But taking Reaktor for a moment - its very easy to lock your machine up completely by using all of the processor time. The number of times I have had to reboot 'cos nothing (keyboard, mouse, etc.) was responding.
Now - if NI stuff ran on the Pulsar (adopts Hommer Simpson look of bliss - "NI,PULSAR...." - dribble)
cheers
mark
_________________
__________________________________________
junklight - dark experimental electronics
http://www.junklight.com
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: junklight on 2002-04-24 03:41 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: junklight on 2002-04-24 03:41 ]</font>
Creamware vs CPU DAWs solutions
Grok, I must disagree on the Reaktor comment. Reaktor is the leader in native synthesis, but I've found Reaktor synths - and especially the drums - to be weak and thin. For me they just don't seem to have the harmonic richness and depth that you can get out of Pulsar. Some of those "latest additions" ensembles that NI hype so much such as Newscool (?) are a bit of an embarassment. I mean the so-called lead synth has only a handful of parameters - like wise the "bass" synth. They make Celmo's modest Goofy seem like a Super-Jupiter in comparison. How anyone could consider making a serious track using those sort of rinky-tink kiddy components is beyond me !
Of course that's not to deny all of Reaktor's good points - and there are many: supreme flexability; a commited developer; hundreds of user ensembles; a vibrant, optimistic community; a huge number of modules with more coming soon; brilliant "skinning" etc etc. And there's no denying that it can get some good sounds.
But the overall sound quality....
And that's a shame for me because Reaktor has a LOT of features that would be ideal for the way I work and the type of material I output. But I just can't go there because although all the work practices and ergonomics say yes, the sounds say no.
I'm very familar with Reaktor and am still very tempted to buy it, but not because of the synths - only for the sound mangling and weird "edges" of the program that ModV2 doesn't have - but that makes Reaktor a marginal product for me.
DSP versus native? Well Reaktor is about half the price of Pulsar (where I am) but then it only does half as much (in studio terms) and you still need a good soundcard for Reaktor anyway.
Today, for me, DSP is still king. Maybe tomorrow....
(Hmmm did this just turn into a Reaktor rave ? What was the topic again
)
Of course that's not to deny all of Reaktor's good points - and there are many: supreme flexability; a commited developer; hundreds of user ensembles; a vibrant, optimistic community; a huge number of modules with more coming soon; brilliant "skinning" etc etc. And there's no denying that it can get some good sounds.
But the overall sound quality....
And that's a shame for me because Reaktor has a LOT of features that would be ideal for the way I work and the type of material I output. But I just can't go there because although all the work practices and ergonomics say yes, the sounds say no.
I'm very familar with Reaktor and am still very tempted to buy it, but not because of the synths - only for the sound mangling and weird "edges" of the program that ModV2 doesn't have - but that makes Reaktor a marginal product for me.
DSP versus native? Well Reaktor is about half the price of Pulsar (where I am) but then it only does half as much (in studio terms) and you still need a good soundcard for Reaktor anyway.
Today, for me, DSP is still king. Maybe tomorrow....
(Hmmm did this just turn into a Reaktor rave ? What was the topic again
)