16 thoughts on “New Software Synth For iPad, iTuttle, ‘Awesome Fat & Warm’”

1. okay, this is probably where i start sounding like a troll . . . but for the life of me i *cannot* figure out why people do monophonic synths for ipad. about making them polyphonic with the option to go to mono??

   really—what is the attraction of monophonic synths in the digital domain?

   1. Interesting question. I think: If you’re going to ask why not make it a poly, you might as well start asking other questions. Like why limit the oscillators to sounding like analog waveforms? Why not have 100 oscillators per voice? Why not a vocoder? Why not crossmodulation, hard sync, ring mod, a thousand modulation options, and a huge effects engine? Why not a massive multi-tab GUI? Why not add every single synth feature that’s ever been invented and just declare synth victory?

      I think that monosynths are a different instrument than polysynths. You approach and play and create patches for them differently. I’d like to think that a mono released in software is dedicating it’s full processor load on creating a single premium voice, as well as the traditional mono workflow.

      Heck, If you’re going to model traditional subtractive synthesis you’re already designing in limitations. Shouldn’t we be onto some quantum 3-D phase granulator tone generation by now? Something that makes tones from Facebook likes, and that you control via a sensor suit with a 8×8 pad on your chest?

      1. i hear what you’re saying.

         seems to me there are a bunch of mono synths for ipad out there. not feeling the newd for one more. guess i’m feeling the need more polys 😉

         1. its a touch screen device, multi touch = more process power, then add in the voices…. ntm 90% of the purchasers will bitch that they need an external controller to play cords correctly, and they dont want an “ant screen keyboard”.

            imo you see this trend for two reasons, one, the market. the other, the platform. a device designed to be portible, lightweight, and have more then enough power to play angry birds – great. but, some things in life require more resources, and some processes are more demanding then angry birds.

      2. I think that what you are saying is theoretically correct, but it is a different thing.
         Implementing all the stuff you listed would be very cool, but it would require such a processing power that probably even the latest model of iPad doesn’t have.

         Making a synth polyphonic requires a notably less increase in system requirements, and it is far more useful than having ‘something that makes tones from Facebook likes’ 🙂

   2. I think the goal was to have an 9 oscillator synth, to be different from the dozens of other synths out there.
      There is not enough horsepower on the iPad for many voices x 9 oscillators, hence, it is a monosynth.

      1. I think that an iPad can have processing power for making a poly update(or going after even more impossible mono sounds, as 9 osc/voice might be overkill) for this at some point, but they are now aiming at iOS 6.0 level, and the lowest common denominator may not quite have the muscles to juggle with several 9 osc signal chainsaws.

   3. There are different goals for a monosynth vs a polysynth. Sounds that are extremely complex and dynamic can work great as leads, but sound terrible as chords.

      1. >>> Sounds that are extremely complex and dynamic can work great as leads, but sound terrible as chords.

         That’s exactly what I keep saying about the new, imagined PolyMoog/MemoryMoog so many want to see. Most modular patches turn to mud if played more than duophonically at best. When I see a monophonic application for anything, I think “cello,” because the focus is on intonation rather than chords. By that standard (in synth terms), I think this app can beat up your app. I haven’t seen anything quite like it that was not much larger and pricier. 9 oscillators will demand careful use, but if used carefully, they’ll also give you big synth biceps. Its like a mini-Reaktor instrument.

2. Looks like there is a “lite” version in the app store, for demo purposes.

3. Bought it and it sounds really fat and warm.
   Would be nice to have Inter-App Audio capability though. Next update perhaps?

4. I’ll send the dev an email so he can answer the mono question.

   But, analysing the update history on his other App (TB MIDI Stuff – MIDI controller), I expect this App to be updated frequently. Twenty eight updates in less than 2 years is a good sign 😉

5. Hi All,

   I am Fabien MANCHEC, the author of iTuttle. Vitor asked me to tell you more on choices made with iTuttle.

   First, I removed Audiobus support just before sending the app to the AppStore because the user experience was not good enough. I am currently working on improvements and also on IAA support. I hope it will be available soon.

   Now, why a mono ? The answer is simple : iPad’s CPU can’t handle more than one voice. I made the prototype of iTuttle on a Macbook Air and it handles, without any optimizations, up to 4 voices. When I started the iPad’s version (seven weeks ago), I need to remove a dozen of features and highly optimized it to obtain only one voice.

   Making a virtual synth is a lot of compromises. And each compromise has an impact on sound quality. I tried to do the least possible compromise to preserve the sound quality. It is a choice. I wanted to do a synth that didn’t sound like others. May be I succeed, may be not. It is not my role to tell it.

   1. cool.

      thanks for your input. greatly appreciated.

      1. You’re welcome.

6. Fabien!
   I’m coming from the world of hardware and I can just say that the output of ituttle is purely awsome. In My opinion it easily stands up to the likes of My hardware toys. Ituttle is a very intuitive and inspiring peace of “machine”. Looking forward to audiobus support since you’ve made software that really has a place in anyone’s production 🙂
   Greetings from Sweden
   //Dag