jancivil wrote: don't know what Cubase does for instance, except it gives a list of 'Parameter 1 through... 256' maybe.
Yes, although shortened to Param 1 through x
All I've been saying is that host automation is fully functional within a DAW context. Nothing hidden etc..
I think the confusion seems to be the word "macro". For my own benefit, lets see if I can say how I think it works and if I'm missing something. Simon knows 100000 x more than me about this for obvious reasons, but I do use Falcon if not daily then weekly. I think some folks don't really understand Falcon created content vs a sample library instrument. They are very different things. Falcon just allows both.
Also two discussions were interweaved ... Host automation and controller automation. I think we were cross talking a bit between these two functions as well. I'll stick to Controller automation.
IMPORTANT: Pretty much every parameter that can be adjusted on an effect, sound generator, mod source or event can be exposed for automation ... both host and controller. It is easy to create patches that have hundreds and hundreds of automation points entirely unique from patch to patch. This is the main difference between Falcon content and sample library content.
IMO these two types of content have led to a bit of confusion or misunderstanding in the discussion.
1st, for Falcon content the Macro page provides a simple way to show a "most likely" set of controls for a single patch. It is NOT an "instrument page" in the normal synth sense. (discussed 2nd). Every patch can have different Macros. It also allows the creation of complex automation combinations not easily visualized in the Edit or other views ON A PER PATCH BASIS. It makes ZERO sense to have default Macros for patches created from the Falcon architecture. There's just no saying from a patch to patch basis which parameters are central to the feel of the patch. Keep in mind that because of the types of synthesis available, a huge portion of patches are NOT necessarily filter-centric. I've created plenty of patches with the wavetable, pluck and organ that don't have any filter at all. So what sense would it make to default filter cutoff to the macro page?
All I was suggesting for "default mapping" is a set of Macros buckets or something that you could default CC to so that every patch starts with some level of control ... again, similar to QC in Halion. I'm not sure how to do it, maybe number the exposed macros as 1 thru x and allow semi-permanent CC to be assigned to them. But, this is different than the "default mapping to the macro page" aMUSEd and company were talking about. I'm not suggesting the filter cutoff macro always gets CC75 or something. I'm suggesting Macro 1 (which can have any parameter assigned) always has a controller assigned.
2nd, I think most folks are used to something like Digital Synsations that IS an instrument on the Macro page. The control parameters are static from patch to patch. I agree that for these instruments it would be nice if there was a way to globally assign performance controllers to the exposed parameters on a per instrument basis. Actually it would be awesome. Maybe it's possible and I don't know.
Anyhow, I'm possibly/likely wrong on some of these points. But it seems like we had multiple cross talking topics referencing each other incorrectly.
The trick is to realize there is no spoon. That's when you'll know you have been truly swindled.