Combinator patches inside a ReFill - was does it mean to you?

[MoonEchoAudio]

We like Combinators!

[psychasm]

I think Combis included inside a refill apart from the patches is a must.

[tiker01]

Wiring is the heart of Reason and in Reason8 the swap of any given stock effect with an RE is a simple move apart from the Combi knob programming. Although AUDIO connections are retained I am not sure how CV cabling is handled.

So keep those combis coming  :s0536:

[Benedict]

Hi

Just for the sake of conversation. I have noticed that many ReFill makers make patches on a device like Thor and then make Combis of those patches. As if the Combis are a "super patch" of the core sound.

I have never looked at it that way. I look to make a sound and then use whatever gets me there. So in the end I see a Thor and a Combi with a Thor as equal. In that way my ReFills have Thors and Combis all together in the sound category (e.g. Pads). Some sounds get worked right up with effects etc but others are left simpler to work like elements.

From what many seem to be saying here they prefer the Elements + Combis method.

[hydlide]

So in the end I see a Thor and a Combi with a Thor as equal.

I am glad that there is something called opinion, and I will totally disagree with this point. If I have a combi, I can control a Thor LFO and process the audio different. I can add effects which the thor patch are missing and so on. I can route different CV cables in the back of the original thor to do something with that specific thor patch what it was missing and i could start an essay but i dont want to start one.

bottom line, if you say a combi = thor, then you are saying apple = banana

[Benedict]

So in the end I see a Thor and a Combi with a Thor as equal.

I am glad that there is something called opinion, and I will totally disagree with this point. If I have a combi, I can control a Thor LFO and process the audio different. I can add effects which the thor patch are missing and so on. I can route different CV cables in the back of the original thor to do something with that specific thor patch what it was missing and i could start an essay but i dont want to start one.

bottom line, if you say a combi = thor, then you are saying apple = banana

I think you miss my point in that I see sound as sound, an instrument as an instrument. Combi allows us to take a simple Thor and make a complex Roland ROMpler style patch that can be saved off and handled as a single instrument and that is superb. However a guitar and a saxamaphone are both instruments and equal as such.

[hydlide]

yeah I am missing your point totally. I have nothing more to add to this.

[eXode]

So in the end I see a Thor and a Combi with a Thor as equal.

I am glad that there is something called opinion, and I will totally disagree with this point. If I have a combi, I can control a Thor LFO and process the audio different. I can add effects which the thor patch are missing and so on. I can route different CV cables in the back of the original thor to do something with that specific thor patch what it was missing and i could start an essay but i dont want to start one.

bottom line, if you say a combi = thor, then you are saying apple = banana

If you don't understand his point, can you really disagree with it?

As I interpret his post, Benedict is talking about what takes you to your goal. Sometimes a Thor will suffice, other times you need a Combinator, but it's the end result that is important. From that perspective Thor can be equally good (or even better) than the Combinator. I fully agree with that notion.

[hydlide]

As I interpret his post, Benedict is talking about what takes you to your goal. Sometimes a Thor will suffice, other times you need a Combinator, but it's the end result that is important. From that perspective Thor can be equally good (or even better) than the Combinator. I fully agree with that notion

and this is the point I disagree on.

Hence I understand the first point he was making. The second post was more confusing to me as a person.

But that is kind of the point with "sound" in general, one may think that a sine is cool, other may think a saw is cool. It just depends on how you and your brain interpret the sound.

The point why i would disagree with the notion is simple: inside the combinator I have the additional option to throw in different effects which the thor does not have. These can later on be programmed to control the dry / wet balance to tweak the sound further. This is something the initial thor patch will simply miss and so on. Also, the thor patch can be layered different inside a combinator.

[eXode]

As I interpret his post, Benedict is talking about what takes you to your goal. Sometimes a Thor will suffice, other times you need a Combinator, but it's the end result that is important. From that perspective Thor can be equally good (or even better) than the Combinator. I fully agree with that notion

and this is the point I disagree on.

Hence I understand the first point he was making. The second post was more confusing to me as a person.

But that is kind of the point with "sound" in general, one may think that a sine is cool, other may think a saw is cool. It just depends on how you and your brain interpret the sound.

The point why i would disagree with the notion is simple: inside the combinator I have the additional option to throw in different effects which the thor does not have. These can later on be programmed to control the dry / wet balance to tweak the sound further. This is something the initial thor patch will simply miss and so on. Also, the thor patch can be layered different inside a combinator.

It seems to me that you're still missing the point of purpose. In both of your posts you're talking about features.

If I don't need those features for the particular sound I'm creating, then why would I use a Combinator? It wouldn't add anything except for making my work unnecessarily complicated imho.

[frog974new]

It seems to me that you're still missing the point of purpose. In both of your posts you're talking about features.

If I don't need those features for the particular sound I'm creating, then why would I use a Combinator? It wouldn't add anything except for making my work unnecessarily complicated imho.

that's why still a big fan of the Massive Exode Refill
like the way all patch thor and combi 've done :s0826:

[Kevin Sunray]

Combinators are pretty useful. It's actually the best tool reason is offering for me.... It's giving you the opportunity to have "10 Sylenths" or "NI Massive" Synths working as one inside a combinator. No other daw has that ability and a so well designed interface as it gives you a great control on what u add inside.
At least to me is very important for the "end" sound. A combinator it's a full processed sound, 1 or a combination of more than one synth devices along with effects which usually will result to a finished sound (A lot of times you may need different effects plus u can add more outside of it anyway).
There is no reason to make a combi just for one thor or one subtraktor without anything else inside that do change the sound.
As a sound designer there will be times that a sound is good just on a Thor etc. but as a producer (and as a buyer will think) i would prefer to have that sound almost finished and ready to use in my production without wasting time and inspiration.