Native Instruments Massive X Synth - Sequel to Massive (Out Now!)

[Winstontaneous]

No, there's no uninstallers on Mac by definition, to my knowledge. It's not about not being bothered to write one. The system works differently to Windows. So 3rd party "uninstaller" programs exist for Mac as a sort of a "countermeasure".

Huh? Lexicon, AAS, Bias, PSP and Exponential Audio plugins have Mac uninstallers off the top of my head, and I've seen more from other plugin vendors. I wish Tone2 had them because their installers seriously sh!t all over the Mac Audio Plugins folder!

Without uninstallers there can are often multiple useless files littered throughout Mac user/system Library and Documents folders, among other locations.

Back OT, interested in seeing how Massive X sounds, but not in a big hurry to upgrade from K10 Ultimate.

[aMUSEd]

I wish Tone2 had them because their installers seriously sh!t all over the Mac Audio Plugins folder!

A company whose installers shit all over the Mac filesystem doesn't understand that filesystem, they would be the last people I would trust with creating an uninstaller, might end up with uninstalling the whole VST folder or something (since that's where most of those files are placed).

[v1o]

Here is a nice shot from StoreDJ's site in Australia. I didn't see it here:

https://www.storedj.com.au/images/Produ ... GU12_2.jpg

I’m disappointed it doesn’t have layers.

Anyone see a wavetable editor?

[chk071]

There are some more pictures available here: https://www.native-instruments.com/de/p ... massive-x/

[BONES]

I don't need 100+ instances but I sometimes wonder about this cpu usage thing.
I see people complaining about cpu usage and then invest tons of time to circumvent it via software solutions (looking for vst, presets, whatever that don't require much cpu)
Why not invest less time to work for a good cpu/motherboard/memory?

Hmmm... Let's see, $1500 for a computer upgrade or a really good, efficient VSTi that costs the same as another less efficient one.. Which is going to win out there?

Now, i've always had a good computer and always worked with applications (Photoshop, ...) that require a lot of power.

What does Photoshop require a lot of power for? A lot of memory, yes, half-decent graphics, sure, but CPU is largely irrelevant to what you use it for. After all, I first started using Photoshop on a DX2-66. Sure, if I wanted to apply a gaussian blur to a 2k image, I could go and make coffee while I waited but that's just about time, it still got there in the end. Today I notice zero difference in processing time between my 8-core dual-Xeon at work and my dual-core Core i5 laptop at home.

Still I rather save up for a good compu which you can use for music, photography, and so much more than losing ( imo so much more) time trying to solve a hardware issue in software.
Just saying...

I use me Core i5 for all the same things I use my workstation for at the office and it handles it all fine. That doesn't mean I am going to just throw shit at it until it chokes. Efficiency is something I appreciate for its own sake, rather than a defining need for my set-up.

That said, the thing I notice with Reaktor is that you can add multiple instances and CPU use only increases incrementally. e.g. First instance of TRK-01 uses 10-15% but three instances only use about 20% between them so I don't worry about how many instances I have open.

I cannot imagine a much more worse preset browser as clicking trough Reaktor

That is pretty much why I never use Reaktor (have had it for years) and if Massive X had been a Reaktor synth I would have no interest.

It has become clear over time that I am just never gonna use Reaktor. I may as well uninstall it. I would have already except Native Access is too crappy to have a simple uninstall option.

Seriously? You really need to try out NI's free TRK-01 Play Bass synth, it will change your mind about using Reaktor. I don't know what it's like loading a normal ensemble but TRK-01 is literally just that one extra click, after which it's no different to using any normal VSTi. Presets are organised into categories and it's easy to work through them.

[BONES]

I thought you just disliked the Minmoog filters? Doesn't mean that they're objectively terrible.

Of course they are objectively terrible - nobody can argue that when you turn the resonance up, the bottom end drops out of the sound. That's not supposed to happen and is, therefore, objectively terrible filter design/implementation.

True, because the 101 is the worst, right? Riiight?!

No, TB303 is the worst sounding synth I have ever owned. Even when mine were brand new I would never have thought about using their synth engine. I only ever used them as sequencers. As one of them played my SH101, the 101 wasn't as bad but it still didn't sound anywhere near as good as my ARP Axxe or Korg Delta. Even though my first few synths were Rolands, it didn't take me long to find other brands whose products had a stronger, fuller, richer sound. Buying a Boutique JP08 a couple of years ago, a recreation of a synth I had lusted after in the 80s but couldn't afford, just confirmed to me that Roland stuff isn't as good as most other stuff out there. At best I'd call them competent - they'd get the job done if that's all you had to work with but I never found them exciting or inspiring like some of my favourite synths over the years.

Luckily no one ever tried to replicate the ladder filter after that debacle.

Are you honestly going to try and tell me that having the arse fall out of your sound as you turn up the resonance is a desirable, sought-after trait in filters? If so, you'll need to provide some pretty convincing evidence of its efficacy. Seriously, you'd have more chance of convincing me that buying a hi-fi system where the bottom end is attenuated at high volume is a good thing because at least I can understand why that might be desirable in some situations. OTOH, if you can't get the full beefy sound from those excellent Moog oscillators into a squelchy bass line, then that's a bad design, pure and simple. That so many people are too blind and/or stupid to realise that doesn't change the facts.

Stop wasting your time with bad Minimoog emus. Get a good one, and then judge again.

I am not talking about emulations, I am talking about the real, original, hardware synth. I had many opportunities to play with them in music stores in the early 1980s, because stores had trouble shifting them, and to my ears they were never that good and I have never understood why they suddenly became so revered 30 years later. Of all the synths of the late 70s/early 80s, that is one of the few I never saw anyone using on stage. To be fair, they were expensive here in Australia but so were Sequential Circuits, ARPs and Oberheims but I saw plenty of bands with those.

Except Monark is not a bad Minimoog emu. I've actually played on the actual Minimoog NI modelled while I was at NI HQ a few months ago. There's some serious oscillator bleed in it (needs some servicing apparently), but the bite and aggressiveness is exactly the same.

What "bite and aggressiveness"? It's a pussycat. If you want "bite and aggressiveness", try something from Korg - MS 20, MonoPoly or even PolySix. The oscillators aren't as good but Korg's fantastic filters more than make up for them in the aggro department. MiniMoog does big, full sound quite well but that's all down to the oscillators and the drive you get through the signal path. The filter kind of ruins all that when you start to use the resonance to try and make it scream, so you have to judicious with your settings.

My problem with Monark has nothing to do with the sound. It's simply not efficient for me to use it. Legend, it's one click to open. Monark, it's two clicks. Reaktor, THEN Monark. When I have a perfectly good alternative, there's no reason for me to go through the extra step.

It's not even down to that. When I first got my Komplete bundle and tried Monark out, it was after having played around with Legend for weeks and it just doesn't sound nearly as good. It may be a more faithful recreation but that means less than nothing to me.

[SJ_Digriz]

nobody can argue that when you turn the resonance up, the bottom end drops out of the sound.

This is correct

That's not supposed to happen and is, therefore, objectively terrible filter design/implementation.

this is idiotic

[BONES]

What do you mean? Do you not understand what "resonance" is supposed to do? It's not supposed to attenuate anything, it's supposed to boost the signal around the cutoff frequency. The behaviour isn't something Moog spent years perfecting, it is an unintended consequence of the filter implementation they went with and it limits where and how you can use it.

[SJ_Digriz]

What do you mean? Do you not understand what "resonance" is supposed to do? It's not supposed to attenuate anything, it's supposed to boost the signal around the cutoff frequency. The behaviour isn't something Moog spent years perfecting, it is an unintended consequence of the filter implementation they went with and it limits where and how you can use it.

no, a filter is supposed to behave how it is designed. The ladder function has the byproduct of bass drop. However it didn't stop the MM from being the go to bass synth forever with the f'n think fully resonant. That filter sounds amazing. It's my favorite filter ever. The OB variable state and the fixed filter probably right behind.

Here's the horrible bass drop your talking about .. I just reached over and turned the f**ker on and wanked for a few seconds. No processing, just good ol' 2 OSC's of MM filth. The reso is about 70% ... yeah no bass left and sounds like shit... or not.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4abvjqbhirf4a ... p.wav?dl=0

[SJ_Digriz]

In case it passes you by, the beauty of the bass drop is that it acts like a duck. It's one of the benefits of the design. It gets out of the way of the resonant peak. It does have a down side, but it has a lot of upsides too. i have a couple of modules that have bass compensation on the ladder, it's basically a bleed circuit. The resonance just doesn't have the bite in that mode. I've turned it off on all of them.

[PatchAdamz]

Here is a nice shot from StoreDJ's site in Australia. I didn't see it here:

https://www.storedj.com.au/images/Produ ... GU12_2.jpg

I’m disappointed it doesn’t have layers.

Anyone see a wavetable editor?

Very Nice GUI!

[jancivil]

No, there's no uninstallers on Mac by definition, to my knowledge. It's not about not being bothered to write one. The system works differently to Windows. So 3rd party "uninstaller" programs exist for Mac as a sort of a "countermeasure".

Huh? Lexicon, AAS, Bias, PSP and Exponential Audio plugins have Mac uninstallers off the top of my head, and I've seen more from other plugin vendors...

NI used to make an NI Uninstaller, though. I haven't seen it in a few years.
VSL makes one for all of their software. IKMM provides one for every known thing.
There is one for BFD2 and for BFD3. I just saw a Steinberg uninstaller for their Download Manager.
The free instruments which are bundled with the Korg NanoKontrol 2 have uninstallers, and there's a USB driver uninstaller!

Where did that "definition" come from? I have used a number of these. It's not rocket science.

[v1o]

My problem with Monark has nothing to do with the sound. It's simply not efficient for me to use it. Legend, it's one click to open. Monark, it's two clicks. Reaktor, THEN Monark. When I have a perfectly good alternative, there's no reason for me to go through the extra step.

Lazy? Yep, sure am. I'd rather spend that few seconds actually making the music.

How can two clicks make you so lazy? Can you imagine having to switch on a Minimoog,hook it up to your mixer/interface and then wait for it to warm up for another twenty minutes.

[v1o]

I'm a bit confused. Are there any Mac plugins which come with a uninstaller?

very very very few.

I usually use EasyFind to find them and remove all traces of them.

Or AppCleaner App.

but for plugins usually just going to your AU/Vst/Avid/Digidesign/Vst3 folder and dragging them into trash is sufficient.

rsp

They still leave caches, logs and preference files all over your system folders.

[v1o]

I thought you just disliked the Minmoog filters? Doesn't mean that they're objectively terrible.

Of course they are objectively terrible - nobody can argue that when you turn the resonance up, the bottom end drops out of the sound. That's not supposed to happen and is, therefore, objectively terrible filter design/implementation.

True, because the 101 is the worst, right? Riiight?!

No, TB303 is the worst sounding synth I have ever owned. Even when mine were brand new I would never have thought about using their synth engine. I only ever used them as sequencers. As one of them played my SH101, the 101 wasn't as bad but it still didn't sound anywhere near as good as my ARP Axxe or Korg Delta. Even though my first few synths were Rolands, it didn't take me long to find other brands whose products had a stronger, fuller, richer sound. Buying a Boutique JP08 a couple of years ago, a recreation of a synth I had lusted after in the 80s but couldn't afford, just confirmed to me that Roland stuff isn't as good as most other stuff out there. At best I'd call them competent - they'd get the job done if that's all you had to work with but I never found them exciting or inspiring like some of my favourite synths over the years.

Luckily no one ever tried to replicate the ladder filter after that debacle.

Are you honestly going to try and tell me that having the arse fall out of your sound as you turn up the resonance is a desirable, sought-after trait in filters? If so, you'll need to provide some pretty convincing evidence of its efficacy. Seriously, you'd have more chance of convincing me that buying a hi-fi system where the bottom end is attenuated at high volume is a good thing because at least I can understand why that might be desirable in some situations. OTOH, if you can't get the full beefy sound from those excellent Moog oscillators into a squelchy bass line, then that's a bad design, pure and simple. That so many people are too blind and/or stupid to realise that doesn't change the facts.

Stop wasting your time with bad Minimoog emus. Get a good one, and then judge again.

I am not talking about emulations, I am talking about the real, original, hardware synth. I had many opportunities to play with them in music stores in the early 1980s, because stores had trouble shifting them, and to my ears they were never that good and I have never understood why they suddenly became so revered 30 years later. Of all the synths of the late 70s/early 80s, that is one of the few I never saw anyone using on stage. To be fair, they were expensive here in Australia but so were Sequential Circuits, ARPs and Oberheims but I saw plenty of bands with those.

Except Monark is not a bad Minimoog emu. I've actually played on the actual Minimoog NI modelled while I was at NI HQ a few months ago. There's some serious oscillator bleed in it (needs some servicing apparently), but the bite and aggressiveness is exactly the same.

What "bite and aggressiveness"? It's a pussycat. If you want "bite and aggressiveness", try something from Korg - MS 20, MonoPoly or even PolySix. The oscillators aren't as good but Korg's fantastic filters more than make up for them in the aggro department. MiniMoog does big, full sound quite well but that's all down to the oscillators and the drive you get through the signal path. The filter kind of ruins all that when you start to use the resonance to try and make it scream, so you have to judicious with your settings.

My problem with Monark has nothing to do with the sound. It's simply not efficient for me to use it. Legend, it's one click to open. Monark, it's two clicks. Reaktor, THEN Monark. When I have a perfectly good alternative, there's no reason for me to go through the extra step.

It's not even down to that. When I first got my Komplete bundle and tried Monark out, it was after having played around with Legend for weeks and it just doesn't sound nearly as good. It may be a more faithful recreation but that means less than nothing to me.

The volume reduction when you turn up resonance is a feature. It’s designed not to blow up your speakers at high resonance.