Dimension vs Rapture - splain' to me...

Since there isn't a demo (besides the audio presets which I have listened to) for Rapture - can someone please sumarize the differences?

The way I see it is Rapture has 6 elements, Dimension has 4. Rapture has step sequencer. Whatever that does - can someone please explain to me what type of sounds I can make with the step sequencer that I can't in Dimension? Is that the more "arpy" types of sounds? What about "ring modulation"?

Also aside from the 8 gig sample size library that comes with Dimension (pro) why isn't Rapture generally "better" and / or more advanced? What can I do in Dimension I can't do in Rapture?(that is, if I buy it!)

Sorry if these questions are off base - I certainly LOVE Dimension Pro and am thinking of getting Rapture but what's the big diff? I just keep hearing Dimesion is better at "more realistic" (??) while Rapture has capabilities for more "electronic" (??). I'm certainly not a synth expert (as it shows).

AT - thanks. But still, aside from the step seq and the extra elements, why cant I do the same things in both? Especially if I have Rapture, what couldnt I do it it that I could do in Dimension (sample library aside)?

To me - Rapture seems like the more advanced / flexible (again - this is w/o the huge library of Dimension). Am I missing something?


All in all, I quess it really comes down to you are buying the complete package (samples and synth). So then I see there is a big diff. Still, if there was a way to convert Dimension progs to Rapture progs, wouldnt that be cool - although potentially bad for Dimension?

AT - thanks. But still, aside from the step seq and the extra elements, why cant I do the same things in both? Especially if I have Rapture, what couldnt I do it it that I could do in Dimension (sample library aside)?

The main difference between Rapture and Dimension Pro is the sounds they're aimed to produce. Rapture is all about totally synthetic sounds, while Dimension Pro is about both realistic and synthetic-using-realistic-components. In Dimension Pro you'll find, for instance, a superbly sounding string section and piano, but also you'll find some weird dimension program using strings and piano elements. Rapture creates all the sounds based in single-cycle wavetable synthesis, so you won't find anything realistic on it.

The engines have been tweaked to achieve that duality. Rapture has multiple oscillators per element, ring modulation, dual filters, seven step generators per element controlling pitch, cutoff x2, reso x2, pan and amplitude (total 42 step gens per program), element ring modulation, more global insert effects. Dimension Pro offers bus send effects per element, drag-and-drop to host of MIDI patterns for synchronized loops, REX/RCY/RX2 support. Also, parameter ranges in each has been adjusted for the most common range in both types of synthesis.

Which one is better depends on your particular music style and what kind of sounds you're after.

-René

There it is. Rene' in his icon has the hard to explain in words step sequencer.

Well - I guess I'll have to let you know how it all works out. I'll be comparing my Diminesion Pro with my copy of RAPTURE I just ordered from Sweetwater.

BTW - I finally focused on the DSP section of Rapture - oh. Yeah. Guess it is a different animal. \

Figured Im wasting more time $$ and energy worring about it than the $ I might save in the furture so I said what the hell....

Rick - I hear you. I like the Dimension Pro "bread and butter samples" but really have the lust for synth sounds. I guess if Rapture had been released before Dimension I might have just stuck with Rapture! Those crafty marketing people... Oh well, I now will have 8 gig of sfz files for DP and RAPT. I expect to be occupied for quite awhile.


Rene' why is it every time you answer one of my posts I go out and spend money?! Are you using some kind of secret sfz mind control or what???

consistent GUI and sampes transferable between instruments

That was a heavy plus for buying Rapture (besides the sounds of course - I really liked the demos). I hope to see this as a long term relationship - CW has been good to me with updates, service, copy protection, user community, getting ready for 64 bit, etc. Plus having used DP for awhile I'm really pleased with the UI, the sound, and the general approach: I think the sfz format is great and would like to see more develop from this but time will tell. The potential there is huge with the flexibility to just absolutely mangle sound.

I've generally found that I'm tired of trying a bizzillion free or cheap (not necessarily bad) VSTs and want to just settle down with something that I can get into and learn all the ropes. Kinda like Im used to doing with hardware synths. Just my 0.02.

P5 is very capable in the automation department, it is quite capable of duplicating most of what you might do in Rapture with the step sequencer.

Well, if the concept is that stepgens are intended to 'give movement to a sound', then that's the only way we can think on automation playing a similar role. Now if we enter in the details:

The Step Gens are per-layer. This means, you get a new step generator in each new layer, in each element for each new note you play. All those stepgens can be sync'ed to host tempo, and also can be unsync'ed. In both cases, you can get every voice having a different modulation depth, controlled by any modulation source.

For instance, you can set the Filter 1 cutoff stepgen to 4 stages, for a very slow movement once you press a key. And then set the Filter 2 to a high resonance, and set the cutoff real high. Then use the Filter 2 cutoff stepgen to make a melody using the resonant filter peak.

And then you can set the amount of depth in each stepgen, via velocity. Many of the 'Sequences' group in the factory patches use tricks like that, and none of those is possible using automation at all.

Rene' why is it every time you answer one of my posts I go out and spend money?! Are you using some kind of secret sfz mind control or what???

I'm sorry that those things cost money, I wish they wouldn't. On the other hand, they don't cost that much money for what you get, specially if you compare with the competition. And also, I'm totally positive that you will enjoy of many hours of fun with Rapture, which is what I call a good investment. Wait and see.


-René

Good points. I'm looking at it as having the features I wanted in P5 without all of the extra baggage I didn't need - mainly the rhythmic arp/sequencing features. With a DAW that does pattern-based arranging, like the new Acid Pro 6, I think you'd have a system in some ways more flexible than P5 for around the same money.

ORIGINAL: René
and none of those is possible using automation at all.

I would like to know why.

If I have, four instances of DP in P5 that have the same .prog and I shut down 3 element per instance(1st #2,3 and 4 - 2nd #1,3 and 4 etc.) , wouldn't I be able to control all parameters with the groove matrix seperately using my midi controller with all 4 instances through midi input channel 1 (or 2 or 3 or etc.) ?

Greetings,

NaughT.

As the step sequencers work at a layer level, each note in the chord gets its own step sequencer.

Let just say this: you *could* emulate layer-level control using automation. Either set up your's keyboard's O/S for a ton of splits and MIDI Channels, and/or use something like Project5 and its MIDI Input & Channel Filter per-track. Emphasis on *could*. It's going to take you forever.

I don't know if these 'features' of Rapture's internal structure has been discussed enough: ease of implementation and fertile ground for experimentation. Anything that you can do in automation and MIDI Remote Control can be done more quickly and efficiently within Rapture itself. If you don't like the core sound, or the programming 'ergonomics', well, that's one thing. Get something else.

But if you do, and you want to get up & running rapidly, using the internal StepGens, LFOs, EGs, X/Y, and the MIDI Matrix is the way to go. No contest. I'm a great fan of automation and generalized MRC, but if there's a better way, I'm taking it. I tend to experiment a lot , and I need to get to what I *hear* as fast as I can. Before another idea comes along and I get bogged down in a programming haze.

Strike while the creative iron is hot. "Wow. I need a glissando trigger. Play in. Done. I think that i'll key it to release velocity. Hmm ... it'd be nice to reflect that in the cutoffs. Copy/Paste. Too much alike. Stagger the offsets, or reduce the depths. Now in a different Element, the opposite. Paste/Mirror. Sounds too tame. Randomize."

Just one simple example. Sorry to disagree, Trevor, but (given an equal starting point), I'm going to have more done "at the end of the day" this way than a similar approach in automation. It's all right there in front of me, with no jumping through hoops.

a small fraction of the available options with the stepgens .. It's not about workflow, it's about sound control.

Point taken. I do believe that we're on the same side of the fence here.

I totally agree with B.

I must compliment you René on this amazing new synth...
Brock for his crazy, longwinded, annoying, totally cool, tutorials.
( hot damn do you know how much work i put into translating English to Dutch? It just makes my head spin.
Cheap high though, doesn't cost me anything. )

As for customer support, there's no comparison, no equal and nothing that comes near it IMO.

F IN GREAT !!!

latersssss,

NaughT.

You're just tellin me what I want to hear now to shut me up

No. The last thing I want on earth is a dissatisfied customer with anything I'm involved with. I'd rather have one customer less. Any day.

I'm just trying to separate fact from fiction.



-René

ORIGINAL: Rick McNab

So our mantra should be, "It's the StepGens, Stupid"

It's about the whole package.