Features we wish Reaktor had.

Studiowaves
Studiowaves Member Posts: 701 Pro

I think the only thing I find cumbersome is the lack of ease for storing a snapshot. Although it works fine but I wish I could simply click a button to save a preset, give it a name and a choice of categories. Can't think of anything else right now.

«1

Comments

  • colB
    colB Member Posts: 1,035 Guru

    Snapshots and Presets are different things.

    There are instrument level and Ensemble level snapshots, sometimes instruments are embedded.

    How can you differentiate with just a simple 'click a button to save snapshot'?

  • Studiowaves
    Studiowaves Member Posts: 701 Pro

    I guess something as simple as saving a snapshot with the instrument under a category of some time. Categories like Effects, Drums, Bass, Horns , song names and what not. So when you press Load, you can choose a category and get a drop down list of things you saved there. So in effect it can load up a whole different ensemble with a particular patch. Sort of a favorites type of thing.

  • colB
    colB Member Posts: 1,035 Guru

    Presets already do that. A preset loads the ensemble it was created with, You can organise your presets however you like. You can create folders base don categories. Just use your OS file system. Very easy.

  • Studiowaves
    Studiowaves Member Posts: 701 Pro
    edited February 20

    I wish Reaktor would save the midi controller assignment for a knob within each snap. I think once it's set it never changes regardless of what patch you use. Am I wrong?

  • Chet Singer
    Chet Singer Member Posts: 75 Advisor

    I wish there were a convolution module in primary, where you could load files to simulate rooms, cabinets, and all kinds of other things. The lack of convolution in Reaktor has always been a head-scratcher for me. It's an amazing synthesis tool, and NI's clearly good at doing it. But for some reason it never came.

  • Studiowaves
    Studiowaves Member Posts: 701 Pro

    Yeah, that would be nice. Colin made one a while back, It's very cpu intensive though but can't be avoided most likely. It's in the UL somewhere. Maybe they never did that because they thought it would be to CPU intensive back in the day with slow computers.

  • Michael O'Hagan
    Michael O'Hagan Member Posts: 110 Helper

    I want iteration and voice handling inside of core.

  • Studiowaves
    Studiowaves Member Posts: 701 Pro

    I wish the dial on the mouse could increment or decrement panel knobs.

  • dreason85
    dreason85 Member Posts: 64 Member

    Actually, I think if Reaktor can add Sine Bank module and Modal Bank module, why doesn't it add a module about FFT?

  • Studiowaves
    Studiowaves Member Posts: 701 Pro

    I thought they did, Easy FFT or something. Not sure though

  • Studiowaves
    Studiowaves Member Posts: 701 Pro

    I remember others wishing for latency reporting. I never did get that because I've never had a problem with delays. Point is, for real time effects, if there is latency then how can it work in real time even if there is a delay. With that being said, latency must only be a problem in non real time applications.

  • dreason85
    dreason85 Member Posts: 64 Member

    What I mean is the Primary Level module, not the Core Level module.

  • colB
    colB Member Posts: 1,035 Guru

    Iteration in core is the biggest long term missing feature. It would be the basis for various other powerful missing mechanisms, particularly relating to code reuse.

    Limited voice handling is already possible. You just import the voice ids from primary, and roll your own.

    Voice manipulation isn't possible. You can't swap voices, or access values from one in the process of another, but I think that's impractical given the Primary -> Core hierarchy. Core can't really change any Primary level constructs. I think allowing that would be too costly in cpu terms.

    It's optimised for passing events and audio events between the two layers, and even that bears enough of a cost to make it something we try to minimise.

  • Studiowaves
    Studiowaves Member Posts: 701 Pro

    Well, I know the core level modules can interface with primary. What would you do with FFT?

  • colB
    colB Member Posts: 1,035 Guru

    What would you do with FFT?

    Exactly!

    Fft on its own isn't particularly useful. It's a building block, and applying it successfully almost always requires some advanced DSP.

    The complexity of suporting code needed makes core a much better fit in terms of maintainability, and cpu efficiency.

    It would make much more sense for Primary level to have specific fft based processes like convolution, or phase vocoding (even that is more of a building block though). But we know that new stand alone Primary modules were not a thing even years ago when other updates were still happening. The new factory components in the last big update - oscillaters, filters, granular etc. - were all built as core cells. There were no monolithic high level Primary modules. Primary has been legacy for a very long time.

Back To Top