I actually made a choice between Hive and Dune. I used and loved Antidote when Synapse blessed the Reason platform with it so it was obvious that I was going to take a look at Dune 3.
My take is this: Dune has slightly more "character", maybe a "fatter" sound while Hive has an "airy" and "pristine" sound to it (it can sound fat to, if you want tough), but it's all very subjective. I prefer Hives unison, it sounds clearer to me.
The reason i choose Hive was the fact that I was only going to use about a third off Dune. I was never going to use the wavetable editor and never use more than one off the eight layers available. Dunes filters are excellent but to me there is a lot off redundancy in the sound off the different filters. There's several iterations off the ladder topology, for example. Hive "only" has three flavors of filters but they sound distinct to one another, imo, of course.
Another reason is the modulation matrix. I vastly prefer the one in Hive.
Dune 3 vs. Hive 2
-
Breach The Sky Breach The Sky https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=427486
- KVRist
- 64 posts since 8 Oct, 2018
-
- KVRAF
- 25446 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
Yeah... I really like Dune soundwise, but the mod matrix is a pain to work with. Hive is sheer fun to design sounds in.Breach The Sky wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:33 am Another reason is the modulation matrix. I vastly prefer the one in Hive.
-
- KVRian
- 989 posts since 6 Jun, 2016 from San Marcos, Texas
So true. Broadly speaking, the best tools are about the human element, not the deep tech.Urs wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:45 am Comparisons between synthesizers are often (almost always?) feature centric. Like, "who's got more?"...
... But within the frame of Hive's limitations, people have achieved sound designs that go beyond anything anyone has ever done in Zebra when using the same choices (2 osc + 2 filters). People simply do other things in Zebra than they do in Hive ...
-
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 1646 posts since 4 Aug, 2017
Every virtual synth has strengths and weaknesses. Additional features are only important if they are used. Dune and Hive are both great synths with different design concepts. Both are valid and the results that you can get with either one are amazing!
-
- u-he
- 28065 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Absolutely!
-
- KVRian
- 989 posts since 6 Jun, 2016 from San Marcos, Texas
Right, it's about results.
This said, there is something about having features available--which you may not use at all, and are perhaps gimmicks--that feel good to have and thus lead to better results/enthusiasm ... so, yeah. Have fun with that whole world of psychological design
-
- KVRist
- 83 posts since 27 Nov, 2018
Not only that. Every virtual synth sounds different. Why can't people just look for which sound they like the most
I like the both and they can create totally different sounds. The different interfaces and different functions also lead to different sound ideas.-
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 1646 posts since 4 Aug, 2017
Yeah, it is not an "either or" equation for me. It is both and more!flocked wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:24 pmNot only that. Every virtual synth sounds different. Why can't people just look for which sound they like the most
-
- KVRAF
- 25446 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
Every new synth today sounds good. A potential new purchase has to add something I don't already have. It also has to have a workflow I enjoy. I don't find the workflow of Dune enjoyable to use. It's kinda clunky and I really don't need the layers. It's a fine synth. However, since I have already 4 wavetable synths, I'm gonna be very picky. So Dune 3 did not make the cut.flocked wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:24 pmNot only that. Every virtual synth sounds different. Why can't people just look for which sound they like the most
Hive adds the Uhm scripts, which is something unique. Plus it is so fast and easy to work with. It did make the cut.
I recently purchased a new audio computer. Maybe half of purchased VST's made it over to the new machine. The others got the axe. It is a pleasure getting rid of stuff!
-
- KVRist
- 90 posts since 6 Nov, 2017
So in terms of the sound engine, will Hive and Zebra 3 sound different? Or will Zebra 3 just do more? Currently I love the way Hive sounds. To me it has value because it produces different timbres than Zebra 2, even though Zebra 2 has greater functionality.Urs wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:45 am Comparisons between synthesizers are often (almost always?) feature centric. Like, "who's got more?" - but I think people aren't doing themselves favours if they argue that way.
While I'm sure that Zebra3 will be a superset of Hive in terms of features, it's the workflow which is different. Hive does what Zebra strives to accomplish (everything you need visible at once) at the expense of choice. But within the frame of Hive's limitations, people have achieved sound designs that go beyond anything anyone has ever done in Zebra when using the same choices (2 osc + 2 filters). People simply do other things in Zebra than they do in Hive. I believe that difference will increase even once both reach a new major version.
-
- u-he
- 28065 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
I don't think it'll be possible to create exactly the same sound within both. We're not reusing Hive's filters and envelopes in Zebra 3, we're not even going to reuse the oscillator code directly.
-
- KVRian
- 899 posts since 22 Nov, 2017
Hi. I totally can underwrite that. And what I have seen and heard from Hive2 yet this thing will not only be sounding excellent it will have fantastic sound mangling modulation options. And yes. The wavetables in version 1.2 are already very good and not sounding like hand drawn generic stuff. As a lover of the WALDORF wavetables and synths I feel a great potential coming with HIVE2 and I do think now that less is in fact more concentrating on the concept of HIVE in general. What I have seen one should state too that this "less" is very complex and nevertheless relatively easy to use and that's a great plus for me. A thing I had to learn and I had my starting problems with HIVE. But as it is inn the actual and the coming state this little interesting beast has convinced me with its quality and handling comfort. I am looking forward for version 2Urs wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:59 pm That said, I just skimmed through the Dune manual. It's a very different approach than Hive, rather similar to "Serum with layers".
Ok, I do not know Dune 3, but I sense that Hive will be seen as a lesser synth, as some already see it as a lesser synth than, say, Serum or Spire. Or whatever Arturia is gonna release.
Let me elaborate the point we're making with Hive:
I have always had the opinion that developers always tried to break into Sylenth' territory by adding "more". Hive came about because we figured that "less is more". We radically reduced the parameter set in comparison to Sylenth, and yet we got a more versatile and more accessible synth. It is furthermore my opinion that the success of Serum has similar reasons as Sylenth. It's the no frills, mostly tab free environment and a very balanced feature set. Again, Hive 2 might just prove that "less is more". It's for an audience which doesn't want to get lost in drawing wavetables which end up all sounding the same...
... because, as I said a few times, "visual wavetable editor" is a promise never kept. Good wavetables with nice harmonic sweeps never come from someone drawing 100+ frames with a mouse*. It's an illusion. What's more important are the algorithms which a) analyse sample content, b) create transitions between key waveforms or c) are formula based.
Now, I have yet to come across anything other than Alchemy which masters a). Wavetables extracted from samples are almost always just some "grainy bad samples" - they can be useful, but they're not exactly the pinnacle of synthesis. With Hive, we have however gotten a damn stronghold in b) and c). I doubt that anyone else has as good interpolation and morphing algorithms as we do, and I don't know of any synth which has an as comprehensive formula parser as we do. Not everathing has been revealed until today, but it will be for Hive 2. Hive 1.2 will be a nice step in that direction, coming out next week.
Now, if we can agree (your opinion my vary) that wavetable drawing is a mere gimmick (since, all you do is get lost and not much comes out of it), where does that leave the majority of wavetable aficionados? The most important thing is getting wavetable content from somewhere else, from the few people who master this stuff. And that's where all wavetable synths suddenly are all in the same boat. The strongest synth is the one which loads the most formats and has the best formula parser.
If only people weren't so easily drawn to illusions
- U
*hence the 16 wavetable boundary in Zebra with spline-based morphing. It's a manageable number and it's easy to make good harmonic sweeps. Plus, as of recently you can export them for Hive and Serum.
Wish you all the joy for further coding and development as well as an adequate appreciation of many possible new users. Cheers.
-
- u-he
- 28065 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
-
- u-he
- 28065 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
(and everything in here was related to Hive 1.2... we didn't even have the final design of Hive 2.0...)
-
- KVRian
- 899 posts since 22 Nov, 2017
Hehe. I can imagine that. I get a sense
Yes. All was related to the than upcoming 1.2 version
I would have loved to see 2 more LFOs ... But the 4 new mod generator engines will perfectly satisfy my needs. And due to the lack of LFOs generally (only one in Tängelström) I started to fiddle more with the automation in Cubase... great stuff possible with your tools.
Keep up the great vision and the cool innovative ideas AND the awesome sound quality. Cheers
