Camel Audio ceasing sales? [Update: CA acquired by Apple]

[Shabdahbriah]

Okay, I have to ask. What is it that Alchemy did that no other synth on this planet can do? I find it almost impossible to believe that this ONE SYNTH was one of a kind and nothing else can duplicate its sonic output.

Who here who has used Alchemy extensively can describe in detail the architecture so I can see what pieces are missing from all the other "complex" synths.

There are many plugins that can do parts of what Alchemy can do, some of them better (for those specific parts e.g Padshop for granular, possibly Harmor for raw resynthesis quality). I think it's the total combination of features, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, plus the fantastic performance features, and the true spectral and additive morphing, which at the time was state of the art in software (only really bettered by the likes of Kyma), the excellent resynthesis and (probably what sold it for lots of people) an outstanding series of addon banks by Camel and third parties (particularly Simon Stockhausen's) that made it into a platform for innovative sound design drawing on its multiple synthesis engines, impressive modulation capabilities and performance features (which no other synth had apart from NI Kore 2, which for me it was a natural partner for).

Correct me if I'm wrong. But it sounds to me like what you're saying is that at the time it was unique and blew everything else out of the water as far as versatility but today, maybe not so much?

Se let me ask this. Can any of these synths that I have, that I consider top of the line synths, do what Alchemy could do?

ABSynth 5
Harmor
Omnisphere
Reaktor 5
Serum
Synthmaster
Zebra 2

I only listed those few because I felt that they were the most "flexible" of the synths I own outside of something like MUX which probably falls way short in several areas in spite of its modular nature.

Or to put it better. If somebody took your Alchemy away from you, what would you replace it with?

I've "replaced" (well, I'm selling it and a number of sound banks, in the market place) it with predominately R-5, MUX, KarmaFx, Harmor, Serum, Iris (v1., and v2) Spectral, and a few "physical modeling" synths. It 'was' unique for its time, and many looked forward to v2. here: {seeing is believing}

[wagtunes]

Okay, I have to ask. What is it that Alchemy did that no other synth on this planet can do? I find it almost impossible to believe that this ONE SYNTH was one of a kind and nothing else can duplicate its sonic output.

Who here who has used Alchemy extensively can describe in detail the architecture so I can see what pieces are missing from all the other "complex" synths.

There are many plugins that can do parts of what Alchemy can do, some of them better (for those specific parts e.g Padshop for granular, possibly Harmor for raw resynthesis quality). I think it's the total combination of features, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, plus the fantastic performance features, and the true spectral and additive morphing, which at the time was state of the art in software (only really bettered by the likes of Kyma), the excellent resynthesis and (probably what sold it for lots of people) an outstanding series of addon banks by Camel and third parties (particularly Simon Stockhausen's) that made it into a platform for innovative sound design drawing on its multiple synthesis engines, impressive modulation capabilities and performance features (which no other synth had apart from NI Kore 2, which for me it was a natural partner for).

Correct me if I'm wrong. But it sounds to me like what you're saying is that at the time it was unique and blew everything else out of the water as far as versatility but today, maybe not so much?

Se let me ask this. Can any of these synths that I have, that I consider top of the line synths, do what Alchemy could do?

ABSynth 5
Harmor
Omnisphere
Reaktor 5
Serum
Synthmaster
Zebra 2

I only listed those few because I felt that they were the most "flexible" of the synths I own outside of something like MUX which probably falls way short in several areas in spite of its modular nature.

Or to put it better. If somebody took your Alchemy away from you, what would you replace it with?

I've "replaced" (well, I'm selling it and a number of sound banks, in the market place) it with predominately R-5, MUX, KarmaFx, Harmor, Serum, Iris (v1., and v2) Spectral, and a few "physical modeling" synths. It 'was' unique for its time, and many looked forward to v2. here: {seeing is believing}

I just checked out Iris 2. For $300, that better be one of the greatest things out there. Most expensive VST next to Omnisphere that I can think of.

[Apostate]

I just checked out Iris 2. For $300, that better be one of the greatest things out there. Most expensive VST next to Omnisphere that I can think of.

You can get it for under $200 on ebay. And it's pretty freaking killer, the wav forms alone are cross-synth useful, and you get a TON of them.

Iris 2 is worth it. It can take some significant time to master it, but the effort yields some truly fascinating results. I keep hearing about Omnisphere and how it's incredible for things like atmospheres and horror soundtracks, and I believe it (am saving up for it in fact). However, Iris 2 is no joke in that department, the possibilities for original, creative, unique sound design seem endless.

And no, I don't work for Izotope

[aMUSEd]

Just for sake of argument, supposing I had to replace Alchemy, in terms of individual features I would say:

Harmor has at least equal, or somewhat better, resynthesis and image synthesis (although Alchemy's wasn't bad, when it came out it was amongst the best) - however it is no replacement as it can't do granular (and the subtractive is really additive) and I hate the interface, plus no performance features other than a simple XYZ and no 64 bit Mac version (and none coming in the near future either).

Padshop and Halion have much better granular engines but can't do the rest (additive, spectral and subtractive) - and again re performance.

Iris has easier to use (although less powerful - just masking, not editing) spectral features and can create some wonderful sounds but it's a one trick pony. It has macros and an XY so is better than some re performance. Cycle is another interesting take on spectral editing that goes way beyond Alchemy in some respects.

Reaktor is great and can do almost anything but putting together something that does everything that Alchemy does would probably require a supercomupter.

[wagtunes]

Just for sake of argument, supposing I had to replace Alchemy, in terms of individual features I would say:

Harmor has at least equal, or somewhat better, resynthesis and image synthesis (although Alchemy's wasn't bad, when it came out it was amongst the best) - however it is no replacement as it can't do granular (and the subtractive is really additive) and I hate the interface, plus no performance features other than a simple XYZ and no 64 bit Mac version (and none coming in the near future either).

Padshop and Halion have much better granular engines but can't do the rest (additive, spectral and subtractive) - and again re performance.

Iris has easier to use (although less powerful - just masking, not editing) spectral features and can create some wonderful sounds but it's a one trick pony. It has macros and an XY so is better than some re performance. Cycle is another interesting take on spectral editing that goes way beyond Alchemy in some respects.

Reaktor is great and can do almost anything but putting together something that does everything that Alchemy does would probably require a supercomupter.

Can you be more specific by what you mean about Iris being a one trick pony? How so? $300 for a one trick pony sounds like an awful lot fo money whereas $500 for Omnisphere, which is quite versatile, is, IMO, reasonable.

[Apostate]

Just for sake of argument, supposing I had to replace Alchemy, in terms of individual features I would say:

Harmor has at least equal, or somewhat better, resynthesis and image synthesis (although Alchemy's wasn't bad, when it came out it was amongst the best) - however it is no replacement as it can't do granular (and the subtractive is really additive) and I hate the interface, plus no performance features other than a simple XYZ and no 64 bit Mac version (and none coming in the near future either).

Padshop and Halion have much better granular engines but can't do the rest (additive, spectral and subtractive) - and again re performance.

Iris has easier to use (although less powerful - just masking, not editing) spectral features and can create some wonderful sounds but it's a one trick pony. It has macros and an XY so is better than some re performance. Cycle is another interesting take on spectral editing that goes way beyond Alchemy in some respects.

Reaktor is great and can do almost anything but putting together something that does everything that Alchemy does would probably require a supercomupter.

Interesting post, especially regarding Reaktor. Every time I take a spin through Reakor I can't help but wonder at its power...and how much better I'd be able to wield it with a better computer

You know, I keep trying to get into Harmor (I own it), and I've been having trouble. But whenever I read posts specifically praising it, it motivates me to open the manual and try again, thank you.

For wavetables I have Serum, Helix, Z3ta, Nave vst...don't need Camel for that.

That said, even though all I have is the Alchemy player, it sounds terrific in my opinion, and programming it is very interesting to me. I will definitely check out if there's something similar put out via Apple (though forgive me, I don't know what the current status of that development is).

Can you be more specific by what you mean about Iris being a one trick pony? How so? $300 for a one trick pony sounds like an awful lot fo money whereas $500 for Omnisphere, which is quite versatile, is, IMO, reasonable.

That's the part of the post that baffled me. Exactly how is Iris 2 a one trick pony? Plenty of modulation options, a ton of wave forms to mess with...????

[aMUSEd]

Just for sake of argument, supposing I had to replace Alchemy, in terms of individual features I would say:

Harmor has at least equal, or somewhat better, resynthesis and image synthesis (although Alchemy's wasn't bad, when it came out it was amongst the best) - however it is no replacement as it can't do granular (and the subtractive is really additive) and I hate the interface, plus no performance features other than a simple XYZ and no 64 bit Mac version (and none coming in the near future either).

Padshop and Halion have much better granular engines but can't do the rest (additive, spectral and subtractive) - and again re performance.

Iris has easier to use (although less powerful - just masking, not editing) spectral features and can create some wonderful sounds but it's a one trick pony. It has macros and an XY so is better than some re performance. Cycle is another interesting take on spectral editing that goes way beyond Alchemy in some respects.

Reaktor is great and can do almost anything but putting together something that does everything that Alchemy does would probably require a supercomupter.

Can you be more specific by what you mean about Iris being a one trick pony? How so? $300 for a one trick pony sounds like an awful lot fo money whereas $500 for Omnisphere, which is quite versatile, is, IMO, reasonable.

I mean it only does one thing - synthesis based on spectral masking/selection (not even spectral editing). It does that one thing very well though, and Iris 1 has a great interface (not so much 2) and there are some great sound banks made for it.

[Apostate]

Just for sake of argument, supposing I had to replace Alchemy, in terms of individual features I would say:

Harmor has at least equal, or somewhat better, resynthesis and image synthesis (although Alchemy's wasn't bad, when it came out it was amongst the best) - however it is no replacement as it can't do granular (and the subtractive is really additive) and I hate the interface, plus no performance features other than a simple XYZ and no 64 bit Mac version (and none coming in the near future either).

Padshop and Halion have much better granular engines but can't do the rest (additive, spectral and subtractive) - and again re performance.

Iris has easier to use (although less powerful - just masking, not editing) spectral features and can create some wonderful sounds but it's a one trick pony. It has macros and an XY so is better than some re performance. Cycle is another interesting take on spectral editing that goes way beyond Alchemy in some respects.

Reaktor is great and can do almost anything but putting together something that does everything that Alchemy does would probably require a supercomupter.

Can you be more specific by what you mean about Iris being a one trick pony? How so? $300 for a one trick pony sounds like an awful lot fo money whereas $500 for Omnisphere, which is quite versatile, is, IMO, reasonable.

I mean it only does one thing - synthesis based on spectral masking/selection (not even spectral editing). It does that one thing very well though, and Iris 1 has a great interface (not so much 2) and there are some great sound banks made for it.

I guess we agree to disagree...at least to a degree (lyrics for a new song! Sorry, I'm a corny bastard). Iris 2 looks great to me, wasn't wild about 1. In fact I wasn't wild about Iris 1, period.

As far as Iris 2 being just about the spectral editing...well, I guess it would come down to how well it competes against the other "mostly spectral editing" synths on the market. Is there something better at that? I honestly would like to know, I personally don't think Linplug is there (though that's a very cool synth).

[aMUSEd]

Only Alchemy and Harmor. Both have much more powerful spectral editors, but Alchemy 1 most people found the editing interface hard to use (A2 was going to be better), Harmor is probably better but I dislike the fact that so much is hidden away in a gazillion menus (plus it's only available on Mac as a 32 bit alpha) so I find that also hard to get into.

[wagtunes]

Sorry, I'm still a little confused. When I see something that costs $300 just to make sounds, it's gotta be more than you're making it out to be or it's ridiculously overpriced.

[aMUSEd]

I guess we agree to disagree...at least to a degree (lyrics for a new song! Sorry, I'm a corny bastard). Iris 2 looks great to me, wasn't wild about 1. In fact I wasn't wild about Iris 1, period.

I found the Iris 1 interface much more unified and easy on the eyes. Iris 2 has separate windows for things like the macros, which is ugly, the use of comic sans as a font is amateurish and also ugly, as are the appalling pastel colours everywhere and the irregular knobs, and they got rid of the XY pad.

[aMUSEd]

Sorry, I'm still a little confused. When I see something that costs $300 just to make sounds, it's gotta be more than you're making it out to be or it's ridiculously overpriced.

As I said it can and does make great sounds, and in the shape of Simon's patches at least has some great addons (though more for 1 due to their stupidity in not supporting v1 patches properly), it also comes with a large sample library. But their own patches for version 2 are really weak compared with those for version 1.

[wagtunes]

Sorry, I'm still a little confused. When I see something that costs $300 just to make sounds, it's gotta be more than you're making it out to be or it's ridiculously overpriced.

As I said it can and does make great sounds, and in the shape of Simon's patches at least has some great addons (though more for 1 due to their stupidity in not supporting v1 patches properly), it also comes with a large sample library. But their own patches for version 2 are really weak compared with those for version 1.

What if you're not into factory patches at all and are just interested in creating your own sounds? How versatile is the synth itself? Is it as versatile as say something like Zebra 2 or MUX?

[aMUSEd]

Sorry, I'm still a little confused. When I see something that costs $300 just to make sounds, it's gotta be more than you're making it out to be or it's ridiculously overpriced.

As I said it can and does make great sounds, and in the shape of Simon's patches at least has some great addons (though more for 1 due to their stupidity in not supporting v1 patches properly), it also comes with a large sample library. But their own patches for version 2 are really weak compared with those for version 1.

What if you're not into factory patches at all and are just interested in creating your own sounds? How versatile is the synth itself? Is it as versatile as say something like Zebra 2 or MUX?

Not at all, it's a specialist, not a generalist like Zebra or Mux - but then they don't touch it in the spectral domain so it's apples and oranges really. What it does it does well enough, and the whole point is not to stick to factory patches but create your own, but it's not intended to be versatile (and Izotope are fooling themselves in trying to position Iris 2 as a more mainstream synth).

[Apostate]

Sorry, I'm still a little confused. When I see something that costs $300 just to make sounds, it's gotta be more than you're making it out to be or it's ridiculously overpriced.

As I said it can and does make great sounds, and in the shape of Simon's patches at least has some great addons (though more for 1 due to their stupidity in not supporting v1 patches properly), it also comes with a large sample library. But their own patches for version 2 are really weak compared with those for version 1.

What if you're not into factory patches at all and are just interested in creating your own sounds? How versatile is the synth itself? Is it as versatile as say something like Zebra 2 or MUX?

All respect, but Harmor and Alchemy better at Spectral editing....uhhh, I'd have to get back to you on that. Again, I need to delve into Harmor more, but from my experience with Iris 2...I just can't see how either are "better". Please be more specific, exactly how are those synths "better".

Iris 2 offers all kinds of ways to make your own sounds, I'm more and more mystified by the above posts. You can import four different samples (your own included) and toss them any which way and loose...I guess I'm crazy (completely baffled at this point).

I guess I should just say it outright: in my useless opinion, if you're looking for top shelf in spectral editing, Iris 2 is it. It might just be me that feels that way, so be it.