u-he Hive 1.2 - free update - adds wavetables and more

[Urs]

The bottom line is just because you don't understand a feature, any feature, that doesn't mean someone else doesn't find it incredibly useful.

I totally understand the feature. I'd try it in a heartbeat if it was possible. But it isn't possible because the two sides of Hive are not separate layers. They're one. Which is why they're on the same page and share their resources/modulations/signals. It's the inherent concept of Hive not to be multi-layered.

The arpeggiator and sequencer in Hive do exactly the same as a MIDI unit would. They send MIDI notes to Hive's voice manager. Those MIDI notes are transformed into gate signals and pitch tracking information. Each voice in Hive responds to exactly one note. If I add another identical sequencer or arpeggiator, I end up playing new voices, i.e. they can not trigger/play left side and right side independently, simply because left side and right side have largely overlapping functionality.

As I said, I "get" the thing about layers, but I simply dislike them.

I have a lot of ideas for dual/triple/quad sequencing/arpeggiating in Hive, but it does not involve transforming Hive into a multi-layered synth with fully separate parts. It involves stuff I learned from the modular world, which I find more fitting for Hive's concept.

[Urs]

I'd much rather see them work together than have one making snarky comments about the other since I respect them both.

What is wrong with people today?

How is disliking a general feature and explicitely making an exception for Dune in any way an attack on Richard? Are you kidding me?

The other day someone from another company publicly disliked the concept of ModMatrices, which are essential for our stuff. I did not take that as an insult, and neither would/should Richard take it as an insult if I dislike a *feature* he might use. As I said, I don't even know how it's done in Dune. But I take it that Dune ("Differential Unison Engine", is it?) still has that ModMatrix modifier which I explicitely said I find great.

So please stop insinuating that I diss a synth or a company. I'm just pointing out pros and cons of general concepts, expressed my preference and my reasoning and that is it.

[Urs]

And that's why Dune 3 can do sounds that Hive could not even dream of doing.

Psst, I also dislike show-off presets which play a complete soundtrack on one key. I've actually grown to cringe when I read the word "cinematic" with synth patches.

This may have an effect on how I design synth features.

My loss if my synth then isn't good enough for the purpose of people who do like that kind of stuff.

[Teksonik]

What is wrong with people today?

What been wrong with you lately ?

I'm not just talking about your comments in the last couple of days but going back for some time. I'm not going to bother going to look for the posts.

You were never snarky before which is why I have always respected you.

Oh well respect can be earned and lost as well.

Psst, I also dislike show-off presets which play a complete soundtrack on one key. I've actually grown to cringe when I read the word "cinematic" with synth patches.

I could not possibly care less what you like or don't like since it's not you giving me money by purchasing my products.

Good luck with Hive moving forward. I'm out.........

[spunkmuffin]

Let people ask for what they want without having to put up with words like "silly" and "rancid".

'Silly' and 'rancid' are beautiful words! Why would anyone want to censor them?!?! The impulse to censor is Satanic!

[Urs]

What is wrong with people today?

What been wrong with you lately ?

It occurs to me, the whole argument has been made form the beginning on the premise that Dune is the superior product. Other times, Serum is the superior product, or whatever.

What's wrong with me? Maybe I'm getting tired of pointing out that this is the wrong premise to begin with as Hive's concepts is based on an entirely different approach towards synthesis.

Sure, you can call it "compromise" - an expression of the superiority of others - but that falls short of the amount of time, thinking and work we put into Hive to make Hive *better* for a lot of real world purposes than those synths people commonly deem superior.

I think that being bombarded with these feature requests is maybe also a sign that people really like Hive, and they would rather use it than the other stuff "if only it had this or that feature". Much like, when Colour Copy came out there were dozens of requests to turn it into the equivalent of Echoboy. But, just like here, it would cripple what makes Colour Copy great.

[AnX]

Way off topic but am I the only one who would love to see Richard and Urs work together on a new synth project ?

Cant see that happening, unless apple buys both companies

[spunkmuffin]

Way off topic but am I the only one who would love to see Richard and Urs work together on a new synth project ?

What a grotesque idea. That's like asking wouldn't it be lovely to have Michelangelo and Raphael work on the same painting.

[Urs]

Let people ask for what they want without having to put up with words like "silly" and "rancid".

You mean this quote? (afaik the only time I used "silly" in recent days)

Hmmm, it's a silly argument in my view. Hive excells at oscillator unison and wavetable synthesis. Those types of synthesis do not match well with filters which have overly much character. This is why the most characterful filter in Hive is in an engine called "Dirty". In latter you can easily spot the problems, such a scratchy overdrive and out-of-phase stereo image with high resonance. That's why most presets use Normal or Clean modes.

Hence, in my view, adding a lot of different fiter modes is synonymous to adding Dirty2, Dirty3, Dirty4 engines.

It surely makes for great marketing, but it doesn't improve the synth.

The context is the feature request that does not suit Hive, and was based on a blatant misinterpretation of how things work. The argument then deteriorated in semantics on whether Hive has 6 filter types, or 3 or 18, and whether 30 would be better. How has that not been a silly argument?!?

[EvilDragon]

Way off topic but am I the only one who would love to see Richard and Urs work together on a new synth project ?

That's an interesting prospect for sure, but I doubt it'll happen.

However Andy from Cytomic did visit u-he labs at some point (or was it the other way around?) and the meeting was quite fruitful. That would be another combo that could "rule the world"

[tony10000]

Way off topic but am I the only one who would love to see Richard and Urs work together on a new synth project ? I know it won't happen but I'm willing to bet the house that the resulting Synth would rule the world.

I'd much rather see them work together than have one making snarky comments about the other since I respect them both.

That would be amazing! Two of the best synth programmers in the world, IMHO.

[recursive one]

When you have a patch with two or more layers each of them having its own seq/arp pattern, most likely you actually have two distinct instument parts, which you will want at least to process separately in an actual mix. So you need your synth also to be multitimbral. But then why not just to use two instances? This is much easier to handle when you are making an actual musical piece in a DAW and not an "impressive" preset just for the sake of it.

[tony10000]

Way off topic but am I the only one who would love to see Richard and Urs work together on a new synth project ? I know it won't happen but I'm willing to bet the house that the resulting Synth would rule the world.

I'd much rather see them work together than have one making snarky comments about the other since I respect them both.

That would be amazing! Two of the best synth designers in the world, IMHO.

[Urs]

Well, the problem with such cooperation is, everyone works on their own singular code base. A truly full corporation means full disclosure of not just one project, but all of them.

Andy obviously does some licensing of individual algorithms, but that's probably not what people have in mind when they think "cooperation". I honestly would not know how to logistically do this on a dev-dev basis.

I think cooperations are more likely between, say, a musician and developer.

[foosnark]

So let's take luSH101 for example. It has an Arp for each of it's 8 Layers. Would you then suggest loading up 8 different instances of luSH101 and then selecting 8 patches or resorting to using DAW Templates just to be able to play more than one Arp at once ?

I'm with Urs philosophically I guess -- I actually wish LuSH-101 didn't have that layer feature. I have made patches using two layers at most, and then never used them. In practice I use only one layer and patch it from scratch while working on the song.

I always thought multi-timbrality, layers, etc. were kind of goofy features for software synths.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯