Plugin Boutique's 11th Anniversary: AAS Chromaphone 3 Sale (Exclusive)

[Larry Shelby]

Prices from $15

https://www.pluginboutique.com/deals/show?sale_id=12709

[Fleer]

Best one. 

[jngnz]

Best generator of generic sounding mallets wirh 30% CPU per instance? ?

[abacab]

 

[abacab]

 

[abacab]

 

[Technostica]

I have the original version of Chromaphone and am tempted to Upgrade at this price with the freebie included.
Any thoughts on how much difference there will be between 1 and 3?
I'm on Window, so compatibility shouldn't be a reason to upgrade.

The String Studio VS-3 Upgrade is £31 and includes the Asymmetric Sound Bank.
I have VS-2 so imagine the difference is much less here. 

 

 

[abacab]

50 minutes ago, Technostica said:

I have the original version of Chromaphone and am tempted to Upgrade at this price with the freebie included.
Any thoughts on how much difference there will be between 1 and 3?

Just a quick summary... I jumped on at Chromaphone 2, then upgraded to Chromaphone 3, and eventually picked up all of the sound banks for it.

It's a big improvement going from v2 to v3. AAS did a makeover of the synth GUI and comprehensive patch browser, and added a 2nd synth layer. So it's like having two independent synths in one with a [Layer A + Layer B] architecture.

AAS remastered the v2 factory library to optimize it for v3, plus added a new factory library for v3 that makes use of both layers.

Of course the existing AAS sound bank expansions still work as well, but most are only one layer patches, unless they were designed for v3. User banks from earlier versions may need to be converted by importing them into v3.

You can browse patches using the "layer browser" from either Layer A or Layer B to load patches into that specific layer. If the patch you are browsing for has both layers enabled, such as from the v3 factory bank, you can choose either source layer A or B to load. So you can combine any two patch layers in your current patch.

Edited February 20, 2023 by abacab

[User 905133]

1 hour ago, Jan Schmitz said:

Best generator of generic sounding mallets wirh 30% CPU per instance? ?

My PC is a vintage 2011 formerly Win 7 PC with up-to-date Windows 10 Pro.  I get 30% CPU usage when only when I boot Chromaphone.  After that it drops down considerably. 

When not making sound, it drops down to less than 1%. Typical sounds run from single digits to maybe as high as 15%.  As I assume you know, it can vary quite a bit.  For example, I have one woody mallet sound I tweaked to have mondo delay/echo trails. It starts off at 8% CPU and as I swipe my hand across the keyboard up and down, it does up to 10-11% CPU.  This is in standalone mode.  

In Cakewalk with a single instance I get comparable results above Cakewalk's baseline (1.4% to 2.7% at rest). It spikes to above 30% upon insertion, constant runs with my woody mallet mondo delay/echo preset pushes Cakewalk to the 13-16% range. It is roughly the same during live  practice, recording, and playback.  I have not tried multiple instances.

That being said, I have noticed repeatedly, with my vintage PC I sometimes don't have issues which others report with newer PCs.  Not  saying that newer PCs can't do more tracks and more effects faster than I can. Just saying that I am not getting any where near 30%  CPU with Chromaphone.

I looped my test recording (15 measures of midi data) and randomly switched presets (several factory banks).  The note density starts low and total CbB CPU starts at 8-10% CPU based on the sound and by the end it goes up to 12-20% CPU. 

With the 15-measure loop going, I used 2 hands to rapidly play dense random cluster chords to increase the note density (approx. 12-14 notes at a time). The sound playing was at 17-18% CPU max without the additional notes. Pounding the keyboard live, the CPU went up to 18-19%.  

If there's a way to post/share some of your custom Chromaphone, I am curious to see what results I get with them. It would be good to know if there are some Chromaphone settings that I should stay away from based on a higher CPU load.

[User 905133]

26 minutes ago, abacab said:

Just a quick summary... I jumped on at Chromaphone 2, then upgraded to Chromaphone 3, and eventually picked up all of the sound banks for it.

It's a big improvement going from v2 to v3. AAS did a makeover of the synth GUI and comprehensive patch browser, and added a 2nd synth layer. So it's like having two independent synths in one with a [Layer A + Layer B] architecture.

AAS remastered the v2 factory library to optimize it for v3, plus added a new factory library for v3 that makes use of both layers.

Thanks for this.  I will have to check specifically with dual layer sounds.  That might account for the 30% CPU.  Not sure I have every Chromaphone Expansion Pack, but if you or others can suggest some high CPU dual layer factory presets, I saved my test CbB project and can try to verify that its the dual layer causing CPU being doubled.

Update:  All of my randomly chosen factory presets are single layer.  As a simple test, I just turned on layer B.  That generally increased the CPU load by 2-4%.

Update: Turning on layer B and randomly loading sounds added approx. 8-10% CPU. 

So, with 1 instance of Chromaphone 3 playing my midi loop, I was able to get CbB up to 28%.  Thanks for helping me to sort out what to avoid!

Edited February 20, 2023 by User 905133
to add a second update; to report on a quick test (enabling Layer B)

[abacab]

34 minutes ago, User 905133 said:

Thanks for this.  I will have to check specifically with dual layer sounds.  That might account for the 30% CPU.  Not sure I have every Chromaphone Expansion Pack, but if you or others can suggest some high CPU dual layer factory presets, I saved my test CbB project and can try to verify that its the dual layer causing CPU being doubled.

I'll have to look around for some big hitters, but my experience is similar to yours.

Try searching the v3 Factory Library as all of those use both layers A & B. Most of the expansions do not use both, as most of them were produced before the release of the dual layers in v3.

Dual layers offers far richer sound and more complex sounds, but at likely an increased load. Since all of the sounds are generated mathematically with physical modeling, that will hit the CPU, especially with lots of polyphony and long sustain envelopes. Worst case is that using both layers might be the same as running two instances of Chromaphone each with one layer active, plus consideration for how many layer effects and master effects are used.

But IMO, Chromaphone is such a unique instrument, and the latest version is one of the best sounding synths available.

I also have Ultra Analog VA-3 and String Studio VS-3, but Chromaphone is my favorite. I saw that coming when I started collecting the freebie AAS banks, and liked it the best. Soon after it ended up as #1 on my wishlist! No regrets!

Edited February 20, 2023 by abacab

[abacab]

17 minutes ago, User 905133 said:

Update:  All of my randomly chosen factory presets are single layer.  As a simple test, I just turned on layer B.  That generally increase the CPU load by 2-4%.

Layer B appears to be just an "init" patch when first turned on, so it may not be doing much.

Tip: Click on the ellipsis (...) next to the Layer B power button, then choose "Browse..." from the dropdown to access the Layer Browser. From there you can browse to any bank and load any patch layer from it into your Layer B.

[kitekrazy]

I guess the best use for this is to learn it and make your own cinematic sounds.

There are plenty of patches that other synths can do.

I'm finding that these AAS synths with additional patches don't seem to play well with other synths and are fine if you only use that synth. Using them out of the box seem inferior to Sylenth, Spire, and Serum.

[abacab]

2 minutes ago, kitekrazy said:

I'm finding that these AAS synths with additional patches don't seem to play well with other synths and are fine if you only use that synth. Using them out of the box seem inferior to Sylenth, Spire, and Serum.

 

[User 905133]

36 minutes ago, abacab said:

Layer B appears to be just an "init" patch when first turned on, so it may not be doing much.

Tip: Click on the ellipsis (...) next to the Layer B power button, then choose "Browse..." from the dropdown to access the Layer Browser. From there you can browse to any bank and load any patch layer from it into your Layer B.

  Yup!  I did two updates in rapid succession.  Simply turning on layer B with no guts (an "init" layer) added 2-4%.  Good to know!!  Both turning on and adding the guts to layer B (such as by loading a layer as you describe) added approx. 8-10%.   

58 minutes ago, User 905133 said:

Update:  All of my randomly chosen factory presets are single layer.  As a simple test, I just turned on layer B.  That generally increased the CPU load by 2-4%.

Update: Turning on layer B and randomly loading sounds added approx. 8-10% CPU. 

So, with 1 instance of Chromaphone 3 playing my midi loop, I was able to get CbB up to 28%.  Thanks for helping me to sort out what to avoid!

I agree with your assessment of Chromaphone 3 (unique, sounds great, etc.  Thanks for the insights into the architecture. I have been pleased with the textures I have gotten with single layers, crazy settings, and built-in FX.  I had no idea that piling up notes with a single layer was so efficient!!  Thanks also to @Jan Schmitz for raising the issue of extreme CPU load under certain conditions.  It is good to know the strengths and limitations of each plug-in.

Edited February 20, 2023 by User 905133
clarification added; added a missing ")"

[abacab]

Interesting deep dive on drum programming with Chromaphone 3, courtesy of the master buckaroonie!

 

[abacab]

 

[User 905133]

1 hour ago, kitekrazy said:

I guess the best use for this is to learn it and make your own cinematic sounds.

There are plenty of patches that other synths can do.

I agree with learning the strengths and weaknesses of all music-making tools and how to use them to meet our own individual needs.  

 Oddly enough, over the past three days I have been going through the Pigments Expansion Packs (Half-Price Sale) and there are a lot of mallet/percussive sounds that sound very much like sounds I already have (esp. such as many in Chromaphone).  On my PC Pigments (which I like) has a high CPU %, but I have some work-arounds for using Pigments in context.  I have not specifically compared the Chromaphone load with the Pigments load, but generally Pigments is rather high when I am testing presets, tweaking them, and developing compositional layers.

I haven't extensively compared interactivity of sounds from different soft synth makers either. Thanks for reminding me to put that on my list of things to do.  Generally I find that the FX that manufacturer's put on factory presets (presumably so they sound good in isolation) tend to clash with FX on other synths and I end up using dry or nearly dry tweaks.

One of my to-do tasks is to further explore using multi-band FX with integrated dry/semi dry sounds from different synths.

BTW, I have been exploring soft synths for the past 2-3 years with the intent of moving away from hardware.  But yesterday I fired up the audio from one of my vintage D-to-A sound modules.  If they all had reliable D-to-D outputs, I am now thinking I'd like that more than fiddling with soft synths and FX to get the sound that I want.

Come to think of it, I generally preferred the FX chips of one manufacturer and tended to use dry (or nearly dry) sounds from other sound modules when combining them.

Edited February 20, 2023 by User 905133
added an omitted word (modules)

[abacab]

47 minutes ago, User 905133 said:

Generally I find that the FX that manufacturer's put on factory presets (presumably so they sound good in isolation) tend to clash with FX on other synths and I end up using dry or nearly dry tweaks.

Totally true!!! If you are going to use more than one factory preset in a mix, its always best to dial back the FX.

When I am auditioning a preset, I usually first disable the FX to get an idea of what the preset sounds like dry. Then I tweak to taste, especially if it's drenched in reverb and I intend to use a reverb bus for more than one instrument. Getting an already "wet" sound to fit in a mix can be challenging if there's too much going on.

That's a different problem than trying to fit multiple instruments together when their frequency spectrums clash. That's usually the job for a multiband EQ to carve out the sonic spaces required for each. Think how the orchestral string section is made up of instruments that each have their own "home" in the spectrum, the violin, the viola, the cello, and the bass. Their parts are arranged to fit together so that even in unison they can be octaves apart and not sound muddy.

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by abacab

[Technostica]

Thanks Larry and Abacab. I have ordered both the upgrades as I like these and the nett price is too tempting.

Edited February 20, 2023 by Technostica