Latest Updates (Revision 3898) for 11 u-he products - now available!

[steveuk42]

Thanks for the quick reply. I've contacted U-HE so hopefully they will be able to fix this.

[pdxindy]

c) Parameters that can be automated for editing (sound design) but should not be automated, say, in a song project. As an example, this would be filter types, waveforms or pretty much anything that has a drop down list. We might extend whatever is in a drop down list in future updates and that would break existing automation in all plug-in formats except AAX and AU. I.e. if you automate Hive's waveform in a song and we add new waveforms, your song might sound different.

I've been making my own parameter pages for Bazille and Hive for editing via Push in Bitwig. My impression is that many requests for extending automation control is for this purpose (like C above).

After exploring this some, I don't believe it's possible to effectively edit this way. It does not matter if every parameter can be automated for this purpose because even if one gets everything mapped in an intelligent order it is still 100X more clunky than using the regular screen and gui.

[Urs]

After exploring this some, I don't believe it's possible to effectively edit this way. It does not matter if every parameter can be automated for this purpose because even if one gets everything mapped in an intelligent order it is still 100X more clunky than using the regular screen and gui.

Highly likely, yes.

We're internally enabling the Key Control feature now. Paired with MIDI Learn ("selected" and "fine selected") one can pretty much control all of our UIs with just the cursor keys and two knobs. Or just keys, or a combination of keys, any number of knobs and mouse.

Unfortunately we never fully committed to it because some of its features don't work well with certain hosts, e.g. direct value input via the number keys would always just change screensets in Logic. But we don't want to surrender to this anymore. If hosts don't comply to operating system standards, we'll redirect user requests to the manufacturers. We've been held back too long from hosts that simply intercept key commands. Otherwise it's going to be one of the best usability improvements ever, maybe worth switching the host for sound design purposes.

[pdxindy]

After exploring this some, I don't believe it's possible to effectively edit this way. It does not matter if every parameter can be automated for this purpose because even if one gets everything mapped in an intelligent order it is still 100X more clunky than using the regular screen and gui.

Highly likely, yes.

We're internally enabling the Key Control feature now. Paired with MIDI Learn ("selected" and "fine selected") one can pretty much control all of our UIs with just the cursor keys and two knobs. Or just keys, or a combination of keys, any number of knobs and mouse.

Unfortunately we never fully committed to it because some of its features don't work well with certain hosts, e.g. direct value input via the number keys would always just change screensets in Logic. But we don't want to surrender to this anymore. If hosts don't comply to operating system standards, we'll redirect user requests to the manufacturers. We've been held back too long from hosts that simply intercept key commands. Otherwise it's going to be one of the best usability improvements ever, maybe worth switching the host for sound design purposes.

That sounds interesting... and more practical. Look forward to trying it!

[nortle]

Okay, thanks for your response. The automation thing is indeed something I didn't look at. My viewpoint was from the controller side (design a whole patch with a midi controller).

[pdxindy]

Okay, thanks for your response. The automation thing is indeed something I didn't look at. My viewpoint was from the controller side (design a whole patch with a midi controller).

Trying to design a whole patch with a midi controller seems completely impractical except maybe for very simple synths and a controller with enough labeled parameters to cover most of the synth controls.

[nortle]

Okay, thanks for your response. The automation thing is indeed something I didn't look at. My viewpoint was from the controller side (design a whole patch with a midi controller).

Trying to design a whole patch with a midi controller seems completely impractical except maybe for very simple synths and a controller with enough labeled parameters to cover most of the synth controls.

Think about abletons push. Already did some max for live coding and was using another daw and if you do it well, it works quite nice. Nevertheless there are many software limitations right now. Why is a push display different from a monitor? It's the midi standard (and automation as stated) that also causes some problems but they could be solved if just people would more focus on controller.

[tedlogan]

I've made quite a few templates for Push for Bazille, Hive and Zebra. It really is not worth the trouble trying to design patches from scratch using a controller, especially Zebra. The very thought makes me weary, as I have tried this many times. Been programming Zebra the whole weekend, and no way in hell could anyone program such patches with a controller, unless you plan to spend a few days, perhaps weeks, on each one.

That said, once you do have a template (I have them within racks in Live), editing existing patches' common parameters like ADSR and so on is very handy. So for me it really depends which mode I'm in.

Hive works quite well from Push, but I always find myself reaching for the mouse and keyboard. I guess I just don't have the disconnect from music many people have when they're not using a controller. I love mice!

Anyway, I came on here to ask:

Is it just me or is Zebra behaving oddly when selecting modules - it usually brings whichever one you've selected into focus, but with this latest revision it often focuses on a different module than the one I've just selected, with the one I want being off-screen. Happens with all skins I have - the two default ones and Redux.

[nortle]

Yes, Synth like Bazille or Zebra where you have to move things around the screen with a mouse will probably never work with controller. For bazille you could use a routing matrix but that no nice feeling. No, I'm just talking about the endless amount of synth without that special features. Just knobs, filter, modulation, oscillators, fx on and off and so on ... Synth that could also been built as a hardware device.

[Howard]

Is it just me or is Zebra behaving oddly when selecting modules - it usually brings whichever one you've selected into focus, but with this latest revision it often focuses on a different module than the one I've just selected, with the one I want being off-screen. Happens with all skins I have - the two default ones and Redux.

Mac or PC? I tested rev.3898 in Yosemite (just now) and don't get that problem. However, I remember seeing it happen in a previous version...

[pdxindy]

Okay, thanks for your response. The automation thing is indeed something I didn't look at. My viewpoint was from the controller side (design a whole patch with a midi controller).

Trying to design a whole patch with a midi controller seems completely impractical except maybe for very simple synths and a controller with enough labeled parameters to cover most of the synth controls.

Think about abletons push. Already did some max for live coding and was using another daw and if you do it well, it works quite nice. Nevertheless there are many software limitations right now. Why is a push display different from a monitor? It's the midi standard (and automation as stated) that also causes some problems but they could be solved if just people would more focus on controller.

I have a Push...

A Push display is different from a monitor because on my monitor, I can see the 'actual' synth GUI.

Take Hive, which is a relatively simple synth. I can see which engine is selected, what filter type, what modulations. I can see the settings of all 4 Osc's, 4 envelopes, 2 LFO's and 2 filters all at once.

Hell, forget creating a sound from INIT, If I were just going to edit an existing Hive preset in Push... say Mod1 Env... I would have to navigate to the Push page for the Mod1 Env. Then I could adjust the parameters of that Env. !! Except I would have no idea what that Env was modulating !!

Currently it is not possible to know what that Env is modulating via Push because the targets are not mappable. But even if they were... you have 12 mod slots and each one has 7 pertinent parameters in order to determine what is going on with modulation. So the Mod Matrix takes 12 parameter pages in Push. That means you would potentially have to navigate to those 12 different parameter pages in Push in order to just see what modulations might be setup for Mod1 Env. You would also need to navigate to both filter pages as well to see if Mod1 Env was modulating either filter.

Now you have to navigate back to the Mod1 Env page to actually edit the envelope. But then once I adjust it, I decide that the mod depth in one of the matrix slots is a bit too much. Gotta navigate to that page and how many of us could even remember which mod slot that was with no visual reference?

Using the screen and mouse, I will have edited the Mod1 Env and moved on long before someone even figures out what Mod1 Env modulates (that is assuming all parameters are made mappable)

Trying to use Push to create/edit presets for VST synths is just a techno exercise in 'can I do it'. I can go 100 times faster with my mouse.

Using the 8 knobs to control rack macros works well... likewise for controlling say the 4 X/Y's in Zebra. However, for practical preset editing use, Push is a complete waste of time.

I didn't even touch upon the many times that the parameter display in Push is cryptic... nor the frightful effort at editing say the Hive sequencer and arp...

[nortle]

Hell, am I really defending my oppinion that I want to use a controller to control synthesizer plugins in 2015? I seem to be totally crazy. In software business you always hear this is not possible ... that is not possible. I tell you: It is possible. If not now, then let's wait.

Push is the ideal device to control synth like Diva or Hive. Bank and modulation target switiching can be made easy enough if both DAW and synth programmers would think about that. Sometimes you just dont want to look at a monitor. Just you, the sound and some knobs. But obviously the demand is too low for stuff like that and we need some more ultra fancy and ultra expensive analog gear.

Look at Ableton and Bitwig: I'm sure guys at ableton would have tell you a while ago this is not possible now and that and here and... ah .. that is also not possible. Then came maybe 12 guys from Bitwig and made nearly everything better than Ableton.

[Phil999]

if you have Lemur, you can control every parameter of a synth. And if you have Cubase, you have parameter feedback even after preset change. Absolute control with specially designed knobs and faders. Your absolute dream come true...

[tedlogan]

Is it just me or is Zebra behaving oddly when selecting modules - it usually brings whichever one you've selected into focus, but with this latest revision it often focuses on a different module than the one I've just selected, with the one I want being off-screen. Happens with all skins I have - the two default ones and Redux.

Mac or PC? I tested rev.3898 in Yosemite (just now) and don't get that problem. However, I remember seeing it happen in a previous version...

PC, Zebra 3898. At first I thought it might be a bug with the scaling (I'm usually at 200%), but it always happens regardless.

[nortle]

if you have Lemur, you can control every parameter of a synth. And if you have Cubase, you have parameter feedback even after preset change. Absolute control with specially designed knobs and faders. Your absolute dream come true...

It's just the change from one monitor to another. Nothing comes true.