PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

It's amazing to see all these objective opinions about what you should buy.....

Really, as has already been suggested, it really depends on what you want to do, with the thing you are looking for. If it is soundsynthesis and synthesis-quality you are after, I'm pretty sure that you should go for the Creamware-solution. But if you are looking for a tool to manipulate longer samples, I'm sorry to say it, but then Reactor (or Max/MSP) is the better tool. I know that sample or soundmanipulation can be done with the modular, but you can't load longer samples and do extreme granular stunts and jumps over several seconds of sound, something I have found extremely useful in both Reactor and Max/MSP for making those wierd glitch-sounds.

Still I would suggest that you try out the demos of the suggested software.

There's a 1 month free trial of Max/MSP at http://www.cycling74.com

PureData (Build by the same man behind Max/MSP) is free - If you learn how to use PD, the jump to Max/MSP should be easy.

Synth Edit is cheap, so one solution could be both Creamware and Synth Edit (and Pure Data )

And if I remember correctly, isn't Modular1 free but not supported by CW? I believe the modules can be found at the Modular Corner: http://www.modularsynth.co.uk/ - Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

So the options are many as it seems, and might even end up not costing you a dime

Cheers!
Thomas

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: petal on 2003-11-04 17:30 ]</font>

Can't be objective ... I'am ... possessed !

I agree with Petal about the long samples manipulations.

Grainstate by Martin Brinkmann among others is top notch ...

If you're a " grain guy " you should have a try at CrusherX also.

An easy trick : I " boost " or twist the sound of VSTi's by CW based devices, it's better ...

What a coincidence, I myself was trying to decide between Reaktor 4 and a Creamware card. My needs might be different from yours though, I was looking for good analog emulations plus the ability to play around in a modular environment. After reading about the Xmas promotion (free Minimax and Modular III), it became a no-brainer for me: I got a Pulsar 2. And let me tell you, I am soooo glad I did.

There are some very nice ensembles for Reaktor, but keep in mind that many of them are CPU hogs. Modular III means no strain on the CPU. Also, to my ears anyway, the sound quality of R4 is not as good as that of the Creamware synths.

BTW, if you're a member of http://www.kvr-vst.com Eric at http://www.jrrshop.com will give you a 10% discount. I got my Pulsar 2 for about $760. That's the lowest price I could find on the web.

Another modular synth to check out is Tassman. It focuses on physical modeling and has the potential for some really unique stuff.

http://www.applied-acoustics.com/tassman.htm

I tried Tassman. Really awful in my opinion. Good at gongs and mallets, but that was about it.

I think Reaktor's sound is weak and thin. Every ensemble is drenched in effects to give it a bit of guts. While it's the supreme overlord of blips, twitters, chirps, boinks, mangled loops, and sequencing it fails utterly in the supremely important category of basic sound quality.

So if you want sequenced boinks go with Reaktor; if you want sound quality then use Mod-III.

That's my very un-objective opinion

I'm with Spirit. I am not all that impressed with Tassman. I like a few of the physical modeling synths, but the analog stuff just doesn't cut it. It came bundled with Sonar 2, and Applied Acoustics offered a free dxi upgrade to version 3. I had hoped the quality of the analog synths had improved, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

On 2003-11-04 16:55, decimator wrote:
Kensuguro, Vmartell is a " computer engineer by training " and *if* he's the kind of guys I met in school, he can eat Modular III in the morning, Reaktor for lunch and MAX/MSP in the afternoon !
Those guys are overclocked !
And I maintain Modular III is simpler than R4 because at times you have a visible control and plenty of hidden & complicated macros and wiring between them and you have to understand at least a little the structure to make coherent moves ...

Thanks ! I don't know if am overclocked, but one of the advantages of my training ( which was done the old fashioned way, before they developed a CE curriculum - They trained me as an engineer then they tacked on the CS and EE classes !) is that complexity doesn't really scare me away; if it can be figured out, eventually I will

1) what I liked about Reaktor is the level of control - When I was working with the demo, I clicked on the oscilator module I added to the project. What happened is that it went one level deeper and showed me the components of the oscilator module... now, that's real control - am I gonna use it soon ? not real soon, I guess, but I said before, it may come in handy/may be fun.

2) Regarding the quality of the CW stuff, there is definitely no contest... This test I made was very empirical/subjective, but it's a start. Using the Reaktor demo, I created an instrument similar to Inferno( from the creamware synth pack). Ran them side by side with pathches a close as I could get them to sound. Well, no contest. On the same monitors and card (CW, of course) the Inferno was just deeper, clearer, and yes, without a frequency/signal/waveform analysis, I can only say that, to me, it sounded better.

What I am still trying to decide is whether the difference in sound quality and sampling and other capabilities is worth the $400 difference in price tag

Or even greater than $400 difference if you take me up on my offer for Reaktor.

(Although, I don't want to steer you away from Mod III and Flexor since that is a great combination - just depends on how much you want to spend right now and what you want to use it for.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: huffcw on 2003-11-05 19:40 ]</font>

1st, Inferno is not one of creamwares best synths. you could have made your test based on the same patch.

think of your synthesizer as a musical instrument. like a guitar or cello... what wuld you prefer? a squier guitar or a real fender? and why is the price gap so big?

fortunately you didn't apply the price of your Cello to your software, Red_Muze
but ModIII plus Flexor is less than 400, the chips don't count as Reaktor is CPU intense, isn't it ?

Fender guitars are overated (and so are Gibson guitars). They can get away with selling 2nd rate guitars just because of their name recognition.

I guess you could say the same is true for Reaktor - it has a lot of name recognition (like a Fender or Gibson), but it isn't necessarily the best quality.

So, my comparison would be a Fendor or Gibson guitar (Reaktor) compared to a true high-quality guitar like a Godin, Carvin or a Brian Moore (the Creamware synths).

Also, I think the difference in price is coming from vmartell not having enough DSP horsepower currently to adequetly run the Modular III and Flexor. So, a new DSP card would need to be purchased as well. With Reaktor, there is no need to purchase anything else since vmartell already has a pretty powerful computer.

Of course, the extra DSP could be used for other stuff in addition to the Modular, so the price comparison isn't completely accurate - only what would be required out of pocket right now to get started.

On 2003-11-05 20:03, ReD_MuZe wrote:
1st, Inferno is not one of creamwares best synths. you could have made your test based on the same patch.

1.- My Point exactly, Inferno is one of the simplest, less impressive CW synths, yet it sounds MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better that a Reaktor Instrument with a *similar* structure.

2.- I think that it was indeed a good test. Since we are talking only basic modules instead of the fancy stuff, wow factor stuff, sound quality becomes apparent


3.- Of course, purely subjective, but Inferno really pleases my ears more than the Reaktor concoction that I made...

Gotta play a little bit more with the demo before it times out... I am also playing with the Minimax and Proddisey demos...

On 2003-11-05 20:51, huffcw wrote:
Also, I think the difference in price is coming from vmartell not having enough DSP horsepower currently to adequetly run the Modular III and Flexor. So, a new DSP card would need to be purchased as well. With Reaktor, there is no need to purchase anything else since vmartell already has a pretty powerful computer.

Of course, the extra DSP could be used for other stuff in addition to the Modular, so the price comparison isn't completely accurate - only what would be required out of pocket right now to get started.

Indeed. I have also downloaded the manual for MIII and I have to say that I like M III Human Interface paradigm, which is pretty obvious: it is a Modular !

Reaktor is something a little bit more abstract, reminds me a bit of the software CASE tools - they are there to describe connections between discrete modules.

Something to consider... M III looks so much more fun to use. I keep the group posted of any other findings/new opinions.

...one more consideration, my friend: ULLI.
u have currently a minimum of 13ms latency, if u gat a lunaII or pulsarII u'll b able to play with half that (and less). Another point; why not go for a secondhand CW card? u have a great opportunity now, just tell the seller about the x-mas special, and negotiate from there

well, whatdayaknow, I was back to patching in modIII again. I'm not really sure. I mean, we all like the sound of modIII and flexor. And the gui looks like a modular. that's cool. But don't forget all the bugs that we whine about. I've entirely given up on the preset thing, and today, I've had more than enough times where I had to rebuild a part of my patch because of the "cables don't connect anymore" bug. These tiny but very basic bugs seem to frustrate me out of my mind.

Now, nevermind the software paradigms behind modIII and Reaktor.. I just think Reaktor may not have the stupendous bugs that ModIII has. I may be wrong tho. But I think we have to be honest to ourselves about this no matter how awesome ModIII may be. ModIII is good, but it has a tendency to be buggy.

This no dispute, it's a pretty sad fact. I mean, many of us have to fight with it every time we try to make something. And.. well, we do keep coming back to ModIII.

On 2003-11-06 05:20, piddi wrote:
...one more consideration, my friend: ULLI.
u have currently a minimum of 13ms latency, if u gat a lunaII or pulsarII u'll b able to play with half that (and less). Another point; why not go for a secondhand CW card? u have a great opportunity now, just tell the seller about the x-mas special, and negotiate from there

Thanks, yes, yet another option. I think I've seen pretty cheap pulsar I cards on ebay, yet, I did not want to miss the Xmas special - the software it's so much more expensive on its own that you either have to get it at Xmas or as soon as it comes out ( like the discounted Prodissey). Sometimes I think that CW cards are in reality the world's most elaborate dongle !

Regarding latency, it really hasn't been an issue... so far... ever since I read that anything less than 20ms should be enough, I kind of been happy with 13ms... I don't know if I push it far enough.. And yet that would be a strike against getting another Pulsar I..

Have you heard anything at all from Creamware about plans to address the bugs?

It would be nice to hear from them that they acknowledge the bugs and are working to fix them. And, if they can give an estimated time frame, that would be great.

These are basics that truely affect the user experience, not just "nice to have" fixes. It seems that it should be a top priority.

It drives me crazy When companies sell somthing with bugs and no acknowledgement or warning of the issues. Does Creamware at least have a warning on their web site that acknowleges the know issues/bugs to potential buyers (just to be honest about what someone is getting into when they make the purchase)? I hope so, but I wasn't able to find anything.

I like the Creamware Modular and it would be nice to know the Creamware has a commitment to fixing this device to make it work like it is suppose to work (and a commitment to make this happen as soon as possible).

Of topic... There are also some known issues with Minimax related to DSP allocation/overload when there is still plenty of DSP resources available (doesn't happen all the time, but is very annoying when it does - it seems to be related to other devices that are loaded in a project or possibly the number of ASIO channels loaded). Creamware has indicated they are working on the issue, but I haven't heard anything about this in a long time.

Anyway, the issue with Minimax is much less of a problem than the issues with the Modular. So I can see them putting the fix off. For the Modular, they should be working to get an update out that addresses the issues ASAP.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: huffcw on 2003-11-06 13:37 ]</font>

Minimax's problems are most likely the result of the resources available on each dsp chip, and there thereforce a result of the dsp chip architecture. FLexor also suffers from similar limitations due the dsp requirements of polyphonic devices...

This is a bit of an aside, but perhaps if we can set up a bugs-list forum that might be a way to keep CWHQ in the know of what errors we find. Mind you, it would not be a forum to rant on in, simply state your bug and if applicable include a project file.

If Creamware were to play ball then they might make a response to it. I think it's difficult to expect that the folks at Creamware are going to scour these forums keeping track of our every word. But if we can keep our findings organized and civil (not to imply that things have gotten out of hand) then we might expect more communication.

Linux app/OS user-groups do this all the time and it seems to work pretty well.

Mr. Cooper? This possible? I've got a couple of bugs that I need to submit myself.

Sam