KVR Audio

musikmachine · Post by **musikmachine** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:41 pm

lococarlos wrote:oh HELL YEA!!!

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

I know but i can hope for a free fx version can't i?

Per Lichtman · Post by **Per Lichtman** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:42 pm

musikmachine wrote:
lococarlos wrote:oh HELL YEA!!!

and to the person who said make an FX version... I believe it's called Volcano
I know but i can hope for a free fx version can't i?

Sure you can hope: but I'm guessing a fair discount on Volcano 2 is more likely.

tomg · Post by **tomg** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:43 pm

elxicano wrote:
tomg wrote:
elxicano wrote: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?

No... but can you tack on an extra CEM oscillator or ms20 filter or two, or for that matter change out a module? With it run outside of a computer? Ease of use isn't everything. Which is ultimately more flexible? Depends on who you are.

I'm not against this and I'm not on a mission unless you guys insist on driving me there. I'm just pointing out the fact that this is not new and it is indeed based on a hardware concept.

Per Lichtman · Post by **Per Lichtman** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:45 pm

Would it be fair, to both sides, to say that regardless of the origin or lineage of the plug-in's design, that it is, nonetheless, unusually elegant in its particular implementation of an existing paradigm and that GUI designer demonstrated great skill?

tomg · Post by **tomg** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:50 pm

elxicano wrote:
ouroboros wrote: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.

Maybe? Can't tell yet.. It still uses the cable connection concept. As a matter of fact it's a little slicker but it works a lot like KarmaFX has from the beginning. What does it matter if the cables disappear? You still connect them with virtual cables.

tomg · Post by **tomg** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:51 pm

Per Lichtman wrote:Would it be fair, to both sides, to say that regardless of the origin or lineage of the plug-in's design, that it is, nonetheless, unusually elegant in its particular implementation of an existing paradigm and that GUI designer demonstrated great skill?

Absolutely.

jobromedia · Post by **jobromedia** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:54 pm

It looks nice. It sounds nice. For me it is not what I need.

elxsound · Post by **elxsound** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:55 pm

tomg wrote:
elxicano wrote:
tomg wrote:
elxicano wrote: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?
No... but can you tack on an extra CEM oscillator or ms20 filter or two, or for that matter change out a module? With it run outside of a computer? Ease of use isn't everything. Which is ultimately more flexible? Depends on who you are.

I'm not against this and I'm not on a mission unless you guys insist on driving me there. I'm just pointing out the fact that this is not new and it is indeed based on a hardware concept.

Based on, is not the same as imitating or attempting to imitate.

Every car is based on the concept that wheels roll. Bicycles have wheels, so is a Chevy Camaro the same thing as a Schwinn bicycle? To me, your logic would answer that as "yes". I'd agree that wheels roll, but would have to add that there's a big difference between the two and also have to add that thankfully the camaro didn't limit itself to pedals as way of propelling the car.

Thankfully Fabfilter products don't limit their workflow, GUI, and complete software functionality to that of any particular hardware device.

flippya2000 · Post by **flippya2000** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:01 pm

Can't w8. The mod routings have been updated, & they've added a delay effect, be interesting to see what else has been added..

tomg · Post by **tomg** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:02 pm

elxicano wrote: Thankfully Fabfilter products don't limit their workflow, GUI, and complete software functionality to that of any particular hardware device.

It's a very nice implementation of a classic hardware concept. Personally I prefer to see the cables but that's just what I'm accustomed to.

justin3am · Post by **justin3am** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:12 pm

OMGZ WANT!!!

elxsound · Post by **elxsound** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:15 pm

tomg wrote:
elxicano wrote: Thankfully Fabfilter products don't limit their workflow, GUI, and complete software functionality to that of any particular hardware device.
It's a very nice implementation of a classic hardware concept. Personally I prefer to see the cables but that's just what I'm accustomed to.

Just so you know, I do understand you and I'm not disagreeing that it has its roots in hardware. Hell, we could take it further defining roots of hardware if we wanted to and you'd still be right about software synths having roots in hardware.

I'm only saying I don't like when software Imitates hardware, that's all.

My family is exactly the same way about preferring cables and physical devices, whereas I get excited the more we stray away from that (not that Twin is an example of that).

Who knows, maybe the future of software will include multiple interfaces that will satisfy all user types.

elxsound · Post by **elxsound** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:17 pm

flippya2000 wrote:Can't w8. The mod routings have been updated, & they've added a delay effect, be interesting to see what else has been added..

Adding delay was #1 on my want list when using Twin. Not that I minded adding an instance of Timeless, but my mind would keep thinking there'd be so many more possibilities if delay was built in. Way cool.

blortblort · Post by **blortblort** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:33 pm

hmmm... I remember a little while ago there was a lengthy thread bemoaning the fact that twin didn't have onboard fx. Guess this'un will solve that!
(me hopes there is a nice upgrade path/price for us twin users

)

Midi_Glider · Post by **Midi_Glider** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:40 pm

This is some seriously incredible UI design. well done Fab Filter!

Best,
midi.

Twin 2... Released Today!!!