Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'ABSYNTH' started by sijarvis, Feb 10, 2020.
Is Absynth going to be discontinued? It's been over 10 years since it was properly updated.
Why can't a product be considered 'finished' anymore? No offense but I think it's a bit silly to consider something 'dead' even though it works as intended and continues to work as intended. I've been using Absynth since 2012 I think and never felt missing out on updates. It's an awesome synth with a ditto amount of sound potential, that never changed.
I like products that don't use updates every year.
If people are asking for updates for the sake of updates, I am not on board.
However, there are a few relatively simple features I would like to see and a few bugs I would like to see fixed.
As an aside, I wouldn't expect to see any major developments regarding Absynth anytime soon. The creator and lead developer is no longer with NI and that sort of thing is usually a sign that the product is not a priority.
God, this. This so much. You know that software companies have a finite amount of manpower to dedicate to different products, and have to consider how to dedicate those resources?
Its not silly when sound engine is almost 20 years old and it clearly shows (compare Absynth pure waveforms to new synths like Serum or some new NI synths)
And it was well justified in 2005, because CPUs were weak back then, but now u have multicore monsters like Threadripper, and u can build complex Synths with high quality sound.
People just miss innovation and they want some new synth, that will innovate just like absynth did many years ago.
And theres nothing "finished" in tech world - u stay in one spot - you moving backwards.
Technology is not something thats stagnant.
He may know it but he dont like it how they dedicate those resources? not everyone likes constant remakes of analogue synths or some new basic 2 osc 2 filter synths setups for EDM.
Look how Adobe innovate with new features like content aware fill ect - theres nothing like that in therms of creative algorithms in modren synths.
Last innovatitve synth i know is NI Razor - but for me its could be only one OSC mode for bigger synth.
You can take my iOS - it's free in the user library - Illusions of Sounds
Why on earth would someone do that? Nobody actually makes music that way--a synthesizer is a gestalt of its parts, so shooting out individual, isolated components without any sort of musical context is an academic exercise at best. (Frankly, I appreciate that there are synthesizers other than Serum; and Absynth's oscillators can do plenty that Serum's can't, and vice versa.) Anyway, these are instruments--why the need to compare them? I mean, no one compares pianos and harpsichords, or violas and trumpets--they're different instruments, and one isn't inferior for having a different set of strengths to another.
Do you really think Absynth isn't "innovative"? I think it's one of the strangest, most interesting synthesizers out there. In what way is it stagnant?
To be clear, I have always found the interface very offputting and I would love to see that significantly overhauled, but where the sound is concerned--the thing that counts--I think of it as a reliable, mature piece of software that sounds excellent and readily goes places most other synthesizers struggle to. That's not to say it does everything--that's difficult to achieve without it turning into a bloated, unnavigable mess--but it does its own thing(s) really, really well.
I submit that Absynth bears zero resemblance to either of those things.
I'm afraid I don't get the analogy here.
I'll agree with you here that Razor's an amazing piece of engineering, but again, I don't really understand what you're getting at here--Razor and Absynth are vastly different instruments which, apart from having about as much overlap as any arbitrary pair of synthesizers, have very different strengths and design principles. What's the point of bringing it up here?
Well, there's a reason why I think it is... there are so many instruments and/or presets which try to "capture" the sound of a specific era. So here we have an instrument which has a genuine sound of an era.... so why change that to something more mainstream?
And well... it's been a while since I messed with pure oscillators but... I'm not too sure I agree (from mind that is, would have to do some experimentation again for which I lack the time right now).
Alas... I don't mind innovation and new stuff. But I don't want it to happen to sound engines which I already rely on. Before you know I have to change a lot of my material because of major changes, no thanks....
I did not say absynth is not innovative - sound quality is just poor, filters affect stereo image and it has many other problems and bugs (for example) with complex CC and macro mapping (most normal users are not aware of that)
In terms of sound quality and GUI is small to use on 4 K monitor.
Also - picture this: Some time ago Absynth was innovative, but Brian Clevinger still put new things in it (like Atherizer and similiar grain Filter modules - wich is the most interesting FX in synth)
So if we had this discussion in time of Absynth 3 (before Atherizer and other modules) - you would still prestist to not upgrade it ?
If yes - we would not have Atherizer in Absynth and its my fav module.
Analogy is that not to assume that everything is invented and we dont need anything more.
Because some programmers / Engineers / Artists prove thats not the case.
That's not a matter of agreement or not - Serum and Falcon Waveforms are much more high quality then absynth.
Precision in sound rendering is not subjective and its not a matter of taste.