In the way that they are not competing directly in things that matter for majority of users which use sample libraries available out there for anything. Neither support background loading of patches or lossless sample compression. Performance of large instruments is worse than with Kontakt (Falcon being way worse than Halion since it doesn't do multicore processing, which Halion does), they are not as optimized for big orchestral libraries (OT tried with Iconica but it ended up being a bit of a joke).Other than perhaps scripting capabilities (a subject on which I am admittedly not well-versed,) in what ways do HALion and Falcon not compete directly with Kontakt (and pretty much eat its lunch these days)?
For reference: I own all three products and have used them quite extensively.
Synthesis, sure, agreed. But in this regard I would call them complimentary rather than competing (because Kontakt does not market itself as a multi-synthesis workstation, so it's apples vs oranges comparison).Both HALion and Falcon are clearly superior synthesis and arguably better sampling platforms.
Sampling playback-wise, Kontakt is still the most optimized to my knowledge.
Sales still support this fact, too. People want the vast and varied 3rd party library ecosystem the most.Of course, if musicians limit their use to sample libraries developed by Native Instruments and various third parties and don't have any interest in creating their own inventive hybrid synthesis/sampling instruments, then Kontakt is probably still the best choice.
You haven't checked what's in Kontakt in a long time, then. The newer ZDF filters added in Kontakt 5 are much much better than the old legacy filters (and to me better than any filter in Halion), and effects have been continuously added so there are super high quality delay, modulation, distortion, etc. effects in there these days, with topnotch DSP in there.Its relatively limited filters and FX mostly sound dated and weak to me.
Statistics: Posted by EvilDragon — Mon Apr 15, 2024 4:00 pm