Aurora Hybrid Synthesizer Final Preview

This forum is for discussing Rack Extensions. Devs are all welcome to show off their goods.
User avatar
eXode
Posts: 838
Joined: 11 Feb 2015

21 Nov 2015

XysteR wrote:Am I right to assume that an emulated synthesizer can really only be called a synthesizer if the oscillator wave is actually generated with an algorithm? And if these Re's just use samples of a waveform then what does that mean for me?
I honestly think that you shouldn't bother with thinking about if an oscillator is based on an analog model, a single cycle sample/waveform, or a wavetable (basically a series of samples), it is of less importance. The question you should instead ask is: What can this instrument do for my music? And make your decisions based on that.

User avatar
eusti
Moderator
Posts: 2793
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

21 Nov 2015

eXode wrote:I think that 'Hybrid Synthesizer' is just fine.

A couple of similar instruments that to the best of my knowlege are referred to as (hybrid) synthesizers.

PPG Wave
SCI Prophet VS
Korg DW6000/8000
Kawai K3
Waldorf Wave/microWave
Ensoniq ESQ1/SQ80
OSCar
Well, yes! But a lot of them are really helped by outstanding filters! :)

D.
Last edited by eusti on 21 Nov 2015, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

21 Nov 2015

eXode wrote:
XysteR wrote:Am I right to assume that an emulated synthesizer can really only be called a synthesizer if the oscillator wave is actually generated with an algorithm? And if these Re's just use samples of a waveform then what does that mean for me?
I honestly think that you shouldn't bother with thinking about if an oscillator is based on an analog model, a single cycle sample/waveform, or a wavetable (basically a series of samples), it is of less importance. The question you should instead ask is: What can this instrument do for my music? And make your decisions based on that.
^^THIS^^
:)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
pjeudy
Posts: 1559
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

21 Nov 2015

eXode wrote:
XysteR wrote:Am I right to assume that an emulated synthesizer can really only be called a synthesizer if the oscillator wave is actually generated with an algorithm? And if these Re's just use samples of a waveform then what does that mean for me?
I honestly think that you shouldn't bother with thinking about if an oscillator is based on an analog model, a single cycle sample/waveform, or a wavetable (basically a series of samples), it is of less importance. The question you should instead ask is: What can this instrument do for my music? And make your decisions based on that.
selig wrote: ^^THIS^^
:)
I thought that eXode and Selig would appreciate a question like that :puf_smile:
I agree with you eXode that if your looking to make music then find a good sound source go from there and enjoy it. But I don't think that's what he or she was asking.

Xyster is asking a none musical but a small technical question. Can one call a Synthesizer that uses wave files to generate it's sounds a synthesizer? Although calling it a "Hybrid Synth" seems fair to me, but if it comes from a wave file from say a sample of a hand clap, is calling it a synthesizer fair game or are we calling it a synth for short?
I would say to @Xyster yes it still a synthesizer....a wavetable Synthesizer.
My opinion is that Propellerhead REASON needs a complete rewrite!
P.S: people should stop saying "No it won't happen" when referring to a complete rewrite of REASON. I have 3 letters for ya....VST
Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:53 pm

User avatar
eusti
Moderator
Posts: 2793
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

21 Nov 2015

pjeudy wrote:
Xyster is asking a none musical but a small technical question. Can one call a Synthesizer that uses wave files to generate it's sounds a synthesizer? Although calling it a "Hybrid Synth" seems fair to me, but if it comes from a wave file from say a sample of a hand clap, is calling it a synthesizer fair game or are we calling it a synth for short?
I would say to @Xyster yes it still a synthesizer....a wavetable Synthesizer.
Personally, I only care about the sound of the instruments... So, I really liked the older 12 bit samplers that had good filters...
And tons of sound shaping capabilities... The Korg DSS-1 and the Ensoniq EPS were some of my earlier instruments...
I loved that there was really no limit of what you could feed them (Other than the length of the samples of course) and so much you could do to them... Even the Ensoniq ESQ-1 has a special place in my heart...

Some people only like real synths... And of those some people insist that they are VCOs instead of DCOs... I have an Akai VX-600 with VCOs... A powerful beast... At times very beautiful... But somewhat difficult to make sound good... The ESQ-1 or Matrix 6R were much easier to get good and interesting sounds out of...

So, long story short: I agree with eXode and selig to mainly look for what tools can do.
On the technical side of things, as I understand them: An instrument that doesn't generate the initial sound, but uses samples is not a synthesizer in the older (maybe original) sense of the word... But to me that is not as important as what capabilities an instrument has after the initial waveform/ building block is generated... Classical romplers as the Roland U-110 or even the Korg M1 never interested me much...

D.

User avatar
pjeudy
Posts: 1559
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

21 Nov 2015

eusti wrote: Personally, I only care about the sound of the instruments...
So, long story short: I agree with eXode and selig to mainly look for what tools can do.
On the technical side of things, as I understand them: An instrument that doesn't generate the initial sound, but uses samples is not a synthesizer in the older (maybe original) sense of the word... But to me that is not as important as what capabilities an instrument has after the initial waveform/ building block is generated... Classical romplers as the Roland U-110 or even the Korg M1 never interested me much...

D.
Yo was up eusti :puf_smile: !!
All 4 of us agree !!....... it's only that When I read that guys post...telling him that only the sound matters never came to mind...I just assumed that it was common knowledge that the sound matters most! So I took his question at face value "technical" not "Musical". I can't find where he was saying that not knowing if it was an actual synth or not made it difficult for him to like the sound of the instrument.

I have to tell the truth, just seeing eXode :ugeek: avatar even before reading his post ..I was expecting a technical answer..so I was ready for that. I'm always ready to get the under the hood knowledge from him and Selig! :thumbs_up:
Last edited by pjeudy on 21 Nov 2015, edited 1 time in total.
My opinion is that Propellerhead REASON needs a complete rewrite!
P.S: people should stop saying "No it won't happen" when referring to a complete rewrite of REASON. I have 3 letters for ya....VST
Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:53 pm

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

21 Nov 2015

pjeudy wrote:
eXode wrote:
XysteR wrote:Am I right to assume that an emulated synthesizer can really only be called a synthesizer if the oscillator wave is actually generated with an algorithm? And if these Re's just use samples of a waveform then what does that mean for me?
I honestly think that you shouldn't bother with thinking about if an oscillator is based on an analog model, a single cycle sample/waveform, or a wavetable (basically a series of samples), it is of less importance. The question you should instead ask is: What can this instrument do for my music? And make your decisions based on that.
selig wrote: ^^THIS^^
:)
I thought that eXode and Selig would appreciate a question like that :puf_smile:
I agree with you eXode that if your looking to make music then find a good sound source go from there and enjoy it. But I don't think that's what he or she was asking.

Xyster is asking a none musical but a small technical question. Can one call a Synthesizer that uses wave files to generate it's sounds a synthesizer? Although calling it a "Hybrid Synth" seems fair to me, but if it comes from a wave file from say a sample of a hand clap, is calling it a synthesizer fair game or are we calling it a synth for short?
I would say to @Xyster yes it still a synthesizer....a wavetable Synthesizer.
I had already asked that question (rhetorically) in my earlier post about "is a wavetable synth still a synth". Yes it's still a synth because that is a broad term. You can always further specify whether it is an analog synth, a digital synth, a wavetable synth, a modeling synth, a sample based synth, a drum synth, a hybrid synth, and so on and so forth. But yes, it is a synth and it is also an instrument (another fairly generic term). Maybe the question should be "does it matter", and then insert a Shakespeare quote from Romeo and Juliet… ;)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
pjeudy
Posts: 1559
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

21 Nov 2015

selig wrote: I had already asked that question (rhetorically) in my earlier post about "is a wavetable synth still a synth". Maybe the question should be "does it matter", and then insert a Shakespeare quote from Romeo and Juliet… ;)
Aahh I didn't see your earlier post already answering the question. To your question does it matter? Yes..to XysteR. Now on a scale of 1 to 10, I don't think it mattered to him that much at all, might be a question one has sometimes in passing. But never the less at least now he might have a more direct answer to his question . See Below XysteR:
selig wrote:Yes it's still a synth because that is a broad term. You can always further specify whether it is an analog synth, a digital synth, a wavetable synth, a modeling synth, a sample based synth, a drum synth, a hybrid synth, and so on and so forth. But yes, it is a synth and it is also an instrument (another fairly generic term).
Now ..sending XysteR my lawyers fee :D j/k
My opinion is that Propellerhead REASON needs a complete rewrite!
P.S: people should stop saying "No it won't happen" when referring to a complete rewrite of REASON. I have 3 letters for ya....VST
Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:53 pm

User avatar
Majestik Monkey
Posts: 684
Joined: 07 Jul 2015

21 Nov 2015

I personally think some people are going to quite surprised with the Sound quality of Aurora ! I KNOW I WAS :o

User avatar
XysteR
Posts: 421
Joined: 20 Nov 2015

21 Nov 2015

Well i'm glad I threw this question up - Yes it was a technical question. If it's using samples of waveforms for the oscillator then i'd assume it to be PCM, a bit like the old Korg M1. Which I seem to recall was reasonably popular during the 90's ;)

When I was 12 I had an old Yamaha PSR keyboard thingy. My friend called it a synth when he bought it. But back then, it was generally just called, and actually was just a 'keyboard' - I'm sure this generalised 'synth' term is derived from it 'making funny sounds' when you press a key. But technically speaking, the synthesis only takes place at the oscillator level. everything after that is modulation. So what was mentioned earlier got my ears pricked up - it's not synthesizing anything.

So if this is true then technically they aint synths.

Again though, take what i'm saying with a pinch of salt, i'm probably wrong. I will be taking a look at this - The main thing that caught my eye is it having 4 LFOs. I liked the sound of the demo track too. Will it be on the store soon?

User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 11029
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

21 Nov 2015

To quote myself from earlier, it is by definition synthesizing:

Synthesize:

verb (used with object), synthesized, synthesizing.
1. to form (a material or abstract entity) by combining parts or elements (opposed to analyze )

verb
1. to combine or cause to combine into a whole


Synthesizer:

noun
1. a person or thing that synthesizes.
2. any of various electronic, sometimes portable consoles or modules, usually computerized, for creating, modifying, and combining tones or reproducing the sounds of musical instruments by controlling voltage patterns, operated by means of keyboards, joysticks, sliders, or knobs.

User avatar
eXode
Posts: 838
Joined: 11 Feb 2015

21 Nov 2015

XysteR wrote:Well i'm glad I threw this question up - Yes it was a technical question. If it's using samples of waveforms for the oscillator then i'd assume it to be PCM, a bit like the old Korg M1. Which I seem to recall was reasonably popular during the 90's ;)

When I was 12 I had an old Yamaha PSR keyboard thingy. My friend called it a synth when he bought it. But back then, it was generally just called, and actually was just a 'keyboard' - I'm sure this generalised 'synth' term is derived from it 'making funny sounds' when you press a key. But technically speaking, the synthesis only takes place at the oscillator level. everything after that is modulation. So what was mentioned earlier got my ears pricked up - it's not synthesizing anything.

So if this is true then technically they aint synths.

Again though, take what i'm saying with a pinch of salt, i'm probably wrong. I will be taking a look at this - The main thing that caught my eye is it having 4 LFOs. I liked the sound of the demo track too. Will it be on the store soon?
There's a big difference from a PSR type keyboard that you mention and something like i.e. the Prophet VS. The home keyboard usually literally only permit you to play back a preset sound. If you take a Prophet VS or similar synthesizer the sample or wavetable is only acting as the oscillator. You still have control over things like filter, amplitude and also various modulation over time such as LFO's and envelope generators, etc.

To quote a part of Wikipedia:
Synthesizers use various methods to generate signal. Among the most popular waveform synthesis techniques are subtractive synthesis, additive synthesis, wavetable synthesis, frequency modulation synthesis, phase distortion synthesis, physical modeling synthesis and sample-based synthesis.

And to challenge the perception of software synthesizers in particular. Not that many software synthesizers actually use real-time calculated waveforms for their sound generation, mainly because it's a CPU heavy method. In fact, I believe that one of the most common methods for generating waveforms is by using pre-calculated bandlimited waveforms (because it's cheap on CPU and there's very little aliasing). These waveforms are then placed in a lookup table. Quite similar to wavetable synthesis. So if you want to be cynical, several of the popular synths today such as Sylenth1 and likely Spire (to mention two) are "wavetable" synthesizers.

But to answer your original question: The method for signal generation doesn't dictate it's status as a synthesizer. You normally use the distinction if it's subtractive, additive, FM, phase distortion, wavetable, etc, but that has to do more with telling the user which kind of sounds he/she can expect from that particular instrument.

User avatar
XysteR
Posts: 421
Joined: 20 Nov 2015

21 Nov 2015

eXode wrote:
XysteR wrote:Well i'm glad I threw this question up - Yes it was a technical question. If it's using samples of waveforms for the oscillator then i'd assume it to be PCM, a bit like the old Korg M1. Which I seem to recall was reasonably popular during the 90's ;)

When I was 12 I had an old Yamaha PSR keyboard thingy. My friend called it a synth when he bought it. But back then, it was generally just called, and actually was just a 'keyboard' - I'm sure this generalised 'synth' term is derived from it 'making funny sounds' when you press a key. But technically speaking, the synthesis only takes place at the oscillator level. everything after that is modulation. So what was mentioned earlier got my ears pricked up - it's not synthesizing anything.

So if this is true then technically they aint synths.

Again though, take what i'm saying with a pinch of salt, i'm probably wrong. I will be taking a look at this - The main thing that caught my eye is it having 4 LFOs. I liked the sound of the demo track too. Will it be on the store soon?
There's a big difference from a PSR type keyboard that you mention and something like i.e. the Prophet VS. The home keyboard usually literally only permit you to play back a preset sound. If you take a Prophet VS or similar synthesizer the sample or wavetable is only acting as the oscillator. You still have control over things like filter, amplitude and also various modulation over time such as LFO's and envelope generators, etc.

To quote a part of Wikipedia:
Synthesizers use various methods to generate signal. Among the most popular waveform synthesis techniques are subtractive synthesis, additive synthesis, wavetable synthesis, frequency modulation synthesis, phase distortion synthesis, physical modeling synthesis and sample-based synthesis.

And to challenge the perception of software synthesizers in particular. Not that many software synthesizers actually use real-time calculated waveforms for their sound generation, mainly because it's a CPU heavy method. In fact, I believe that one of the most common methods for generating waveforms is by using pre-calculated bandlimited waveforms (because it's cheap on CPU and there's very little aliasing). These waveforms are then placed in a lookup table. Quite similar to wavetable synthesis. So if you want to be cynical, several of the popular synths today such as Sylenth1 and likely Spire (to mention two) are "wavetable" synthesizers.

But to answer your original question: The method for signal generation doesn't dictate it's status as a synthesizer. You normally use the distinction if it's subtractive, additive, FM, phase distortion, wavetable, etc, but that has to do more with telling the user which kind of sounds he/she can expect from that particular instrument.
Thanks eXode, This has perfectly cleared that up for me - I can put that to rest.

To get back to Aurora - I have a question: Say I'm only using osc1, if we use all 4 spaces in it's mod matrix, can we use osc2s mod matrix, select ocs1 as the source and whatever else we need in destination for a 5th means of modulation? It's just with it saying in the manual, the mod matrix effects only the oscillator next to it in the instructions. I'm wondering if it would have been better to just have one large mod matrix with all 3 oscillators and their related modifiers selectable as source?

"Modulation:
Each oscillator also features their own Modulation Matrix. Therefore modulation settings made on Oscillator 1 only affects that oscillator. That includes modulations to Cutoff/Resonance."

User avatar
Skrock
RE Developer
Posts: 181
Joined: 08 Jul 2015
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

23 Nov 2015

XysteR wrote:
eXode wrote:
XysteR wrote:Well i'm glad I threw this question up - Yes it was a technical question. If it's using samples of waveforms for the oscillator then i'd assume it to be PCM, a bit like the old Korg M1. Which I seem to recall was reasonably popular during the 90's ;)

When I was 12 I had an old Yamaha PSR keyboard thingy. My friend called it a synth when he bought it. But back then, it was generally just called, and actually was just a 'keyboard' - I'm sure this generalised 'synth' term is derived from it 'making funny sounds' when you press a key. But technically speaking, the synthesis only takes place at the oscillator level. everything after that is modulation. So what was mentioned earlier got my ears pricked up - it's not synthesizing anything.

So if this is true then technically they aint synths.

Again though, take what i'm saying with a pinch of salt, i'm probably wrong. I will be taking a look at this - The main thing that caught my eye is it having 4 LFOs. I liked the sound of the demo track too. Will it be on the store soon?
There's a big difference from a PSR type keyboard that you mention and something like i.e. the Prophet VS. The home keyboard usually literally only permit you to play back a preset sound. If you take a Prophet VS or similar synthesizer the sample or wavetable is only acting as the oscillator. You still have control over things like filter, amplitude and also various modulation over time such as LFO's and envelope generators, etc.

To quote a part of Wikipedia:
Synthesizers use various methods to generate signal. Among the most popular waveform synthesis techniques are subtractive synthesis, additive synthesis, wavetable synthesis, frequency modulation synthesis, phase distortion synthesis, physical modeling synthesis and sample-based synthesis.

And to challenge the perception of software synthesizers in particular. Not that many software synthesizers actually use real-time calculated waveforms for their sound generation, mainly because it's a CPU heavy method. In fact, I believe that one of the most common methods for generating waveforms is by using pre-calculated bandlimited waveforms (because it's cheap on CPU and there's very little aliasing). These waveforms are then placed in a lookup table. Quite similar to wavetable synthesis. So if you want to be cynical, several of the popular synths today such as Sylenth1 and likely Spire (to mention two) are "wavetable" synthesizers.

But to answer your original question: The method for signal generation doesn't dictate it's status as a synthesizer. You normally use the distinction if it's subtractive, additive, FM, phase distortion, wavetable, etc, but that has to do more with telling the user which kind of sounds he/she can expect from that particular instrument.
Thanks eXode, This has perfectly cleared that up for me - I can put that to rest.

To get back to Aurora - I have a question: Say I'm only using osc1, if we use all 4 spaces in it's mod matrix, can we use osc2s mod matrix, select ocs1 as the source and whatever else we need in destination for a 5th means of modulation? It's just with it saying in the manual, the mod matrix effects only the oscillator next to it in the instructions. I'm wondering if it would have been better to just have one large mod matrix with all 3 oscillators and their related modifiers selectable as source?

"Modulation:
Each oscillator also features their own Modulation Matrix. Therefore modulation settings made on Oscillator 1 only affects that oscillator. That includes modulations to Cutoff/Resonance."
You can't modulate osc1 with osc2s matrix no. But you do have the global modulation in the master section, that often frees up space. The thing I like most about this setup is that it's fast. It's easy to translate an idea to a sound. Hopefully it'll be out this week and you can try it out and see if you like it :)
https://www.skrockmusic.com/
https://soundcloud.com/derekstrike
https://soundcloud.com/marcusbits
I make music in Reason using using Skrock synths and the creative tools from other developers!

User avatar
XysteR
Posts: 421
Joined: 20 Nov 2015

23 Nov 2015

M.B wrote:
XysteR wrote:*SNIP*

To get back to Aurora - I have a question: Say I'm only using osc1, if we use all 4 spaces in it's mod matrix, can we use osc2s mod matrix, select ocs1 as the source and whatever else we need in destination for a 5th means of modulation? It's just with it saying in the manual, the mod matrix effects only the oscillator next to it in the instructions. I'm wondering if it would have been better to just have one large mod matrix with all 3 oscillators and their related modifiers selectable as source?

"Modulation:
Each oscillator also features their own Modulation Matrix. Therefore modulation settings made on Oscillator 1 only affects that oscillator. That includes modulations to Cutoff/Resonance."
You can't modulate osc1 with osc2s matrix no. But you do have the global modulation in the master section, that often frees up space. The thing I like most about this setup is that it's fast. It's easy to translate an idea to a sound. Hopefully it'll be out this week and you can try it out and see if you like it :)
Yes it looks to be very logical in it's layout/flow. The only thing I had to check the manual for was the LFO side of the Mod Source section. An improvement I can see would be to follow the rest of the synths naming theme, by naming each control in the mod section also, thus bringing it in line with the rest of the synth. I can see that would possibly create spacing/font size problems, but I think it would be worth doing. Is there a way you can space the controls in the Mod Source section to name those controls to fall in line with the rest of the synth? I feel this would greatly add to the flow, particularly for newcomers to the synth or synths in general. Oh, another question. Can we modulate the PW of the square wave?

*Edit* Oh I see it. X-mod in destination for a square wave would modulate it's PW. Clever stuff!

Its probably already there, but a key on the rear of the synth for the X-Mod waveform/manipulation type would be valuable info too

It's looking and sounding good - I look forward to trying it :D

User avatar
Klaus-Morlock
Posts: 42
Joined: 24 Aug 2015
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

25 Nov 2015

Interesting synth, and one of the few demo tracks that actually stands up as a piece of music you'd want to hear again. Really looking forward to this. :-)

User avatar
XysteR
Posts: 421
Joined: 20 Nov 2015

01 Dec 2015

I bought it. It's well worth the money. Sooooo glad it's only got reverb - I'm kind of tired of seeing big chunks of synth real estate taken up by effects, when I have effects coming out of my ears in my rack. I'd much rather synths were just 'synths'. Of course because of this some patches obviously sound a bit dry - But this is not a bad thing in my book.

The synth really shined when i bunged a Ladder filter on it with nice splattering of choice effects. It's a little gem! The 'moog themed' and some other bass patches are particularly nice with the Ladder filter. But even without the ladder filter I still liked it.

MDTerps2015
Posts: 416
Joined: 25 Jan 2015

02 Dec 2015

XysteR wrote:Well i'm glad I threw this question up - Yes it was a technical question. If it's using samples of waveforms for the oscillator then i'd assume it to be PCM, a bit like the old Korg M1. Which I seem to recall was reasonably popular during the 90's ;)

When I was 12 I had an old Yamaha PSR keyboard thingy. My friend called it a synth when he bought it. But back then, it was generally just called, and actually was just a 'keyboard' - I'm sure this generalised 'synth' term is derived from it 'making funny sounds' when you press a key. But technically speaking, the synthesis only takes place at the oscillator level. everything after that is modulation. So what was mentioned earlier got my ears pricked up - it's not synthesizing anything.

So if this is true then technically they aint synths.

Again though, take what i'm saying with a pinch of salt, i'm probably wrong. I will be taking a look at this - The main thing that caught my eye is it having 4 LFOs. I liked the sound of the demo track too. Will it be on the store soon?
Did you make that Extrop song in Reason????
150 paid RExtensions and still no Grammy

User avatar
XysteR
Posts: 421
Joined: 20 Nov 2015

02 Dec 2015

MDTerps2015 wrote:
XysteR wrote:Well i'm glad I threw this question up - Yes it was a technical question. If it's using samples of waveforms for the oscillator then i'd assume it to be PCM, a bit like the old Korg M1. Which I seem to recall was reasonably popular during the 90's ;)

When I was 12 I had an old Yamaha PSR keyboard thingy. My friend called it a synth when he bought it. But back then, it was generally just called, and actually was just a 'keyboard' - I'm sure this generalised 'synth' term is derived from it 'making funny sounds' when you press a key. But technically speaking, the synthesis only takes place at the oscillator level. everything after that is modulation. So what was mentioned earlier got my ears pricked up - it's not synthesizing anything.

So if this is true then technically they aint synths.

Again though, take what i'm saying with a pinch of salt, i'm probably wrong. I will be taking a look at this - The main thing that caught my eye is it having 4 LFOs. I liked the sound of the demo track too. Will it be on the store soon?
Did you make that Extrop song in Reason????
Yes, I do everything in Reason

MDTerps2015
Posts: 416
Joined: 25 Jan 2015

02 Dec 2015

XysteR wrote:
MDTerps2015 wrote:
XysteR wrote:Well i'm glad I threw this question up - Yes it was a technical question. If it's using samples of waveforms for the oscillator then i'd assume it to be PCM, a bit like the old Korg M1. Which I seem to recall was reasonably popular during the 90's ;)

When I was 12 I had an old Yamaha PSR keyboard thingy. My friend called it a synth when he bought it. But back then, it was generally just called, and actually was just a 'keyboard' - I'm sure this generalised 'synth' term is derived from it 'making funny sounds' when you press a key. But technically speaking, the synthesis only takes place at the oscillator level. everything after that is modulation. So what was mentioned earlier got my ears pricked up - it's not synthesizing anything.

So if this is true then technically they aint synths.

Again though, take what i'm saying with a pinch of salt, i'm probably wrong. I will be taking a look at this - The main thing that caught my eye is it having 4 LFOs. I liked the sound of the demo track too. Will it be on the store soon?
Did you make that Extrop song in Reason????
Yes, I do everything in Reason
Im assuming in a studio??????
150 paid RExtensions and still no Grammy

User avatar
XysteR
Posts: 421
Joined: 20 Nov 2015

02 Dec 2015

No just in a spare untreated narrow room in the back of my house. KRK monitors, KRK sub, KRK 8400 headphones, Focusrite Pro 24 DSP with VRM, Edirol UA-25EX, Novation SL61, Novation Zero SL, Shure SM58 mic, 3 guitars and a Ukelele, Reason and a shiteload of Re's and that's it. So a fairly average setup really.

User avatar
pjeudy
Posts: 1559
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

10 Dec 2015

This device is freaking awesome !!!!!!!! Holly sh*t. I tired a couple of the bass patches with no effect against Antidote.... I did my very best to match the settings. And to me the low end on Aurora sound very thick and phat!

I'm literally reaching for this device just as much as I do Antidote!
My opinion is that Propellerhead REASON needs a complete rewrite!
P.S: people should stop saying "No it won't happen" when referring to a complete rewrite of REASON. I have 3 letters for ya....VST
Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:53 pm

User avatar
Skullture
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Contact:

10 Dec 2015

pjeudy wrote:This device is freaking awesome !!!!!!!! Holly sh*t. I tired a couple of the bass patches with no effect against Antidote.... I did my very best to match the settings. And to me the low end on Aurora sound very thick and phat!

I'm literally reaching for this device just as much as I do Antidote!
It's best at basslines?

User avatar
pjeudy
Posts: 1559
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

10 Dec 2015

Skullture wrote:
pjeudy wrote:This device is freaking awesome !!!!!!!! Holly sh*t. I tired a couple of the bass patches with no effect against Antidote.... I did my very best to match the settings. And to me the low end on Aurora sound very thick and phat!

I'm literally reaching for this device just as much as I do Antidote!
It's best at basslines?
I won't say it's best only good for bass......it does pads and leads very nicely!
The patches that comes with it have an old school vintage sound to them ...I reallh like that !
My opinion is that Propellerhead REASON needs a complete rewrite!
P.S: people should stop saying "No it won't happen" when referring to a complete rewrite of REASON. I have 3 letters for ya....VST
Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:53 pm

User avatar
Chizmata
Posts: 918
Joined: 21 Dec 2015
Contact:

01 Jan 2016

so what do users think about it? i browsed all of the RE synths and this looks the most interesting to me. simplistic, yet unique on the surface and and it looks like the possibilities are ridiculous. gonna test it soon, just wanted to hear opinions.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: ksniod, RobC and 30 guests