Omnisphere 2.5: Hardware Synth Integration and double voice architecture

[noiseboyuk]

Seems to me that all the Roland synths use exclusively midi CCs for control, while DSI, Moog and Prophet all use NRPN at least partially. Any Roland hardware owners could see if they work in Ableton.

[DocAtlas]

I've had the beta all of 5 minutes, and I might be wrong, but there seems to be an easy workaround for the Ableton NRPN issue - I opened standalone, assigned the SUB37 to it, and then opened Ableton and opened Omni in Live, and presto, NRPNs are passed and even recorded in Ableton. Will keep testing and contact Spectrasonics to see what the limitations are. Very excited. This is amazing.

Not to be a d**k, but I thought that when we signed up for the beta, we agreed not to discuss anything about it during the beta period.

[topaz]

I bought this up on FB and Eric liked the comment.

This is about Abletons need to support NRPN and nothing to with the beta anyhow.

Not to be a d**k, but I thought that when we signed up for the beta, we agreed not to discuss anything about it during the beta period.

[DocAtlas]

I bought this up on FB and Eric liked the comment.

This is about Abletons need to support NRPN and nothing to with the beta anyhow.

Not to be a d**k, but I thought that when we signed up for the beta, we agreed not to discuss anything about it during the beta period.

Just being over cautious, I guess.

[epiphaneia]

Is it just me and my trivial use cases or is even the first beta highly stable? No problems of any kind, no crashes here so far (I think that can be said without going against the NDA...)

[noiseboyuk]

This might be an interesting development for Omni 2.5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtQ_-pw6ESY

https://www.miclop.com

General discussion on that here, linked on p4 - viewtopic.php?f=1&t=498883

[beely]

This might be an interesting development for Omni 2.5

Who *doesn't* want "a complete virtual synthetizer"..?

Seriously: "The synthesizer is a present we are going to give to all the kicstarter sponsors"

If they can't even get basic spelling on a website right, it doesn't really inspire confidence in a well thought out, attention-to-details experience...

At least get someone who "speaks" the language you are marketing in to give your marketing materials a once over...

However, as I seem to be mentioning more and more these days, it's good to see people investigating new approaches in the controller space... (even if it's not the product that I want...)

[Richard deHove]

Interesting, but with so few knobs it doesn't seem that far advanced from using an iPad. I'm still confident there will be a massively knob-laden synth-layout controller on the market very soon.

[noiseboyuk]

Interesting, but with so few knobs it doesn't seem that far advanced from using an iPad. I'm still confident there will be a massively knob-laden synth-layout controller on the market very soon.

I know what you mean. I think for the form factor it's pretty good, and they've thought it through quite well - two clicks max to everything. Better would be a screen that covers the whole surface, but with my translucent strips with knobs and buttons laid over the top. Otherwise you're looking at bigger form factors - for my setup that would be tricky because of lack of space, but it stands to reason the more real estate you have the more instant control you have.

From my Lemur designs I find myself wanting to have as much on a page as possible, rather than tabbing. You'd only be able to do that to a point with the Cntrl X with a max 15 parameters on a page. I think they say they mapped 800-900 parameters on Omnisphere though, and therein does lie the problem. There will always be some kind of compromise if you are looking to control literally everything, and I guess that's one reason why Spectrasonics have embraced this hardware control model as it sidesteps the whole problem.

One thing I think we haven't discussed is that almost every synth that is being profiled for Omni 2.5 is analogue subtractive. The whole ethos of preferring knobs, faders and switches to a keyboard and mouse is pretty much rooted in this fact. When you get into samples or other forms of synthesis, then the physical controls quickly make less and less sense.

[Miclop]

Who *doesn't* want "a complete virtual synthetizer"..?

Seriously: "The synthesizer is a present we are going to give to all the kicstarter sponsors"

sorry if it has bothered you, we will try to have someone native English correct the possible errors.

attention-to-details experience

I do not understand, is saying that that appears on my website, could you tell me where?

regards

[Miclop]

I'm still confident there will be a massively knob-laden synth-layout controller on the market very soon.

hello Richard
maybe this is more suited to what you are looking for.

http://www.faderfox.de/pc44.htm

HI noiseboyuk

I think they say they mapped 800-900 parameters on Omnisphere though

Ctrl x or any other controller that is capable of working with NRPN (unlimited) can map + 16000 parameters, then there are other factors to be taken into account, such as the placement in the controller or if the software or the daw accepts NRPN

[beely]

maybe this is more suited to what you are looking for.

No - this is a generic knob box. *Exactly* the thing *we don't want*.

There are many generic unlabelled knob boxes you can assign random things to. This is not the same thing is sitting in front of a synthesizer, with a proper, labelled, well-thought out synthesizer control surface.

I know know why this seems so hard for people to envisage, over the years. It's always seemed like an obvious product, to me, that was an unfilled market niche.

[noiseboyuk]

I know know why this seems so hard for people to envisage, over the years. It's always seemed like an obvious product, to me, that was an unfilled market niche.

It does become less obvious when you really look into it. Some have said in this thread that Omni 2.5 will open the floodgates, but I really doubt it will. There's only been a handful of people interested in the Lemur option and that's only £20 to control £20,000 of synths, while Miclop's pretty decent attempt at a small form factor product doesn't seem to have got much enthusiasm either.

Indeed, it is the problem that is obvious, not just the potential product - every synth is different in scale, layout and feature set. Much as you'd think it would just need some kind of generic Osc, Filter, Envelope and Mod section or something, these are hugely variable in practice. Then there's size - the bigger it is the more programming you can get done on it, but conversely the less people would buy one. Some no doubt would be horrified at controlling a Jupiter 8 with knobs, or a Prophet 5 with faders. Trying to find a sweet spot to appeal to the most people is very hard, and I don't think there's a single option that would keep everyone happy.

For me, 2x 8" tablets side by side, overlaid with 3x translucent strips filled with knobs and switches as seen in the OP would likely be as close to perfect as I could imagine (the screen used mostly just for display of the parameters). About 30 knobs and 10 switches or something like that. I reckon simple synths would fit all on one page - the Juno 106, the VC330 - and many more on 2. But the next poster will likely have a totally different idea of what they'd want.

[topaz]

What would make sense is to be able to just remap whatever synth you have to at least a handful of generic controls, I understand not being to go deep but maybe 16 controls filter/res/envs etc would be great.

The touchscreen imo is totally defeating the object. I have 2 ipads with synths on but still control them from hardware knobs whenever poss.

Each to their own

[beely]

Indeed, it is the problem that is obvious, not just the potential product - every synth is different in scale, layout and feature set.

Sure. While it's at first sight a simple problem to solve, getting into the detail shows that it' not trivial, and some good solutions to problem will need to be developed. But there's definitely room for a well-thought-out solution - or multiple solutions coming at the problem from different angles. But we've seen none to date (although the situation seems to be starting to change.)

Much as you'd think it would just need some kind of generic Osc, Filter, Envelope and Mod section or something, these are hugely variable in practice.

Indeed - thee are the kinds of problems you need to come up with good solutions for. It's not super hard (at least for *my* preferred solution space), as lets face it, virtually all synths have an osc->filter->amp + envelopes + modulation system, even if the osc, filter and envelope details vary. Breaking it further, you need an osc or two worth of control sets (plus the ability to switch to further set of oscillator for those that have more). You need some kind of waveform selection control (whether analog waves, digital wavetables, PCM selection) etc, pitch controls, and various "osc FX" controls (to cover things like osc sync, PWM, or whatever other bespoke oscillator controls a synth might have). And you'd need digital labelling/screens for some/all of this stuff.

It's not like any given synth in general it *that* different to any other, for the majority of cases. So you need to design something that covers the basics, and is flexible to add the extra stuff for the more exotic synths. It's *always* going to be a compromise, and some synths will always have more controls than you could ever have on a physical object, but I'm convinced that if you look at the problem, there are good (opinionated) ways of solving them in order to make a compelling product/s.

Trying to find a sweet spot to appeal to the most people is very hard, and I don't think there's a single option that would keep everyone happy.

Indeed, and I suspect that's a big part of why we haven't seen more products in this area.

For me, 2x 8" tablets side by side, overlaid with 3x translucent strips filled with knobs and switches as seen in the OP would likely be as close to perfect as I could imagine (the screen used mostly just for display of the parameters). About 30 knobs and 10 switches or something like that. I reckon simple synths would fit all on one page - the Juno 106, the VC330 - and many more on 2.

This sounds like something like the Mackie C4 (I'm using Mackie Controls' for this stuff, and while it's good (especially using the fader for synth controls), it's still not a "synthesizer" in terms of layout - and is quite big, of course...

But the next poster will likely have a totally different idea of what they'd want.

Sure. But we don't get the choice to buy whichever type of product suits us best, as no one is making *any* of them...