FYI!! Melda SoundFactory ON SALE til JUNE 30

[Whywhy]

Anyway, I would really like to see any constructive ideas about improving the user interface; not the graphics, but the functionality. Can someone post some links to replies in this thread or their suggestions?

I think bmanic made a good point about the interface in the additive module or modal filter.
Having the ability to click-and-drag affecting a parameter for multiple partials in the list with a single mouse stroke would improve the workflow considerably. As it is now it's very slow.

Another thing which just came on top of my head right now is showing filter cutoff point values in Hz, rather than octaves. That's just weird

I would like :

- Global settings button ( where you fing all the mpe curves, velocity, voices management) near the midi or undo/redo.

- mp parameters button : half of their actual sizes.

- envelopes pages : be able to see them all without a separate window or reduce their window size.

- I'm not against popup, in a modular environment it can make sens, but I find them so big in Msf. I would like to be able to see 4 env and lfo, on a 4k monitor, plus the generator window in the same time.

Please, keep in mind, I'm not an Ui expert, just a user!

[exponent1]

Anyway, I would really like to see any constructive ideas about improving the user interface; not the graphics, but the functionality. Can someone post some links to replies in this thread or their suggestions?

I think bmanic made a good point about the interface in the additive module or modal filter.
Having the ability to click-and-drag affecting a parameter for multiple partials in the list with a single mouse stroke would improve the workflow considerably. As it is now it's very slow.

Another thing which just came on top of my head right now is showing filter cutoff point values in Hz, rather than octaves. That's just weird

in the additive mode, you have structures, you can make 4 structures, and... if you open a structure, you get a graph, of all the partials, you can drag each partials, to a location, and it's level, if i am correct. that's the way i am doing additive right now, in MSF, with added advance, more structures; more possibilities.

True, but that's still dealing with one partial at the time.
What I meant is, the ability to affect partials "in bulk" with a single mouse stroke.

I put a screenshot with red lines as an example of click-drag mouse stroke.
The first one on the left would activate/deactivate the partials in bulk.
The others would change the volume (or detune) of 20+ partials in literally 5 seconds.
Activating/deactivating 64 partials by clicking on each one currently takes like 2 minutes.

That, to me would be a game changer for the additive module and the modal filter.

+1

[exponent1]

Can we move this to the Melda thread so that Vojtech would be able to see these and respond/take note/take action? I don't think he meanders here.

[plexuss]

Can we move this to the Melda thread so that Vojtech would be able to see these and respond/take note/take action? I don't think he meanders here.

I don't think he cares. I'm not being rhetorical, I honestly don't think he cares, based on past direct and indirect observed evidence. I suppose there is always "hope" if you are so inclined...

[SeeingInMidi]

Can we move this to the Melda thread so that Vojtech would be able to see these and respond/take note/take action? I don't think he meanders here.

I don't think he cares. I'm not being rhetorical, I honestly don't think he cares, based on past direct and indirect observed evidence. I suppose there is always "hope" if you are so inclined...

He does care, and MSF is in beta so he is probably even more inclined to implement user requests and feedback. I requested a Melda feature that he said wouldn't be possible but he quietly sneaked it in version 13. So shoot your shot, you'll never know what he will consider.

[mevla]

There’s something that puts me about this company. One is the huge graphic interfaces. The other if I recall correctly is their installer. Last time I tried one of their plugins it literally installed all their plugins.

1) For me I sometimes have to enlarge the UIs to 110% 120% since they're to small. Got an old Viewsonic VP211b monitor 1600x1200, Asus mobo graphics interface, nothing fancy.

2) You get to choose which plugin to install. In my case I install them all in a 'special' folder that's not related to Windows. 117 plugins takes 27 MB space less 117 .so Linux adapter files at 93056 bytes each. I reckon there's a main binary or two still in the Windows folders that contains all the shareable binary objects that all plugins are using.

That you install 1 or 117, the main binaries shared by all plugins will be installed. As for the 117 .dll they do not take much space really, unless you run some embedded microcontroller and even then.

[mevla]

I don't think he cares. I'm not being rhetorical, I honestly don't think he cares, based on past direct and indirect observed evidence. I suppose there is always "hope" if you are so inclined...

Your evidence is that - whatever it is - mine is the following and can be backed up by exchanged emails complete with internet paths, as well as emails to/from Bitwig support since it also had to do with Bitwig:

From Sun May 12, 2019 6:48 pm:

"An early contact with Vojtech for me was when I had some problems running MDrummer on a platform that is not supported by Melda (Linux). Vojtech sent me debug versions of MDrummer that generated log files which I sent back to him for troubleshooting. After going back and forth a couple of times like that he found the problem. I was pleasantly surprised that one would spend time to help with a platform that's not even supported. So right there it started off with a good impression. "

Only providing this for balance purposes when describing someone's attitude is concerned.

[SeeingInMidi]

Triggering options for the lfos would be nice

[David]

Can we move this to the Melda thread so that Vojtech would be able to see these and respond/take note/take action? I don't think he meanders here.

How does that work? I started the thread, so maybe it's something I can do…? Or maybe this one would be wisely abandoned in favor of a new one (or several), in the Melda area, for new MSF users, like maybe:

MSF Public beta/new owners Discussion, QA…

MSF Public beta/new owners, Feature Requests, GUI wishlists…

MSF Preset/Device Sharing and Discussion…

Comments? Ideas?

Obviously anyone can start a new thread there; I'm thinking of some braodly focused user areas that would become resources, in addition to specific single question posts…maybe overkill? I dunno, seems like something I'd want to have.

[Gone soft]

Triggering options for the lfos would be nice

There's the "Init phase" for each of the eight polyphonic LFOs, and you just modulate that by one of the random modulations for a random initial phase.

Any else sort of triggering options you'd you want that isn't possible through the current modulation system?

[David]

Triggering options for the lfos would be nice

Yes! I'd love to have some clock/gate/trigger-type devices, with dividers, splitters, modulations, etc. in addition to all the envelope features, to point at the Generators, or the modulators, everything/anything:)

[dmbaer]

Melda's UIs are obnoxious. The only reason I put up with is that the functionality of the software they are attached to is about the best out there. TurboDelay and TurboReverb are especially off the charts nuts. But I hate working with their UIs.

Again, they are obnoxious.

Nobody can tell me they're not.

OK, they're not obnoxious.

But seriously, any discussion of the UI quality that ignores the two-level capability of MSF (in particular, but Melda plug-ins in general) is ignoring an essential aspect of what Melda is trying to accomplish.

Consider Falcon and/or HALion. These are deeply powerful but are very challenging to learn. Both, however, offer the ability to present a simple, focused synth creation courtesy of scripting and graphics/skinning-type capabilities. Both prove their worth in this area with numerous hosted "synths" that are really just implementations that sit on the fundamental capabilities, all of which were created by the company that developed the underlying synth. But what one individual possesses all those requisite capabilities? To build scripted/skinned UIs, you must be a master of sound design, scripting and graphics. To build such in instrument requires a team of individuals with diverse skills.

Of course, a comparatively easy alternative is to create a sound and define some macro controls to be the essential part of the interface. But what do you have? You've got a sound with a few macro controls that are just knobs. If knobs get the job done, then fine. Otherwise, the sound designer is limited in what he can accomplish.

With Melda, it's a different story. Melda is not shooting for the ultimate solution of using scripting and graphics to deliver the ultimate presentation. The goal is something between simple macro knobs and a fully-customized UI. And it offers this capability without requiring many weeks or even months of learning graphics or scripting skills.

As an example, one of the MSF devices I've (almost) completed is a reasonable approximation of a Farfisa combo organ. You could argue how faithfully it recreates the sound - but that's not the point. I was able to offer a UI that has stops identical to those on the original organ. Futhermore, I as able to offer some extremely easy-to-use switches, for example, with which the user can select mod-wheel, aftertouch or CC74 to govern vibrato depth. There are a number of extras there as well. This was done entirely with Melda multi-parameters and the Melda architecture goal of supporting a reasonable end-user presentation that avoids the need for scripting or special graphics.

So, for all those who insist on pontificating on the lack of merits of the Melda UI, if you do not acknowledge the two-tier orientation of that UI and include it in the discussion, you are, IMO, refusing to address an essential aspect of the subject.

[Niowiad]

Can we move this to the Melda thread so that Vojtech would be able to see these and respond/take note/take action? I don't think he meanders here.

How does that work? I started the thread, so maybe it's something I can do…? Or maybe this one would be wisely abandoned in favor of a new one (or several), in the Melda area, for new MSF users, like maybe:

MSF Public beta/new owners Discussion, QA…

MSF Public beta/new owners, Feature Requests, GUI wishlists…

MSF Preset/Device Sharing and Discussion…

Comments? Ideas?

Obviously anyone can start a new thread there; I'm thinking of some braodly focused user areas that would become resources, in addition to specific single question posts…maybe overkill? I dunno, seems like something I'd want to have.

Those seem good to me, to keep things cleaner.
I would add one for bug report though.

Especially until we're out of beta, suggestions and bug-report should probably be central topics.

I'm not into devices but sure a thread about those could be important in order to present the final version with a good amount of instruments.

[David]

now for something completely different:

i am with stupid when it comes to preset management...

…

The preset/storing/import/export functions in MSF drove me NUTS for a long time (thank you, Darkstar! You were a big help for me, too, on this:).

There's a recent thread on them here which is worth a read; includes the latest info from Vojtech on the two main types, Global and Instrument, backups, etc.:

viewtopic.php?f=138&t=524596

In terms of workflow, the main things for me to get were:

• Global Presets are the same as what "normal synths/plugins" think of as presets, patches or snapshots: i.e., the current plugin state captured for recall. Created in either Edit or Device mode using the top-most Preset-button Browser, and also loaded and managed (a backup button is included) from there. These files are only easily accessed and managed with this internal MSF browser; in the system/Finder, they're all packed into a huge, single .xml file (see the thread ref'ed above) that some may know how to do something with, but not me.

• Saved Devices are the same (current state of the plugin), except they include to ability to save and load presets for JUST THAT DEVICE, which only capture and recall changes made to the EZ-Screen controls for that device, if you've made any of those, in another Preset Browser, only visible in Device (aka Instrument Mode, i.e., not Edit Mode) Mode, when a device is loaded. The button for this browser is right below below the Global Preset button. If you haven't made any EZ-Screen controls, the only other advantage to saving as a Device is that you'll be able to see, manage, and share these file types (xxx.minstrument) in your system file manager/Finder. Once you save some Device presets, these will also be visible in the system/Finder, file type xxx.presets, right next to the .minstrument file they reference.
  EDIT: One other advantage with Devices is that you can add your name and even clickable links to your website and/or email, which may be of interest if you share your work via the Online Exchange system, or in any other way.

Loading and storing either GPresets or Devices when you haven't made an Ez Screen and don't have any Instrument Presets are basically just two ways of doing the same thing, using two different browsing systems. GPresets being the primary, intended, expected choice, apparently.

Online Sharing of either happens in the GPresets Browser and appears to capture whatever's loaded at the time, either a GPreset with no Device if none exists, or a GPreset AND it's associated Instrument and EDIT: Instrument Presets if these exist—apparently, device presets DON'T come through in the Exchange process, which is a shame. BUT these files can be posted as zipped attachments. (AFAICTell, there's no decision yet on whether Devices will eventually just be called Instruments, or both, as now, or what…)

Import/Export is still rather confusing to me, so I'll just keep mum about that for the time being.

Here's some relevant screen-grabs from my intro video (link on page 1 of this thread) which covers presets and the two Modes to some extent:

[David]

Melda's UIs are obnoxious. The only reason I put up with is that the functionality of the software they are attached to is about the best out there. TurboDelay and TurboReverb are especially off the charts nuts. But I hate working with their UIs.

Again, they are obnoxious.

Nobody can tell me they're not.

OK, they're not obnoxious.

But seriously, any discussion of the UI quality that ignores the two-level capability of MSF (in particular, but Melda plug-ins in general) is ignoring an essential aspect of what Melda is trying to accomplish.

Consider Falcon and/or HALion. These are deeply powerful but are very challenging to learn. Both, however, offer the ability to present a simple, focused synth creation courtesy of scripting and graphics/skinning-type capabilities. Both prove their worth in this area with numerous hosted "synths" that are really just implementations that sit on the fundamental capabilities, all of which were created by the company that developed the underlying synth. But what one individual possesses all those requisite capabilities? To build scripted/skinned UIs, you must be a master of sound design, scripting and graphics. To build such in instrument requires a team of individuals with diverse skills.

Of course, a comparatively easy alternative is to create a sound and define some macro controls to be the essential part of the interface. But what do you have? You've got a sound with a few macro controls that are just knobs. If knobs get the job done, then fine. Otherwise, the sound designer is limited in what he can accomplish.

With Melda, it's a different story. Melda is not shooting for the ultimate solution of using scripting and graphics to deliver the ultimate presentation. The goal is something between simple macro knobs and a fully-customized UI. And it offers this capability without requiring many weeks or even months of learning graphics or scripting skills.

As an example, one of the MSF devices I've (almost) completed is a reasonable approximation of a Farfisa combo organ. You could argue how faithfully it recreates the sound - but that's not the point. I was able to offer a UI that has stops identical to those on the original organ. Futhermore, I as able to offer some extremely easy-to-use switches, for example, with which the user can select mod-wheel, aftertouch or CC74 to govern vibrato depth. There are a number of extras there as well. This was done entirely with Melda multi-parameters and the Melda architecture goal of supporting a reasonable end-user presentation that avoids the need for scripting or special graphics.

So, for all those who insist on pontificating on the lack of merits of the Melda UI, if you do not acknowledge the two-tier orientation of that UI and include it in the discussion, you are, IMO, refusing to address an essential aspect of the subject.

YES—THIS!! Thank you.