PG-8X

[altron]

A Combinator 2 template for the PG-8X VST from Martin Lüders.
Version 1.0

Notes:
- Most controls are mapped. I left out several controls since the max. controls and knobs amount was reached.
- The small wheel controls used for some multi-switch controls are slightly overlapping some labels.
- Several muti-switchs from the VSTs had to be done with buttons. These buttons don't toggle each other's off when turned on so the UI might be in a confusing state. Each button is either set off or on to their respective state.
- Separate HD backdrop image included.
- VST Link: https://sites.google.com/site/mlvst0/

screenshot.jpg (157.78 KiB) Viewed 7900 times

[Synth Street]

That's awesome! I am still on 11 but when i upgrade, im going to use this. Thank you!

[huggermugger]

It's impressive, but as with many of these custom Combinators that people are designing, I don't see the point. In this case, you've basically reproduced the VST front panel. Why not just open the VST and work there? A Combinator version just seems redundant.

[Billy+]

It's impressive, but as with many of these custom Combinators that people are designing, I don't see the point. In this case, you've basically reproduced the VST front panel. Why not just open the VST and work there? A Combinator version just seems redundant.

First off to the OP great job so don't be offended by what I'm about to say as it's in no way directly aimed at you.


But I think the reason why we are seeing these patches is more to do with OCD than any other reason, for some strange reason I think others like to see the devices mounted in the rack and although it visually works I would assume that it also consumes more cpu/dsp.

I feel much the same about the hidpi stuff it's great that Reason can now better display on all types of display but I don't believe that it adds anything to actually working with devices in the rack it's just a way to make RRP look bigger in other DAW's while consuming more resources.

[crimsonwarlock]

I was considering doing a combi for PG-8X, as I'm one of those who want to have stuff 'in the rack' and get rid of pesky pop-up windows. Back in the days of the first MS Windows version (I think it was 1.03, yep, I'm old) there was this joke (we didn't call them memes back then): 'What is Windows?: a system to divide your screen into smaller useless parts'.

I didn't make the combi myself, as I don't like doing only parts of the VST, lacking enough controls on the combi. From there, I'm simply trying to get away from using VST plugins all together in Reason. I'm not yet there completely because some VST plugins don't have an equivalent in Reason (hello OTT), but I already decided I don't really need PG-8X. Now I'm trying to redo the few PG-8X presets I really like, in Thor or any of the many other REs I have.

[altron]

It's impressive, but as with many of these custom Combinators that people are designing, I don't see the point. In this case, you've basically reproduced the VST front panel. Why not just open the VST and work there? A Combinator version just seems redundant.

There are several reasons for it (partly primarily for my own use cases). Some of them are ...

- Being able to map controls to a h/w controller more easily. Some VSTs don't want to map to my Keylab mkII inside Reason at all so the Combinator mapping helps.
- Having a dedicated Combinator backdrop.
- I dislike popup windows.

[Mataya]

I was considering doing a combi for PG-8X, as I'm one of those who want to have stuff 'in the rack' and get rid of pesky pop-up windows. Back in the days of the first MS Windows version (I think it was 1.03, yep, I'm old) there was this joke (we didn't call them memes back then): 'What is Windows?: a system to divide your screen into smaller useless parts'.

I didn't make the combi myself, as I don't like doing only parts of the VST, lacking enough controls on the combi. From there, I'm simply trying to get away from using VST plugins all together in Reason. I'm not yet there completely because some VST plugins don't have an equivalent in Reason (hello OTT), but I already decided I don't really need PG-8X. Now I'm trying to redo the few PG-8X presets I really like, in Thor or any of the many other REs I have.

Try Panda's DYN-4 compressor for OTT. Close enough for me.

M

[altron]

I was considering doing a combi for PG-8X, as I'm one of those who want to have stuff 'in the rack' and get rid of pesky pop-up windows. Back in the days of the first MS Windows version (I think it was 1.03, yep, I'm old) there was this joke (we didn't call them memes back then): 'What is Windows?: a system to divide your screen into smaller useless parts'.

I didn't make the combi myself, as I don't like doing only parts of the VST, lacking enough controls on the combi. From there, I'm simply trying to get away from using VST plugins all together in Reason. I'm not yet there completely because some VST plugins don't have an equivalent in Reason (hello OTT), but I already decided I don't really need PG-8X. Now I'm trying to redo the few PG-8X presets I really like, in Thor or any of the many other REs I have.

I own a MKS-70 which is one of my favorite synths. It's basically two Roland JX-8Ps in one of which the PG-8X is an emulation of (and a very good one). The MKS-70 (and therefore the JX-8P) have sounds that I use a lot. I'm recently in a mood of moving more to software-only so the PG-8X is a keeper for me. Modern synth don't make sounds like that one anymore.

[joeyluck]

It looks good! This was one of the ones on my list of combis to create, but with the amount of stepped controls and multi-mode switches, I figured I'd wait. I'm still holding out hope they add these features!

[crimsonwarlock]

Try Panda's DYN-4 compressor for OTT. Close enough for me.

I've seen it being referred to as such, so I picked it up last week in the current sale. I did not yet have the time to try it out, though.

...so the PG-8X is a keeper for me. Modern synth don't make sounds like that one anymore.

I've always liked the PG-8X and used it here and there before I moved to Reason. Do you think it is not possible to get those sounds out of Thor for example? I'm currently trying to redo some Synth1 sounds in Reason which is not that easy as Synth1 has some very specific options not directly available in other synths (but it's a nice challenge). However, PG-8X seems pretty standard in its setup and its filter and envelopes don't come across as special either. The only reason I use it is that it gives me direct access to numerous eighties sounding presets, but remaking those on other synths is a good exercise.

Besides that, I have the Korg REs, The Legend, and several Skrock synths that do eighties very well.

[huggermugger]

It's impressive, but as with many of these custom Combinators that people are designing, I don't see the point. In this case, you've basically reproduced the VST front panel. Why not just open the VST and work there? A Combinator version just seems redundant.

There are several reasons for it (partly primarily for my own use cases). Some of them are ...

- Being able to map controls to a h/w controller more easily. Some VSTs don't want to map to my Keylab mkII inside Reason at all so the Combinator mapping helps.
- Having a dedicated Combinator backdrop.
- I dislike popup windows.

Thanks! This makes a lot of sense.

[thedude]

I've always liked the PG-8X and used it here and there before I moved to Reason. Do you think it is not possible to get those sounds out of Thor for example? I'm currently trying to redo some Synth1 sounds in Reason which is not that easy as Synth1 has some very specific options not directly available in other synths (but it's a nice challenge). However, PG-8X seems pretty standard in its setup and its filter and envelopes don't come across as special either. The only reason I use it is that it gives me direct access to numerous eighties sounding presets, but remaking those on other synths is a good exercise.

Besides that, I have the Korg REs, The Legend, and several Skrock synths that do eighties very well.

It is totally plausible to recreate PG8X patches on Thor, but it can be pokey. I've done a few dozen at this point. First, when it comes to sound, the Roland OTA filter has different character to it at higher resonance vs the Moog ladder filter that's built into Thor.

When it comes to features, you have to faff around in Thor's mod matrix a bit. For instance, on the PG8X (and therefore, JX8P/JX10) you can use the envelope to modulate the DCO mixer. In thor, you'll need to assign an envelope to oscillator balance to somewhat achieve the same thing, since you can't independently change the volume of each one in Thor like you can PG8X.


Second, PG8X offers the sync, cross mod, and sync + cross mod settings in the cross mod section. For bells and some piano patches, this takes some finessing using the AM + sync option in thor to get just right.

Next, you'll want to use thor in a combinator with quartet using the juno I or juno II preset - this sounds way better than the thor built in chorus.

Then, you have the key modes - JX8P offers special unison modes with unison detune. I think you can technically get pretty close using the thor multi oscillator, but i am much too lazy to try,


..Or, you could use this fantastic combi OP made for us, or PG8X without having to mess around and make thor templates.

[crimsonwarlock]

..Or, you could use this fantastic combi OP made for us, or PG8X without having to mess around and make thor templates.

It is a very nice combinator for sure. However, I'm more a tweaker than a preset user. Recreating those presets is teaching me more about the synth I'm using to recreate. I'm also not interested to actually recreate all presets from a synth, just the ones that interest me. Bells for example I wouldn't use an analog modelled synth at all, for me, that is FM territory (I had a DX7 for decades).

Before moving to Reason, I used a lot of free emulations of famous synths, like PG-8X, Dexed, OBXD, the free VST of Viking 1 and the Korg emulations from FullBucket. But with all the great stuff available in Reason I don't think I need those anymore. So I'm slowly phasing out the use of those VSTs.

[thedude]

Bumping this up since I am using it a ton.

Say I have a PG8X preset bank I like, but want to have it accessed easily by this combi skin - when i click on the patch button, it is looking for a reason specific file, i think. Where would I load my sysex bank in to be easily accessed?

Hope this makes sense.

[crimsonwarlock]

Say I have a PG8X preset bank I like, but want to have it accessed easily by this combi skin - when i click on the patch button, it is looking for a reason specific file, i think. Where would I load my sysex bank in to be easily accessed?

You cannot use a sysex-bank (or VST-presets for that matter) directly from the combinator skin. For that, you need to remake the presets on the combinator (because the combinator controls don't get feedback from the VST) and save them as combinator patches. If you put all the combinator patches for the PG-8X in a dedicated directory, you can then browse them from the combinator patch loader. I have just done this for my U-NO-62 combinator and the internal presets that come with that VST. Only about 32 (I think) and that took already some time. So, it's best to select your favorite presets and only redo those on the combinator.

[thedude]

Say I have a PG8X preset bank I like, but want to have it accessed easily by this combi skin - when i click on the patch button, it is looking for a reason specific file, i think. Where would I load my sysex bank in to be easily accessed?

You cannot use a sysex-bank (or VST-presets for that matter) directly from the combinator skin. For that, you need to remake the presets on the combinator (because the combinator controls don't get feedback from the VST) and save them as combinator patches. If you put all the combinator patches for the PG-8X in a dedicated directory, you can then browse them from the combinator patch loader. I have just done this for my U-NO-62 combinator and the internal presets that come with that VST. Only about 32 (I think) and that took already some time. So, it's best to select your favorite presets and only redo those on the combinator.

good call. I fear this was what we needed to do. Did you just load up the VST and the combi and eyeball it slider by slider?

[crimsonwarlock]

good call. I fear this was what we needed to do. Did you just load up the VST and the combi and eyeball it slider by slider?

Exactly that, and after setting each control listening if the patch still sounds correct.

[raymondh]

PG-8X is a really superb emulation of the JX-8P.
Nothing else comes as close. Roland's new JX-08 sounds great, but it doesn't sound as close to the 8P as the PG-8X, in my view.
Given that, I would not be too disappointed if you can't make Thor sound like an 8P.
Not just the obvious factors but there are so many nuances that give a synth the sound signature. I spent ages trying to recreate the famous 8P soundtrack patch using the Roland System 8, and also u-he Diva. In both cases I could get a great sound in it's own right, but in neither case could I touch the silky, sizzly, organic, 3-dimensionality of the 8P that just makes you melt into your couch with bliss, in the way the 8P achieves this. Soundtrack is actually a pretty simple patch and easy to program, it's the magic of the chorus, envelopes and filter that give it the special sauce.

The PG-8X nails it. Add a bit of Echobode Dream Delay and you'll lose hours playing chords

I think the character of a synth is part of their charm. Whether it is that annoying voice stealing due to limited polyphony, the stepping of low resolution digital sliders (I'm talking to you, PG-800), the per-voice variations in aging electronics, the imperfect tracking characteristics in a filter circuit, the weird envelope curve that is rubbish for bass but perfect for pads - all of these things give it personality and are part of what can make a track unique and memorable. Like with mixing, it is the sum of a lot of nuances that on their own are barely (if at all) noticeable -- but combined, make a big difference to the overall track.

My view is rather than trying to make one synth sound like another, play to it's individual strengths, be inspired by it's "voice", and embrace it's character in your creations.

[ryanharlin]

you've basically reproduced the VST front panel. Why not just open the VST and work there? A Combinator version just seems redundant.

But I think the reason why we are seeing these patches is more to do with OCD than any other reason, for some strange reason I think others like to see the devices mounted in the rack

It's not OCD for me. It's efficiency in the creative process. Once VST support first came out for Reason in v9.5 I remembered why I used Reason in the first place. Floating windows SUCK! It's such a mental creative killer for me to have to pop up windows just to tweak one knob, close windows, move windows around, pin windows, then deal with overlapping windows, etc. I still use the occasional VST but ironically VST support made me more appreciative of native Rack devices and Rack Extensions.

So when the updated Combinator came out with it's customization panel design concept it made total sense to me my people were porting their VSTs into Combinators to repatriate them back where they belong: the Rack.

[thedude]

yeah, totally agree with Ryan here; he put into writing what i couldn't really put my finger on to articulate. there are times when i have either the mixer/rack/seq split, or just the rack/seq when i am auditioning something or tweaking a synth. opening the VST windows is like a workflow "micro annoyance" that even though is simple, adds up. I also wonder if sometimes this is why i dont get as inspired on other DAWs, but that could be just me.

Maybe Ryan can drop some spoilers on if multi switch buttons are coming to the new combi. In the case of this PG8x skin, it is sorely needed for HPF and oscillator selection. But, we're making due with what we have, and i am grateful for guys like altron and crimson warlock who are making these.

[crimsonwarlock]

It's not OCD for me. It's efficiency in the creative process. Once VST support first came out for Reason in v9.5 I remembered why I used Reason in the first place. Floating windows SUCK! It's such a mental creative killer for me to have to pop up windows just to tweak one knob, close windows, move windows around, pin windows, then deal with overlapping windows, etc.

Exactly this. I moved to Reason specifically to get away from all the hassle with floating VST windows. However, there are still a few VST plugins that don't have a good RE alternative, so I still use a few VST plugins in Reason. Now with the new combinator, I can get rid of those last few floating windows

[ryanharlin]

Maybe Ryan can drop some spoilers on if multi switch buttons are coming to the new combi.

You know, it wouldn't be my place to talk about what's in the works and when things are coming down the pike but in this case I actually don't even know so it's easy to side-step that one.

Personally I would love to see stepped knobs that snap to values, knob range controls to make a knob stop rotating at (for example) 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock on the dial, switch groups where turning on one switch turns off another or multiple others, led indicators, alphanumeric displays, and then some design features like copy/paste for controls from one Combi to another, or even just setting the same parameter across multiple controls so you could (for example) lasso 10 control knobs and change their style all at once to another knob.

So many things I want!! I'm sure you guys do too, but I think in this case all our wants reflect how much fun the new Combinator actually is so we want even more for it. And Mattias has said that the Combinator platform now isn't a static thing that will wait 15 years like Combinator 1.0 did for an update. We've already seen new switches and knobs appearing, so I'm excited for what comes next.

I just also happen to be as in the dark as you guys are on what actually is coming down the road!

[Heater]

On a side note. Does anyone have any ideas how to install PG-8X on a modern MacBook?

[madmacman]

On a side note. Does anyone have any ideas how to install PG-8X on a modern MacBook?

Modern = M1? Then you probably need Rosetta2 and must run the host (DAW) in Rosetta-Mode, too.

Modern Intel with Catalina or newer?

viewtopic.php?p=531360#p531360

(and maybe this step applies to M1-Macs as well)

[thedude]

yep, it would just run under rosetta 2. I'm using it on my m1 pro MBP without a hitch. Well, the hitch is that the mac version was never finished so it doesn't remember last patch settings upon project startup.