Buy Synthmaker now or later?

nix · 21 Oct 2010

Well, There are SynthEdit ,Max/MSP and Reaktor I guess if you're in to hooking up links. Maybe the peeps can give some more suggestions. I'm an SM addict really though, if you need a little help I can try =)) It seems though that the new product flowstone is going to be developed, to lesser SM developments. Which kinda sucks if you love audio. The FlowStone is about twice as much, but I will throw my lot in there in the hope of continuance. Personally I think SM is a remarkable piece of technology and worth every penny, but yeah, like I say the future looks like hardware interfacing. Whatever you decide, hope you get a kick out of the audio! PS- The gui is only wireless if you want it to be. Just hook your links! This is only problematic when you have more than 128 ins or outs

trogluddite · 21 Oct 2010

Though I too am a huge SynthMaker fan, I would say that you have to decide if SM is worth spending your money on as it is now. As Nix says, FlowStone seems to be the company's main development effort now - and upgrades too SM have been very slow and very minor for at least two years now. I have no crystal ball - maybe super duper SM2 will be released tomorrow, but I very much doubt it. Gambling your money on big SM improvements would be foolish, I feel.

I would suggest using the FL/ReWire workaround for a while, and getting a proper feel for SM by building a couple of reasonable sized projects. Once you have done that, you will have a better idea whether the software offers you the features and the value-for-money that justifies buying the VSTi enabled version.

infuzion · 22 Oct 2010

Xan wrote: To start with, Synthmaker still feels a bit like a work in progress.

That has been one of my biggest gripes; SM has been 1.x for years, & only the last version seems to be stable. Still missing important feature IMHO.

You can use FlowStone, which is SM+ more modules, & export to VST on a per-project basis one at a time for a small charge.

Dell · 22 Oct 2010

Hi.

I would imagine purchasing Synthmaker depends on what you are aiming for.

There are some developers who purchased Synthmaker solely for marketing purposes and others for personal use. I never planned on selling my designs so I have no issues with Synthmaker. I’ve offered a few designs free, which is miniscule to the hundreds of designs I’ve created less than a year for personal use.

There was a time I assumed CPU consumption was Synthmaker’s pitfall. However, comparing my designs to other developers selling VSTs created on C++ structure, I realise I was mistaken.

Bear in mind, I only make effects and have no need for VSTi plug-ins.

Possibly, Synthmaker’s topology is too Analogue. This may be the reason why some have difficulty achieving their goal.

The sound is superb, and, I happy to say, I no longer use commercial plug-ins for my work. I’ve also created designs for my Sound Reinforcement System. It appears to work better in that area than the DAW market.

That may be the reason why the whole Flowstone came about. It does come across more as it it's goals is to capitalise on the hardware market.

For my short period of using Synthmaker, I’ve discovered my problems were not having a full understanding on how to implement my ideas within the Sythmaker structure.

Logically, it makes sense to pursue Flowstone providing you will take advantage on what it can offer. If you are having difficulty grasping the stock modules in Synthmaker, it may be best to familiarise yourself with Synthmaker before moving to wards Flowstone.

Cheers!

FreeRideSkier · 22 Oct 2010

FYI There is a new version comming out! I would get in quick!

See:

[old link]

Tzarls · 22 Oct 2010

I´d tell him to wait until the next update is out. That way, he´ll save 20 pounds! 😀

infuzion · 22 Oct 2010

Dell wrote: There was a time I assumed CPU consumption was Synthmaker’s pitfall. However, comparing my designs to other developers selling VSTs created on C++ structure, I realise I was mistaken.

Logically, it makes sense to pursue Flowstone providing you will take advantage on what it can offer. If you are having difficulty grasping the stock modules in Synthmaker, it may be best to familiarise yourself with Synthmaker before moving to wards Flowstone.

SM can be very efficient if you hand-roll your audio code into ASM. SM does eat a bit more CPU for some GUI elements, but can be worked around also if you're careful.

Flowstone has a free version which allows one to make smaller OSMs. But he has FL-SM already, so that's covered.

Dell · 23 Oct 2010

infuzion wrote: Dell wrote: There was a time I assumed CPU consumption was Synthmaker’s pitfall. However, comparing my designs to other developers selling VSTs created on C++ structure, I realise I was mistaken.

Logically, it makes sense to pursue Flowstone providing you will take advantage on what it can offer. If you are having difficulty grasping the stock modules in Synthmaker, it may be best to familiarise yourself with Synthmaker before moving to wards Flowstone.

SM can be very efficient if you hand-roll your audio code into ASM. SM does eat a bit more CPU for some GUI elements, but can be worked around also if you're careful.

Flowstone has a free version which allows one to make smaller OSMs. But he has FL-SM already, so that's covered.

I've noticed some commercial developers are not creating CPU efficient plug-ins any longer. A lot of it stems from the GUI display and, or in their own words, needed to achieve a better sound. Possibly I am not working with the music they are focusing on for I cannot hear how better a high CPU plug-in sounds compared to other commercial plug-ins that consume less consumption.

If I remember correctly, Flowstone free offers a module limit upon creating a vst. I actually like the feature for it makes your work more tidy from an efficiency perspective.

Cheers!