The thing is, the big reason I’m even on this forum is I really appreciate stand-alone (not to mention niche) things. And I appreciate Max, too (and hate Live, so don’t get to take advantage of M4L) so something that hints at a stand-alone single-purpose Max box has me intrigued.
But ultimately both require my computer, I already have Max, and with no way to kind of ease into Kyma and see if it’s an improvement, I think I’ll just have to hope these things are still around in few decades after I can retire.
My Capybara 320 system is still going strong after 20 years, though just as @reeloy suggests, the additional DSP is inconsequential by current native DSP standards. Still, it does the same cool stuff it always did, and I still keep the old Kyma X software on an aged Mac Pro to control it. As mentioned above, I will likely keep my Pacarana after I buy the Pacamara.
I still have and consult that book occasionally. It might be a little confusing at first, and incomplete (it was never meant to be comprehensive), because it’s based on Kyma X, and there have been many additions and changes in the GUI - current versions place the various Prototypes’ parameter fields on the right side of the Sound window, while the older software placed the parameter fields at the bottom. The fields themselves will still be relevant.
The same goes for the Kyma X Revealed book that SSC used to sell. It’d be nice if Carla did a new edition. That book was (is) fantastic.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Kyma works per sample, and all others(Max, PD, etc) work per buffer.
This is still the most impressive morphing demo to me, to the point that I went and downloaded a bunch of morphing plugins to see if any of them can morph this naturally, and none of them can do it this smooth.
Max has had Gen for quite a while now, which works with a single sample buffer. Not everything benefits from single sample processing but Kyma takes the guesswork out of it if you don’t have at least some basic understanding of DSP.
Also keep in mind that you have to put a fair bit of work in to make natural sounding morphs in Kyma, but the fact that you can actually put some work in makes it your thing, and not some generic effect.
There’s still a lot of very good reasons, subjective of course, that Kyma is a much better platform than Max.
I’ve been a field tester for the Pacamara for the last three months and it’s a delight. I was a long time Max user. Since getting Kyma five years ago I haven’t looked back. I’ve learned more about sound, composition and DSP in those five years than in the fifteen before.
Kyma just oozes inspiration. And sounds incredible whilst it’s at it.
I like both Max and Kyma, but for different reasons. I definitely prefer Max when I have a specific idea in mind. It takes longer to get something together in Max (at least it does for me) but it’s more flexible and doesn’t funnel you into specific ways of working.
Kyma is fun to just open and see what happens sometimes. It will take you in directions you won’t expect and is great for those “what happens if I try this…?” moments. Also it’s easy to make things sound good with minimal effort. Great happy accident environment.
Having said that, I haven’t used it as much as I maybe should have. My Paca takes longer to switch on, and updates etc can be cumbersome. Hopefully some things have been streamlined on the new hardware.
To me, Max vs Kyma is a bit like the difference between going for a run vs a cycle. Max gets going at once whereas Kyma takes a bit more time to get out of the gate. Once Kyma gets going you can get further more quickly though. Very loosely speaking.
Yeah not a bad analogy. Definitely pros and cons to both, for sure. Personally I find I only have enough brain power (and time!) to concentrate on one. I had been a little worried about my time investment in a platform that potentially felt a little shaky. With the new hardware that future proof concern has gone away.
…end of my day, i’m not patient and smart enough for all this digital modular think grid stuff, to be honest…while still sometimes give at least bitwigs modular grids a try, only to realize, i’m totally in for all kinds of sonic mind games and abstractions, but all my sounddesign approaches better come from classic ingredients and oldschool techniques than from math, coding and all other out of the dsp blue…
Watched the videos but came out more confused than when I started - Kyma is the software that runs on their hardware (Pacamara), but that hardware can also be used to offload dsp from another computer? How exactly does this box fit in to a larger setup? Do you connect a monitor and keyboard to the thing? Does it run its own OS?
Really though, it’s a matter of taste, and knowing what you want to direct your time and energies to. These sorts of object-oriented environments can be time-suckers. I am very careful about how I spend my time and energy in my studio - there are times when I know something like Kyma is going to unfold a great big map between myself and what should be a short trip to a nearby destination. That is probably not the time to use it. Conversely, there are times when I want to take an exploratory walk in unfamiliar territories. It’s great for that, and if I find something interesting or inspiring along the way, cool. Other times, I already have the destination in mind, and I know Kyma is the most efficient way for me to start plotting a course. Other times, I might be better off dialing in a quick bass pluck on a Moog or something.
I have always been loath to recommend Kyma in an offhand way. For many people, it will be frustrating and absolutely the wrong tool for the what they want to do. On the other hand, for some, it might open the door to a whole new workshop… for interdimensional teleporters (the sound of which is probably a factory preset).
No. Kyma is the software that runs on a host computer (a mac or PC). You create and edit on the host computer, and the results are compiled and run on the external hardware (the Pacamara). The monitor and qwerty keyboard are those used with your computer. Once its running on the external hardware, you can control your Kyma patch using MIDI or audio, either via an USB interface connected directly to the Pacamara hardware, or routed through the host computer.
Interesting. What steps are involved in compiling a patch? One of the things I enjoy about patching in max is that changes happen in real time. Is Kyma similar, or are the ‘patching’ and ‘listening’ steps entirely separate?
It’s a little different from Max. In Max, you ‘lock’ your editor to play your work (in PD, you switch modes). In Kyma, you don’t lock the editor or switch modes, you compile the sound (by simply tapping your space bar). In my experience, this takes longer in Kyma, though depending on what you are doing, it can be pretty quick. The graphical interface (if there is one) will appear on your host computer’s monitor, ready for you to tweak in realtime.
The compile times can vary depending on the complexity of the patch, and the interfacing. On the old Pacarana, compile times were much faster using ethernet than Firewire or USB. As I don’t have a Pacamara (yet), I can’t say how fast it might be.
But yes, patching and listening are separate. And ‘compiling’ is as simple as tapping the space bar.
Also, in order to hear the changes you’ve made to the patch in Kyma, you have to recompile it. In other words stop and restart the dsp engine.
The same thing actually happens in Max - it has to recompile every time you make a change, only it happens automaticaly. There is a tiny gap in the audio while this happens but it’s usually seamless.
