8 Oct
2003
8 Oct
'03
2:33 p.m.
I think the strength of Reaktor is the resources in that central
program. Right now in Linux we have Pd which is probably the closet to
it and a bunch of synths that are seperate and different from each
other. It seems we need a similar program in terms of functionality.
Ams is probably close, but its not multi-timbral, multi-channel, or is
it. Like it or not, Reaktor works but I wouldn't go back into that big
money arena again if you gave me the money!
Ken
Clients do give you the money. Do 10 minutes of music for a TV show or a
commercial or whatever and you'll easily earn the $200 required to pay for
the tool on your first job.
That said, I know very little about Pd, but would like to learn. Looking at
the Noize Farm site I see that there is a lot of stuff there for Pd, so I
should probably spend some time with it. (And I will!)
I really think the Reaktor vs. Reaktor Session products was a very smart
move by NI. They know their customers. Some, most probably early adopters
with ideas like yours above, want Reaktor because they want to get in and
get messy. On the other hand, there are a lot of people out here that don't
care about that at all. We just want to turn the box/program on, use it for
what it is, and make some music. I'll tweak a knob here or there, but I
don't have the patience to sit and look at all of NI's little knobs and
fonts. I'd go either nuts or blind very quickly.
However, underlying both products is the same engine. In Reaktor Session I
cannot make new instruments, but I can use any instrument built in Reaktor.
It's a great solution for me.
I see no reason at all that Pd couldn't do the same thing...
BTW - This isn't a software only view for me. I played a DX-7 for a couple
of years (still have it in my garage after 20 years) and I never programmed
a single patch. I just used it as a tool.
- Mark