The first MSoundFactory active preset

[MeldaProduction]

Hey beta-folks , so I hope you installed the new 12.06 update, there's now the first active preset I made for MSoundFactory and I'd like to polish it with you to make it perfect, as it will be the basis for other active presets. I'd like to introduce some "system" in the active presets, so these things are nicely compatible with each other. So, the initial images are attached.

On top there are some globals, which should be present in all active presets. Stuff like volume & pitch shift/bend, then envelope and settings for MPE controllers. Anything that should be added? (or removed ) Not that all presets will HAVE to have these, but it would be good for most.

The generator part, the first tab, is then pretty arbitrary. So I made this one the way I did . Check it out and let me know how it sounds to you.

The other part is effects. That one needs a lot of polishing probably. The parameter set is very limited, but the idea here is that the preset should be as simple to use as possible and the effects should be set for this preset to work well. And since say flanger can have hell of a lot of parameters, I needed to make some essential set. All of these effects seem to be useful with the preset, and likely with any preset actually.
I'd like to have a complete set of effects and parameters that are essential, so that I can set the MP numbers properly. This way the effects could theoretically even be lockable, or at least easy to map to MIDI controllers etc., everything to improve the workflow.

Let me know what you think.

[Chandlerhimself]

I don’t think it looks too bad, but I think for some presets it will be complicated and for others too limited. The globals seem fine except quite a few of those parameters won’t be used in most patches. 1 feature that would be good to have there is an FX disable button that can be locked, so people can browse without fx. IMO controller stuff should be done with the midi button at the bottom right. The user can choose what controller they want to use and it doesn’t confuse those that aren’t using controllers.

As I was writing this I realized it might be impossible to make 1 generalized preset and have it make sense. Maybe 3 - 7 templates with similarities of course, but different features and functions that fit the type pf patch. For example keyboard sounds don’t need pitch bend, pitch or cent parameters, and if they do the creator can just add them to the generator section. Organs won’t need velocity, etc.

I like the idea of having the generator and fx sections on different tabs. The idea of locking fx and having them assigned to midi is good, but I don’t know how well it will work. Maybe having a certain range of numbers available for certain fx would work. For example reverb mix could be MP 70 and reverb length could be MP71 and then MP73-79 could be used for whatever other reverb feature someone wants to use. That way MP70 and 71 could be locked, but it would still allow flexibility. The example above is missing many features I’d need, but it has other fx and features I’d never use.

Perhaps guide lines or multiple templates will work better than using a base active preset like this. The fx section will likely need to be different for each preset, but perhaps similar groups can share the same ones.

Maybe there needs to be a poll asking about how people want to use MSF and how they feel about going into the edit screen. If people don’t want to go into it then lots of controls are needed on the easy screen, but if people don’t mind, then having 5-10 knobs with little tweakablity is fine. The user will just tweak things themselves inside the edit screen.

[jmg8]

So I have quite a lot to say, I will try to break it down into sections.

Size

It is way too big. Vertically it doesn't even come close to fitting on my laptop screen. Here is a screenshot of what is visible on my screen.

Cropped.JPG

So I made some changes to make it fit better.
This is how it looks on the same screen size.

Smaller OSC.JPG

Globals and Envelope

I think we should have just one standard set of simple globals for every preset. Any additional settings are welcome but should be placed below these and be grouped in a panel named "Settings" or something like that. I have removed some of the controls I feel are just not that important to take up room on an easy screen. Namely: The velocity shape, I think this is just too much detail. The controller options are too much also, I agree with Chandler here. Also a global detune to me is also overkill, it would hardly get used. The pitch is actually enough on its own, as it can control octave, semitones and cents all in one control, perfect. I think it is important to leave as much room as possible in the GUI for peoples creative ideas, so the globals should be just 1 row, not 2.


Effects

I think it is a bad idea to include per-voice effects in the effects tab. I understand that some people will want to disable the FX section to hear just the synth, sometimes this is so they can add their own post effects in the DAW. However per-voice effects are very different, as they can exist somewhere in the synthesis routing. So if disabled it would really change the sound too much. For example, there might be an effect that then feeds into some FM, but without the effect, the FM would sound completely different and not function correctly. These per-voice effects exist in the generator tab in the edit screen and they should also exist in the generator tab on the easy screen.

I don't like the idea of having some FX parameters hardwired to certain MPs, this will be way too restrictive. With all the options available in MSF people will have very different ideas on how to realise their ideas. It would be a shame to create restrictions that could potentially stop peoples creativity. Remember the only limit is our imagination, hehe. One of MSF's many strengths will be in the variety of types of presets based on how differently people approach synthesis. For example, I might have a cool idea of making a preset called "Fire & Ice" in the generator tab there will be 2 panels for Fire and Ice. In the FX tab, I could create some huge morph pad that blends multiple FX together along with spectrally morphing Fire and Ice together. If I have to worry about where to place the reverb parameter etc, it could seriously make my idea not work

I have renamed lots of the parameters in the FX tab as I feel they were a bit pointless because of repeated words and non-descriptive titles. For example in the distortion section, the group is called distortion, there is no need to repeat this again by naming the parameters distortion 1, distortion 2 etc. It doesn't give the user any useful information, so I renamed these to Bit crusher and Wave folder etc. Here is a screenshot of the changes I made here.

Smaller FX.JPG

[operator]

If this is serving as a standard preset i´m missing a Filter + Filter Evnelope. Most of the sounds will have a filter + modulation, so maybe it would make sense to include them in this one too... the XY pads for my taste could be changed to some sliders to save some space (for filter) to fit better on the screen. (it´s really big)

have to agree with jmg8: the per voice FX shoudn´t be on the FX section...

[MeldaProduction]

I'll read everything soon . Please keep the discussion!

[operator]

somehow i personally would prefer normal presets. due to the fact that i always want to have complete control and overview over the tool (it´s with all melda plugins, I never use the easy screens)...

i guess the targetgroup of this synth is similar to me... otherwise they would use sylenth or some other simple synth...

one or a few easyscreens with a simple layout (e.g. 3 osc, 2 filter, 2 env, 2 lfo,s some FX) would do the trick for those how want shallow control.

[jmg8]

If you do not open the easy screen and stay in edit, then they are the same as normal presets. I think they should all be active, because then we have both options.

[operator]

If you do not open the easy screen and stay in edit, then they are the same as normal presets. I think they should all be active, because then we have both options.

That is one argument.

[Whywhy]

+ 1 for a poll.

I think, people will prefer the modular view, it's the trend, but perhaps , I'm wrong....
Some turbo modules would be better , like all this macro module in eurorack, braids.....

Having a guideline is good, i like the idea :

Generator and fx tab : great idea
Fx : on/off : good idea too!
Lockable: could be great in some circumstances

I never use the active view but my init preset have, for quick mp adjust :

- Velocity on, off. Adjust the velocity amplitude is great too.
- pitch bend : on/off, curve is a good idea
- quality , fast, high....
- voices restart, smooth, brutal...
- poly, mono, trigger
- Global Volume
- Global octave
- fx ratio, for reverb, delay....

Perhaps, I would add for music composers some easy mix controls, like an global hp filter, a mid/side ratio...things like that.


After that, I think, all sounds need some specials controls, sound designers should decide what is good for every presets. But having some general mp to edit screen is great, for example, some users like to have some external midi controllers assign to fix controls: volume, velocity amount...for all presets.

[Whywhy]

More I think about actives presets, more I question myself about that :
Do we use active preset for:

- construct presets?
In this case, we should be able to choose, wave forms, transform, filter types, routing via ratio.....

- modify existing presets?
In this case, it will be some macro system.

This 2 questions are essential if we want to define and make a good active presets system.

My opinion: modifying the preset, for quickly be part of their piece of music.

What do you think?

About the x,y panel, I think, it will be really useful when a multisample player will be implemented, for morphing between samplers .

[jmg8]

I agree that the easy screen will not be for making presets. If someone has the skill to make their own presets, they will probably go into the edit screen.
The easy screen should be for presets that can be tweaked and modified.

[dmbaer]

This is just based on first impressions – I’ll probably have more to say in a day or two. In general I’m in strong agreement with most of the points made by jmg8.

Let me start by just describing how I’ve been approaching the conception of presets for MSF. My view is that this is closer to designing a Kontakt library in a single preset than conventional synths. For example, in Predator or Diva or innumerable other synths, you might have a collection of string presets: Mellow Strings, High Strings, Dub Strings (yuck!), Epic Strings. In MSF I would first think about building a general preset Strings that had all those options plus a boatload of FX. We can do this with MSF and we cannot with most conventional soft synths.

Now, as to jmg8’s specific points. Per-voice FX differentiated from all-voice FX is a big deal. I would also very much want to be able to put per-voice FX in with the generator controls. In fact, I pretty much did that with one of my presets.

Likewise with global stuff (overall tuning, bend range, etc.). Mostly nobody touches these. So put them in their own category at the bottom (but do make global tuning available in this grouping). Call it “Global Settings” or something like that and make the contained controls lockable. I’d throw in alternate tuning there. Less than 1% of users care about that but those that do seem extremely passionate about having it available. I’m not so sure about velocity sensitivity being in with that grouping, however – perhaps that stays on top. Maybe all those MPE global controls should go there as well – since I don’t have an MPE controller I haven’t explored this area at all. Is it possible that “Global Settings” (or whatever) could be a standard group that is always appended automatically by MSF rather than needing to be supplied by the preset designer?

In general, I think the one-size-fits-all philosophy will lead to uninspired preset design. I have done three largely complete presets and none of them fits this model very well, all for different reasons. One of them is a Novachord-like instrument that tries to mimic the original Novachord controls. That means the envelopes are defined very differently than what the standard preset proposal dictates. One of the presets is a drawbar organ that is quite programmable. As an organ, the only envelope parameter I exposed was release – no reason not to let the player add some to taste. Finally I have a preset called “Ghost Organ”. It takes many liberties with control naming (e.g. “Trembello”) just to have fun with the ghost concept. None of my presets fit the proposed template very well at all, each for different reasons.

So, like jmg8, I don’t like the constraints proposed about standard MP assignments, although I appreciate the desire to implement things that way. I also don’t like the notion that a complete set of FX should be there. Like Kontakt libraries, add the ones that make sense and leave the designer the freedom to not include FX that make no sense. Distortion for example is great in some contexts and useless in others. On the other hand, some presets will benefit from a highly controllable delay. The one in the proposed template may be great for a supersaw, but for a rich clav type sound, all kinds of delay options could be justified, in my opinion.

Finally, I like the issue of a global FX bypass, especially if we can segregate the per-voice effects and make them exempt from the bypass. I’d add one feature: two bypass controls, one for just reverb and delay and the other for all FX. When auditioning presets, reverb and delay are the two I always want to not be there in order to properly evaluate the sound. Other FX may or may not detract from evaluating the sound, but in some cases they are better left enabled to understand what the sound designer had in mind.

That’s enough for now, I think, but more will probably come later.

[Whywhy]

Standard mp assignments have sense for global parameters, we could dedicate the 8 first or last mp to that.

About collection of presets, on the paper , it's a great idea, but in practice, it can be more complicated.
With samples, it should works easily, but with synthesis, it's another story.
Making a synth string patch and a "reel " violin or cello use different techniques, and my CPU will not be so happy
But for some sounds , it could works.

I didn't test it, but I think, we could be able to make some keystrokes with the midi module, note, assigned to mp, perhaps, we should think about it and have some information in the active presets panel.

About lockable parameters, lock pitch bend to range ,for mpe ,is a nice utility.
Same for velocity curve.

[Chandlerhimself]

I agree with most of what has been said so far. I think there needs to be a consensus on what an active preset should be and what it should do. Perhaps it would be better to have presets and active presets be treated differently. Allow both and treat them in different ways.

IMO active presets shpuld be more like individual synths/insturments and should be able to create multiple sounds or atleast many variations on a sound. Normal presets should just be something that sounds good and should be labeled in a way that lets people know what it sounds like. I made an active preset based on the minimoog(not completely acurrate of course) and it can make lots of different sounds. IMO something like that or dmbaer’s organs should be active presets. Presets could be variations on those such as jazz organ, deep purple organ, gospel organ, etc or they could just be simple sounds you would find in other synths. Normal presets, could either use the easy screen or the edit screen as long as they sound good.

I think most people have different ideas for what they want to do, so I don’t think having a rigid template will work. For some sounds I think an easy screen with 5 knobs would work fine. For example an 808 preset might only have release, eq controls, distortion, decay, glide and volume. For me that would be fine as long as it sounds good. I think presets without an easy screen or controls are fine. If someone is looking for a signature sound(like the synth sound from junp), I doubt they even want to tweak it.

I also agree the generator fx shouldn’t be in the fx tab.

[buing]

I think it's too complex.
The most of composers are need fast workflow.
Actually they spend just few seconds to listening each presets.
I think placing maximum 4~8 knobs on active preset panel would be great.
(The smaller is better.)

And also many composers turn off internal FXs (such as reverb, delay) first,
when they found suitable preset.
In my opinion, you do not need to put a lot of FXs on the active panel.