I doubt that I could make a track for the competition.Skullture wrote:
I can afford a maximum several instruments simultaneously.
Or my song will be 100% of the sampling.
I doubt that I could make a track for the competition.Skullture wrote:
Yup. My pentium G can barely hold 10 tracks. With or without that CPU cost, this is 5 STAR....8cros wrote:I doubt that I could make a track for the competition.Skullture wrote:
I can afford a maximum several instruments simultaneously.
Or my song will be 100% of the sampling.
Mine neither, but I think it's sound quality is fantastic, very feature-rich and it has an outstanding UI.boobytrap wrote:Yup. My pentium G can barely hold 10 tracks. With or without that CPU cost, this is 5 STAR....8cros wrote:I doubt that I could make a track for the competition.Skullture wrote:
I can afford a maximum several instruments simultaneously.
Or my song will be 100% of the sampling.
The switches on the back are saved per patch.electrofux wrote:So in what CPU Cathegory does this play? Antidote, Zero ...
How do the different settings on the back affect sound and CPU use? Are they saved with the Patch or are they global settings?
4MER and Vibro also use tabs for each oscillator, if I'm understanding you correctly, and Zero has tabs for each of its operators.Digitus wrote:Is this the first Reason synth to have selectable oscillators stacked in the same UI space? I'm not sure if I phrased that question right.
No, straight off the top of my head, Zero and 4mer have stacked OSC/Operators...Digitus wrote:Is this the first Reason synth to have selectable oscillators stacked in the same UI space? I'm not sure if I phrased that question right.
well it's hard to answer your waveshaper scenario because "better" is subjective (i don't think PX7 is "better" than FM4 even though it has 2 more operators). but this situation with eXpanse is nothing like that. it's not necessarily trying to provide a "better" way to synthesize, just a different way. and it's fine if it doesn't click with you, or is no use to you. but that's a very different complaint than saying it's not "specific" or "focused"!Faastwalker wrote:But this was my point. What does 3 waveshaping parameters per oscillator mean? If next week a synth comes out with 4 waveshaping parameters per oscillator does this mean it's better than Expanse? Personally I feel a bit overwhelmed with features I don't fully appreciate the significance of. Maybe I'm just being a bit of a newb. But I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed & I don't mind admitting it. What does it all mean?!lowpryo wrote:maybe I'm missing something, but what RE synth has wavetables this robust + 3 waveshaping parameters per oscillator? that seems like a very specific and focused goal of eXpanse IMO. I guess Ochen K's 4mer has similar waveshaping features, but it has pretty abysmal CPU performance and aliasing when they are all in use, which this improves upon.
I had suggested a few pages back, but didn't see a response...adfielding wrote:The switches on the back are saved per patch.electrofux wrote:So in what CPU Cathegory does this play? Antidote, Zero ...
How do the different settings on the back affect sound and CPU use? Are they saved with the Patch or are they global settings?
As for CPU use - it really depends on the patch and voice count. I haven't had any major issues, and the switches on the back go a very long way toward keeping things manageable.
I respect that we all have different opinions, but I'd like to explain a couple of things that are related to your (and to some extent others) comments on Expanse.Faastwalker wrote:Where will it end? I still feel like I've barely scratched the surface of Zero! Do I want another behemoth synth in the fray? I'd actually like to see more specific, focused synths that are good at doing specific things. Simple devices with a less is more approach in terms of features, parameters & a plethora of built in FX. In the context of the Reason Rack I think this kind of device works really well.
I think the Essential users will be very happy having built in effects, if they work for a sound I'm creating I will use them and I think it's nice to have them quick at hand....eXode wrote:I respect that we all have different opinions, but I'd like to explain a couple of things that are related to your (and to some extent others) comments on Expanse.Faastwalker wrote:Where will it end? I still feel like I've barely scratched the surface of Zero! Do I want another behemoth synth in the fray? I'd actually like to see more specific, focused synths that are good at doing specific things. Simple devices with a less is more approach in terms of features, parameters & a plethora of built in FX. In the context of the Reason Rack I think this kind of device works really well.
From my perspective, Expanse is very focused. In fact, user friendliness is something that both Andrew and I felt was very important to not loose track of during the development of Expanse. Yes, Expanse is an advanced synthesizer with many features, but we are not forcing anyone to use those features immediately. My own vision is that even if you're not a synth expert, you can still use Expanse and that it will grow with you as you grow.
If you take some time to look at Expanse's user interface, I will explain this.
You can create a simple sound in Expanse with ease. You can use a single Oscillator, route it through one of the Filters, you can tweak both the Amp Env and the Mod Env directly on screen, and you can also use one of the LFO's with one of it's pre-routed targets. All without switching a single pane - it's all there in front of you.
And this is actually how I would recommend most users to start out. With a single oscillator, perhaps adding a single Mod, learn what they all do, and learn how powerful just a single oscillator in Expanse can be.
As for the comments regarding built in FX vs rack FX. I personally prefer to have a choice. A choice to make a production ready sounds without having to move out of Expanse. If I want something else, I'm free to disable the included effects. That choice is taken from me should the effects have been excluded.
Cheers!
Thanks for the helpful tips!eXode wrote: As for the comments regarding built in FX vs rack FX. I personally prefer to have a choice. A choice to make a production ready sounds without having to move out of Expanse. If I want something else, I'm free to disable the included effects. That choice is taken from me should the effects have been excluded.
Cheers!
Unless they have used vst's with this quality of sound for many years and it just dont hit them as groundbreaking maybe ???.XysteR wrote:Having bought eXpanse and played around with it for some time - It's clear to me that at this moment, the people who scored this down on props shop by .5, clearly have an earwax problem or are indeed as deaf as my father!...
Nar I've used Serum for a long time - In my view Serum is the best ('sounding' if you'd like to call it that) VST out there at the moment. I've used most other 'top tier' VST synths too and eXpanse is still a 5 all day long.submonsterz wrote:Unless they have used vst's with this quality of sound for many years and it just dont hit them as groundbreaking maybe ???.XysteR wrote:Having bought eXpanse and played around with it for some time - It's clear to me that at this moment, the people who scored this down on props shop by .5, clearly have an earwax problem or are indeed as deaf as my father!...
Your math is excellent, Joey...joeyluck wrote:4.6 is a pretty solid score.
What is that roughly? Out of every five people, three rate it a 5 and two rate it a 4?
Users browsing this forum: hamsterfactor and 7 guests