Pigments 6

[Caine123]

im still with Pigments v1 or v2 and I fear a bit that my projects will sound different i didnt complete yet in v6.
is there a way to install v1/v2 after upgrading to v6 if i notice something?

I don't know any way to keep older versions of Pigments together with the newest one, since it is basically the same (the new features are add-ons that don't change the base instrument). But you may freeze or bounce the tracks you have in your old projects, in order to keep them safe, and then try the new version and check for yourself. That's what I do when in doubt.

If needed, you can always download earlier versions, and install them: https://www.arturia.com/products/softwa ... /resources

yes thanks a lot! this is exactly what i wanted to check if it is possible to install an old version afterwards again .

[dysjoint]

Dragging the vocoder to a different order in the fx rack resets it to default settings, not sure if there's some logical necessity to that or if it's a bug. Had Pigments for ages but never really used it as it didn't run smoothly enough but version 6 seems fine. Got some exploring to do

[bonch]

If you can't hear it in a blind test, is it really there? Our sense of hearing is extremely susceptible to cognitive bias.

Your opinion is also susceptible to cognitive bias. A blind test would prove what? One synth sounds different to another? We should know that without the need for a test. I can hear "something" (as others have) in the core sound of Arturia synths but whether I could pick that sound out in a flawed and pointless "blind test" is irrelevant.

A blind test rules out cognitive bias by determining whether or not there's a perceptible character when you're not aware of the sample sources. If there's really a perceptible "Arturia sound," then one should be able to reliably pick it out from a set of anonymous sources.

I don't go into using or testing Arturia synths looking for that sound so there is no "bias". I simply hear something (or perhaps the lack of something) in their core sound and again it's not something that can be defined.

You can't just declare that you have no bias. All human beings are susceptible to those cognitive biases. It's inescapable because it's how our senses work. Hearing in particular is very easily swayed by external influences. Think of the infamous Producer Button that isn't wired to anything yet somehow sweetens the sound when enabled.

An analogy would be that you like the taste of a meal from one restaurant but the same meal from another is missing "something" that keeps it from being your favorite.

I'm reminded of an experiment done by Penn & Teller where they gave people expensive "gourmet waters" with fancy backstories. The people claimed the waters tasted better than regular water and that each sample had a distinctive flavor. In reality, all of them were the same hose water from outside the building. Our senses are extremely susceptible to external influences! It's key to be aware of it so you can minimize the effect.

So your bias against the idea that some people hear "something" in the Arturia synths is on full display.

I said I'm skeptical, which is the correct default position until proven otherwise. I have no idea why you're getting defensive. Nothing I wrote was an attack, friend!

[audiouser720]

I never liked arturia synths but I’ve tried this and I think this pigmen sound very good? Kind of pleasant comparing to other do it all synths? The analogue filters are quite good? I dunno it’s just inspiring. The GUI, the feel? The effects goodZ I might buy. I don’t think it sounds worse or more thin than Fabfilter twing 3. I prefer it to serum but never liked serum. I am not stating serum sounds sterile, just feels sterile to me. Well done pigmen

[epiphaneia]

Did anyone buy these 3 new "explorations" soundsets? 1.350 presets for $60 sounds good, but are these actually good/useful/add something to the already large number of factory presets?

[aMUSEd]

The granular and Lofi ones are excellent

[chaosmeister]

Did anyone buy these 3 new "explorations" soundsets? 1.350 presets for $60 sounds good, but are these actually good/useful/add something to the already large number of factory presets?

I was finally able to download them (Sunday now, bough them last Wednesday), and they're cool. 3x3 Sound Banks, each 150 presets, which all bring something new to the table. Sure, half of the presets are unusable in a serious context (like with any synth imo), but there are some cool / beautiful / inspiring / educational ones there. And let's be honest, you get a free v6 upgrade (with massive new functionality), and then spend 60 bucks on 1350 (!) patches. If (worst case scenario) only 5% of the patches is really worth it ( approx. 7 per bank), and inspire you or teach you something about the synth you didn't know before… then it's 60 bucks well spent, I would think (and the percentage is bigger than 5 in my opinion .

[epiphaneia]

Thanks, guys - I just bought the 3 sets - indeed given that one usually pays 20$ for a set of 50 or so patches, there must be my money´s worth in there - given that my focus is -probably- on the ambient, granular and lofi packs

[Touch The Universe]

1350 for $60 isn't a bad price, assuming most of them are good. I have around 800 for that price.

Does anyone have both my sets and those new sets. How do they compare?

[vmood]

Well done pigmen

[Ah_Dziz]

the update is great. Is there a way to trigger the regular envelopes with the envelope follower? That would be crazy cool but I haven't found how to do it if it's possible.

JJ

[rod_zero]

If you can't hear it in a blind test, is it really there? Our sense of hearing is extremely susceptible to cognitive bias.

Your opinion is also susceptible to cognitive bias. A blind test would prove what? One synth sounds different to another? We should know that without the need for a test. I can hear "something" (as others have) in the core sound of Arturia synths but whether I could pick that sound out in a flawed and pointless "blind test" is irrelevant.

A blind test rules out cognitive bias by determining whether or not there's a perceptible character when you're not aware of the sample sources. If there's really a perceptible "Arturia sound," then one should be able to reliably pick it out from a set of anonymous sources.

I don't go into using or testing Arturia synths looking for that sound so there is no "bias". I simply hear something (or perhaps the lack of something) in their core sound and again it's not something that can be defined.

You can't just declare that you have no bias. All human beings are susceptible to those cognitive biases. It's inescapable because it's how our senses work. Hearing in particular is very easily swayed by external influences. Think of the infamous Producer Button that isn't wired to anything yet somehow sweetens the sound when enabled.

An analogy would be that you like the taste of a meal from one restaurant but the same meal from another is missing "something" that keeps it from being your favorite.

I'm reminded of an experiment done by Penn & Teller where they gave people expensive "gourmet waters" with fancy backstories. The people claimed the waters tasted better than regular water and that each sample had a distinctive flavor. In reality, all of them were the same hose water from outside the building. Our senses are extremely susceptible to external influences! It's key to be aware of it so you can minimize the effect.

So your bias against the idea that some people hear "something" in the Arturia synths is on full display.

I said I'm skeptical, which is the correct default position until proven otherwise. I have no idea why you're getting defensive. Nothing I wrote was an attack, friend!

There is a field of study dedicated to understand how humans hear, psychoacoustics, and it is quite settled psychological factors play a big role in what humans perceive.

Our eardrums sense the sonic waves and that information goes to our brains which in turns perceives the sound, in that process psychological factors are important.

In the music software world there is so many psychological factors at play for each individual, their individual preferences and biases that is basically a given that peoples perceptions are not objective.

And the marketing from the companies clearly exploits these, the GUI, the outlandish claims, the endorsements, the links to recognized brands, all are intended to make our decisions upon our feelings, not the actual usefulness of the tools.

[morphex]

Man, I really love this update! In terms of what a sound designer looks for in a forward-looking synth, Pigments 6 ticks all of the boxes for me. I'm just now beginning to go through the new features and I think they're really slick so far. If anyone is into Psytrance or dance music of any kind, there are some very powerful tools for rhythmic possibilities and psychedelic sound effects. This is the best version by far and I'm going to have to schedule in some time to experiment with it. Nicely done Arturia!!

[Dirtgrain]

There is a field of study dedicated to understand how humans hear, psychoacoustics, and it is quite settled psychological factors play a big role in what humans perceive.

AKA hot chicks sound better.

[Dirtgrain]

I remember some SeamlessR tutorials where he used the FL vocoder on basses. Maybe that FL vocoder had some tricks up its sleeve. Does the Pigments one seem like it would be useful, similarly?