New synth: Aparillo by Sugar Bytes

[thecontrolcentre]

 

I can assure you that it's very well possible (and easy) to make beautiful smooth sounds with Aparillo! I love it!

I would love to hear these sounds ...

[Russell Grand]

 
(Sigh..!) Some people seems to be deliberately gunning for this synth to slam it where-ever they can!

I noticed this too. And this wouldn't be the first Sugar Bytes creation that this happened.

[thecontrolcentre]

 
(Sigh..!) Some people seems to be deliberately gunning for this synth to slam it where-ever they can!

I noticed this too. And this wouldn't be the first Sugar Bytes creation that this happened.

Believe me, I've tried to like this synth. I'm a fan of SugarBytes stuff in general, but there's something about the sound of this one that's irritating me. The lack of aftertouch, considering this is a "soundscape" synth is disappointing too.

[Russell Grand]

 
(Sigh..!) Some people seems to be deliberately gunning for this synth to slam it where-ever they can!

I noticed this too. And this wouldn't be the first Sugar Bytes creation that this happened.

Believe me, I've tried to like this synth. I'm a fan of SugarBytes stuff in general, but there's something about the sound of this one that's irritating me. The lack of aftertouch, considering this is a "soundscape" synth is disappointing too.

Well, you have some warranted constructive criticism and I respect your opinion on this synth. I believe you really did give it a chance. There are others, however, that seem to have something negative to say about Sugar Bytes no matter what they come out with. If I remember correctly in my forum browsing, Cyclop was one that got kicked around quite a bit. And it wasn't really constructive criticism so much as it was straight up knocking it with no real justification.

[wagtunes]

 
(Sigh..!) Some people seems to be deliberately gunning for this synth to slam it where-ever they can!

I noticed this too. And this wouldn't be the first Sugar Bytes creation that this happened.

Believe me, I've tried to like this synth. I'm a fan of SugarBytes stuff in general, but there's something about the sound of this one that's irritating me. The lack of aftertouch, considering this is a "soundscape" synth is disappointing too.

Well, you have some warranted constructive criticism and I respect your opinion on this synth. I believe you really did give it a chance. There are others, however, that seem to have something negative to say about Sugar Bytes no matter what they come out with. If I remember correctly in my forum browsing, Cyclop was one that got kicked around quite a bit. And it wasn't really constructive criticism so much as it was straight up knocking it with no real justification.

I think Sugar Bytes is just too outside the box for some people. This is my 3rd Sugar Bytes purchase (Cyclop, Factory) and I've been happy with every one of them, with this being my favorite. And out of my 59 libraries out there, the Cyclop/Factory combo is my 22nd best seller. So there are a lot of people out there who like Sugar Bytes stuff. As usual, they're just not as vocal as the ones who knock them.

[thecontrolcentre]

 
(Sigh..!) Some people seems to be deliberately gunning for this synth to slam it where-ever they can!

I noticed this too. And this wouldn't be the first Sugar Bytes creation that this happened.

Believe me, I've tried to like this synth. I'm a fan of SugarBytes stuff in general, but there's something about the sound of this one that's irritating me. The lack of aftertouch, considering this is a "soundscape" synth is disappointing too.

Well, you have some warranted constructive criticism and I respect your opinion on this synth. I believe you really did give it a chance. There are others, however, that seem to have something negative to say about Sugar Bytes no matter what they come out with. If I remember correctly in my forum browsing, Cyclop was one that got kicked around quite a bit. And it wasn't really constructive criticism so much as it was straight up knocking it with no real justification.

I think with Cyclop it was the Dubstep style demos that put some people off ... I bought it.

[highkoo]

Go to the Sugar Bytes website. Search for their email address. Can't find it. Go to support page. Still no sign of email address. Fill in support form. No reply. Days pass by. Turns out the best way to contact support is by email, since the webpage support form 'sometimes does not work properly'. Hardly surprising, email was my first choice .... but Sugar Bytes don't publish their email address on their website.

I suppose I should have tried guessing the email address ? Or asked around at forums ?


Anyway, protip for 2018: publish your email address on your website. Ideally in multiple, easy to find locations.

Protip for 2018;
Google something like 'sugar bytes email address' and it will very likely show in the very first result (https://sugar-bytes.de/en/support), without even clicking the link.

[highkoo]

Cyclop had presets that clipped...
Id say it is a completely different type of project.
Imo Aparillo and Obscurium are a step into the future.

[fisherKing]

i had a lot of fun with cyclop, but definitely a one-trick pony, and i burnt out on it (and banished it); i use factory sometimes, just for the weird things it can do. but aparillo... i can see using this one a lot (and am already doing so); sometimes needs a little eq (it has a bit too much of an edge often), but not a big deal, considering what all it can do... and it's FUN to play with, always a plus!

[pdxindy]

 
(Sigh..!) Some people seems to be deliberately gunning for this synth to slam it where-ever they can!

I noticed this too. And this wouldn't be the first Sugar Bytes creation that this happened.

I have not been particularly following this thread, so have no idea who has said what. From my side, I have never looked at a Sugar Bytes creation before, ever said a single word about the company and have zero opinion on the matter. I was excited to try a fresh looking synth.

I have not heard anything from this synth that I find sonically interesting. It mostly sounds like some random generative wash of sounds that is missing some musicality. I usually like Simons stuff (sampleconstruct) but his demos also just made me wonder if everyone who is praising it is somehow caught up in a cool GUI and not listening. (no offense meant to anyone)

Because of the interesting GUI, I downloaded the synth because I wanted to give it a try, but playing around with it for an hour or two, left me with the same impression.

I am happy to have that impression changed...

[wagtunes]

 
(Sigh..!) Some people seems to be deliberately gunning for this synth to slam it where-ever they can!

I noticed this too. And this wouldn't be the first Sugar Bytes creation that this happened.

I have not been particularly following this thread, so have no idea who has said what. From my side, I have never looked at a Sugar Bytes creation before, ever said a single word about the company and have zero opinion on the matter. I was excited to try a fresh looking synth.

I have not heard anything from this synth that I find sonically interesting. It mostly sounds like some random generative wash of sounds that is missing some musicality. I usually like Simons stuff (sampleconstruct) but his demos also just made me wonder if everyone who is praising it is somehow caught up in a cool GUI and not listening. (no offense meant to anyone)

Because of the interesting GUI, I downloaded the synth because I wanted to give it a try, but playing around with it for an hour or two, left me with the same impression.

I am happy to have that impression changed...

I think, for the most part, the problem is that users want to just push around sliders and turn dials. There are a few controls on this thing that you need to be very careful with or you're going to end up with a mess. Jitter is probably the main offender. I use this lightly, if at all. In addition to that, the FM sliders, when modulated, you want subtle modulations. LFOs should be on very slow speeds.

The filters on this thing are actually quite expressive. But even there, care is needed. When using the Orbiter, slow speeds and subtle intensities work best.

You need to go through every single control and understand what it does and what effect it has on the overall sound. Then you need to go over the interaction between various controls and what results that will give.

This is a freaking deep synth and it's extremely easy to turn your sound into a harsh mess of metal. But take the base sound and just start making some subtle changes and you'll notice that not only can you get some really nice soundscapes but you can get nice leads, plucks and other sounds.

But I'm not here to try to convince anybody. I know how pointless that is. And quite honestly, I don't really care who does and doesn't love this thing. All I care about is that I love it.

When I've completed my library for it (I estimate sometime in January) I'll post some demos and you can listen for yourself.

Like I've said many times about many a synth. It's not the synth. It's the person using it.

[Frantz]

 
I can assure you that it's very well possible (and easy) to make beautiful smooth sounds with Aparillo! I love it!

Let's hear some of those sounds then!!

+1 I am also waiting for demos.

[BRoySound]

I think, for the most part, the problem is that users want to just push around sliders and turn dials. There are a few controls on this thing that you need to be very careful with or you're going to end up with a mess. Jitter is probably the main offender. I use this lightly, if at all. In addition to that, the FM sliders, when modulated, you want subtle modulations. LFOs should be on very slow speeds.

The filters on this thing are actually quite expressive. But even there, care is needed. When using the Orbiter, slow speeds and subtle intensities work best.

You need to go through every single control and understand what it does and what effect it has on the overall sound. Then you need to go over the interaction between various controls and what results that will give.

This is a freaking deep synth and it's extremely easy to turn your sound into a harsh mess of metal. But take the base sound and just start making some subtle changes and you'll notice that not only can you get some really nice soundscapes but you can get nice leads, plucks and other sounds.

But I'm not here to try to convince anybody. I know how pointless that is. And quite honestly, I don't really care who does and doesn't love this thing. All I care about is that I love it.

When I've completed my library for it (I estimate sometime in January) I'll post some demos and you can listen for yourself.

Like I've said many times about many a synth. It's not the synth. It's the person using it.

Very Well Said.....

Happened the Same to me with a Couple of Softwares where I just played with the Knobs Randomly, didn't give enough time to Learn the Basics, 8/10 were not the Sounds I was getting with all the Random Knobbing and then dumped it and completely Ignored it.......

until I saw Experts using them, There are Secret Tricks that places you in a very high up position comfortably in this highly Competitive Music Industry, Trust Me.......I got back to those Plugins with a fresh and Open Mindset and it paid off.....and now I make sure that I go deep and make use of the best of the Software's Capabilities.....you never know when you can come up with the next Big Sounds for the Future.....

[Daags]

Go to the Sugar Bytes website. Search for their email address. Can't find it. Go to support page. Still no sign of email address. Fill in support form. No reply. Days pass by. Turns out the best way to contact support is by email, since the webpage support form 'sometimes does not work properly'. Hardly surprising, email was my first choice .... but Sugar Bytes don't publish their email address on their website.

I suppose I should have tried guessing the email address ? Or asked around at forums ?


Anyway, protip for 2018: publish your email address on your website. Ideally in multiple, easy to find locations.

Protip for 2018;
Google something like 'sugar bytes email address' and it will very likely show in the very first result (https://sugar-bytes.de/en/support), without even clicking the link.

yes, for some reason, when you google that term it is shown in the link description on google - but NOT on the webpage itself that the link links to.
(but after some investigation, i see that the text that google uses is lifted from a section in the FAQ about not receiving a serial ... a query that has to be clicked to reveal the solution. the solution contains the email address)

as i said, i could have tried guessing the email address and even asking on forums, or ya, googling that search term (with crossed fingers). or clicking every single query in the FAQ (with crossed fingers), for some reason expecting an email address to show up as part of the solution. at any rate it took a few days to realise my submission via their contact form was not successful.

It's a sad state of affairs when the website of the company you're trying to contact neither provides their email address on their website in a reasonably easy to find or sensible place, nor has a contact form that works (consistently). Ultimately the failing is theirs, not mine, so all protips for 2018 should be issued to them - and not by their website's contact form

[Daags]

Anyway, whether plain text or a mailto link, if your email address appears on your website it will be picked up by spam-bots that scour websites looking for email addresses. There are ways our web designer can go some way to disguising our email address from these spam-bots, but they’re not all that effective, as the people who program the spam bots are always one step ahead.
Hope for your understanding.

.... yes, I know about spambots. Thanks for the refresher course : )

every other company i deal with can manage to put their email address somewhere sensible on their website, despite the wicked spambots crawling & trawling as they do. that or their contact form has never failed me. i think it's pretty shameful that you have no 100% working method of electronic contact accessible on your website, if your email address is hidden in some obscure area. if you realise your contact form 'sometimes doesn't work', you need to suck it up and stick your email address somewhere sensible.

in my opinion.




(i no longer have a support query btw!)