially in 3300 (and frankly can't imagine how it could done better).
Make it full flat ? Please, don't. Already spoiled Largo is enough.
No, i'm not against flat UIs, but where it suitable (like in PCM synths with their LCD style displays - it;s absolutely ok).

[IvyBirds]

I’m not an owner of this plugin (yet), so was just responding to a previous comment regarding faithfully recreated skeuomorphic interfaces in general. The screenshot posted in the reply shows this one does have (IMO) pretty clean and straightforward new GUI, though.

For me anyway especially with plugins emulating old analog Synths I like when they have a faithfully recreated skeuomorphic interface

The hardware in such Synths had a specific feature set and workflow that was all very visually represented on the synth itself. When I pull up a digital recreations of that on a my giant widescreen monitor it allows me to follow that same workflow complete with all the limitations the original hardware offered

It's a fun way of working

[soulata]

Ok thanks for answering.. but you see the problem there... what you like may not be what I like.
(generic you and generic I of course)
rsp

I absolutely get and respect that.

[mi-os]

Is the CPU usage on the PS-3300 better or worse than the 2600? Is the CPU heavily used even when no sound is being produced?

[EvilDragon]

36 oscillators in PS-3300 are constantly running. Make of that what you will

[mi-os]

So worse then Too bad.

There are too many new synths released that are high CPU usage. To me, it's hard to really like any of them, even if they sound great. There is always that feeling the code is not optimized enough.

[EvilDragon]

There's no reason to feel that way if there is a good justification for the CPU use. In this case, that's how the actual hardware works - oscillators constantly running. There's only one way to emulate that behavior properly, and that's by constantly running the oscillators!

[IvyBirds]

So worse then Too bad.

There are too many new synths released that are high CPU usage. To me, it's hard to really like any of them, even if they sound great. There is always that feeling the code is not optimized enough.

There is also a lot of new Synths they couldn't have made a few years back because CPUs couldn't handle it

I think it's awesome many developers are not afraid to push the boundaries a bit, even if it means having 36 oscillators running all the time

If you are using an older computer with limited resources it can most certainly be an issue, but developers shouldn't be afraid to make new stuff even if it means older computers struggle

[mi-os]

Were you guys around when they squeezed the last bits of performance out of slow computers like the C64? That's what i mean. There is always the feeling that high-level programming isn't as efficient. Just too many layers. I say "feeling" because i can't really back it up with hard facts. Low-level programming may also not economically viable or even effective these days. But who knows. I better leave that question to the master coders.

Companies may lose out on sales because not everyone has the latest hardware.

[EvilDragon]

I don't think you can compare the quality of C64 audio to a PS-3300.

[mi-os]

That's not what i said.

[EvilDragon]

Well, as for coding efficiency... ain't nobody gonna want to mess with assembler these days. That's all there's to it, really. It's not financially viable to go to those lengths. And compilers have become extremely great at optimizing code.