My thought about Reaktor 5

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:17 am

Thanks to a engineer I’ve known recently, I have finally given a deep try to the so famous Reaktor 5, for about 6 continuous hours. I know this is nothing for such a BIG thing… I have gone through the huge user library.

Well… I could write a long, long review after this, but I am very tired, it’s too late. All I want to say is that Reaktor is sort of a toy to my ears. I recognise some beautiful and interesting sounds, very much appreciated to add creativity to certain kind of tracks, but on the other hand, it sounds so “plastic”.

Most of the patches I’ve tried were absolutely useless! They would play everything by themselves in whatever disordered way. Ok, it is interesting to have a couple of patches to do that, but about 250¿ Common! You know, robots and self action patches… Just like a toy.

I used to have a much higher concept abut Reaktor, particularly talking about the version 5, but after this trial, I am quite disappointed at its sound and all these silly toys. It looks like a teenager experiment to me, but not a professional sounding instrument with professional sounding patches.

I repeat, certain textures are truly inspiring and nice, but that’s it. When you tweak LFO parameters to extremes, the sound changes violently giving the impression of an unpleasant noise, no way to compare it to the all balanced way in which our Modular II performs in extreme settings.

The possibilities are fantastic and truly open, but what do you what it for, if the sound is so plastic? There you appreciate how much better and MUSICAL Scope instruments sound. There is no point of comparison with Scope synths to me. I don’t care about how advanced it is its technology, or how many programming there is in this piece of software, or that “DJ such and such” uses it, or that there are hits recorded with it, it is a toy-like-sound what comes from it, and I cannot help it.

I think it could be a great complement IF you already have a few good hardware synths or the Scope Platform, otherwise is see it as being placed in a low priority to your music creation, if you like pure fat sounds. For me personally, it is not my cup of tea. Most Scope synths outperform Reaktor 5 despite all its power.

I would like to make an analogy:
Imagine a doctor that just comes from one of the biggest, most expensive and prestigious universities in the world, but he fears blood and feels disgust when treating with peoples’ bodies. Now imagine somebody completely given to its own job, from an average university, but with a tremendous vocation. The first doctor is Reaktor, the second, Scope, which doctor would you like to be treated with? Quite an obvious answer, isn’t it?

Conclusion:
Reaktor has some truly good and inspiring sounds, but about 90% of its library is straight, a waste of time, through hundreds of patches that sound the same and are completely unmusical. It can be a fantastic complement for those having already good synths, like all of us.

_________________
*MUSIC* The most Powerful Language in the world! *INDEED*______

[ This Message was edited by: Nestor on 2006-02-28 02:18 ]

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:33 am

They're all just tools Nestor. Some are better than others, some though not better may well be more suited for a task. If you have a favourite hammer or screwdriver, you'll inevitably go to pick that one up or look for it before using one that's just sitting there.

One thing I would say is that it's not about Scope vs Rest of world as you seem to mention frequently. Scope's one of, if not THE sharpest tool in the box, but I don't see the point in constantly comparing it to competition .. as there is no competition

huffcw · Post by **huffcw** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:27 am

A more worthwhile comparison is the entire line of Applied Acoustic Systems VST instruments (e.g., Tassman Modular, StringStudio, LoungeLizard). They are absolutely excellent as far as sound and playability. They feel like true instruments to me. Although, they do hit your CPU hard.

Lima · Post by **Lima** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:50 am

Just last week I've got the possibility to read some parts of its manual. I was very impressed by the BIG possibility given by the "core" feature. For the one who don't know what's that thing, imagine the possibility of editing the modules in a very deep way. Something like working with the most powerful lens.

When last saturday I've met the friend who borrowed me the manual we have talked a lot and the conclusion was this:
It gives so much possibilities that's necessary to be a technician to take the best from it and to make some interesting patches.
Technicans, not musicians!
This because a musician plays and a techincian makes the instruments. It's a question of skill involved and maybe also a question of brain.
Musicians usually are irrational, emotional and colorfull.
Techs are rational, logical and most of them gray...

Two totally different kind of creative skill.
there are also some genius, who can take the best of both the world, but they are so few that can't beconsidered...

I've not tested it deeply, but if you have got that impression, maybe the reason is in the people who have build that patches: techs which were more focused on the tech features than the other aspects.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:27 am

On 2006-02-28 02:33, Shroomz wrote:
They're all just tools Nestor. Some are better than others, some though not better may well be more suited for a task. If you have a favourite hammer or screwdriver, you'll inevitably go to pick that one up or look for it before using one that's just sitting there.

One thing I would say is that it's not about Scope vs Rest of world as you seem to mention frequently. Scope's one of, if not THE sharpest tool in the box, but I don't see the point in constantly comparing it to competition .. as there is no competition

I am 100% with you

The only think I have to say is that I am not against Reaktor or any other tool.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:31 am

if you have got that impression, maybe the reason is in the people who have build that patches: techs which were more focused on the tech features than the other aspects.

I think you are right, those patches do an impression onto the whole, for sure

fra77x · Post by **fra77x** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:56 am

I know reactor since generator... The sound is "bad". If you make a patch completely with "audio" signals, lfo's etc then you get better sound. I often use it for parts that get a lot of fx in scope so the sound engine becomes unrecognisable. There is lot of things that are unique in reaktor like the sampler modules but after a while you 'll notice that the sound lucks some guts. With clever use however there are wonderfull soundscapes in there.
Lately i started to create some modules like the ones in our modular so to connect them easily. The problem is that there is no lucky spot in there. More time you try to make a sound good by hidding some bad elements than admire the synths capabilities...

petal · Post by **petal** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:42 pm

I havn't worked much with Reaktor, but I can't help but thinking that your views on Reaktor comes from a rather conservative muscial standpoint, and that your opinion about Reaktor may very well be true when looked upon from that perspective.

My interest has come from a diffenret direction and I have just recently realized that Creamware has more focus on traditional good sound and musicality than I was actually seeking when i bought my first CW Card, something I have grown to value´a lot! - Still, in my opinion, Creamware lacks on the experimental aspects of making modern electronic music, which has forced me to look elsewhere to find extreme new ways of creating sounds. Reaktor is one of these places, Max/MSP and Pure Data are other places to look.

The reason why these tools/programs/instruments (call them what you want) are very good at what I'm looking for, is because they a capable of doing what is not traditionally accepted as being musical.

To me these programs are about pushing the envelope of what is possible, and not about which program can produce the fattest synthsound you've ever heard - This area has already been covered by a number of other products, fx our beloved Scope platform.

As has already been mentioned in this thread - The trick is to know which tool is the right tool for the job

Kymeia · Post by **Kymeia** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:15 pm

I love Reaktor - some of the newer patches like gaugear are just outstanding both musically and in terms of innovation. The user library is bound to be very mixed - many people contributing to it are relative newbies who are trying out making ensembles and seeking feedback - that's how it goes. But amongst those there are some well established designers who create truly innovative instruments - like Rick Scott (Rachmeil), Lazyfish, Programchild and Phil Durant. And the ensembles that come with Reaktor 5 like Kaleidon are also wonderful - I don't think the sound is as good as Creamware's modular but it's not bad at all and some of the ensembles sound great imho, especially if you up the samplerate, and with the new core technology it has improved a lot (as this is based on technology from SynC Modular by Dr Sync which had a better sound than Reaktor but has now been "merged" with it).

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:20 pm

Very interesting viewpoints you guys. It’s true, I was looking at this super-synth with a rather traditional musical eye, I would say, in terms of “useful” composer-arranger sounds.

No doubt, Reaktor is far away in terms of experimentation, compared to any other platform.

Post by **hubird** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:25 pm

a friend of mine, making mid tempo breakbeat grooves, created a life performance completely in Reactor together with the Behringer BRC controller.
Very impressive, what he showed me.
I'm gonne check Reactor soon, I bet it's nice, sorry Nestor

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2006-02-28 19:26 ]

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:03 pm

Sorry?

No, don't misunderstand me. I whish I had it.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:23 pm

On 2006-02-28 12:42, petal wrote:
..., but I can't help but thinking that your views on Reaktor comes from a rather conservative muscial standpoint, ...

this is only one part of the story, as the Reaktor sound engine HAS a very specific sound.
It is kind of thin, there's a lot missing from the spectrum , but exactly that makes it a good complement to Scope - as can be heard in many of Chris Werner's space-textures

The range of control within a single device is (unquestionable) deeper in Reaktor, yet I don't think that Scope lacks anything in the context of strange, wild and wierd stuff.

I don't find it complicated to send and receive via ASIO to (say) a granular app (CrusherX-Live) to process a guitar that comes in on the A16.
The 'granulated' signal could be passed to Vorb that's driven by a miditrack from the DX200 groovebox - the thing can be pretty strange without it's preset sounds...

it's very convenient that the original signal is available at any stage of the process - this way one can have either the complete madness or a crazy fx, whatever applies.

nevertheless Reaktor has it's merits, among which is that it was my start into software modular synths - and one of the <a href=http://www.native-instruments.com/uploa ... rectors</a> wears the very same model of glasses as me, which happens to be a Danish brand

cheers, tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-02-28 20:30 ]

Post by **hubird** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:29 pm

if you can call an almost unvisible model a brand... unless that is exactly the merits:-D

ChrisWerner · Post by **ChrisWerner** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 1:11 am

Hm, I see all this plugs, effects, tools, vst, dx, as tools only too. The scope enviroment learnt me to see the way of the computer aided music process in an overall modular way.

To stay in this modular view, Reaktor is simply another oscillator for me.
I agree that it has a not so warm sound, I like to say it sounds precise, sharp.
But with a combination of effects you can turn them into something warm, if you like.

So, I don´t really care the "main" sound of a plug in, either sometimes I use really bad sounding "amateur" vst instruments, because I maybe like the gui, or the way you can program a sound with it. How it sounds later in the track is another story.

Think modular is the key. A bit of this a bit of that, how can things come together, that´s why I like computer aided music so much.

Reaktor opens a new world for me, it is unbeaten in creating your own instruments GUI for example. That´s a real lack of scope modulars. Also to be able to use copy and paste for whole macros or just two lfos to duplicate them.
The biggest improvement that Reaktor brought me was the "fusion" of graphical elements and sound. I like to draw my sound, or to see what it does.

We have lots of tools that sound analog or warm, I am happy that Reaktor doesn´t went into another VA stuff, but it can.
Have a look on the Equinox Deluxe ensemble that comes with Reaktor 5.1. A good warm emulation of the flanged pad stuff in the Equinox track from J.M.J.

[ This Message was edited by: ChrisWerner on 2006-03-01 01:16 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 1:16 am

it's in the <a href=http://www.drallanpanzer.com/at_catalog ... details</a>, Huub

a Lindberg Air Titanium - here's some <a href=http://www.acomaoptical.com/air.htm>history</a>

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-03-01 01:21 ]

Post by **hubird** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:29 am

I could have known it

Interesting, however I just stepped over to multifocale lenses, no glasses needed (but it still is a compromise).
sorry for hijacking

johnbowen · Post by **johnbowen** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:47 am

To me, it's simply whether the tool works for you or not. I find Reaktor not very satisfying to my ears, so I don't use it...it's like, say the sound you want is a Les Paul guitar, so you don't use a Telecaster, but certainly the Tele has its own sound, which many others like and use as well.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:46 pm

On 2006-03-01 09:47, johnbowen wrote:
To me, it's simply whether the tool works for you or not. I find Reaktor not very satisfying to my ears, so I don't use it...it's like, say the sound you want is a Les Paul guitar, so you don't use a Telecaster, but certainly the Tele has its own sound, which many others like and use as well.

John, your words describe pretty well which my impression with Reaktor was. BTW, I prefer a Les Paul!

***

What Chris says about transforming the sound with plugins is certainly a valid possibility to get what you want, particularly if you compose atmospheric music. But I like the "pure characteristic" of sound coming from a particular device “meanwhile” you express your emotions. A mean, as a Fusion musician (mainly) I like things in “real time”, so to have the drive to play and improvise, I can’t wait for the processing to come later.

It is quite difficult anyway, to change this "exclusive" sound behind a plug like Reaktor I think. If you do it too much with the processing in wav, well, it is no longer Reaktor what you truly like, it is rather what you are capable of doing through editing.

_________________
*MUSIC* The most Powerful Language in the world! *INDEED*______

[ This Message was edited by: Nestor on 2006-03-01 12:47 ]

Kymeia · Post by **Kymeia** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 1:56 pm

I'd say though that Reaktor's sound has improved a lot with version 5's core technology. If you think it sounds thin listen again to some of the newer ens from version 5 made with Core technology. Up till then I'd agree it had a sound of it's own but with the new tech it's possible for people to create their own oscillator and filter models and not rely on the built in ones - we will see a new world of sound emerging as this takes off. Also, as I said, the introduction of technology from SyncC Modular has, to my ears, beefed up the sound as well. It is not the same as previous versions sonically.