Any MetaSynth or XX users out there?

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Instruments Discussion
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

lnikj wrote:
pdxindy wrote:You gotta decide if it is for you... Every 18 months or so I think, oh, Metasynth looks so cool... then I try it out and come back to Live, Alchemy and my other synths and tools... :hihi:
Me too. It is always the workflow issues that have me doubting, and also the worry that I don't have the time for something so vast .... this time I think I might just go for it though (but I am unconvinced about XX).
You might (or might not) find that investing an hour or two in performing the tutorials will make you vastly more productive. MetaSynth is a weird beast -- maybe you have done them -- but I post this in case you haven't. Every once in a while I get a message from someone who has used MetaSynth for years but mostly learned on their own -- who have an 'a-ha' moment after spending time with the tutorials and find that some things that they thought were mysterious and random (or uncontrollable) made sense once it was explained. The tutorials make more sense performed than read since sometimes things become obvious when you do something that seem obtuse when just explained.

Like many things, it isn't for everyone. But for some people, it is an inspirational tool that they may even use in preference to arsenals of other apps and plug-ins.

What may seem like a strange workflow often results in sounds that one wouldn't create any other way -- even if using tools technically capable of creating the same sound. (This is analogous to how playing guitar in open tunings sometimes leads to discoveries that one wouldn't make in standard tuning).

If you haven't done so, take a look at the video demos (they barely touch part of MetaSynth's surface):

http://uisoftware.com/MetaSynth/videos/

You may also find interesting videos by others on YouTube or Vimeo. I recently discovered this video where Simon Stockhausen gives a peek over his shoulder as he works with it:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/LX95imyJtDo

Best,

Edward

Post

imprint wrote:
gabebrunogarza1021 wrote:
imprint wrote:Speaking of tuning, is there any way to pull more scales into Xx? It's missing several basic modes like Dorian, Locrian, Phrygian, etc....also the demo seems to crash a lot.
Unless I'm missing something here, why wouldn't you just choose Custom Scale and create your own scales? :D
Image
Just wondered if there was a way to shortcut it...I like using different modes and would rather not have to key them in individually.
Unfortunately, the scales menu isn't customizable. But once you have created the scale, you can export and then re-use it with a click or few.

Best,

Edward

Post

espiegel123 wrote:
lnikj wrote:
pdxindy wrote:You gotta decide if it is for you... Every 18 months or so I think, oh, Metasynth looks so cool... then I try it out and come back to Live, Alchemy and my other synths and tools... :hihi:
Me too. It is always the workflow issues that have me doubting, and also the worry that I don't have the time for something so vast .... this time I think I might just go for it though (but I am unconvinced about XX).
You might (or might not) find that investing an hour or two in performing the tutorials will make you vastly more productive. MetaSynth is a weird beast -- maybe you have done them -- but I post this in case you haven't. Every once in a while I get a message from someone who has used MetaSynth for years but mostly learned on their own -- who have an 'a-ha' moment after spending time with the tutorials and find that some things that they thought were mysterious and random (or uncontrollable) made sense once it was explained. The tutorials make more sense performed than read since sometimes things become obvious when you do something that seem obtuse when just explained.

Like many things, it isn't for everyone. But for some people, it is an inspirational tool that they may even use in preference to arsenals of other apps and plug-ins.

What may seem like a strange workflow often results in sounds that one wouldn't create any other way -- even if using tools technically capable of creating the same sound. (This is analogous to how playing guitar in open tunings sometimes leads to discoveries that one wouldn't make in standard tuning).

If you haven't done so, take a look at the video demos (they barely touch part of MetaSynth's surface):

http://uisoftware.com/MetaSynth/videos/

You may also find interesting videos by others on YouTube or Vimeo. I recently discovered this video where Simon Stockhausen gives a peek over his shoulder as he works with it:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/LX95imyJtDo

Best,

Edward
Hi Edward

Many thanks for the long post!

You know what ... this time I have been going through the tutorials and things are making a lot more sense!

That said, the workflow issues are more to do with having only one level of undo than anything else.

Don't worry though ... I'm 99% there this time.

Thanks again!

Post

lnikj wrote:That said, the workflow issues are more to do with having only one level of undo than anything else.
This has to be the most irritating aspect of Metasynth. For a sound design tool that can take you down so many creative paths, it really should have the most comprehensive undo system instead of the lamest! The workaround is saving every step (and side-step) along the way; and manually managing that process. But it is a very creative environment for developing new textures and mangling audio. @ $249 with Xx, it's a great deal.

Post

Breeze wrote:
lnikj wrote:That said, the workflow issues are more to do with having only one level of undo than anything else.
This has to be the most irritating aspect of Metasynth. For a sound design tool that can take you down so many creative paths, it really should have the most comprehensive undo system instead of the lames....
We would love to have multiple undo believe it or not, but finding a practical way to implement it has been an obstacle for rather boring technical issues. (Essentially, it would require a ground-up rewrite -- and MetaSynth has a massive codebase).

We are not unsympathetic. We just haven't found a practical way to do it without destabilizing MetaSynth or having to start a multi-year project to rewrite it from scratch.

Best,

Edward

Post

I removed a previous post here challenging the complexity of an undo system discussed by Edward because I realized that the state of the GUI mirrors the state of the audio and that managing that through the various levels of undo must be where the complexity lies... thanks for the candid reply, Edward.

But for the record this is what I'd like to see in Metasynth:

A simple undo system with a user specified number of historical steps, where "Undo" gets you the previous edit, and "Redo" gets you the next. A new applied effect erases the redo history. I'd be willing to forgo saving the history across editing rooms to have this.

I'd also like to see various "memory slots" where I could quickly save the audio in its current state so that I could then "undo" the last edit on my main work and carry on with its editing; I could later go back to a slot's save for further editing. The idea behind this is that sometimes in the editing process you do something that can creatively go elsewhere than you intended to go in the session, and you run into something interesting that you want to go back to later (which both can happen OFTEN with Metasynth). They could also be used to quickly return to previous states of your edits. The main point of these slots is to make the save quick so you don't spend too much time interrupting your workflow. I'd see 4 - 8 of these, simple square slots marked "A", "B", "C", etc, each with a save menu to save a "final" version of each to disk. And of course, ideally each of these could have their own history, which would allow parallel working on different versions of the same idea...

Currently I do the above by constant manual saves. It's very tedious!

Post

lnikj wrote:
espiegel123 wrote:
lnikj wrote:
pdxindy wrote:You gotta decide if it is for you... Every 18 months or so I think, oh, Metasynth looks so cool... then I try it out and come back to Live, Alchemy and my other synths and tools... :hihi:
Me too. It is always the workflow issues that have me doubting, and also the worry that I don't have the time for something so vast .... this time I think I might just go for it though (but I am unconvinced about XX).
You might (or might not) find that investing an hour or two in performing the tutorials will make you vastly more productive. MetaSynth is a weird beast -- maybe you have done them -- but I post this in case you haven't. Every once in a while I get a message from someone who has used MetaSynth for years but mostly learned on their own -- who have an 'a-ha' moment after spending time with the tutorials and find that some things that they thought were mysterious and random (or uncontrollable) made sense once it was explained. The tutorials make more sense performed than read since sometimes things become obvious when you do something that seem obtuse when just explained.

Like many things, it isn't for everyone. But for some people, it is an inspirational tool that they may even use in preference to arsenals of other apps and plug-ins.

What may seem like a strange workflow often results in sounds that one wouldn't create any other way -- even if using tools technically capable of creating the same sound. (This is analogous to how playing guitar in open tunings sometimes leads to discoveries that one wouldn't make in standard tuning).

If you haven't done so, take a look at the video demos (they barely touch part of MetaSynth's surface):

http://uisoftware.com/MetaSynth/videos/

You may also find interesting videos by others on YouTube or Vimeo. I recently discovered this video where Simon Stockhausen gives a peek over his shoulder as he works with it:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/LX95imyJtDo

Best,

Edward
Hi Edward

Many thanks for the long post!

You know what ... this time I have been going through the tutorials and things are making a lot more sense!

That said, the workflow issues are more to do with having only one level of undo than anything else.

Don't worry though ... I'm 99% there this time.

Thanks again!
I did the tutorials last fall and it was difficult to get through them on a timely basis because you do have to think differently. It's not that MetaSynth/Xx was illogical, just not intuitive when you've been trained for years on standard menu systems. So, I'll try them again...maybe the second time will be the charm for me too.

Edward, thanks for your notes. I really do want to love this....

Post

Hi Breeze,

I hear ya. Much of the problem is a technical one due to MetaSynth being built on a foundation that has its origins before object-oriented programming was common on the Mac. OOP made multi-undo a fairly trivial thing (which is why it is nearly universal) -- because you can easily clone an object to which you can revert.

It wouldn't be impossible to impose it on MetaSynth but it would be such a massive effort that (given how tiny we are), it would pre-empt the addition of interesting new capabilities. If our codebase were more modern, it would be a much easier task. It could happen, but it isn't a change that is imminent. I think MetaSynth's codebase is now over a million lines of code -- so fundamental architectural changes are a bit dangerous.

Best,

Edward
Breeze wrote:I removed a previous post here challenging the complexity of an undo system discussed by Edward because I realized that the state of the GUI mirrors the state of the audio and that managing that through the various levels of undo must be where the complexity lies... thanks for the candid reply, Edward.

But for the record this is what I'd like to see in Metasynth:

A simple undo system with a user specified number of historical steps, where "Undo" gets you the previous edit, and "Redo" gets you the next. A new applied effect erases the redo history. I'd be willing to forgo saving the history across editing rooms to have this.

I'd also like to see various "memory slots" where I could quickly save the audio in its current state so that I could then "undo" the last edit on my main work and carry on with its editing; I could later go back to a slot's save for further editing. The idea behind this is that sometimes in the editing process you do something that can creatively go elsewhere than you intended to go in the session, and you run into something interesting that you want to go back to later (which both can happen OFTEN with Metasynth). They could also be used to quickly return to previous states of your edits. The main point of these slots is to make the save quick so you don't spend too much time interrupting your workflow. I'd see 4 - 8 of these, simple square slots marked "A", "B", "C", etc, each with a save menu to save a "final" version of each to disk. And of course, ideally each of these could have their own history, which would allow parallel working on different versions of the same idea...

Currently I do the above by constant manual saves. It's very tedious!

Post

imprint wrote:
I did the tutorials last fall and it was difficult to get through them on a timely basis because you do have to think differently. It's not that MetaSynth/Xx was illogical, just not intuitive when you've been trained for years on standard menu systems. So, I'll try them again...maybe the second time will be the charm for me too.

Edward, thanks for your notes. I really do want to love this....
One thing to keep in mind is that what distinguishes MetaSynth in unleashing new sounds -- is the fact that it doesn't work the same way that other apps do. That can be frustrating -- especially if you try to find analogs in the MetaSynth workflow to other apps. If you can let go of your expectations and what you already know, it can help.

If you have questions or get stuck on a tutorial, let me know what the sticking point is. One other word of advice is that as you perform them, it can be useful to push through and then go back. Sometimes, things become clearer on a second pass.

Anyway, I hope you will find it less of a beast this time.

:)

p.s. I can extend the deadline if you are making a good-faith effort to get through the tutorials. You will have to PM me, if you miss the deadline.

Post

I use and love MetaSynth. It's truly a unique and amazing beast for sculpting sounds. I see it as a mad scientist laboratory where you have a bunch of tools and beakers at your disposition and you mix all kind of stuff (sounds here!) to create and make new ones.

It definitely has a unique workflow that may even seems erratic & uninviting for some, and it takes time and patience to really get comfortable with it but I've always thought people were over exaggerating about it like if it takes a master degree to be able to do something with it. When I finally got it and started experimenting with it, I really didn't find it THAT hard. Again, yes it has a particular workflow and you need dedicated time to really explore the possibilities and control it, but it's not chemical engineering neither. I think the real question here is : do you have TIME to give to MetaSynth. It's not a preset synth where you get sounds in 5 clicks, it's a tool for creating from scratch, just like painting. (and guess what! You can paint in MetaSynth muahaha :P)
Last edited by Neon Breath on Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

Neon Breath wrote:I use and love MetaSynth. It's truly a unique and amazing beast for sculpting sounds. I see it as a mad scientist laboratory when you have a bunch of tools and beakers at your disposition and you mix all kind of stuff (sounds here!) to create and make new ones.

It definitely has a unique workflow that may even seems erratic & uninviting for some, and it takes time and patience to really get comfortable with it but I've always thought people were over exaggerating about it like if it takes a master degree to be able to do something with it. When I finally got it and started experimenting with it, I really didn't find it THAT hard. Again, yes it has a particular workflow and you need dedicated time to really explore the possibilities and control it, but it's not chemical engineering neither. I think the real question here is : do you have TIME to give to MetaSynth. It's not a preset synth where you get sounds in 5 clicks, it's a tool for creating from scratch, just like painting. (and guess what! You can paint in MetaSynth muahaha :P)
I think you point out an important distinction between MetaSynth and a lot of apps out there -- not that one approach is better than the other; they are just different. MetaSynth (due its being an organic outgrowth of a man building tools for himself that he finds inspiring) tends to appeal people that are kind of driven to create sounds or music that they haven't heard before -- or people that want to break free of a workflow that has become limiting as a result of its familiarity. You know sometimes you play music with the same people for long enough that you say -- "man, I need a new context to play in because everything I play is starting to sound like something I did before". (There are a lot of familiar effects and what-not that you can achieve with MetaSynth but that isn't what drives us to create/use it).

So, people happy with their existing apps' workflow and sounds will find MetaSynth to be not very fun. People who find the normal way of doing things a bit limiting find MetaSynth liberating.

One approach is not better than the other (IMHO). Maybe this will help people who wonder if MS is for them or wonder why our stuff is so foreign.

Post

espiegel123 wrote:Hi Breeze,

I hear ya. Much of the problem is a technical one due to MetaSynth being built on a foundation that has its origins before object-oriented programming was common on the Mac. OOP made multi-undo a fairly trivial thing (which is why it is nearly universal) -- because you can easily clone an object to which you can revert.

It wouldn't be impossible to impose it on MetaSynth but it would be such a massive effort that (given how tiny we are), it would pre-empt the addition of interesting new capabilities. If our codebase were more modern, it would be a much easier task. It could happen, but it isn't a change that is imminent. I think MetaSynth's codebase is now over a million lines of code -- so fundamental architectural changes are a bit dangerous.

Best,

Edward

It might pre-empt the addition of interesting new capabilities, but one might argue that a robust undo would do more for the actual work of the user than any of those other new features... I'm not a Metasynth user, but if I were, I would happily pay some upgrade cost for an 'essential' but not sexy feature like that... just sayin :)

Post

Still in the final phase of evaluating and really working the tutorials...going much better this time...

Any tips when it comes to Spectrum Synth? DEMO mode doesn't allow rendering and I seem to get lost in this tutorial easily as a result. I can't seem to get the hang of even creating slices consistently.

Post

Actually Edward wrote me back and gave me some guidance on a few things...but if others have any insight don't feel you have to hold back :-)

Post Reply

Return to “Instruments”