# Pigments 2 by Arturia



## Pier (Dec 13, 2019)

It now includes a sample engine which is something I've always wanted to do in Zebra... It's on sale now for $99 instead of $199.








Arturia - Pigments - Pigments


Pigments is a wavetable, virtual analog, granular and sampling analog software synthesizer. Create sounds easily with its intuitive and visual interface.




www.arturia.com


----------



## sostenuto (Dec 31, 2019)

Pier Bover said:


> It now includes a sample engine which is something I've always wanted to do in Zebra... It's on sale now for $99 instead of $199.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Seems strong Update and worthwhile at Intro price ..... less additional as Analog Lab 4 purchaser. 

May be my economic alternative to Serum ....


----------



## W Ackerman (Jan 1, 2020)

If you already own the V Collection, this is only $49 right now. Probably a million times more functionality than I will ever use, but it is all very accessible with the excellent integrated tutorials. Comes with an astounding 900+ presets. I've only spent a week exploring presets and trying to figure out how it works, but it has really inspired me to learn more.


----------



## KarlHeinz (Jan 1, 2020)

Yes, as I am really a "visual" guy the modulation menue in the middle is absolutely great to see whats going on. Definitely worth to look for some not company tutorials on youtube, sadly cant remember the adresses but there are lots of great tips out there. The modulation options are really unbelievable BUT understandeable (one thing I cant say so far for any other synth as I am normally really the "presets" guy) and as you SEE whats going on in the middle thats really something I have never seen in any other synth. I am really not into the other Arturia stuff trying to copy evry great hardware synth that had ever been but this is something really outstanding and unique.


----------



## C.R. Rivera (Jan 1, 2020)

W Ackerman said:


> If you already own the V Collection, this is only $49 right now. Probably a million times more functionality than I will ever use, but it is all very accessible with the excellent integrated tutorials. Comes with an astounding 900+ presets. I've only spent a week exploring presets and trying to figure out how it works, but it has really inspired me to learn more.


This!


----------



## sostenuto (Jan 1, 2020)

...... when bored; VintageSynthPads has a new Pigments 2 Soundset to consider (_on Promo now_). 









Presets For Arturia Pigments 2


106 exciting and very deeply programmed sounds for Pigments 2 goes to territory not found in the factory presets. We have worked with Arturia Synths (including pigments) more then any other sound designer and "Lush Colors" is a powerful expansi




vintagesynthpads.com


----------



## Will Wilson (Jan 1, 2020)

I grabbed this on the recent promo but really to actually spend sometime learning it.
At the moment I’m just going through the presets.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jan 1, 2020)

Love the user interface, but the sound (vs. softsynths I already have) isn't anything that encouraged me to spend the $69 to get it. If I was just getting into softsynths the $99 intro offer would be brilliant and I'd totally buy it.


----------



## sostenuto (Jan 1, 2020)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Love the user interface, but the sound (vs. softsynths I already have) isn't anything that encouraged me to spend the $69 to get it. If I was just getting into softsynths the $99 intro offer would be brilliant and I'd totally buy it.



Tend to agree, but not a softsynth wizard by any measure. I follow John Lehmkuhl (PluginGuru) YT Livestreams regularly, and a recent one covered Pigments 2 nicely. While JL had minor critiques, he found sufficient positives for me to go for $69. I'm focused heavily on Omni 2.6, and have aborted moves to Serum many times ..... nothing negative, just cost in both $$ and time commitment. Hopefully Pigments 2 can be useful in that sense ??


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jan 1, 2020)

@sostenuto I'm sure it will! It seems like a good softsynth, and, again, they really did something special with the UI of it, and I applaud that (I'm a UX designer and user researcher, music is a passion hobby). And it sounds nice, too, though distinctly darker in tone than some others - which is totally OK, just like hardware synths.

I'm no wizard, either, but I do already own Omnisphere, Hive2, Repro, Diva, Legend, MiniSyn'X and Massive X, and I think one other I'm forgetting (I've slimmed down my toolbox to these).

I'm also saving for something else MUCH better (to me), so the fact Pigments was nice, but wasn't nice enough to warrant even $69, probably also has to be taken into consideration.


----------



## sostenuto (Jan 1, 2020)

vitocorleone123 said:


> @sostenuto I'm sure it will! It seems like a good softsynth, and, again, they really did something special with the UI of it, and I applaud that (I'm a UX designer and user researcher, music is a passion hobby). And it sounds nice, too, though distinctly darker in tone than some others - which is totally OK, just like hardware synths.
> 
> I'm no wizard, either, but I do already own Omnisphere, Hive2, Repro, Diva, Legend, MiniSyn'X and Massive X, and I think one other I'm forgetting (I've slimmed down my toolbox to these).
> 
> I'm also saving for something else MUCH better (to me), so the fact Pigments was nice, but wasn't nice enough to warrant even $69, probably also has to be taken into consideration.



Also use Repro & Massive X ..... but perspective would change a lot if I had Diva & Hive 2 ! Some time yet to decide, abd will likely wait until last minute, with so many deals and intros to watch. 
THX


----------



## Damarus (Jan 1, 2020)

Pro tip if you want it. Add the free reverb to your account. Then you get the cross-grade intro price at 69$ instead of 99$


----------



## Pier (Jan 2, 2020)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Love the user interface, but the sound (vs. softsynths I already have) isn't anything that encouraged me to spend the $69 to get it. If I was just getting into softsynths the $99 intro offer would be brilliant and I'd totally buy it.



Yeah for $69 it's really a no brainer. If you are just starting out and need a work horse it's a great option even at full price.

I own all of the U-He stuff so even at $99 it doesn't make sense to get Pigments sonically speaking. But I'm thinking about getting it to get some variety... I've been using U-He synths almost exclusively since I bought Zebra 2 in 2010 or so and Pigments seems to be in the same league all things considered (sound, UI, features, CPU, etc).


----------



## Cinebient (Jan 3, 2020)

The only big bummer for me is the "weird" voice stealing with Pigments when you retrigger the same note which happens also with polyphony. It cut off the release of the previous trigger.


----------



## sostenuto (Jan 3, 2020)

Cinebient said:


> The only big bummer for me is the "weird" voice stealing with Pigments when you retrigger the same note which happens also with polyphony. It cut off the release of the previous trigger.



Is this true in Piigments2 as well ?? Will hold off until some more comment clarifies this ......


----------



## Pier (Jan 4, 2020)

So it turns out I had the $69 offer too so I jumped in and bought Pigments 2.

I like the sound. It's very Arturia, for a lack of a better word. Everything sounds modern, clean, and precise. The filter options are great which is something I've missed from Hive. The modulation options are very nice and powerful.

CPU usage seems high when opening a single instance, but I did a little superficial benchmark and ran about 50 instances of Pigments. The CPU meter on Ableton Live only went up to about 30% so it seems efficient.

I played with it for an hour and already bumped into a couple of bugs. For example scaling on Windows 10 with a 4K monitor doesn't work. It always renders in low DPI with blurry text and graphics regardless of the window size. There are also some annoying clicks when playing legato notes in mono.

The UI engine is kinda weird, not sure what they are using but it feels kinda laggy compared to other synths. It almost feels like they are using a web browser to render the UI. Ewww.

The UX is kinda weird too. For example the effects are grouped into buses. If you turn off the bus the effects still look like they are working, no indication in the UI other than a little on/off switch of the bus. I find the colorful animations of the modulators quite distracting. I know some people like those things but I wish there was a setting to turn them off. These things are not the end of the world, but it's simply not the level of polish I'd expect from a $199 synth in 2020.

I reported the bugs to their forum which is just a hideous experience. It's a forum from like from 20 years ago with unreadable captchas and such.

Honestly I would not recommend Pigments at full price. If you have $200 to spend on a synth better go with Zebra. As a software developer myself I feel ripped off when I see an expensive product cutting corners like this.


----------



## W Ackerman (Jan 4, 2020)

@Pier Bover Definitely not encountering any lag issues on my system. Response is immediate for everything I try. Is there a particular scenario that is laggy is for you? Thanks.


----------



## Pier (Jan 4, 2020)

Everything. The animations, the popups, etc. It seems to be running at 30 fps instead of the 60fps my monitor is at.


----------



## dpasdernick (Jan 4, 2020)

I got it for $49 bucks. I actually wasn't going to get it and then caved. It does seem to be a bit of a resource hog? 

I do like it though. I imported some old Emax samples and that's when the real fun began. Lot's of sound sculpting options.

I love Arturia. Here's to hoping they start making Ensoniq VI's soon!


----------



## Pier (Jan 5, 2020)

dpasdernick said:


> It does seem to be a bit of a resource hog?



I thought so at first but it may be only the UI.

Have you tried to do a benchmark without the UI opened? Eg: creating a track with Pigments and then duplicating until your CPU can't handle it.


----------



## Damarus (Jan 7, 2020)

On the fence about this still, considering its the last day for the intro pricing.

I would most likely just use the granular synthesis part of it. Importing samples into it is really easy, I like that. But even the granular synth seems very meh.


----------



## Pier (Jan 7, 2020)

Damarus said:


> On the fence about this still, considering its the last day for the intro pricing.
> 
> I would most likely just use the granular synthesis part of it. Importing samples into it is really easy, I like that. But even the granular synth seems very meh.



Honestly the granular synth feels like an extra gimmick they added to be able to market the product again... It's very superficial compared to dedicated granular products on the market like Dust or Portal.


----------



## Damarus (Jan 7, 2020)

Pier Bover said:


> Honestly the granular synth feels like an extra gimmick they added to be able to market the product again... It's very superficial compared to dedicated granular products on the market like Dust or Portal.



I've really been into running my own samples through granular engines lately.

The only ones I've really used are Omnisphere's engine, Ganulator2 from Ableton, and recently Recombulator2.. Though, they have left something to be desired in each of them.

Those 2 you mentioned look interesting from a quick glance - can you import your own samples?

Ideally I would love to drag and drop samples in and be able to morph them pretty quickly


----------



## Damarus (Jan 7, 2020)

Actually Dust looks awesome - Ill have to try the Demo

Edit: it wasn't awesome


----------



## Voider (Jan 8, 2020)

KarlHeinz said:


> I am really not into the other Arturia stuff trying to copy evry great hardware synth that had ever been but this is something really outstanding and unique.



I think you confuse Arturia with Behringer :D



Pier Bover said:


> The UI engine is kinda weird, not sure what they are using but it feels kinda laggy compared to other synths. It almost feels like they are using a web browser to render the UI. Ewww.



Absolutely smooth here in high fps, no laggs. Must be something on your side.


----------



## Pier (Jan 8, 2020)

Voider said:


> Absolutely smooth here in high fps, no laggs. Must be something on your side.



Possible, but I doubt it. I'm running a GTX1070 and a Ryzen 3700X on an almost fresh Windows 10 installation.

I contacted Arturia's support about the 4K issue in Windows 10 and their first answer was (I copied and pasted) "We do not support high Dpi scaling" and automatically marked the issue as resolved without paying much attention to what I wrote. After a couple more emails and going nowhere I asked for a refund.

Edit:

The "4K issue" I mentioned is either running Pigments in low DPI with blurry ugly text and graphics, or when disabling "automatic scaling" in Ableton Live presented with a cropped UI with the same blurry graphics.


----------



## Voider (Jan 8, 2020)

Pier Bover said:


> Possible, but I doubt it. I'm running a GTX1070 and a Ryzen 3700X on an almost fresh Windows 10 installation.



Okay, I'm just on full HD with the GTX 1070 as well and a Ryzen 2700X. But in full hd it's perfect.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 8, 2020)

Seems ok on my 4k hidpi monitor. Mac though.


----------



## Pier (Jan 10, 2020)

Dewdman42 said:


> Seems ok on my 4k hidpi monitor. Mac though.



Not sure why but I've had many more issues with hiDPI apps on Windows than macOS. I don't mean that Windows is worse but that for some reason a lot of devs do not test their software properly with hiDPI and scaling. Not only audio plugins, even big developers like Adobe. Maybe because 1080p is still the most common resolution compared to retina on macOS which is the standard.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 10, 2020)

Yea, something to be said for Retina being Apple's "standard". I have heard and tend to agree, that Apple has just generally done a deeper and better job of implementing the internals of HiDPI into the OS. Windows is getting better in this area, but Apple's implementation is really good. So if you have problems with HiDPI on windows, hard to say if its the dev's fault or Windows' fault...or both...but certainly, I would guess 99% or windows users are not using HiDPI, so there is that too, and meanwhile, its more common on the mac platform to be using HiDPi.. anyone with a MacBookPro or iMac is fundamentally using it.

Ironically, its much more difficult for a mac user to enable HiDPI if they aren't using a MBP or iMac (or apple branded monitor over Thunderbolt). Windows users can easily go into their control panel and change the scaling without any fuss, though most don't do that. And maybe for good reason if it causes funky things to start happening with graphics sometimes. On the other hand, on the mac where HiDPI works brilliantly....its automatically on with Apple branded products, but a PITA to enable if you are using a third party monitor and GPU.


----------



## Pier (Jan 10, 2020)

Dewdman42 said:


> Windows is getting better in this area, but Apple's implementation is really good



I generally prefer macOS but I think the hiDPI implementation at the OS level is better in Windows. You can set things at any size you want with scaling. In macOS you are forced to use some ratios derived from common resolutions and for some reason it has a performance penalty.

So for example I have a 5K iMac. My eyesight is not as good as it used to be (too many years programming I guess) so at the native resolution everything is too small. But then the next step down is just too big...









Dewdman42 said:


> I would guess 99% or windows users are not using HiDPI



I don't really know for sure but I doubt it's as rare. For example a good portion of Windows laptops have hiDPI displays these days. All Surface products are hiDPI. I personally bought my first 4K monitor 5 years ago.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 10, 2020)

You need to get switchresx. There is lots of flexibility in OS X too. It’s just not made easy from Apple to configure. I believe even without switchresx you can at least use the option key when you select scaled, and you will see a simple list box with more hidpi resolutions to choose from. Anyway having lots of scaling options is not always better.

The implementation internally, regardless of how hard it is to set up is way better in OS X because it’s not just scaling it, the os renders all kinds of corners and curves taking into consideration hiDPI. That’s why retina displays are breathtaking, while windows just kind of looks marginally better mainly on touch devices with high dpi displays


----------



## Pier (Jan 11, 2020)

Nah switchresx changes the resolution of the screen which is exactly what you don't want.

When changing the scaling option in macOS the resolution of the display doesn't change. Even though when pressing alt you see a list of resolutions macOS is just rendering the UI bigger or smaller since Cocoa (the UI SDK) is mostly using vector graphics which are resolution independent (unlike bitmap based UIs). I say mostly because icons are still bitmap based but with such big bitmaps it always look great (eg: the icons on your dock). Obviously if an app doesn't use Cocoa (such as Photoshop or Pigments) then the implementation of that is responsibility of the developer.

Windows 10 is also mostly vector based for most of its more modern UIs. The settings app, file explorer, etc. The legacy stuff still renders with the old SDK which is bitmap based which is why some stuff looks all blurry in hiDPI monitors. All icons in Windows are also bitmap based but it uses much smaller bitmaps compared to macOS which is why they look so ugly (eg: the icons near the clock). The thing is that for better or worse Windows has legendary backwards compatibility and a lot of devs are still using old SDKs that do not support scaling. For example, JUCE is a framework extremely popular in the audio dev world and only today they released support for hiDPI in Windows. It's not really Windows fault, hiDPI support has been there for many years, but devs have not adapted for one reason or the other.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 11, 2020)

sorry, but that is not correct. 

SwitchResX does exactly the same thing that the OSX control panel does, it just provides more options and access to more possible resolutions, including HiDPI modes, and makes it easy to do so. In some cases with non-Apple monitors it may be needed to enable HiDPI. 

Without switchresX, did you try using the option key to hit the Scaled button in the OSX display preference window? First click the "Default for Display" radio button, then hold down option key while clicking on "Scaled". That will display a different and more detailed list showing all possible display resolutions, some of which are not available from the simplified GUI that Apple shows (you displayed that above), on Apple branded Retina monitors. It will look something like this:






Don't use the resolutions that say "low resolution". Those are non-hidpi modes. But you will be able to choose any of the others and they will be proper hiDPI. You should are able to find a resolution that is halfway between the two you complained above as either being too big, or too small. 

You should try that for a simple fix. SwitchResX just lets me see all those resolutions directly from the menubar but without having to hit option key...and basically i can also filter out the resolutions I know I will never use and things like that. SwitchResX is also capable of adding other resolutions that are not included by default for your display and GPU if you need it. In some cases you may need something like that with a non Apple branded monitor in order to get full HiDPI happening, but I'm willing to bet with your Apple monitor that additional resolutions are already there. I would guess your 27" monitor would look best at 2560x1440, but that should be the default from Apple already. You could try 3008x1692 or even you can create other resolutions its all fine and worth a try and its changing the resolution of your monitor, it will still be using the complete 5k glory of your Retina monitor to render all the pixels.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 11, 2020)

more comments...



Pier Bover said:


> Nah switchresx changes the resolution of the screen which is exactly what you don't want.



As already note. No it doesn't. 



> When changing the scaling option in macOS the resolution of the display doesn't change. Even though when pressing alt you see a list of resolutions macOS is just rendering the UI bigger or smaller since Cocoa (the UI SDK) is mostly using vector graphics which are resolution independent (unlike bitmap based UIs). I say mostly because icons are still bitmap based but with such big bitmaps it always look great (eg: the icons on your dock). Obviously if an app doesn't use Cocoa (such as Photoshop or Pigments) then the implementation of that is responsibility of the developer.



more or less yes, but if the system thinks you have a smaller non-HiDPI resolution then it will render to that size of a canvas, which will result in pixelation you can see, even on your 5k monitor. But if its in HiDPI mode, then internally it uses a much larger canvas. so the default mode with your Retina monitor is to render the internal stuff using vectors and what not, onto a 5k canvas. But the virtual resolution of 2560x1440 (which is 1/4 the number of pixels), is that frame of reference OSX is using to size windows and fonts and for forth. This is why OSX is so much better then windows IMHO, but he we can agree to differ on that if you like windows better. In any case, the virtual resolution is 2560x1440 but still internally its using a 5k canvas.

If you put the OSX display into non-hidpi mode, then it will use a 2560x1440 internal canvas and you will see crappy pixelation. Apple is preventing you from making that mistake by giving you a very simple UI, which you showed above, which basically makes sure you are always using hiDPI mode. 

Where apple is a little bit stingy in this regard is that they don't provide some tweener hiDPI resolutions which are actually quite fine. They are hidden in there if you use the option key I mentioned and use a HiDPI resolution, then you will get some decent results with a virtual resolution that is larger then 2560x1440. On your 27" monitor I would think you would not be able to go much past 3000 horizontal pixels before it would be too small, but 3008x1692 should still look quite good. it does on my 32" 4k. It should look even better on your 5k.

Internally, OSX uses an even BIGGER internal canvas to render all that stuff if your virtual resolution is 3008xd1692, then the internal canvas will be 6016x3384... Then your GPU will scale it back down to 5k for your actual display. 

In my case it has to scale it back down to 4k. Looks great and all the fonts are just right.

SwitchResX just provides a bit more control over setting all that up, but you may not need it. Try the option key thing I mentioned first. In some cases, you may have to use SwitchResX to create some additional virtual resolutions. It does not scale down your actual display, it will still render it at 5k on the display, but you have to make sure you're configuring SwitchResX the right way to enable new HiDPI resolutions.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 11, 2020)

Also I want to say, you said above "at native resolution everything is too small". But you can't even actually get a retina display into native resolution without using the option key trick I mentioned. In the picture you showed above, you have the icon to the left of "default" selected. Just to be clear, the default is NOT native resolution. ON a retina display the default is 1/2 of native. A 5k display has a native resolution of 5120x2880. Nobody can use that resolution. that is the actual resolution of the pixels of your display, referred to as "native".

Apple's "default" is referring to a virtual resolution of 1/2 of that. 2560x1440. rendered on a 5k internal canvas.

when you click to the left icon, you are using some resolution that is less than 2560x1440. You don't actually know for sure what it is I guess, but if you use the option key to select the other old-school list, it should show you what resolution that actually is. So then just select a hiDPI resolution that is halfway between that and 2560. Make sure its not one of the "low resolution" ones, which are not hiDPI.

If a tweener resolution isn't there already, then that's when you need to consider SwitchResX to add a new virtual resolution that will give you a tweener resolution that is halfway in between and make sure its HiDPI.

I will say this, if you use something smaller than 2560 virtual resolution, then the internal canvas will also be smaller then 5k, so it won't actually be making full use of your 5k display for the internal canvas. I don't think. That is probably true of the icon you are using to the left of "default" also by the way, that is just how HiDPI works in general. It should still look really good though.


----------



## JEPA (Jan 11, 2020)

nice Apple thread!... is Pigments 2 still on sale?


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 11, 2020)

JEPA said:


> nice Apple thread!... is Pigments 2 still on sale?



I don't think so


----------



## ElectricFrog (Apr 4, 2020)

sostenuto said:


> ...... when bored; VintageSynthPads has a new Pigments 2 Soundset to consider (_on Promo now_).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



2 Soundsets for Pigments 2 now and back on promo:


----------



## cuttime (Apr 21, 2020)

On sale today:






Arturia - Pigments - Pigments


Pigments is a wavetable, virtual analog, granular and sampling analog software synthesizer. Create sounds easily with its intuitive and visual interface.




www.arturia.com





I've been using the free trial for a couple of weeks now, and I'm really trying hard to love it, however I keep coming up short. The interface is awesome, but the sound doesn't really inspire me. It kind of reminds me of Alchemy. Can someone convince me to buy @ $99?


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Apr 21, 2020)

I had the same reaction. Great interface. Good sound. Many people love both. 
It didn't do it for me.
I bought something else instead.


----------



## muziksculp (Apr 25, 2020)

I have the Arturia V Collection 6 , which I never bother using. I just don't like the way all of their VST Synths sound.

I also have Pigments, but didn't bother testing it out, or learning to program it, I wonder if Pigments is an exception to their other Synths, and worth digging into, learning it, and experimenting with it ? or better to just not waste my time ?


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Apr 25, 2020)

muziksculp said:


> I have the Arturia V Collection 6 , which I never bother using. I just don't like the way all of their VST Synths sound.
> 
> I also have Pigments, but didn't bother testing it out, or learning to program it, I wonder if Pigments is an exception to their other Synths, and worth digging into, learning it, and experimenting with it ? or better to just not waste my time ?



Yep. Some people are liking their newest synths. Their older ones were good at the time, but also never did it for me. I went with what was higher quality to my ears rather than quantity of synth types. Fewer that I love was better than many I didn't.


----------



## zvenx (Apr 26, 2020)

cuttime said:


> On sale today:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought I was the only one.
I bought this and Alchemy in its days, but there was something about the sound in both to me that was lacking. Thought I would grew into it, slightly did with Alchemy, and it did end up in a few projects, haven't done it with Pigments yet. Falcon for me is the same.
Lots of great features but the sound just doesn't do anything for me.
rsp


----------



## fakemaxwell (May 1, 2020)

Pier Bover said:


> The UI engine is kinda weird, not sure what they are using but it feels kinda laggy compared to other synths. It almost feels like they are using a web browser to render the UI. Ewww.
> 
> The UX is kinda weird too.



This is how the Arturia Collection feels as well. It "looks" cool in that the synths are nicely replicated but it feels very strange to work with because the translation 1-to-1 into the computer screen isn't a good choice. The CS-80 is massive, yet somehow the buttons and text are still tiny, adding the GUI lag to it isn't helpful either. Very unwieldy to work with, much prefer using Zebra.


----------

