It would be good to have the same features as the RC in the Scaler. The RC even goes ahead thanks to its versatility. In terms of chords, perhaps Scaler is clearer, but its features practically run out in the design of chord cycles, so to speak. So I would like an improvement in Scaler on that front in the future.
Yes it would be nice to have RC stuff in Scaler. I use both. But you have to realize, Rapid Composer costs $199 (I paid $149 on a Spring Sale) and Scaler costs $49. Thereâs no way to achieve that level in Scaler for the amount it costs now. Would I pay more for more functionality? Absolutely!
We will just have to see what the future and Scaler 3 brings us,
2 Likes
You mean as in replicating all or a significant proportion of RC functions in Scaler ?
As a personal take, when comparing product functions, I always do a âbang for buckâ sanity check. RC is 342% more than Scaler as at the time of typing, so it would be interesting to get your take on which RC functions you would choose if it was limited to 3 only i.e. what do your see as the big hitting points of RC over Scaler ?
As a caveat here, I donât have RC, nor have I studied it, so it would be informative to have a comment from experienced users like @jjfagot or @jamieh about where the main overlaps are and any obvious shortfalls in Scaler.
** (30 seconds later ⊠@jamieh beat me to it, and yes, letâs see what V3 brings)
FWIW, (probably not much) my view of vertical, focussed, software is that I prefer to look for integration and co-existence of specialised apps - I prefer an inch wide and a mile deep to a mile wide and an inch deep.
.
2 Likes
Hopefully not an extra $100 for more functinality. Iâm with @yorkeman
I too prefer an inch wide and a mile deep.
2 Likes
RC is built to do more, but its interface is such a pain to use. Iâll take Scalerâs clear, convenient UI anytime.
I canât say what parts, but at least a lot of melody, rhythm aspects, etc.
I agree with you that the RC interface is painful to use if compared to Scaler. Thatâs why I would like the RC features to be in Scaler because itâs clearer.
I would also pay if Scaler developed enough features. However, Scalerâs interface is more pleasant and clear.
It is difficult to make comparisons, since they are different products. For my way of writing, both are very useful.
Scaler is a great plugin for editing progressions and can be used as a Vsti as well as a VSt for audio detection.
Many times we ask for things and more things from Scaler, when it is a very cheap add-on for everything it does.
Since I have RapidComposer as well, Iâm not going to ask Scaler to integrate RC stuff so that it costs more money. Is that being selfish? I am sorry.
The point is that RapidComposer can act as a completely independent application. Itâs a DAW for me, with the ability to generate progressions (you can also use the built-in ones, which are many). Everything can be tested before deciding, variations on chord inversions, rhythms, etc. can be generated and saved for later use. The generation of rhythmic accompaniments for guitars, strings, etc. is a game. Also, you can embed Scaler into a track, or bring the chord progression saved in Scaler to RapidComposerâs master track, and do the variations there.
You can also take all the content you have worked on to any other DAW, and continue there. Furthermore, RapidComposer can also be used as a VSTi in any DAW.
On the other hand, although as I have said, both programs allow you to generate chords and chord progressions, personally, as a classical musician (of a conservatory) I adapt better to the way RC does it. And I totally agree that Scaler is much easier to use than RC. The learning curve is quite a bit steeper in RC, but Iâm over it and now Iâm comfortable. Iâm still using Scaler, of course. I use very little RC as a VST in a DAW, and for that Scaler is much faster and more practical. I could learn to use RC better as a VST in a DAW, but I prefer to use it as a separate application and not get into more studies that would take time away from making music. Everyone chooses the workflow that works best for them.
Anyway, all things considered, I donât think RC is expensive for everything it allows me to do.
I would ask Scaler for things that others wonât share because, as I said, we donât all have the same way of writing. I write for orchestra and many of the dilemmas that arise in the forum concern guitars. For my convenience, an A6 is an A6 and an A13 is an A13. And having to manually type in such a common chord in the harmony that Iâve learned just seems to me confusing. In the same way, writing rhythmic values ââalso creates confusion. It is overcome because they are simple mathematics, but it would be more suitable for musicians to write down the musical figures that are used worldwide in Western music. Like progressions, and chord suggestions, itâs been a long time since I asked for possibilities for negative harmony to be integrated. Little more would I ask. This is my opinion only and I will not argue. Developers keep making Scaler and RapidComposer bigger. I complement them well
4 Likes
This is a really good analysis of a question that seems to keep arising. Pity we donât have a sort of âreferenceâ category for such posts ⊠which could be moderated, I guess.
I feel as though Iâve stated this before but to reiterate, I think both of these apps work well together. RC is a more formal music theory app and, to me, is much slower to get going in. Scaler has the advantage of speed and intuition. I can come up with a great progression and test it agains picture in far less time then using RC. But RC has the great advantage of brilliant humanizing and logical randomization. Itâs finger picking patterns sound great. Voice leading is super as well.
I can drag patterns from Scaler to RC and they become much more subtle in some ways.
But I would not enjoy Scaler if it took as long to create a piece of music in as RC.
@jjfagot covered things in more detail so I wonât bore you with more of my views. I think Scaler can add or refine some of its onboard composition tools in an RC direction for sure without becoming too clunky.
With where we were in Scaler 1 and where we are now in Scaler 2.5 I look forward to Scaler 3 and beyond.
Just my 2 cents.of course.
3 Likes
one thing i greatly appreciate about scaler is the possibility that i can jam live. Of course, that too can be developed even better.
Here again, I noticed that the use of RC itself is really low. Itâs too difficult to interface with itself. Apparently Scaler is rockier because it opens up to me all the time on every player.
Speaking of RC comparisonsâŠ
Anyone gets what MIDI Mutator is offering?
Iâm intrigued enough that I might eventually give the trial version a spin (before the intro pricing runs out). This desktop plugin is the usual 29USD popularized by Waves, some years back. And it sounds like it includes different tools.
(This is similar pricing to Scaler on iPadOS, though those typically run a small fraction of the price of their desktop equivalents, for multiple reasons.)
What makes things difficult is that I couldnât find a straightforward explanation of how different MIDI Mutator is from âMelodyaâ or, indeed, the different RC versions.
[Posted in the wrong thread]
Midi Mutator is now integrated into RapidComposer. Since last update 4.4.0 (yesterday)
Apparently it can also be purchased as a stand-alone application.
I just discovered it, when updating
1 Like
EmpÀs ole vielÀ kokeillut. Vaikuttaa hyvÀltÀ lisÀstÀ, ehkÀ?
Now my translator went crazy 
Sorry Hulkko, I canât get my Google translate to decipher what youâve written. What language is?
Midi Mutator creates random variations controlled by the user, according to several options of time, inversions, and much more.
As a standalone application, or as a VST within a DAW, drag a midi file into the Midi Mutator. Within RapidComposer, Shift + double click on any block you have created to open the Midi Mutator tab. I just tried it inside RC and I find it very useful to inspire variations
1 Like
Thanks. That makes it a bit clearer. (I did realize it was a part of RC. Since I donât know RC, that part wasnât so helpful.)
It sounds a bit like the kind of MIDI plugins we have on iPadOS (Rozeta suite, mfxConvert, Cality, Audio Veek MIDI Tools, Cem Olcayâs *Bud seriesâŠ). Although more about editing in the pianoroll than piping MIDI signals from one module to the next.
Speaking of modules, Music Developmentsâs copy makes it sound like thereâs a suite of tools. Is it more about features within the crammed interface?
According to GTranslate on my machine:
I havenât tried it yet. Seems like a good addition, maybe?
