new 3rd party and an innovative synth: PythonPro

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:19 pm

there's always been a demand for more 3rd party developers on the SFP platform - and anyone wants 'new, innovative sounds'.

Well, both is true for the Python.
It's developer Paul van der Valk took a unique approach for the synth engine by combining a polyphonic FM/Comb filtering oscillator section with a monophonic resonant part (like guitar strings and body) and a feedback section.
It's not restricted to that kind of sounds though, and in fact it's one of the best buddies for wind controllers like the WX7.

I wondered why it didn't get more attention, possibly due to CW's release of the Six-String, so here's the 'better late than never' part:
introductory price of $149 expires today on Feb 15th
It's definetely worth the money and the author also did one of the best manuals I've seen for years. Because of the unique synth approach it's more effective to check the manual first - no need to worry, it's very comprehensive and more like a picture book.
Another remarkable fact is that John Bowen supports XD7 Systems and Paul van der Valk by distributing the device via http://www.zargmusic.com to help them get established.

cheers, Tom

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 10:03 am

Well it sounds interesting, I only wish they had spent some more time one the design of the synth. It looks really cheap and for 199,- I expect a bit more effort for the graphical layout even though I doesn't really matter for the sound of course, especially when I see what other's come up with in terms of presentation (that new amp modeller Amper for example).

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 6:02 pm

I'm pretty shure the interface design of the Python took at least 10 times as much efforts as that of Amper.
The amp simulation is a device with a linear control flow and various options everyone's familiar with.
It's more or less a copy of what you find in a music store - looks good and is expected to look the way it does.
The synth has a more complex control flow with 2 completely different sections, a feedback part between them and a modulation matrix.
Imho the interface is a nearly perfect approach to put the complexity into some usable shape. It uses physical modeling like principles without all those scientific annoyances.
The sounds are very unique with a lot of special tone developement over the envelope.
It can perfectly fake an epiano as well as the feedback falling into the release phase of a distorted guitar.
A simple change of the attack part of the envelope makes many presets extremely usable for wind controllers.
Actually I bought the Vectron just a couple of days before the Python, and hadn't planned investment into 'another' synth, but I didn't regret the extra cash at all.
Imho it's on par with Vectron and Minimax.

cheers, Tom

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:53 am

I'm not talking about the interface in itself, I'm talking about the look and design of the thing. Python clearly uses only bland looking stock elements from the CW library. Again, it doesn't really make a difference for the quality of the synth of course, I'm just saying that for such a price I'm expecting a bit more polish in the design as well. Which is why I referred to Amper, where there was clearly a lot of effort to make it look good.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 11:35 am

well, I wouldn't really want to argue about aesthetics as that's totally depending on personal taste - and I respect that you have different preferences.
Maybe I'm influenced by the Yamaha DX-ish look 'n feel

But you associate the look of certain elements to an amount of work and price-worthyness, which inally would lead against a purchase, wouldn't it ?
I'd rather regret that people trying their best to push SFP devices to a level hardly to find anywhere else, fail due to some misunderstanding of what's causing work in a device.
Those bells and whistles are certainly not the main effort, all that are lib elements and the repeated use doesn't make it harder.
It's often more difficult to keep things simple.
I don't see your opinion as a personal issue who's right or wrong, but more under the aspect of marketing devices.
Developers HAVE to sell their stuff and the fantastic resonance Amper got without even a demo tune is a clear sign.
Sales decisions are always emotional and I confess I've recently bought a piece of hardware mainly for it's 'cool' logo and LED display. Hopefully our developers are aware of these facts and take advantage of them

cheers, Tom

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 11:52 am

Yeah, it's not the most important aspect, and I wouldn't let my buying decision depend on it, but I think most people will agree that the looks of a device play at least some part in the overall "feel" of it. Hardware synths are not made sexy like that for nothing

I certainly understand that there has been a lot of effort in the making of the synth itself, but that's exactly why I think "if they put in all that effort in the synth engine, why not go that little step further and do the finishing touch of making it look good as well" (where "good" is of course a purely subjective term

)

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 3:42 pm

I think the interface is rather cool, good looking and clean. It's a matter of taste I think.

The approche is no doubt, extremely interesting. I'm looking forward to leasten to some demos or something...

huffcw · Post by **huffcw** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:06 pm

I like the look too... simple, clean and efficient. After sound quality, useability matters most in my opinion - not looks.