Nord Modular G2 vs reaktor 5

nexsomn · Joined: May 30, 2007 Posts: 2 Location: finland

Hello, I'm seriously thinking about investing to a Nord G2 and I'd like to how well does the G2 compete with modular soft synths like Reaktor 5 in terms of flexibility and sound quality ?

Is Clavia still improving G2 (updates etc)?

thanks in advance,
peace
/Nexs

blue hell · Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject:

The user base is not very impressed generally speaking with the update rate for G2 software. Still we're all understanding to varying degrees that Clavia has to make money and that money is to be made on far less interesting equipment nowadays. And we keep hoping.

Can't really judge about reaktor (don't have it), it seems like most people having compared it against a G2 think that the G2 is easier to use and leading to more productivity. But that's a coloured observation probably, having two G2 engines & enjoying having those Very Happy

What do you want to use it for ?

And welcome

of course.

etherline · Joined: Apr 27, 2007 Posts: 42 Location: UK

I would, of course, defer to the opinion of those more expert in either (and I know that Blue Hell is very much in that category), but I have tried the Reaktor demo and last night (having only just found out it exists) I tried the G2 demo. I very much enjoyed Reaktor and am thinking seriously about buying it.

The G2 demo was a big disappointment. While I suspect that it is capable of much more, the demo sounds were utterly banal and it seemed to me that there was a lot of effort needed to inject life into sounds which a real modular would produce effortlessly. What is the point of offering a demo of a supposedly flexible modular emulation and filling it with bread and butter synth sounds which it doesn't even do very well? Surely it would have been better to get inventive and show me some strange stuff that I couldn't do elsewhere? Strings. Basses. Pads. Sync sweeps. Acoustic guitar! Please.

I also wonder what kind of processing power the G2 contains as the demo was attempting to murder my 2gHz Core2Duo 2gB Macbook and that was in mono mode! I had to run it at 48khz to get it to work properly. So how much will a G2 actually do before it falls over and cries?

With Reaktor, my impression was of inventiveness, an open ended architecture and the unexpected. I got the feeling of, 'wow, what is this?', and yet with the G2 demo it just made me yawn and switch on a real synth. And I never expected to feel that way about it.

Perhaps the G2 experts produce marvellous sounds that would inspire me to persevere, but on the evidence of the respective demos I am not impressed with G2 and would go for Reaktor. It's much cheaper as well.

leoleox · Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:12 am Post subject:

I use both G2 and Reaktor and I love them.
I confirm that G2 is more simple and faster to program, and in term of productivity is much better. The keyboard version could be also a wonderful midi controller too. Ok, it cost more but compared to reaktor it don't need audio card, computer cpu power, controller ecc. and you can go on stage with it without your computer.
A big plus of Reaktor is that it does sampling and it offer lower level programming. It need a lot of time to program, it need a powerful computer, audio interface and controller but it is very powerful, one of the most powerful audio tools.
I think that the G2 is more similar to a very big analog modular synth while reaktor lets you open your modules and design them with circuits and electronics parts.
G2 is also more 'old school', Reaktor is 'new school'.
I need both of them but if I could have only one I would choose G2 because, even if it can be considered less powerful, it makes me more productive.

Wout Blommers · Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:17 am Post subject:

Antimon · Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:29 am Post subject:

Jari Jokinen · Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 5:26 am Post subject:

I am no expert, but it is safe to say that G2 isn't as flexible and accurate as Reaktor. However, the G2 interface may be more appealing and friendly at first sight. More importantly, G2 is hardware after all...

Best regards
Jari Jokinen

Kassen · Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 5:47 am Post subject:

etherline · Joined: Apr 27, 2007 Posts: 42 Location: UK

Kassen · Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 6:34 am Post subject:

etherline · Joined: Apr 27, 2007 Posts: 42 Location: UK

nexsomn · Joined: May 30, 2007 Posts: 2 Location: finland

Thanks for the replies folks!
I run a computer based system (Logic 7 on a macbook) anyway so I guess software would be the logical option...

I would use it for creating sounds / soundscapes for experimental psychedelic trance.

I have played piano/guitar as long as I can remember but I'm fairly new to synthesis. I won't be daunted by the fact that learning modular synthesis will probably take some time as I am immensely interested in designing sounds...and I'm still young so I got plenty of time to learn Wink

I have heard about MAX MSP and Tassman but haven't studied them much(yet)... How are they different from Reaktor ?

GovernorSilver · Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject:

It's common for folks to use both a G2 and Reaktor. The G2 keyboards, in particular, can double as controllers for softsynths and such. The user interface on the G2 keyboards is very good.

If you do anything on Reaktor that can also be done on the G2, then having the G2 take over the redundant activity will free up the computer running Reaktor to do other things. This is never a bad thing.

Rob · Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:41 am Post subject:

Some facts on the G2 demo software:

On shouldn't judge the performance of the G2 hardware by the performance of the demo version. The G2 demo software actually runs in a Motorola 56xxx emulation software environment to run the actual G2 DSP code. This makes the demo behave as the hardware, but at a very slow speed compared to when coded in Intel native code. However, it ís demo software and not designed to be a serious production tool on a PC or Mac. The G2 hardware on the other hand ís a very reliable production tool.

The G2 demo DSP emulation runs at a sample rate of 96kHz and the output is then resampled to 48 kHz or 44.1 kHz if a soundcard cannot handle 96 kHz.

Reaktor and the G2 differ só much that it is hard to compare them. Imho they should not be considered competing products. Both products have very different pro's and con's, so imho it should be a matter of personal needs and taste to define which product fits best in one's personal situation.

But one thing is clear, if you do not know how to patch yourself, which basically requires general knowledge about both synthesis and psychoacoustics, and so you have to rely on factory presets, most of the G2 factory presets are quite disappointing.

marlon brando · Joined: Dec 31, 2008 Posts: 12 Location: new york

telstarmagikistferrari · Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:04 pm Post subject:

I've messed with both G2 and Reaktor.. I wasn't crazy about how either of them was (were?) patched/programmed.

As far as low-level oscillator-patching and stuff, I use SynFactory for wonkly sounds and choppy modulatulationery. I think it's windows-only, sadly.

For more hi-level possibilities, you might want to check out Plogue Bidule. I LOVE it and use it daily. Lately, I've been constructing various 'bidules' (collections of patched-together shit: pitch/midi confusors, stochastic midi spitters, any VST stuff routed and rerouted, fed back, whatever) for the general purpose of performance. It's incredible and easy to use. Within the program one can update (via download) the 'Groups' to gain a huge toolset. Anyone else find this program so endlessly USABLE? One can set up anything from drum-machine sequences to day/weeklong unfolding ambient textures. It's an ideal environment to use VSTs which require specific midi routing for control, etc... AND, it has a very intuitive, built-in MIDI LEARN (!) function which allows one to wrest control over any VST or mixer slider, or Whatever.

For my personal needs, making strange, unlikely sounds in Bidule/synfactory (to a lesser degree), then chopping/sequencing them in Cubase is The Way, at least right now. This is after examining loads of possibilities. Thanks for reading, peace to all,
Mark