But other than that, they both have excellent filter and FX capabilities. So some old filters are common between the two. Omni doesn't suffer from this.Īlso note that if you remember the predecessor of Omnisphere, Atmosphere, this was actually running on UVI's engine. This means that if you have a patch that has lots of samples, it freezes the GUI until everything is loaded. In Falcon you can properly multisample, with round-robins, velocity layers, the whole nine yards.įalcon doesn't support multicore processing, and doesn't have background loading like Omnisphere does. In Omnisphere you can only drop a single sample of your own to process (usually with granular, but not necessarily). Falcon is extremely flexible, moreso than Omnisphere (unlimited modulators, scripting), and supports multisampling. I don't recall the Falcon CPU usage, but Omnisphere rivals Diva for the most CPU it can eat in one sitting, plus it can suck down 500mb RAM for a single patch for dessert. Each level can be collapsed when you're done, but you can open up as much as you need to see. Go with Omnisphere if you want absolutely phenomenal raw soundsources (it's Eric Persing after all, you can consider Omnisphere like JD-990 on drugs). Going to show you another alternative if you were thinking of buying omnisphere Analog labs V is a great plug in with many many many great sounds Defineit. Omnisphere is all pages and subscreens while Falcon has a top down workflow, IIRC. There are lots of similarities but also lots of differences.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |