Omnisphere 2.5: Hardware Synth Integration and double voice architecture

[noiseboyuk]

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

Then the Miclop option should work pretty well for you - 15 controls is nearly 16, 11 of which are hardware knobs.

But for me this too would be missing the point. Programming is about getting all the controls, not just "the important" ones. Omni 2.5 side-steps this partially by giving you all the controls for a particular synth, which imo is much more useful than just ones that people tend to use a lot. To have a subset, you may as well just stick with NKS.

But as you say, each to their own. And hat really is the problem - I doubt any two of us in this whole thread would agree on what we'd like.

[beely]

I think that's our fundamental difference - I can actually get a lot of mileage from having the "important" ones under the fingers, and not trying to expose *everything* - which will *always* involve screens, scrolling, menus etc - which defeats the point of physical controls imho.

I can already do the "show me all parameters using screens, menus, scrolling, changing parameter ordering and so on" - and it's a far inferior way of playing "synth" for me, than having the important "synth" bits on dedicated controls - osc waveform selection and modification, tuning, osc levels, filter type, cut off, resonance, envelopes and so on.

I don't need to have dedicated physical controls for adjusting the breakpoint of the fourteenth envelope segment of modulation envlope 12 - if I need to change that, I can either go back to the mouse, or, for example, you could click on the parameter and have a dedicated soft knob to control the value so you can easily bring it under the fingers if necessary (these are the kinds of creative solutions I'm talking about...)

Anyway, that's what I'd like. I'd guess that approach would more appeal to "musicians" and the "I want access to all plugin parameters on a hardware device" would appeal more to the tweakers, nerds, and people who make music using modular systems...

[topaz]

I have a sub37

With your delving into lemur which is the simplest model that only uses CC ?

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

Then the Miclop option should work pretty well for you - 15 controls is nearly 16, 11 of which are hardware knobs.

But for me this too would be missing the point. Programming is about getting all the controls, not just "the important" ones. Omni 2.5 side-steps this partially by giving you all the controls for a particular synth, which imo is much more useful than just ones that people tend to use a lot. To have a subset, you may as well just stick with NKS.

But as you say, each to their own. And hat really is the problem - I doubt any two of us in this whole thread would agree on what we'd like.

[noiseboyuk]

Beely - what you describe is essentially NKS, but I guess you'd want a few more controls onto it. I think what this thread is talking about is genuine programming, getting the feel of an actual synth. With the hyperbole of 14th envelope segment etc you're confusing with having hardware control of literally everything in Omnisphere, which is doable but another matter again. Really the main thrust of what some of us are looking for is a way to emulate a particular synth using Omnisphere 2.5, and (the models below aside) you need a lot more than 16 controls to get any kind of feel for the likes of an OB-6 or even the baby SE-02.

But yet again, all this does is emphasise everyone is after something different, and how hard it is for a developer to build something that suits all.

Topaz - I think probably the VC-330 is the simplest, there's almost nothing to it control-wise. Juno 106 would be next.

[topaz]

Cheers man

Topaz - I think probably the VC-330 is the simplest, there's almost nothing to it control-wise. Juno 106 would be next.

[Richard deHove]

I used to play non-programmable analog synths live (in an all-synth band). One of the most important things in rehearsals was to get the song-gap as low as possible. We would be going nuts adjusting sometimes 20 or more parameters. We got very fast in the end, minimizing the time and getting the right sound. The point of this story being that adjusting knobs and sliders is massively faster (for me) than any screen, including touchscreens.

Then the issue of completeness. I bought a BCR2000 knob-box thinking that I'd at least be able to control the majority of synths parameters. But it felt awful. The layout was always meaningless and arbitrary and it could never include the full range of useful parameters. Splitting programming between the box and mouse was a terrible experience.

What Omni brings to this is a both the physical feedback and completeness. The 101 is a very basic synth, but if you're happy with that limit you can properly program the Omni-101. Likewise other synths with their particular set. You're not splitting the programming betwen hardware and software interfaces. Sure you can subsequently tweak or mutate the sound with deeper Omni programming, but it's not necessary.

What the knob-boxes have always failed at is that they're not a complete solution, you have to jump back and forwards to the software.

So to better crystallize what I was talking about some pages back, I'm hopeful that the Omnisphere market is big enough, and the programming template skills of Spectrasonics is good enough, so that some manufacturer will now decide it worthwhile to create a midi-only master-synth designed specifically for Omni. Or maybe they'd decide on something a bit more generic so that other big VSTis could be easily mapped. I'd even be happy with an "empty" Sub37 or Virus

Sure labeling parameters becomes an issue, but a pretty small one. It could be printed on the controller, covered by a cardboard overlay, or in an expensive option the cost of the controller might be in a programmable parameter-name interface so you could change the illuminated names.

I believe the idea that software audio is inferior to hardware audio is just about gone. At the same there is a resurgence of understanding and appreciation about the human interface. No computer screen can compete with dedicated controls. So the logical evolution is high-quality precisely-mapped hardware interfaces with premium audio software.

Just like it took Apple (I hate Apple) to come out with the right combination of form and function to redefine the mobile industry, it now requires the right product to redefine the hardware-software audio industry. All the pieces are in place and the market's ready.

[noiseboyuk]

Sure labeling parameters becomes an issue, but a pretty small one. It could be printed on the controller, covered by a cardboard overlay, or in an expensive option the cost of the controller might be in a programmable parameter-name interface so you could change the illuminated names.

IMO the labelling is actually a very big issue. Labelling is everything - if you can't clearly see what you're doing, I think the product won't get used. Printing on the controller of course wouldn't be universal, and cardboard overlays are ugly and get damaged / lost. Hence my own preference for building the hardware on top of screens, using translucent plastic strips to mount the knobs and switches. Even basic HD screens these days are incredibly cheap, so this needn't be an insanely expensive option.

As it happens, just posted a very rough layout of how I think it would work in the Dream Hardware Controller For Soft Synths thread - top of this page viewtopic.php?f=1&t=498883&start=60

[(Sinelanguage)]

Hmm bit late to the party here but can anyone advise whether controlling omnisphere via a hw synth will also have to always affect the sound of the hardware synth?

For example in a live situation if I had midi being sent to novation peak and omnisphere simultaniously, and the peak was setup to control omnisphere, would moving the cutoff on peak affect both peak and omnisphere, or is there a way I could have peak's sound unaffected while I control omnisphere from peak?

Peak is just an example as it's is the hw I'd most like to get hold of, but interested if this is possible with any of the hardware integration synths?

Cheers

[aMUSEd]

Hmm bit late to the party here but can anyone advise whether controlling omnisphere via a hw synth will also have to always affect the sound of the hardware synth?

For example in a live situation if I had midi being sent to novation peak and omnisphere simultaniously, and the peak was setup to control omnisphere, would moving the cutoff on peak affect both peak and omnisphere, or is there a way I could have peak's sound unaffected while I control omnisphere from peak?

Peak is just an example as it's is the hw I'd most like to get hold of, but interested if this is possible with any of the hardware integration synths?

Cheers

Depends on the synth, Virus Ti for example has a controller mode that is separate from its synth functions (plus template and patch recall anyway)

[(Sinelanguage)]

Thanks, that's good to know. Does anyone know if any of the supported synths have such a feature?

I'm looking to create a fairly minimal live setup so having a hw synth which also controls Omnisphere is suddenly high up on my list of ways to maximise both bang for buck and also, erm, bang for space?

But if I can't utilise the hw synth engine while I'm controlling Omnisphere that would make it less desirable

[noiseboyuk]

In general they'd control both. There's no new technology as such here - Omni is just picking up the synth's CC or NRPN controllers and in a smart way mapping it to their own synth.

But I'm not quite sure exactly how you want to use it. A Prophet 6 mapped to Omni will control Omni's own version of a Prophet 6. So in terms of a live setup, you're more or less duplicating the same functionality, which seems a little pointless. What would make more sense is having a synth controller that can switch between synth layouts at the touch of a button, then you'd be saving loads of physical space and have hands-on control all the time. Bliss - the only problem with that idea is that it doesn't actually exist (unless you can live with Lemur and a touchscreen rather than physical controls). You could use a generic mixer-style controller to set up some limited controls for the hardware models profiled in Omni, imperfect that it is, it probably makes more sense than buying a supported synth for a live scenario.

[(Sinelanguage)]

Interesting thoughts, yeah I hadn't really thought much about how essentially I would be duplicating the same synth! But as far as I understand you could still use completely different omnisphere patches and then use the limited hw controls to tweak them live? Didn't see anything about omnisphere functionality being lessened by hooking up a synth.

Its also about a hw synth taking some of the load off my CPU.

I've been interested in Lemur in the past but i do prefer real knobs and I'm using a touchscreen computer anyway so thought it would be overkill. So you can set up a page for omnisphere controls and another for serum controls etc and then easily switch between them? That would be pretty sweet.

[Echoes in the Attic]

Has anyone played with the demo? Are pc users seeing really big improvements in granular cpu usage?

How close to release is it?

[SLiC]

Has anyone played with the demo? Are pc users seeing really big improvements in granular cpu usage?

How close to release is it?

I am using it full time, haven't had a crash or an issue (Beta02) so I would expect release anytime. I have Trillian and Keyscape integrated, no issues

I cant really comment on CPU use for granular as I never really fund it an issue before and don't have a benchmark, but I can say that overall it is a pretty major update, 4 layers obviously gives a lot more sound design options and the new waveforms and hardware synth presets are superb...it really can sound like a top draw VA now....


All in all this is a very significant update.

[noiseboyuk]

The Granular Windows CPU issue has actually been fixed in the version prior to the 2.5 beta. If you don't want to try the beta therefore it's still all good - just install 2.4.2c.