To me Melda plugins have a strong focus on visualisation! I really like this a lot. I understand that using eyes with never be a substitute for using your ears, but both together are better!
I can't understand why we can't see the filter shapes in any of the plugins. Take MPowerSynth for example: We can see the shape of the oscillators and modulators but the filter has nothing, it's just "use your ears only"
It would be nice if I could see the shape of the filter, especially with some of the more complex filters.
I apologise if this has already been asked and rejected.
Thanks.
FR: Filter view
-
MeldaProduction MeldaProduction https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=176122 - KVRAF
- 14339 posts since 15 Mar, 2008 from Czech republic
Yeah, well, I'm afraid it has already been rejected, actually multiple times 
. Many reasons - technical stuff, filters, which don't have a logical shape, etc. These things are just meant to be heard, not seen 
.
. Many reasons - technical stuff, filters, which don't have a logical shape, etc. These things are just meant to be heard, not seen .-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2700 posts since 9 Jul, 2015 from UK
Well, you show the shape of a HP filter in an EQ. How is it any different?
And I don't agree that filters are meant to be heard, not seen.
Lots of other plugins on the market do it, so is it really that hard?
And I don't agree that filters are meant to be heard, not seen.
Lots of other plugins on the market do it, so is it really that hard?
Jason @ Melda Production
-
MeldaProduction MeldaProduction https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=176122
- KVRAF
- 14339 posts since 15 Mar, 2008 from Czech republic
That depends. What if you have a combination of comb, peak and resonant HP. It's pretty likely that it would look just like some curve. The filters are also moving a lot, so to redraw them all the time you'd need additional CPU power, wasted....
Well, sorry, we just have to agree that we disagree. It's just impossible to add every feature one thinks of. There's not enough manpower and the result would be a horrible unusable beast full of features nobody uses, even if they would "look good"...
Well, sorry, we just have to agree that we disagree. It's just impossible to add every feature one thinks of. There's not enough manpower and the result would be a horrible unusable beast full of features nobody uses, even if they would "look good"...
-
- KVRist
- 140 posts since 27 Jul, 2015
Xfer Serum has this kind of dynamic visualization for its filters. It also has complex filters (dual and triple shapes, combs, phasers, formant...). I think it's a useful, but not essential feature.
It makes it easier to learn the different filters, but just showing a static icon in place of the filter name would achieve the same.
It also makes multiple shapes filters easier to use, as you can see where the different resonance peaks are. I've not yet explored the more complex filters of Melda, so I don't know if that would be relevant.
It makes it easier to learn the different filters, but just showing a static icon in place of the filter name would achieve the same.
It also makes multiple shapes filters easier to use, as you can see where the different resonance peaks are. I've not yet explored the more complex filters of Melda, so I don't know if that would be relevant.
-
- KVRian
- 1094 posts since 23 Sep, 2006
I agree that it would be useful to really know what the more complex filters like the Diffusers, Combs and PolyMorphs look like, but if it's a serious pain in the ass to program that then there's probably more important/useful features that should be worked on. I imagine the polymorph would be a nightmare, changing the character control sounds like it totally changes the frequency distribution.
I do like Drakmaniso's idea of having a static image showing the filter though; just an image showing the filter response at 1khz would help inform the user. But it would stand out as being a strangely undeveloped feature compared to the rest of the Melda visualisations, so I could see MORE people complaining about it if this was done!
I do like Drakmaniso's idea of having a static image showing the filter though; just an image showing the filter response at 1khz would help inform the user. But it would stand out as being a strangely undeveloped feature compared to the rest of the Melda visualisations, so I could see MORE people complaining about it if this was done!
-
MeldaProduction MeldaProduction https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=176122
- KVRAF
- 14339 posts since 15 Mar, 2008 from Czech republic
I think at the end you just wouldn't see all that you want to see really... Simply put, everyone imagines LP/HP filters, yeah, these are super simple, but anything else, would look like a total nonsense, polymorph and diffusers especially.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2700 posts since 9 Jul, 2015 from UK
I have another question about filters inside if MPowerSynth.
Why are they measured in octaves rather than frequency?
If I use the filter envelope I can only modulate half of the filters range. Am I missing a way to modulate it's whole range?
Why are they measured in octaves rather than frequency?
If I use the filter envelope I can only modulate half of the filters range. Am I missing a way to modulate it's whole range?
Jason @ Melda Production
-
MeldaProduction MeldaProduction https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=176122
- KVRAF
- 14339 posts since 15 Mar, 2008 from Czech republic
Here's the thing - in classic synths it looks like this:
voice osc ->
voice osc -> + -> filters -> out
...
That's for simplicity, analog synths would be too complicated with per-voice filters. But in MPowerSynth it is different:
voice osc -> voice filter ->
voice osc -> voice filter -> + -> fx -> out
voice osc -> voice filter ->
...
So each filter is per voice, so that it can potentially sound the same for each note (which is NOT the case for classic synths). And as such it uses note-tracking by default. So with +0 octaves (no semitones etc.) the filter frequency is the same as note frequency. In my opinion (and I'm pretty sure many will agree) that opens a whole lots of possibilities. Plus it makes all notes sound "the same". Plus considering the filters have distorting capabilities this is almost necessary.
voice osc ->
voice osc -> + -> filters -> out
...
That's for simplicity, analog synths would be too complicated with per-voice filters. But in MPowerSynth it is different:
voice osc -> voice filter ->
voice osc -> voice filter -> + -> fx -> out
voice osc -> voice filter ->
...
So each filter is per voice, so that it can potentially sound the same for each note (which is NOT the case for classic synths). And as such it uses note-tracking by default. So with +0 octaves (no semitones etc.) the filter frequency is the same as note frequency. In my opinion (and I'm pretty sure many will agree) that opens a whole lots of possibilities. Plus it makes all notes sound "the same". Plus considering the filters have distorting capabilities this is almost necessary.