UVI Relayer: Precision Creative Delay

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Effects Discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS
Relayer

Post

oristan wrote:Regarding modulation, Relayer is already quite dense, so I'm not a huge fan of adding more stuff.
There is a fine balance between complete and bloated.

Still you can do as many as you want using the automation feature of your host. Like automating Spread in Pan or Offset in FX pages or any other FX parameter.

bloat... hmmm... not sure I'd agree with you there that extending the modulation possibilities as suggested constitutes bloat. I'm not exactly suggesting lfos modulating lfos here... nothing more complex than the teeny weeny little 'rate' and 'depth' dials that already exist in the GUI vocabulary, and would easily fit in the locations I suggested.

as you rightly point out, I can use midi...and I am. However when I create a nice combination of plugin settings + midi input ... it would be so much better for the user, i.e me, if this could be saved as a preset within the plugin - rather than exporting/importing midi files, going through midi learn (if the host allows it), etc etc .... for each and every project I'd like to use the setup on.

This is why plugins have presets, and internal modulation in the first place... to save the end-user this kind of hassle and time.

it's funny that you'd throw so much cpu at a glorified bit crusher effect, and yet come all bloat-philosophical about something as infinitely more useful and musical as rudimentary modulation. priorities...

Post

Daags wrote: bloat... hmmm... not sure I'd agree with you there that extending the modulation possibilities as suggested constitutes bloat. I'm not exactly suggesting lfos modulating lfos here... nothing more complex than the teeny weeny little 'rate' and 'depth' dials that already exist in the GUI vocabulary, and would easily fit in the locations I suggested.
I wasn't talking about Pan or Gain LFOs actually, I could live with those added, but more for all other FXs parameters where it begins to be a design nightmare.
We could technically add a multi slider editor for all parameters, but for the same reason, it would end up being a mess.

Sorry if my answer sounded harsh, that wasn't the goal.
Olivier Tristan
Developer - UVI Team
http://www.uvi.net

Post

oh noes... 'design nightmare':
(modulation shape preset navigation buttons + lfo added to GUI)

Image
Image


apologies here for the rough photoshop work... but here's another 'design nightmare' making use of the total waste of GUI real estate in the Feedback tab. As you can see I put some diminutive dials under the corresponding parameters in the rest of the GUI for 'quick access' ... if that goes against any precious in-house design philosophy this could be further reduced to either just a single 'depth' dial...or even no quick access dials at all since at the very, very, very least you could put the LFO's in the more than adequate space available in the 'Feedback' tab and do without the proposed 'quick access' dials all together.

Image



this isn't the kind of request I make for many of the other delays I own... primarily because they don't have the same marketing spiel/hype/blurb to live up to ... you're selling a 'precision creative delay' and only two fx params have a rudimentary lfo in addition to the main Time param. Rudimentary lfos that as of yet don't have tempo division/multiplications - the fact that they are coming notwithstanding. Sure, ok, fine, this is where philosophy comes in to it (see: 'bloat' VS 'complete')...but come on - to live up to some of the advertising copy you will - imo - need to offer some rudimentary lfos for the other params. the 'design nightmare' excuse doesn't wash with me ... do you have some DSP issues maybe ? I don't see why you'd throw so many cpu cycles at a niche effect like a glorified bit crusher, and then completely skimp on the rudimentary access to lfo modulation for the rest of the params.... to me that seems like messed up priorities - considering the brief of delivering a product to match the advertising copy.

I'll post below some examples of the Advertising Blurb that are let down by the lack of LFO modulation for the params I listed, and by your apparent aversion to ever adding them at all (see: 'Bloat' and 'Design Nightmare'):
Advertising Blurb wrote:"Precision Creative Delay"

"A Modern Classic

An advanced creative engine housed in an intuitive and easy to use interface, Relayer represents a new benchmark for digital delay effects. Relayer was designed from the ground-up to provide an efficient and inspiring workflow that enables users to dial in everything from basic delays to radical rhythmic multi-effects with speed, precision and natural musicality."


"The Highest Order of Function and Usability

Relayer was designed with a unique set of features that make it remarkably versatile, producing everything from simple delay effects to pure sonic decimation. Despite its diverse capabilities, Relayer is extremely easy to understand and use. A single UI screen elegantly presents global and modulated parameters and a dynamic patch visualizer, giving you clear, time-based graphical representation of your current settings. You'll find Relayer incredibly easy to master and it's dynamic feedback will help you achieve even the most complex sounds effortlessly."

"Possibly the Last Delay You'll Ever Need

Both an efficient utility and powerful creative mangler, Relayer is a versatile and inspiring musical effect. Its unique combination of features, incredible sound quality and easy to master interface help to make it an indispensable tool, both live and in the studio."


anyway, I'd hope you'd see sense. because the nice GUI only goes so far in delivering the delay you're selling. Two measly lfos for fx I might not even want to use (i.e redux) just doesn't cut it.

imo.

ymmv.

bbqsauce.

Post

hi, this is actually the most comprehensive overall delay plugin I have ever seen.. it looks like it could be first choice for anything delay wise.

One question : can it also do distorted feedback like the logic tape delay? I often use that for build ups rather than a snare roll or other method...

Post

TheoM wrote:hi, this is actually the most comprehensive overall delay plugin I have ever seen.. it looks like it could be first choice for anything delay wise.

One question : can it also do distorted feedback like the logic tape delay? I often use that for build ups rather than a snare roll or other method...

I'm not sure why you'd need to ask that question if it's the most comprehensive overall delay plugin you have ever seen. Making those types of statements, you should be able to answer your own question.

Post

Daags wrote:
TheoM wrote:hi, this is actually the most comprehensive overall delay plugin I have ever seen.. it looks like it could be first choice for anything delay wise.

One question : can it also do distorted feedback like the logic tape delay? I often use that for build ups rather than a snare roll or other method...

I'm not sure why you'd need to ask that question if it's the most comprehensive overall delay plugin you have ever seen. Making those types of statements, you should be able to answer your own question.

i watched the video, i have not tried it.. the things it can do, IMO make it's feature set outstanding.

But that one thing is the *only* thing that I didn't see that I would personally want. Ok, so let me rephrase, it is the most comprehensive delay plugin I have ever seen except for one possible missing feature that is important to me, can someone clarify whether it can do saturated high intensity distorted feedbacks?

better sire?

and if it CAN do that, I will probably get this to be my one and only delay for daws other than logic.

I have no idea why people spend their time correcting someone's posting and throwing it back at them rather than actually helping with the question asked and providing any valuable insight at all. That one has perplexed me for, well, ever.
To each their own, whatever floats your boat. Muted.

Post

@Daags,

I'm not against having LFO's added... I would welcome it, but your examples about the marketing blurb only make sense if one only read the bolded text... BUT if you keep reading, they specify things as opposed leaving them open ended.

They didn't suggest it was capable of producing everything.... They wrote it is capable of "producing everything from simple delay effects to pure sonic decimation." which seems pretty spot on when considering the inclusion of their "glorified bit crusher" Redux.

Anyway... I've been reading the thread and I honestly don't see what got you so worked up. They've been responsive and receptive to many of the posts both positive and negative.

I do like the idea of adding assignable LFO's and I do like the placement on the Feedback tab, but to be honest I'm also okay using automation in my host especially if including these features increases the CPU at all. I'm more interested in seeing further CPU reductions not additions.

Post

TheoM wrote:i watched the video, i have not tried it..
oh, you watched the video ?

well why didn't you say so :roll:

Post

TheoM wrote:
Daags wrote:
TheoM wrote:hi, this is actually the most comprehensive overall delay plugin I have ever seen.. it looks like it could be first choice for anything delay wise.

One question : can it also do distorted feedback like the logic tape delay? I often use that for build ups rather than a snare roll or other method...

I'm not sure why you'd need to ask that question if it's the most comprehensive overall delay plugin you have ever seen. Making those types of statements, you should be able to answer your own question.

i watched the video, i have not tried it.. the things it can do, IMO make it's feature set outstanding.

But that one thing is the *only* thing that I didn't see that I would personally want. Ok, so let me rephrase, it is the most comprehensive delay plugin I have ever seen except for one possible missing feature that is important to me, can someone clarify whether it can do saturated high intensity distorted feedbacks?

better sire?

and if it CAN do that, I will probably get this to be my one and only delay for daws other than logic.

I have no idea why people spend their time correcting someone's posting and throwing it back at them rather than actually helping with the question asked and providing any valuable insight at all. That one has perplexed me for, well, ever.
To each their own, whatever floats your boat. Muted.
Hey Theo if you want... send me a PM with an example, or if something is online send me a link to an example and I'll see if I can reproduce. I have Logic 9, so is it safe to assume that the Tape Delay remained the same in Logic X?

Post

elxsound wrote:@Daags,

I'm not against having LFO's added... I would welcome it, but your examples about the marketing blurb only make sense if one only read the bolded text... BUT if you keep reading, they specify things as opposed leaving them open ended.

They didn't suggest it was capable of producing everything.... They wrote it is capable of "producing everything from simple delay effects to pure sonic decimation." which seems pretty spot on when considering the inclusion of their "glorified bit crusher" Redux.

Anyway... I've been reading the thread and I honestly don't see what got you so worked up. They've been responsive and receptive to many of the posts both positive and negative.

I do like the idea of adding assignable LFO's and I do like the placement on the Feedback tab, but to be honest I'm also okay using automation in my host especially if including these features increases the CPU at all. I'm more interested in seeing further CPU reductions not additions.
No... the examples make sense if you read the whole text without any emphasis whatsoever. I added emphasis simply to...well...emphasise the point. I get that they deliver on some of the rest of the marketing blurb - and that the glorified bitcrusher fills that criteria, you seem to misunderstand my comments on that. I have no issue with the bitcrusher - I just find the priorities kind of arse-over-tits when you throw that much cpu cycle at a fairly niche FX, and then more-or-less completely overlook the inclusion of rudimentary modulation for a modest 7 extra parameters which would yield far more musical and rhythmic results and thus deliver on the most explicitly stated and implied promises in the advertising blurb.

I could have just cherry picked snippets and quotes, but I didn't... so let's not nit-pick on what's bold and what isn't and yadda yadda - I think my point is fairly clear. Well, I thought it was anyway.

As for being 'worked up'... I'm not. I'm not blowing smoke up oristan's ass, sure, but I'm arguing my case here that they should include rudimentary lfo's and the official rebuttal's have been lacking IMO. ... design nightmare ? bloat ? puh-lease. look at the GUI adjustments I mocked up and tell me if that's a nightmare or bloat... and consider the musical and rhythmic and <insert advertising buzzword here> benefits gained for such minor additions.


and btw, your CPU concerns are noted... but you do realise, you most likely need to use these features in order to pay for them in CPU - yes ?

Post

Daags wrote:
elxsound wrote:@Daags,

I'm not against having LFO's added... I would welcome it, but your examples about the marketing blurb only make sense if one only read the bolded text... BUT if you keep reading, they specify things as opposed leaving them open ended.

They didn't suggest it was capable of producing everything.... They wrote it is capable of "producing everything from simple delay effects to pure sonic decimation." which seems pretty spot on when considering the inclusion of their "glorified bit crusher" Redux.

Anyway... I've been reading the thread and I honestly don't see what got you so worked up. They've been responsive and receptive to many of the posts both positive and negative.

I do like the idea of adding assignable LFO's and I do like the placement on the Feedback tab, but to be honest I'm also okay using automation in my host especially if including these features increases the CPU at all. I'm more interested in seeing further CPU reductions not additions.
No... the examples make sense if you read the whole text without any emphasis whatsoever. I added emphasis simply to...well...emphasise the point. I get that they deliver on some of the rest of the marketing blurb - and that the glorified bitcrusher fills that criteria, you seem to misunderstand my comments on that. I have no issue with the bitcrusher - I just find the priorities kind of arse-over-tits when you throw that much cpu cycle at a fairly niche FX, and then more-or-less completely overlook the inclusion of rudimentary modulation for a modest 7 extra parameters which would yield far more musical and rhythmic results and thus deliver on the most explicitly stated and implied promises in the advertising blurb.

I could have just cherry picked snippets and quotes, but I didn't... so let's not nit-pick on what's bold and what isn't and yadda yadda - I think my point is fairly clear. Well, I thought it was anyway.

As for being 'worked up'... I'm not. I'm not blowing smoke up oristan's ass, sure, but I'm arguing my case here that they should include rudimentary lfo's and the official rebuttal's have been lacking IMO. ... design nightmare ? bloat ? puh-lease. look at the GUI adjustments I mocked up and tell me if that's a nightmare or bloat... and consider the musical and rhythmic and <insert advertising buzzword here> benefits gained for such minor additions.
My take was that it added nothing and it did nothing for the sake of clarity.

So what if he doesn't see the benefit of what you think should be included the very first time you suggest it. So what if he thinks it is bloat...

Your images demonstrate that it doesn't have to be. IMO f**k the marketing spiel... it's a moot point. The only point that matters is that 1, it can be done without creating bloat and 2. it could be beneficial to the user. Sometimes you have to explain or demonstrate to convince them that it is worth it. I see nothing wrong with that.


OH... and by the way... Buried deep in this thread somewhere is a comment about how Redux was not meant for Relayer, but it was eventually included later on. So that might help understand the inclusion of the niche effect, which I agree is a niche effect, but I think it was probably thought of as a bonus inclusion as opposed to a central factor in Relayer's function.

The marketing stuff who cares... Chances are that the coders don't even play a part in the marketing, but maybe they have a marketing team or outsource it to a firm. Who knows and who care. You can't honestly tell me that after the way you broke apart the spiel any of it actually convinced you to purchase... Did it? I consider it all nonsense. I skip to the features list, watch video demos and download demos (where available).

Anyway... I hope they consider adding the LFOs (but again not at the expense of adding back in CPU when LFOs are not in use).

Post

the marketing spiel is only referenced as a justification for my insistence that they give much more consideration to adding something essential like a few more rudimentary lfos. they promise it - i say deliver it.

otherwise I could doggedly make these kind of feature requests to the developer of every other delay plugin I own ... but why would I, if that's not what they're promising or aiming to deliver ?

I'm not talking about ratting them out to Trading Standards here...

Capisce ?

I don't really care if redux was some pre-existing code that they lumped in as an altrusitic afterthought (assuming you're right about that). If I did care I might use it to further prove the point that their priorities are arse-over-tits if they're chucking stuff like that in, in the fashion you describe, and neglecting core essentials like rudimentary modulation.

Post

elxsound wrote: Hey Theo if you want... send me a PM with an example, or if something is online send me a link to an example and I'll see if I can reproduce. I have Logic 9, so is it safe to assume that the Tape Delay remained the same in Logic X?
hey yes it's identical.. I can send you an example, but really, all you need to do is load logic, insert tape delay on any audio track and drive the feedback knob without touching anything else.

You will hear it get intense with distortion.. what i usually do is automate it for a second to drive it hard then pull it back .. it sounds awesome IMO..

Or i can send you an example.. whatever you prefer.... and, thank you :)

Post

TheoM wrote:
elxsound wrote: Hey Theo if you want... send me a PM with an example, or if something is online send me a link to an example and I'll see if I can reproduce. I have Logic 9, so is it safe to assume that the Tape Delay remained the same in Logic X?
hey yes it's identical.. I can send you an example, but really, all you need to do is load logic, insert tape delay on any audio track and drive the feedback knob without touching anything else.

You will hear it get intense with distortion.. what i usually do is automate it for a second to drive it hard then pull it back .. it sounds awesome IMO..

Or i can send you an example.. whatever you prefer.... and, thank you :)
That actually sounds lovely! I'd have to keep playing around with it to get it to match, but the short answer is not quite.

It is easier in Tape Delay because you only have to adjust the Feedback.

In Relayer, adding Waveshaper in the FX section sounds the closest to it (Biquad and Redux sound different) and I do think it's possible but at the moment (dead tired by the way), it's missing that nice buildup you get in Tape Delay, plus the quick drop when you pull back on the feedback.

It is possible to mimic it, but I think it might be a matter of automating something, or increasing the number of taps, and then drawing in your buildup there... Which might be a plus over Tape Delay depending on how you look at it.

Post

I quite like the glorified bit-crusher, I can see it getting a lot of use.

Post Reply

Return to “Effects”