ABL3 Teasers and Rack Extension Announcement!

[hydlide]

if this gets released, I'll get it. Been waiting so long for this one!

[Grinder One]

if this gets released, I'll get it. Been waiting so long for this one!

...can you get me one too....I'll give you the money later ?

[scifunk]

if the distortion and HPF features are removed, it's not that difficult to build yourself a combinator with them in, and have far more control over the parameters too - Devilfish Combinator anyone?

[frog974new]

if the distortion and HPF features are removed, it's not that difficult to build yourself a combinator with them in, and have far more control over the parameters too - Devilfish Combinator anyone?

+1 , its seems with this ABL3 the Devs go back to emulate the TB303 and not the MC303 ( sampled raw with internal fx )

[EnochLight]

if this gets released, I'll get it. Been waiting so long for this one!

It most certainly will get released, and you will not be disappointed!  

[steff3]

I pretty much ignored ABL2 - but after I watched that video on page 2 I had to try it.

from the sound example version 3 seems to sound a bit more 'academic' which I like. with softube distortion and the green distortin box from the backline super saver bundle I have two quite good overdrive fx, so the left out drive seems replaceable.

nice little synth.

best

[Melody303]

Will ABL2 and ABL3 be available concurrently at the shop? Or is it the case that once ABL3 is released ABL2 will no longer be available for purchase?

[ScuzzyEye]

Will ABL2 and ABL3 be available concurrently at the shop? Or is it the case that once ABL3 is released ABL2 will no longer be available for purchase?

When asked about adding features to the ABL2, this reply was given:

I'm not sure what will happen to ABL2 RE but we'll obviously keep it around so it doesn't vanish from anyone's rack. I don't think we will be updating it with audio inputs.

So they are two separate products, not a new version to replace the old.

[NaviRetlav]

A bit OT: While you all wait for the ABL3, check this SoundCloud Demo of our upcoming BIG release.


I bet that Real ACID fans will be veeeeery interested in this, probably even more than with ABL3. Don't you agree ?

[WeaponizedCornflakes]

Forgive my ignorance, but in what way will the ABL3 sound different from the ABL2? From that video, the ABL2 sounds awesome! How much better can the ABL3 sound if they are both based on the same piece of gear? Will it be a more subtle difference or increase in quality that only people who are familiar with the original hardware will notice? Or is the excitement mostly about the sequencer? Or is it all of the above?

[mike^audiorealism]

Forgive my ignorance, but in what way will the ABL3 sound different from the ABL2? From that video, the ABL2 sounds awesome! How much better can the ABL3 sound if they are both based on the same piece of gear? Will it be a more subtle difference or increase in quality that only people who are familiar with the original hardware will notice? Or is the excitement mostly about the sequencer? Or is it all of the above?

Hi, 
That's a completely legitimate question and an important one for me (the developer). First of all, yes ABL2 still sounds pretty good (at least according to our users) and some are doing incredible things with it. But most of the DSP for it was written over 10 years ago and most of the development was done with very little budget, and relied on mostly studying schematics and help from 303 owners which would take measurements for us. With ABL3 we invested in some lab equipment, studied the schematics even harder and rewrote all the DSP while minimising guess-work. So ABL3 could be seen as a more detailed emulation, even though ABL2 also does the job very well. The differences are subtle but noticeable, more so when using ABL3 solo with perhaps only a few drum sounds. In a mix it would be harder to tell any difference between ABL2 and ABL3 or even ABL2 and a 303 for that matter. But for raw up front in the mix sounds the goal is for ABL3 to sound indistinguishable from a 303. We think we have achieved that and that's why we're proud of ABL3. ABL3 is not perfect, there will be differences when you compare it directly to a 303 but at this point it would be hard to say which one sounds more "right", especially since every 303 is slightly different. 

Plus I wanted to add a sequencer which was impossible to do for the initial ABL2 rack extension, but thanks to some upgrades in the RE SDK it's now possible to do a pattern based devices that displays and retains stat.

Hope this helps..!

[EnochLight]

Slightly (un)related: someone gets bored driving and hooks up a TB303 to their car radio!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ejhxsr7Zi8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1dfsoGP8-I

[Melody303]

A bit OT: While you all wait for the ABL3, check this SoundCloud Demo of our upcoming BIG release.


I bet that Real ACID fans will be veeeeery interested in this, probably even more than with ABL3. Don't you agree ?

That's a very fun demo, no doubt, but what's actually going on inside? Subtractors? Thors? Other synths? Samplers? Loops?

[WeaponizedCornflakes]

Forgive my ignorance, but in what way will the ABL3 sound different from the ABL2? From that video, the ABL2 sounds awesome! How much better can the ABL3 sound if they are both based on the same piece of gear? Will it be a more subtle difference or increase in quality that only people who are familiar with the original hardware will notice? Or is the excitement mostly about the sequencer? Or is it all of the above?

Hi, 

That's a completely legitimate question and an important one for me (the developer). First of all, yes ABL2 still sounds pretty good (at least according to our users) and some are doing incredible things with it. But most of the DSP for it was written over 10 years ago and most of the development was done with very little budget, and relied on mostly studying schematics and help from 303 owners which would take measurements for us. With ABL3 we invested in some lab equipment, studied the schematics even harder and rewrote all the DSP while minimising guess-work. So ABL3 could be seen as a more detailed emulation, even though ABL2 also does the job very well. The differences are subtle but noticeable, more so when using ABL3 solo with perhaps only a few drum sounds. In a mix it would be harder to tell any difference between ABL2 and ABL3 or even ABL2 and a 303 for that matter. But for raw up front in the mix sounds the goal is for ABL3 to sound indistinguishable from a 303. We think we have achieved that and that's why we're proud of ABL3. ABL3 is not perfect, there will be differences when you compare it directly to a 303 but at this point it would be hard to say which one sounds more "right", especially since every 303 is slightly different. 

Plus I wanted to add a sequencer which was impossible to do for the initial ABL2 rack extension, but thanks to some upgrades in the RE SDK it's now possible to do a pattern based devices that displays and retains stat.

Hope this helps..!

Ok, I'm officially pumped about this RE. I read the thread and Facebook page looking for a release date, and there is none, correct? But they were hoping to release by the end of 2014 originally, so it must be very soon right?

On a side note, I've never really understood the point in software devices with built in sequencers. Every time I play around with Thor or Redrum's sequencer, I always end up just using Reason's sequencer because making changes and variations on a pattern is simply a matter of clicking on a note and moving it or changing it's length or velocity. It's seems much easier to me rather than turning knobs and clicking buttons. Likewise, when the ABL3 comes out, I will likely never use the built in sequencer unless I come to the realization that there is some specific benefit to using it. What am I not understanding?

[pjeudy]

On a side note, I've never really understood the point in software devices with built in sequencers. Every time I play around with Thor or Redrum's sequencer, I always end up just using Reason's sequencer because making changes and variations on a pattern is simply a matter of clicking on a note and moving it or changing it's length or velocity. It's seems much easier to me rather than turning knobs and clicking buttons. Likewise, when the ABL3 comes out, I will likely never use the built in sequencer unless I come to the realization that there is some specific benefit to using it. What am I not understanding?

I don't think that you are wrong in what you are saying...I think it's all about style, flavors and groove ect...in other words that was how things where done before REason,Protols ect...! and still today you can come up with a nice groove/Riff using a Seq. from these devices. It's a matter of .....style!

[joeyluck]

I really like the second distortion mode on ABL2  - I do hope there's the possibility of adding the distortion effects to a future ABL3 update.

I've grown quite accustomed to using light amounts of said distortion on ABL, it's part of the sound character I know very well by now. I haven't been able to replicate its sound with other distortions - however, I haven't really tried hard yet. Looks like I'll have to.

Have you tried the Pulveriser patch 'TB Distortion'?
I feel it works pretty well.
I go between that and Scream4.

[tronam]

On a side note, I've never really understood the point in software devices with built in sequencers. Every time I play around with Thor or Redrum's sequencer, I always end up just using Reason's sequencer because making changes and variations on a pattern is simply a matter of clicking on a note and moving it or changing it's length or velocity. It's seems much easier to me rather than turning knobs and clicking buttons. Likewise, when the ABL3 comes out, I will likely never use the built in sequencer unless I come to the realization that there is some specific benefit to using it. What am I not understanding?

The built-in sequencer was a distinctive feature of the original TB-303 and contributed to its characteristic sound. Sure, it's limited, but the specific way it plays back notes, accents and slides is part of its charm. We'll still be able to play ABL3 like a traditional synthesizer, but I'm glad Audiorealism strove to emulate the 303 in its entirety for those of us who enjoy its native quirky step-sequencer.

[ScuzzyEye]

On a side note, I've never really understood the point in software devices with built in sequencers. Every time I play around with Thor or Redrum's sequencer, I always end up just using Reason's sequencer because making changes and variations on a pattern is simply a matter of clicking on a note and moving it or changing it's length or velocity. It's seems much easier to me rather than turning knobs and clicking buttons. Likewise, when the ABL3 comes out, I will likely never use the built in sequencer unless I come to the realization that there is some specific benefit to using it. What am I not understanding?

I was going to agree with you. I was about to say, I never use Thor's sequencer...unless I want a bit of sequenced automation to occur in a repeated pattern, without having to draw it out in the sequencer and then copy it to where I need. Same goes for Redrum. I never use its sequencer...unless I want a couple different constantly running patterns that are easy to switch between, while I'm playing around with other parts of the song.

So I will take that back, I use the built-in sequencers of both of those devices often enough that I would miss them if they were gone. Though I will say that I usually end copying Redrum's sequence to a track and editing it. So it'll be nice when REs get that feature.

[ebop]

On a side note, I've never really understood the point in software devices with built in sequencers. Every time I play around with Thor or Redrum's sequencer, I always end up just using Reason's sequencer because making changes and variations on a pattern is simply a matter of clicking on a note and moving it or changing it's length or velocity. It's seems much easier to me rather than turning knobs and clicking buttons. Likewise, when the ABL3 comes out, I will likely never use the built in sequencer unless I come to the realization that there is some specific benefit to using it. What am I not understanding?

The built-in sequencer was a distinctive feature of the original TB-303 and contributed to its characteristic sound. Sure, it's limited, but the specific way it plays back notes, accents and slides is part of its charm. We'll still be able to play ABL3 like a traditional synthesizer, but I'm glad Audiorealism strove to emulate the 303 in its entirety for those of us who enjoy its native quirky step-sequencer.

That's the answer right there isn't it?  

I've never touched a real 303 and don't know all the tricks but I have a fair idea of it's range.  Playing around with ABL2 and a Matrix I can get bendy notes if I want.  But if there's a built in sequencer in ABL3 that does this more faithfully then I'm pumped about this.  Hopefully it'll give me a chance to play something approaching ever closer to the real deal.

[WeaponizedCornflakes]

On a side note, I've never really understood the point in software devices with built in sequencers. Every time I play around with Thor or Redrum's sequencer, I always end up just using Reason's sequencer because making changes and variations on a pattern is simply a matter of clicking on a note and moving it or changing it's length or velocity. It's seems much easier to me rather than turning knobs and clicking buttons. Likewise, when the ABL3 comes out, I will likely never use the built in sequencer unless I come to the realization that there is some specific benefit to using it. What am I not understanding?

I was going to agree with you. I was about to say, I never use Thor's sequencer...unless I want a bit of sequenced automation to occur in a repeated pattern, without having to draw it out in the sequencer and then copy it to where I need. Same goes for Redrum. I never use its sequencer...unless I want a couple different constantly running patterns that are easy to switch between, while I'm playing around with other parts of the song.

So I will take that back, I use the built-in sequencers of both of those devices often enough that I would miss them if they were gone. Though I will say that

I usually end copying Redrum's sequence to a track and editing it. So it'll be nice when REs get that feature.

[/size]

That last point is in fact why I will probably avoid using ABL3's sequencer entirely. I think it is ridiculous that years later after Re's are introduced, we can't do something as simple as copy a sequenced pattern to midi notes into the main sequencer. What is the deal with that!? Gawd.

But you made very good points about using the built in sequencer, especially in Thor. And I realize now that the 303's 'slide' is pretty important for that classic sound, so quick automation of that parameter is important.

[mike^audiorealism]

That last point is in fact why I will probably avoid using ABL3's sequencer entirely. I think it is ridiculous that years later after Re's are introduced, we can't do something as simple as copy a sequenced pattern to midi notes into the main sequencer. What is the deal with that!? Gawd.

Yes, it's true that a pattern cannot be copied to the sequencer track directly in Reason. I cannot promise anything yet but the idea is when the VST version is released it will be patch compatible with the RE. The VST will then be able to export a midi clip which can be dragged into Reason. 

--Mike

[joeyluck]

That last point is in fact why I will probably avoid using ABL3's sequencer entirely. I think it is ridiculous that years later after Re's are introduced, we can't do something as simple as copy a sequenced pattern to midi notes into the main sequencer. What is the deal with that!? Gawd.

Yes, it's true that a pattern cannot be copied to the sequencer track directly in Reason. I cannot promise anything yet but the idea is when the VST version is released it will be patch compatible with the RE. The VST will then be able to export a midi clip which can be dragged into Reason. 

--Mike

This would be cool. Hopefully someday REs are given this functionality.

[popp]

That last point is in fact why I will probably avoid using ABL3's sequencer entirely. I think it is ridiculous that years later after Re's are introduced, we can't do something as simple as copy a sequenced pattern to midi notes into the main sequencer. What is the deal with that!? Gawd.

Yes, it's true that a pattern cannot be copied to the sequencer track directly in Reason. I cannot promise anything yet but the idea is when the VST version is released it will be patch compatible with the RE. The VST will then be able to export a midi clip which can be dragged into Reason. 

--Mike

This would be cool. Hopefully someday REs are given this functionality.

Pattern to midi notes is the one must have feature I'm waiting for...

[mike^audiorealism]

Ok, I'm officially pumped about this RE. I read the thread and Facebook page looking for a release date, and there is none, correct? But they were hoping to release by the end of 2014 originally, so it must be very soon right?

The 2014 date was for the VST. But yes, once we announce a product we really try hard to release it as soon as possible. So think weeks rather than months now. We have a group of awesome testers helping with the beta, so it shouldn't take too long.

[EnochLight]

That last point is in fact why I will probably avoid using ABL3's sequencer entirely. I think it is ridiculous that years later after Re's are introduced, we can't do something as simple as copy a sequenced pattern to midi notes into the main sequencer. What is the deal with that!? Gawd.

I agree that not being able to send patterns to MIDI in RE's is a terrible omission, but not using ABL3's built-in sequencer would be tragic.  Part of a 303's charm is the character you get from using its sequencer.