Reaktor

H

highkoo

New member
anyone in here usin metaphysical function a lot....?


i cant seem to find too many people that really use it...


im usin it a lot, id like to talk to others and see how they use it....







peace.
 
The Program Is Nuts... You can't even get a sound on that thing even if your life depended on it.LOL I used the demo I think I posted on here about reaktor cause I didn't know anyone who used it. Guess no one really uses it then. I'm Sticking with reason and FL Studio
 
reactor will take you a good year (5 if you are a complete modular freak and want to learn it inside out)or so to learn really well if you are unfamiliar will modular synths- but of course it goes beyond all that... can't get a sound out of it???!!! Spend some real time with it and you won't be able to put it down!!! Learn some math too while your at it, you'll need it! The program is used by rediculous amounts of people and producers... its not a programm for the spoonfed faint of heart do it all in one program users, all though I have definetly made a couple of songs in reactor alone. Just spen some time with it, you won't be sorry once you get results not to be found elswere, you'll be an addict, I promise.
 
I'll Stick To user-friendly..... Just because something is spoon fed dosen't mean you can't get great results from. It dosent matter if you have the easyest equitment in the world you still can make horrible music and or you can make great music. Using something harder dosent make you a great producer. its whats in you that does followed by support and hunger.
 
But also vice versa - just because it's more complicated than your average preset synth, doesn't mean it's not user-friendly...
 
Thats an opinion on what is your definition of user friendly. Some may find it different than others.
 
Last edited:
Earthquake said:
Just because something is spoon fed dosen't mean you can't get great results from.
Click to expand...

Naturally. Still, I think the actual "spoon fed" mentality may encourage the user to stick with concepts already thought out for him. This might happen even if the ideas he's provided with are something that he might very well challenge otherwise.

Earthquake said:
It dosent matter if you have the easyest equitment in the world you still can make horrible music and or you can make great music. Using something harder dosent make you a great producer. its whats in you that does followed by support and hunger.
Click to expand...

I agree, great music has come out of "easy" and "hard" tools alike :)... And honestly, it really isn't that much about a single tool being "easy" or "hard" to use. It's always about the whole process. In order to make unique and personal sounding music with "easy" equipment you still have to be able to use your tools in a creative and distinctive way. But wait -- that's the point where the process enters the category "hard" again, don't you think?

Let's consider it this way: if a given tool's interface is so extremely easy to use that it borders on the banal and makes people question its validity in music making -- like an eJay stack of pre-recorded loops you paint on a timeline, for example -- you might get relatively professional sounding results in an instant. However, it will be very tricky to produce something unforgettable or genuinely original sounding with it. Now, if someone indeed does produce a unique piece of art with such a package, making listeners go "wow, nobody has thought of that before, hey, that's great music", would you still describe the process as being "easy" just because the tool is in principle so easily operated?

It's tempting to go with the idea of "easy" or "hard" tools as something definite and easily categorizable based on the interface alone, simplifying the actual musical and technical processes going on around them. In reality, there are so many genres, virtually endless approaches and such a staggering selection of different things to choose from... You might have a recorder and a piano readily miked up to the point where you only have to press REC and start hitting the keys. Doesn't get easier than that, right? ;) Right.

Using a tool like Max/MSP or Reaktor, it's a given that more of the creative process tends to deal with the sound design and inner structure of your instrument than when using something that provides you with a fixed set of sounds to begin with. The processes are different and, of course, neither of them automatically guarantees that you'll make good music.

Mastering something that allows you to build your own structural designs -- and, ultimately, your own signature sounds and unique expressive textures -- will undeniably widen your possibilities. Actually, I tend to think it enhances your creative potential a great deal. Still, I realize it's subjective: it will give you more control over the said aspects, yet it's necessary only if you want to create works that evolve that way in the first place. If you strive to compose, say, solo piano works or acoustic jazz, you would most definitely want to use the same amount of time studying entirely different aspects. In the end, I'd say there is no one easy way out, what ever approach you choose. It will be "hard", in the sense that there will always be some form of complexity in the process, to create something truly memorable. Yeah, I'm still trying :p
 
Last edited:
ooooo, yall went deep!! haha.

i can see all your points. i see reaktor itself as pretty much a totally seperate thing from the ensembles it can host. but thats just because i dont know anything about using reaktor itself.....

reaktor is definitley one of the most open ended things a musician could get into. in theory anyway.... its really just a matter of how much time and effort you can devote to it-- thats how much you will get out of it....eventually.

i dont fool myself into thinking im some synth nut who will sit and tweak a osc for a day, im just not THAT into it. BUT whats cool, for me...., is that i can still leech good stuff out of reaktor, by using all the work other people have already put in...hahah.

really, i dont think metaphysical f. is THAT complicated, its just really hard to get it to do what you want. and thats where the fun is.... im not surprised to hear that a lot of 'heads' use it, the sound is unlike anything else. im pretty much blown away by it really.....

but its a monster project to successfuly incorporate it into a track. it tends to make tracks all its own.... and i like to keep stuff subtle.....

so im just wonderin if anyone has developed any tricks for usin it IN a track. and fukk bouncin it down. i did that for like a year with the x-mas present version... i wanna control it and automate it IN my host. i do it now, but im strugglin gettin everything automated like i want. the automation system is weird, but i can deal with it, but getting that automation to do anything USEfull for me is where im strugglin. ive gotten it to behave in a bpm-sync-ish way, but im not really sure how i did it, cuz i cant seem to do it again with any kind of regularity....

i dunno. im just DYIN to get lost in this thing, and im not sure i know where to go now.... the manual for the elec. ins. group is kind of a joke.... kinda makes me mad......


so anyone got any ideas they wanna toss around? im hooked on this thing hard.....haha.




peace.
 
seen that thing on other pc's the DAMN THINGS REAL POWERFUL!!!! thing would prolly give my system a fatal error just by loading up cos of low cpu and memory if i eva used it i would like to try it but right now the price tag and the current machine i have aint worth it for me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top