Carbon vs Carbon 2

midiaxbill
midiaxbill Member Posts: 10 Member

I wondered if you have a preference and why?

Comments

  • Sunborn
    Sunborn Member Posts: 2,127 Expert

    Not much to say here. Carbon 2 of course, simply because it is newer and more advanced.

  • midiaxbill
    midiaxbill Member Posts: 10 Member

    I can't find the amp envelopes in Carbon 2, obviously it has them. Erm on a B screen I guess, though I didn't notice the tab.

    So I used the 'old' carbon, that was straight forward.

    I want poly synth sounds and Carbon seemed a good place to start. The Nyquist ceiling is causing problems on some of the reaktor stuff I thought the factory synths would have that sorted

  • Sunborn
    Sunborn Member Posts: 2,127 Expert
    edited December 2023

    You have to choose the SOURCE tab first.

    The EG1 is the Amp Envelope. :-)


  • midiaxbill
    midiaxbill Member Posts: 10 Member

    Ah, thanks.

    Any thoughts on the frequency's bouncing back of the ceiling?

    Adjusting the sample rate improves it but doesn't fix it.

  • colB
    colB Member Posts: 749 Guru

    I want poly synth sounds and Carbon seemed a good place to start. The Nyquist ceiling is causing problems on some of the reaktor stuff I thought the factory synths would have that sorted

    These are some pretty old synths :)

    Anti-aliasing costs cpu, carbon 2 is something like 18 years old. It was designed when PCs were 10 or 20 times slower than current devices. Look at the cpu meter when you play Carbon2!

    CPUs have moved on, DSP has moved on. Just use it and enjoy it for what it is. If you want a more modern experience from a Reaktor polysynth, maybe something like Super 8?... but that's $$$

  • Big Gnome
    Big Gnome Member Posts: 26 Helper

    I use and like both--apart from the name and the very broad design ethos of being subtractive workhorse polysynths, they're really very different in terms of their structure, sound, and capabilities. Carbon 2 has a somewhat more typical, modern workflow (albeit involving a very compact interface owing to the tabs you have to page through) and incorporates some niceties like simple wavetable oscs, a few more modulators, and a more comprehensive suite of FX; and as you noticed, it handles aliasing better on account of the more advanced and, for the time, fairly state-of-the art core-based antialiased oscillators. But I dig OG Carbon for what it is, as a stalwart of funky, pre-v5 weirdness, and there is a certain hipness to that. I kind of like the odd decision to have separate oscillators for Square, Saw, Sinusoid, and Noise with a different palette of "special effects" for each. Of course its architecture is strictly Primary-only, and it shows. I run Carbon at 176/192kHz to mitigate the crustiness from aliasing in the oscillators, very crampy filters & EQ, etc., and given its age, it's lightweight enough that modern CPUs can take that kind of blunt-force solution in stride (alternatively, you could embrace that as part of the "vibe"). But like colB said, these are both old, old synths and sound the part--love them as they are, or if the sound and/or operation isn't doing it for you then look elsewhere.

  • midiaxbill
    midiaxbill Member Posts: 10 Member

    I have had Reaktor for several decades, Carbon 2 still seems new.

    I've become accustomed to a roland xv, where every sound source has its own set of envelopes.

    Can you recommend anything similar in Reaktor?

Back To Top