Jump to content

Is Pigments granular engine better than NI Form (not a deal)


satya

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, telecode 101 said:

I have both. And I actually use Form and Kontour a lot. I am no expert, but my understanding is they are just GUI front ends to Reaktor backend. My guess is Pigments is more advanced as its newer.

Yea I watched a YouTube video when V3 was released and he said it's better than FORM , so was just curious how do they compare 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, satya said:

Yea I watched a YouTube video when V3 was released and he said it's better than FORM , so was just curious how do they compare 

whats better and what i like to use vary. pigments obviously has a lot of features and you can really get into the nitty gritty of it. but i like using the Reaktor instruments b/c a) I like the sound of the presets for what i like to do and b) i like the ease of use and usability of tweaking them. I had those reaktor instruments in my DAW for a long time and didn't spend much time with them until last year when I had time to check out the manuals. Kontour is my fav and most used. Form I like. Rounds turned out to be the most versatile and interesting to use. you can really get some pretty crazy results out of it. check out the manual.

the problem with pigments for me is it seems like a sound designers tool and i am not yet the type that will go in there and go into sound design to get new sounds. i just need to get synth sounds for the song form structured music i work on. i just need to get sounds that aren't easily and readily heard by others. so tweaking presets to make them original to me is my approach. i could i guess do the same in pigments, but pigments just seems to have so many tabs and options and all kinds of things that are a little overwhelming for casual songwriter type like me.  that's why i started to gravitate towards the NI reaktor based instruments.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, telecode 101 said:

 My guess is Pigments is more advanced as its newer.

Ah the old fallacy that new is always better...

My assumption is that it depends on personal tastes.

Edit: just saw you added a new post on this...

Edited by TheSteven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can do more with the original Alchemy's granular engine than most people can do with everything on the market combined. Has nothing to do with age. Has to do with a) features b) quality of those features c) if you know how to use those features. I would say the same for Absynth, which did more with its granular engine 15+ years than most modern attempts.

To solo out Pigments - I would file that synth under "crap". Sounds like crap, looks like a casino app that should make "ding ding ding" sounds when you click on buttons. And there are likely free synths with better granular / sampler engines. Pigments is what happens when a company like Arturia realizes 99% of its customers have no idea what they're doing, are mostly deaf, and will buy anything that has a lot of paid for testimonials and has lots of bright neon colors. It might have the worst sounding filters I've heard in a soft synth since...well...since all the other Arturia synths were released. Not that anyone cares, since Skrillex almost single handidly normalized **** filters with his aural abuse (some might say illegal abuse) of Massive's "worst sounding synth of all time" filters. 

Really - just get Phase Plant. :)

 

 

Edited by Carl Ewing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm. Personally I love Pigments. I'm not a good sound designer myself, but when I use the Photon soundbank by Oblivion Sound Lab, for example, it sounds great to me. And I love the user interface. Not because it uses neon colors (I wouldn't even say it does) but because it's super intuitive. I don't get the casino app association at all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...