I think i finally figured out what Gadget is supposed to be...

Patric_Bateman

@vpich If i was a troll, i think you´d know it by now. I have mixed feelings about Gadget, and am very curious what other people think, and how they use it. So far it´s been great!

lovadamusic

Again, Gadget is not a DAW. The way I use it, it’s a reliable self-contained instrument that I like for composing electronic music better than anything else on iOS. What I create in Gadget is exported. That usually ends up in Logic Pro, but Auria Pro and Cubasis are useful for further composing, arranging, mixing on an iPad. Is a piano better than a guitar? Is a recording studio better than a saxophone? Why are we going round in circles here?

db909

Music is music. I think ultimately we will see more of gadget type programs in the coming years. they will all have limitations but you'll be able to find one that works really well for your particular needs, rather than having to learn a full fledged daw whose feature set you'll only ever use a percentage of.

Thomas

As exemplified in this thread, Gadget is multiple things. It's

a dream groovebox(prolly its best role)
a limited DAW(how I generally use it)
a rock solid performance synth toolbox

The way some have uttered discontent with its synths is saddening. I mean, where are peoples' imagination? It's ridiculously simple to load up a bunch of tracks in a Gadget project with a variety of synths set to their "init" settings and build up fantastic sounds much more efficiently than a super-synth.

Crabman

i agree the FX are a little on the downside (even the eq,which is weird but it definitely acts a little unpredictable when using more than one band)but it's definitely much better than ever (with 5 inserts now).And i absolutely can't use Gadget to arrange my stuff,unfortunately.It doesn't match my workflow(not at all) and too many things missing for me.It's a hell lot of (extra)work to bounce/record every single track into Cubasis or Auria.

But the gadgets sounds great and it's a joy to create ideas there so it will still remain as my favorite "creative generator" and i won't stop pumpin $$$ into new gadgets (of course,best case is if i can use them outside of gadget as well)

AudioGus

@vpich said:
every possible automation already set up to finess, etc. duplicating a scene and making minor adjustments has >never been easier for me.

This is pretty much the only thing about gadget that keeps me occasionally returning to it. The ease of use sequencing, great automation (without clunky setup) and it's smooth editing etc.

I would just love to get 'remastered' HD 2.0 versions of the original Gadgets like Helsinki, Chiangmai, Kiev etc with the fuller more CPU intense richness of Lexington but without it's depth and complexity. (Which I realize may be somewhat of a contradiction )

richardyot

@Crabman said:
It's a hell lot of (extra)work to bounce/record every single track into Cubasis or Auria.

You can do it pretty quickly via Dropbox. From Gadget go to Export --> Dropbox --> All Tracks which will save individual stems to a Dropbox folder (in one step). Then you can import them directly into Auria in one step by using Dropbox import and selecting all the stems. Use the little plus symbol to import each to a new track.

https://forum.audiob.us/discussion/comment/290042/#Comment_290042

stemshade

@AudioGus said:

@vpich said:
every possible automation already set up to finess, etc. duplicating a scene and making minor adjustments has >never been easier for me.

This is pretty much the only thing about gadget that keeps me occasionally returning to it. The ease of use sequencing, great automation (without clunky setup) and it's smooth editing etc.

I would just love to get 'remastered' HD 2.0 versions of the original Gadgets like Helsinki, Chiangmai, Kiev etc with the fuller more CPU intense richness of Lexington but without it's depth and complexity. (Which I realize may be somewhat of a contradiction )

i like those three , helsinki the most and for my uses of it i like the less than hi-fi sound. very similar to some of the sounds i used to like on my op-1. cold and lo-fi. kiev is cool but i don't use it much, hopefully one day we can stick user samples in. or get more. changmai i only really use for bell type stuff and with the possible automations i don't think i need more hi-fi, i usually saturate or bit crush a these types of sounds a bit.

stemshade

@Crabman said:
i agree the FX are a little on the downside (even the eq,which is weird but it definitely acts a little unpredictable when using more than one band)but it's definitely much better than ever (with 5 inserts now).And i absolutely can't use Gadget to arrange my stuff,unfortunately.It doesn't match my workflow(not at all) and too many things missing for me.It's a hell lot of (extra)work to bounce/record every single track into Cubasis or Auria.

But the gadgets sounds great and it's a joy to create ideas there so it will still remain as my favorite "creative generator" and i won't stop pumpin $$$ into new gadgets (of course,best case is if i can use them outside of gadget as well)

exporting to auria is pretty much just two steps, export using the individual tracks button to dropbox. just one click, but it does take a good while. then in auria just import from dropbox selecting the tracks you want and they populate.

Patric_Bateman

@vpich said:

@AudioGus said:

@vpich said:
every possible automation already set up to finess, etc. duplicating a scene and making minor adjustments has >never been easier for me.

This is pretty much the only thing about gadget that keeps me occasionally returning to it. The ease of use sequencing, great automation (without clunky setup) and it's smooth editing etc.

I would just love to get 'remastered' HD 2.0 versions of the original Gadgets like Helsinki, Chiangmai, Kiev etc with the fuller more CPU intense richness of Lexington but without it's depth and complexity. (Which I realize may be somewhat of a contradiction )

i like those three , helsinki the most and for my uses of it i like the less than hi-fi sound. very similar to some of the sounds i used to like on my op-1. cold and lo-fi. kiev is cool but i don't use it much, hopefully one day we can stick user samples in. or get more. changmai i only really use for bell type stuff and with the possible automations i don't think i need more hi-fi, i usually saturate or bit crush a these types of sounds a bit.

Helsinki is awesome, it´s my favorite. If it had pitch modulation, it would be a Boards of Canada Synth like Phonec and a dream come true. It represents best what i like about Gadget, a great synth design that sounds awesome and is so user friendly, like you´ve never seen anywhere else.

Kiev is pretty obsolete with Milpitas...

raindro

I just exported a song as an ableton live project for the first time. When I loaded it in ableton it was just audio files. Is that standard? I was hoping it would have all the midi information too.

Also, Ableton can't open .m4a files. So why is that one of the export options. Silly.

Patric_Bateman

It can´t? Haven´t used it for a while...You can export standard Midi files, if you want additional MIDI information...

JiggyWig

@raindro said:
I just exported a song as an ableton live project for the first time. When I loaded it in ableton it was just audio files. Is that standard? I was hoping it would have all the midi information too.

Also, Ableton can't open .m4a files. So why is that one of the export options. Silly.

Ableton can open m4a files just fine. Gadget can export MIDI. Just export the MIDI and the Ableton project with audio only and re-assemble them yourself. It's workable. I hope one day they'll export MIDI in the Ableton project, but it's not a huge deal.

AudioGus

@Thomas said:
As exemplified in this thread, Gadget is multiple things. It's

a dream groovebox(prolly its best role)
a limited DAW(how I generally use it)
a rock solid performance synth toolbox

The way some have uttered discontent with its synths is saddening. I mean, where are peoples' imagination? It's ridiculously simple to load up a bunch of tracks in a Gadget project with a variety of synths set to their "init" settings and build up fantastic sounds much more efficiently than a super-synth.

Creatively, yes I love them, fidelity wise it sounds like there are some heavy optimisations being done to the sound engine to enable so many instances of those earlier gadgets to be used. I don't have much experience with synth programming (as that term pertains to both musicians and actual dev/programming apps using c++) and am more of a happy accident preset tweaker/masher, but anyway, it just feels that 'under the hood' the earilier synth gadgets have a buzzy thin quality to them, like they run in a low bit rate. They sound to me like how a 16 bit image compares to a 24 bit image in terms of visual quality.

Anyway, when I create a patch from scratch in a synth like Shoom, without FX it has a smoothness to it, a certain audio frequency depth thing... I don't know, it is like the samples per second for the audio processing (or something) (insert waving hands, shrugging shoulders etc)

Patric_Bateman

I have very little idea about it, but i´ll guess it has to do with the complexity of the modelling, and the sample rate/oversampling in critical stages like the filter. Naturally, simple synths like the original Gadgets with very limited modulation options don´t have to calculate much, that doesn´t say anything about their sonic quality.

By creating patches from scratch you really get a feel for what the raw synth really sounds like, that´s why i´m so impressed with ODYSSEi, it has a depth, a liveliness and accuracy that you feel you´re operating hardware.

I do think that the original Gadgets sound good as well, like Berlin or Dublin are very well done analogue emulations.

[Deleted User]

@Patric_Bateman said:
I have very little idea about it, but i´ll guess it has to do with the complexity of the modelling, and the sample rate/oversampling in critical stages like the filter. Naturally, simple synths like the original Gadgets with very limited modulation options don´t have to calculate much, that doesn´t say anything about their sonic quality.

By creating patches from scratch you really get a feel for what the raw synth really sounds like, that´s why i´m so impressed with ODYSSEi, it has a depth, a liveliness and accuracy that you feel you´re operating hardware.

I do think that the original Gadgets sound good as well, like Berlin or Dublin are very well done analogue emulations.

Yeah I can get some great Bass sounds outta Dublin.

Patric_Bateman

@Fruitbat1919 It´s pretty sweet, and absolutely viable for anything. The ODYSSEi can generate much crazier bass sounds with the overdrive and the modulations, but if you´re looking for a bread n butter sweet bass Dublin is always a good choice

[Deleted User]

@Patric_Bateman said:
@Fruitbat1919 It´s pretty sweet, and absolutely viable for anything. The ODYSSEi can generate much crazier bass sounds with the overdrive and the modulations, but if you´re looking for a bread n butter sweet bass Dublin is always a good choice

Just got a pretty decent Autobahn synth bass from Dublin, so it definitely can handle itself.

Patric_Bateman

@Fruitbat1919 Kraftwerk as a german i approve

Patric_Bateman

I challenged myself once and tried to model this bassline on Dublin and wasn´t even that far off:

AudioGus

@Patric_Bateman said:
I have very little idea about it, but i´ll guess it has to do with the complexity of the modelling, and the sample rate/oversampling in critical stages like the filter. Naturally, simple synths like the original Gadgets with very limited modulation options don´t have to calculate much, that doesn´t say anything about their sonic quality.

By creating patches from scratch you really get a feel for what the raw synth really sounds like, that´s why i´m so impressed with ODYSSEi, it has a depth, a liveliness and accuracy that you feel you´re operating hardware.

I do think that the original Gadgets sound good as well, like Berlin or Dublin are very well done analogue emulations.

Yah I do at times create them from scratch for fun. For making music though my patches just don't excite me enough.

Patric_Bateman

@AudioGus said:

@Patric_Bateman said:
I have very little idea about it, but i´ll guess it has to do with the complexity of the modelling, and the sample rate/oversampling in critical stages like the filter. Naturally, simple synths like the original Gadgets with very limited modulation options don´t have to calculate much, that doesn´t say anything about their sonic quality.

By creating patches from scratch you really get a feel for what the raw synth really sounds like, that´s why i´m so impressed with ODYSSEi, it has a depth, a liveliness and accuracy that you feel you´re operating hardware.

I do think that the original Gadgets sound good as well, like Berlin or Dublin are very well done analogue emulations.

Yah I do at times create them from scratch for fun. For making music though my patches just don't excite me enough.

It´s the opposite for me lol. I have to create patches myself, i like doing it, but takes significant time/energy away from actually laying something down. I have a mental block to use presets...That´s the whole reason i love the iPad so much, because sound design is actually fun. Having no fun doing it on vst/AUs..And the original Gadgets made sound design so much more accessible and the most fun ever, and that was/is huge.

Milpitas lacks the most crucial controls for me of the iWavestation, pitch and filter envelopes. And of course editing the actual wave sequences, which the Gadget gets even advertised for. You can´t do sound design without a filter envelope, and on the original Gadgets you can modify the filter with envelopes, like Berlin or Dublin or Phoenix.

I thought that was just bad design, but i totally forgot about the phone compatibility of Gadget. To cram an absoulute monster like the iWavestation onto a phone screen while still providing an enjoyable experience, you just have to trade off some sound design capability i guess.

Still, i want hands on controls on all parameters, so Cubasis is the way to go for me..

Crabman

@vpich said:

@Crabman said:
i agree the FX are a little on the downside (even the eq,which is weird but it definitely acts a little unpredictable when using more than one band)but it's definitely much better than ever (with 5 inserts now).And i absolutely can't use Gadget to arrange my stuff,unfortunately.It doesn't match my workflow(not at all) and too many things missing for me.It's a hell lot of (extra)work to bounce/record every single track into Cubasis or Auria.

But the gadgets sounds great and it's a joy to create ideas there so it will still remain as my favorite "creative generator" and i won't stop pumpin $$$ into new gadgets (of course,best case is if i can use them outside of gadget as well)

exporting to auria is pretty much just two steps, export using the individual tracks button to dropbox. just one click, but it does take a good while. then in auria just import from dropbox selecting the tracks you want and they populate.

It's not about a simple export because many of the single tracks evolve/change over time (like moving cutoff etc) so i have to (solo and live)play->move knobs->record and trim this tracks.

AudioGus

@Patric_Bateman said:

@AudioGus said:

@Patric_Bateman said:
I have very little idea about it, but i´ll guess it has to do with the complexity of the modelling, and the sample rate/oversampling in critical stages like the filter. Naturally, simple synths like the original Gadgets with very limited modulation options don´t have to calculate much, that doesn´t say anything about their sonic quality.

By creating patches from scratch you really get a feel for what the raw synth really sounds like, that´s why i´m so impressed with ODYSSEi, it has a depth, a liveliness and accuracy that you feel you´re operating hardware.

I do think that the original Gadgets sound good as well, like Berlin or Dublin are very well done analogue emulations.

Yah I do at times create them from scratch for fun. For making music though my patches just don't excite me enough.

It´s the opposite for me lol. I have to create patches myself, i like doing it, but takes significant time/energy away from actually laying something down. I have a mental block to use presets...That´s the whole reason i love the iPad so much, because sound design is actually fun. Having no fun doing it on vst/AUs..And the original Gadgets made sound design so much more accessible and the most fun ever, and that was/is huge.

I've always been a sampler head / collage guy so the creative for me is more in how a sound is contextualized and manipulated. I am not much of a synth purist at all. If Gadget got an awesome sampler with step fx (like Elastic Drums + Egoist in gadget form) I would be happy as a clam.

Patric_Bateman

@audiogus It will be very interesting where KORG takes the future of Gadget. For instant revenue introduce some FX and modify the FX routing system, let them make use of the automation system and it could maybe do what you expect of a step fx

stemshade

@Crabman said
It's not about a simple export because many of the single tracks evolve/change over time (like moving cutoff etc) so i have to (solo and live)play->move knobs->record and trim this tracks.

Well if you aren't done with the track you aren't ready to mix either.

Thomas

@AudioGus said:

@Thomas said:
As exemplified in this thread, Gadget is multiple things. It's

a dream groovebox(prolly its best role)
a limited DAW(how I generally use it)
a rock solid performance synth toolbox

The way some have uttered discontent with its synths is saddening. I mean, where are peoples' imagination? It's ridiculously simple to load up a bunch of tracks in a Gadget project with a variety of synths set to their "init" settings and build up fantastic sounds much more efficiently than a super-synth.

Creatively, yes I love them, fidelity wise it sounds like there are some heavy optimisations being done to the sound engine to enable so many instances of those earlier gadgets to be used. I don't have much experience with synth programming (as that term pertains to both musicians and actual dev/programming apps using c++) and am more of a happy accident preset tweaker/masher, but anyway, it just feels that 'under the hood' the earilier synth gadgets have a buzzy thin quality to them, like they run in a low bit rate. They sound to me like how a 16 bit image compares to a 24 bit image in terms of visual quality.

Anyway, when I create a patch from scratch in a synth like Shoom, without FX it has a smoothness to it, a certain audio frequency depth thing... I don't know, it is like the samples per second for the audio processing (or something) (insert waving hands, shrugging shoulders etc)

I'm amazed at how much better my Gadget mixes are starting to sound with Wavestation. If I wasn't stuck on an Air1, I'd be downloading Odyssei immediately.

AndyPlankton

@Thomas said:

@AudioGus said:

@Thomas said:
As exemplified in this thread, Gadget is multiple things. It's

a dream groovebox(prolly its best role)
a limited DAW(how I generally use it)
a rock solid performance synth toolbox

The way some have uttered discontent with its synths is saddening. I mean, where are peoples' imagination? It's ridiculously simple to load up a bunch of tracks in a Gadget project with a variety of synths set to their "init" settings and build up fantastic sounds much more efficiently than a super-synth.

Creatively, yes I love them, fidelity wise it sounds like there are some heavy optimisations being done to the sound engine to enable so many instances of those earlier gadgets to be used. I don't have much experience with synth programming (as that term pertains to both musicians and actual dev/programming apps using c++) and am more of a happy accident preset tweaker/masher, but anyway, it just feels that 'under the hood' the earilier synth gadgets have a buzzy thin quality to them, like they run in a low bit rate. They sound to me like how a 16 bit image compares to a 24 bit image in terms of visual quality.

Anyway, when I create a patch from scratch in a synth like Shoom, without FX it has a smoothness to it, a certain audio frequency depth thing... I don't know, it is like the samples per second for the audio processing (or something) (insert waving hands, shrugging shoulders etc)

I'm amazed at how much better my Gadget mixes are starting to sound with Wavestation. If I wasn't stuck on an Air1, I'd be downloading Odyssei immediately.

Mini 2 (same spec as Air1) can cope with 1 or 2 instances of Heavy odyssei patches.....Freeze track is a godsend

Thomas

@AndyPlankton said:

Mini 2 (same spec as Air1) can cope with 1 or 2 instances of Heavy odyssei patches.....Freeze track is a godsend

hmmm.....

db909

I've recently begun turning the limiter on up to about 80. Sounds pretty darn good