KVR Audio

4damind · Post by **4damind** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 1:28 pm

Nice, I will definitely upgrade

I hope we must not wait too long for the first public beta or the release?

rustman · Post by **rustman** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 1:50 pm

I know it's a matter of personal taste, but I think the new UI is much, much, much nicer than what we have in 1.0. Imho, you guys are heading in the right direction in that repect. Looking forward to seeing the final product.

zerocrossing · Post by **zerocrossing** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 9:19 pm

Angus_FX wrote:
.. and the latest UI ...

strobe2-19.png

I see you've vastly improved the Transmod section, at least in terms of looks. I've always found the drop down menu selection to be really awkward and hard to use. Has that been addressed?

Also, I see "Dual LFO." Does this mean you added another LFO? I always thought Strobe would really benefit from more LFOS and even an Aux Envelope.

elxsound · Post by **elxsound** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 9:43 pm

rustman wrote:I know it's a matter of personal taste, but I think the new UI is much, much, much nicer than what we have in 1.0. Imho, you guys are heading in the right direction in that repect. Looking forward to seeing the final product.

For me, it's not about the look but I love the functionality of the vector based UI. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I abandoned v1 a while ago because I didn't like the functionality of the interface. I liked the sound. I could definitely see myself moving back in v2. Bloom is still one of my favorites, so the inclusion of it's features (or some of its features) could be very nice for sound design.

Looking very good.

rustman · Post by **rustman** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 9:49 pm

elxsound wrote:
rustman wrote:I know it's a matter of personal taste, but I think the new UI is much, much, much nicer than what we have in 1.0. Imho, you guys are heading in the right direction in that repect. Looking forward to seeing the final product.
For me, it's not about the look but I love the functionality of the vector based UI. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I abandoned v1 a while ago because I didn't like the functionality of the interface. I liked the sound. I could definitely see myself moving back in v2. Bloom is still one of my favorites, so the inclusion of it's features (or some of its features) could be very nice for sound design.

Looking very good.

Spot on. Vector based is the only way to go. Always sharp and resizeable. I'm a Bloom fan too.

Geez. I can't get my edits right. See the full answer below. Move along. Nothing to see here.

rustman · Post by **rustman** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 9:53 pm

rustman wrote:
elxsound wrote:
rustman wrote:I know it's a matter of personal taste, but I think the new UI is much, much, much nicer than what we have in 1.0. Imho, you guys are heading in the right direction in that repect. Looking forward to seeing the final product.
For me, it's not about the look but I love the functionality of the vector based UI. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I abandoned v1 a while ago because I didn't like the functionality of the interface. I liked the sound. I could definitely see myself moving back in v2. Bloom is still one of my favorites, so the inclusion of it's features (or some of its features) could be very nice for sound design.

Looking very good.

Spot on. Vector based is the only way to go. Always sharp and resizeable...as far as looks go. I've not used v1.0 much at all, so admittedly, I'm not well-versed in the functional improvements coming. Call me shallow, but I just didn't get my vibe on with the old UI. The sounds were good enough, but I reached elsewhere. I'm a Bloom fan too.

Angus_FX · Post by **Angus_FX** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:52 am

I see you've vastly improved the Transmod section, at least in terms of looks. I've always found the drop down menu selection to be really awkward and hard to use. Has that been addressed?

What particular aspect of it did you find hard? The mechanics of the menus, the font size, the overall design, the way the sources are named..?

Also, I see "Dual LFO." Does this mean you added another LFO? I always thought Strobe would really benefit from more LFOS and even an Aux Envelope.

The Ramp now has a secondary transmod output which functions as a third (Decay-only) envelope.

The LFO has a "sub oscillator", it's basically a second LFO clocked to the main one but with a frequency ratio & second waveform selection. You can also use the step sequencer as an LFO, and the Euclid mod processor can give you a further source of wobble (it's not an LFO exactly - those of you with long memories may remember our Mysteron freebie, it's something along the lines of the X/Y control system from that, with Transmod inputs *and* outputs.

zerocrossing · Post by **zerocrossing** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 3:34 pm

Angus_FX wrote:
I see you've vastly improved the Transmod section, at least in terms of looks. I've always found the drop down menu selection to be really awkward and hard to use. Has that been addressed?
What particular aspect of it did you find hard? The mechanics of the menus, the font size, the overall design, the way the sources are named..?

Also, I see "Dual LFO." Does this mean you added another LFO? I always thought Strobe would really benefit from more LFOS and even an Aux Envelope.
The Ramp now has a secondary transmod output which functions as a third (Decay-only) envelope.

The LFO has a "sub oscillator", it's basically a second LFO clocked to the main one but with a frequency ratio & second waveform selection. You can also use the step sequencer as an LFO, and the Euclid mod processor can give you a further source of wobble (it's not an LFO exactly - those of you with long memories may remember our Mysteron freebie, it's something along the lines of the X/Y control system from that, with Transmod inputs *and* outputs.

Yeah, the mechanics of the drop downs always feel squirrelly as well as the way you have to click on "Main" to get out of showing the Transmod assignments. Possibly just a toggle? Also, I remember the first time I started using them there was this odd visual disconnect because they seemed like single buttons, but they were actually dual buttons that triggered drop down menus. The way the sources are named is also confusing too, but I'll admit that I'm in need of some major manual time when it comes to learning the Transmod system.

Angus_FX · Post by **Angus_FX** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:37 pm

The active areas on the buttons should be clearer now, and "Main" is gone. Naming the sources is hard, some of them are inherently a touch obtuse. People seem to find their favourites and remember them, though.

elnn · Post by **elnn** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 12:41 pm

epiphaneia wrote:
Angus_FX wrote:@ epiphaneia same, actually - editable wavetables or just some nice factory ones?
Personally, I´d be happy with a bunch of +/- 50-60 nice preset wavetables (and I think that would be fine for 95% of the users, seeing the big success of Massive...).

More PPG- than Massive-style wavetables though (could you actually use the original PPG wavetables or would there be intellectual property issues -Waldorf/Palm- ?), with an option to tune in aliasing.

Thinking about it... enhancing Cypher with these features would just be what my heart desires.

Mmmmmmm… please? Would probably have to sacrifice some of the analogue grit, though.

Cypher 2 for 2016?

Angus_FX · Post by **Angus_FX** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:34 pm

Was always a fan of the JoMoX Sunsyn.. two VCOs and two wavetable. I'd rather we built horses for courses than load the existing synths down with way more features.. Cypher in particular is already, hm, quite feature heavy.

Uncle E · Post by **Uncle E** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:40 pm

While Cypher is indeed quotes feature-heavy, I wonder how you would make this any less heavy if you were to make new synth out of it? I imagine that most people interested in wave tables would want all of Cypher's capabilities. The Wave and Microwaves were also feature-heavy.

Angus_FX · Post by **Angus_FX** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:09 pm

Could prune back a few things, I think. Slightly simpler oscillator features, simpler filter topology. Don't necessarily want or need all the crossmod interactions with a wavetable synth, but you need lots of ways to control table sweep position.

elnn · Post by **elnn** » Sat Jun 13, 2015 2:33 pm

Angus_FX wrote:Could prune back a few things, I think. Slightly simpler oscillator features, simpler filter topology. Don't necessarily want or need all the crossmod interactions with a wavetable synth, but you need lots of ways to control table sweep position.

In my opinion, wavetable FM would be the most exciting possibilty. It is feature heavy, but the best thing about Cypher is that basically ALL its offerings are very usable and when tamed can give pleasantly unorthodox, though very musical results. That, with the approachability of TransMod, really sets Cypher apart. Wavetables with audio-rate modulation (and DCAM oversampling) capabilities would make it a seriously fresh machine, I think ( :

[Ah, also, for obvious reasons, it would be quite cool to have different FM modulators for the osc2 and the filters, arcane!]

Cypher offers a different in approach in the process of making sound from Strobe and the like. It feels modern, but idiosyncratically enveloped in analogue architecture. Modern techniques would not feel at all alien to such synth - with its current feature set, their addition would feel as an actual extension of its functionality, rather than a cumbersome bout of maximalistic design attitude ('the more, the better')

Acid Mitch · Post by **Acid Mitch** » Sat Jun 13, 2015 2:37 pm

Uncle E wrote: The Wave and Microwaves were also feature-heavy.

For sure. The Microwave has something like 144 parameters.

All good things come to those who wait.. the Synth Squad 2 thread