Synthmaster 3 wish list

[Vell Muziq]

When it comes to Synthmaster 2 most of the people complain about GUI or how difficult for programming it is because nothing behave like other synths when you start to turn the knobs.I guess Synthmaster one is being developed to make it close to other synths ,but i am not one of these users and i like it the way it is now so i just want to share some wishes about Synthmaster 3 from designers point ,please if u are user share your opinion too.I really love this synth and i know the developer listen users so i will let myself to ask for at least 3 basic things:
1.Please remove layers and leave just one with 4 osc.
2.Add more waveforms from real instruments like accordion,piano,trumpet,sax and so on.
3.Develop exotic type of filters - for example Firebird has filter called 'M-SHAPE' (mouth shape)which allows you to make insane sounds.

Thanks for reading

[gjvti]

Remove layers? What forces you to use them? Use just single one if two are too much! Its alredy said that there will eventually be 8 layers in synthmaster 3. Yes, the layout could be better organized, but if you are looking for sipmlicity then there is synthmaster one developed especially for you

[exmatproton]

-100 for removal of layers...i mean...wut?

*Better UI and UX
*Less finicky knobs (also on SM One)
*Different tab lay-out...they are everywhere...
*New reverb (also on SM One)

[Igro]

3osc instead of 2 within a single layer.

[fmr]

- Different (slower) envelopes (at least as an alternative). The envelopes in SM One are way too fast. I, at least, need slower envelopes too (but the envelopes in Synthmaster already allow this).
- The wavetables should have a loop control, and a control to course and reading speed built-in (look at HALion 6)
- A really good wavetable editor (I know it's in the works, but it's never too much to mention it)
- A SFZ editor would be great too, of course, especially since SM 3 seems will be able to support complex sample mappings,
- A sample loop editor. Looping was an art, back in the eighties, and there was even specialized tools issued for that (Antares Infinity). Nowadays, less and less audio editors have loop tools. And I am not talking about phrase loops, but TRUE sample loops, those that allow us to play a small sample forever without anyone noticing that it is looped.

[egbert101]

<delete>

[Vell Muziq]

[quote="gjvti"]Remove layers? What forces you to use them?
Exactly :)why to add more layers when people don't use even these two - it will be a lot more easier to have 4 osc and to work with them.Just humble opinion.Cheers

[fmr]

Remove layers? What forces you to use them?
Exactly :)why to add more layers when people don't use even these two - it will be a lot more easier to have 4 osc and to work with them.Just humble opinion.Cheers

What does more, does less. IMO, having four OSCs piled in the same layer will make a more complex GUI, without any advantage. If you want four OSCs, you'll use two layers - as simple as that. If you want three OSCs, you'll use two layers, with just one OSC in the second layer.

The CS-80 was one of the best synths ever, and it was probably the first to introduce the layer concept- each part is a complete layer, with just one OSC. althouth you could use more than one waveform in the OSC. The Matrix-12 was a power beast, and only had two OSCs. The PS-3300 was another power beast, and had just three. So, four OSCs in a single layer is overkill.

So, this thing of asking more OSCs is a trend driven by the appearing of some emulations of things like the Minimoog. But the Minimoog had just those three OSCs (and most of the time, the third OSC was used as an LFO, anyway).

The layer concept sounds good to me. It adds flexibility and options for creating really complex sounds, , and if we want to listen to just one of the composiong parts, it's as simple as turning of the other layers, or soloing that one. And the OSCs are so complex, and will be even more, with the addition of the wavetable capabilities, that having two per layer is enough, IMO.

[egbert101]

<delete>

[Dasheesh]

4 layers/one oscillator each. No reason to have mulitple oscillators if you are going the layer approach (<this is what confuses new users). Grain filter is a must, a good one with fat round windows. Wavetable editor.

[Dasheesh]

Better sfz adaptation and user wave cycle loading and unloading.

[Dasheesh]

Convolver module for reverb and cab impulses.

[Vell Muziq]

Ok well let me explain my point - i am not against layers,just most people don't use it this way.If you wanna layer you do it in you DAW - i guess 99,99% of records we are listening around are made this way - personally i don't see how internal layering will beat classic track layering with any innovation soon ,but i accept that i may be wrong - i just miss 4 layers in one place that's all.Thanks for your opinion.

[egbert101]

<delete>

[Igro]

4 layers/one oscillator each.

This must be a joke? Why i need to jump through the layers to just get another oscillator and setup things (even with copying). What's the point here? People like talking about layers, but in real life nobody uses them much. If one layer had 4 oscillators, then you already could create all the wicked stuff (considering all the modulation options in SM2.. If you cannot achieve this, then you must be doing something very wrong. Unless you are trying to create an entire song in just one syhth. So far there are no many presets in SM2.8 using both layers. And if they are there, nobody cares to use them in real production.