True, but the workflow would depend on your use case. I rarely sample stuff with these boxes, I have a library that I peruse, I use them in the context of other gear, I sequence them from an external hardware sequencer, and I use the synthesis and external modulation a lot, so my workflow will probably be radically different to yours.
True, I think Tonverk delivers in many ways what S-4 has promised. The Torso’s polyphonic sampler is a mere toy compared to what Tonverk offers, and while Tonverk lacks the granular effect and the envelope follower, its variety of effects and routing options provide a lot of new options.
I hope they add support for class compliant audio interfaces to extend the number of inputs.
Full song creation without synthesis? Wouldn’t work for me.
Tonverk offers it all-in-a-tactile-box - which for many people is very appealing. Sure it won’t ever reach the unlimited permutations of Ableton, but a cable, a table and a Tonverk with a big SD card and you are off to the races
I do remain a little mystified as to whether the Tonverk (for the singular use case I am projecting) will offer more to me if I upload 6 stems I’ve been working on, compared to uploading them to a Digitakt. It is appealing that Tonverk will also offer a hardware Kontakt alternative for further polyphonic instrumentation - and that on the Tonverk itself I might develop those 6 stems. It remains mysterious though as to how compelling it is
But yea I don’t see the point in comparing it to a DAW - a DAW can always do what ‘Box’ does, the point of hardware isn’t to compete on features, it’s about workflow and often the limited set of features.
I have a swiss army knife on my keys but I don’t get it out when I need to cut onions.
As an OP-1/OP1F fan I do see the Tonverk as a more desirable next-stage-of-development environment to extend an idea in. RMR still astounds me as to how he goes from his initial loop to a fully fledged piece.
True enough this won’t work for everyone. However to put a different spin on that, in the process of synthesis >> Fx >> mixing >> mastering, it’s impossible to be good at all 4. I dropped the synthesis as I just like combining audio, for me composition is more like a collage really. To me, audio (whether that be a single sample, a multi sampled instrument and more) is a synth. Different strokes though and I respect the wizards among you who can do magic on a synth, and I can see how Tonverk may not be as appealing for those of you who hoped a synth would be included.
That’s it, exactly. I moved away from hardware for a year completely. What I missed wasn’t the endless canvas, but a set of limited features within one box to play with. So so excited to get back to that. The daw is there for when I need to go beyond that.
That was exactly my first impression of TNV, but then I started to slowly move towards a different angle: it probably is the best sampler in the Elektron-verse for synth-heads.
People like me who get very low use of slices or stretching, but enjoy using samples for textures or SCW to mimic a synth oscillator would be better served by the TNV instead of DT/OT, or at least that’s what I’m trying to convince myself of
Personally I just need to hear the right music out of this new box, and see some qol enhancements to finally click on the buy button.
Yea this is how I see it, it’s a sampler for people that don’t use samples.
It’s kind of clever really - sampling isn’t the ‘feature’ it’s a tool, it’s a way to build a suite of instruments that would be impossible to get on any other box.
Not as capable or complex as plugins, but you could have 100 multisampled synths in an Elektron environment.
They’ve counterbalanced the lack of dynamic control with FX capability.
In some ways this comparison chart is missing a point - that this box shouldn’t just be compared with a DT but also a DN.
It’s not impossible, it just takes time. And nobody needs to be good at mastering, you can have other people do it. And you can get a synth has takes presets, and tweak those presets.
A very basic synth, tho. There is a world of sound that comes from using multiple oscillators, or different kinds of oscillators, or more complex modulations, or realtime expression, or unstable hardware that cannot adequately be captured in single note samples (or short loops) that are then run through a filter and 2-3 LFOs.
Well, I didn’t hope that, it’s – a few minor issues aside – fine as it is. All I’m saying is for me it is not a device for full song creation. But I’m not looking for a device for full song creation anyway.
I seem to miss your point. Can you elaborate?
Agreed. Because synth-heads already have synths, and may want a polyphonic sampler with lots of effects
But also because synth-heads tend to think of a synth as a dedicated sound source that needs it’s own effects, and are aware of the existence of effects beyond chorus, delay and reverb.
The reason I created this comparison is to dive deeper into that question, I just upgraded to a DT2 mostly because of the modulation setup, the increased track count, and the comb filters. But DT’s limitations when it comes to effects is really a problem for me, but the DT was all that was available when I made that decision. So before I really start creating tracks with the DT2, I want to understand if the TV might be better suited to my needs. Simply because I can’t afford both devices.
Ok, we’d probably need new rows for that. I’m not entirely up to speed with the DN2, but it is my impression that all aspects present in the table that are not sample-related are the same as the DT2, on top of that the DN2 has polyphonic tracks, an arpeggiator, 4 different machines, and more options for allocating voices. Anything else that should be added?
My point was more that the premise of this chart is to treat it as a sampler, when it might make as much sense to treat it as a synth. More a philosophical change of mindset than about the specific items listed.
(Btw this isn’t me telling anyone they’re wrong, just a perspective I’m sharing - it is by definition a sampler, but it’s one that exists to process complete multisampled instruments, which is a different beast).
I feel the same.
Not being a samples person, when I end up with a nice progression/melody/whatever I always feel.the need to sculpt/change/evolve the sound further, to keep stuff interesting, and it’s always an hard hit to a wall of “now what?”
I’m just lacking the skills to mangle a sample like I do on synth parameters, and that’s why I love the ST machines macros, and I feel that with the TNV I’d have much more options, like fxs, routing options amd polyphony.
I’m not 100% sure to splurge the money because that’s way above an impulse buy amount of it, and partly because I prefer to see it mature a bit prior to commit, as my latest freshly launched gear acquisitions were a big disappointment due to lack of stability/joy of use, despite being gear perfect for me on paper.
On top of that my music creation time budget is at a minimum nowadays, so no rush to add a new toy to collect dust on the desk. But it’s clear that Tonverk could be all the sampling I’d need in my workflow and I’d really like to give it a go sooner than later.
This is a very nice explanation for what Tonverk actually is, thank you for that!
I’d say it is not really comparable to something else because of the specific and deliberately chosen features (and omission of some). It sits between a sampler, synth, multifx mixer and perfomance tool or it’s all of them at the same time.
That would be an interesting comparison, however I’m also only superficially familiar with the Deluge, and adding that will be 1-2 hours of work, which I’m not going to invest in the near future.
However, I could copy the table to a google sheet, and you could add the Deluge and MPC there, if you wish. In that case I might be tempted to add Blackbox, S4 and GR-1 to that sheet later.
