They both seem like they'd be a programmer's and player's delight, but in totally different ways. Hydra seems more like designing a sound, Wavesta more like designing with sequences of sounds. The UI looks very intuitive, for such depth. Poly-aftertouch, big ribbon, knobs whose functions change with context, and with digital scribble strips so you can see what's what. But then it has options you usually only see in software: it's a modulation sensation, and the Mutators are a cool concept, and there are some unusual filter models. It starts with simpler waves than Wavestate, and uses a more traditional synthesis architecture. There are sound shaping tools, and you can make some typical sample-based patches (check out the video demos), but I'd get it for the wavesequencing.ĭoes Hydrasynth even have a sequencer? I think it has an 8-step LFO you can use to modulate wavetable position, and an arpeggiator. Each sample in a sequence can play for quite a while. And it's not just for rhythms or melodies - shaping long crossfades, you can make all sorts of endlessly evolving pads. You can layer four of these wavesequences on top of each other (each one consisting of all of its constituent lanes). You can put probabilities on any step of any lane to, for example, make it vanish for one round. You can loop each lane, in whole or in part, independently. I know there are a bunch of sequencer lanes, one for each type of information. In another lane, you sequence notes (C, D#, G etc), in yet another lane, modulations. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Then, in a separate lane from the samples, you sequence durations for each step. With Wavestate, you're sequencing samples (with a huge library of all sorts of samples) including cross fades between them or not, and rests. They're both so different from each other. Wavestate's not out yet, and Hydrasynth just barely.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |