Opinions on MassiveX

[chk071]

Maybe it’s better to provide direct comparisons between equivalent products. MX is good bad compared to what? Phasrplant? Serum? Razor? Why are they better/worse than MX?

I wished that people could take the time and demo the synths themselves, instead of taking every opinion on the net for the holy grail, and, worse, even decide what to buy by that. I mean, seriously, if you have your cash that loose, you're better off doing anything more valuable with it.

Can't count the amount of times people open up threads like "This vs. that, what is better?". Seriously, noone here will be able to tell what YOU find better. The few times i based my actual purchases on opions here or elsewhere, it was a massive disappointment. Simply because my taste is my taste, and not others' taste.

[rezoneight]

Haven’t followed all the pages, but it seems to me that the analysis settled on using theoretical UI principles to determine what is bad / good UI. In my opinion it’s reasonable to assume that not everyone reads every post of every thread and that perspectives that drop in at deeper levels of the thread can indicate the direction a thread has taken.

This particular part of the conversation is one page back I believe. Nobody has settled on anything. I asked stefken to say why he thinks the MX UI is bad.I completely disagree not only with the opinion but with the premise that it can all be scientific. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm curious about why some think the UI isn't good. The thread *is* titled "Opinions on Massive X". So, we're sharing our opinions.

[perpetual3]

Haven’t followed all the pages, but it seems to me that the analysis settled on using theoretical UI principles to determine what is bad / good UI. In my opinion it’s reasonable to assume that not everyone reads every post of every thread and that perspectives that drop in at deeper levels of the thread can indicate the direction a thread has taken.

This particular part of the conversation is one page back I believe. Nobody has settled on anything. I asked stefken to say why he thinks the MX UI is bad.I completely disagree not only with the opinion but with the premise that it can all be scientific. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm curious about why some think the UI isn't good. The thread *is* titled "Opinions on Massive X". So, we're sharing our opinions.

Nothing I said implies gatekeeping opinions.

[EnGee]

Haven’t followed all the pages, but it seems to me that the analysis settled on using theoretical UI principles to determine what is bad / good UI. In my opinion it’s reasonable to assume that not everyone reads every post of every thread and that perspectives that drop in at deeper levels of the thread can indicate the direction a thread has taken.

I was saying that with a light hearted way really. Nothing mean meant

Comparison is sometimes misleading IMO. Because although there are some functions not on par with the same functions in another synth, but in the end you weigh the the overall negatives and positives and see for yourself if it suits you or not.

Yes the sound is the most essential parameter in a synth and some of us are ready to sacrifice everything for it (GUI and workflow for example), but that is the case when there are no alternatives at the same price (like Yamaha DX7 when released).

I personally don't blame someone who rejects MX, because our needs and hardware are different. For me, they are only two or three functions missing (already talked about them 100 times ), and I don't mind sacrificing those. However, for others there are much more missing, so when they weigh their decision, they are not keen to miss all that functionality.

NI (or any company) should try harder to expand its base by implementing those functions, otherwise there are many alternatives (competition is very high in software synths!).

[pdxindy]

Haven’t followed all the pages, but it seems to me that the analysis settled on using theoretical UI principles to determine what is bad / good UI. In my opinion it’s reasonable to assume that not everyone reads every post of every thread and that perspectives that drop in at deeper levels of the thread can indicate the direction a thread has taken.

This particular part of the conversation is one page back I believe. Nobody has settled on anything. I asked stefken to say why he thinks the MX UI is bad.I completely disagree not only with the opinion but with the premise that it can all be scientific. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm curious about why some think the UI isn't good. The thread *is* titled "Opinions on Massive X". So, we're sharing our opinions.

I’ve barely touched MX since the 1.1 update so some things I remember might have changed. I’m also traveling without laptop right now so I cannot check if any of these things have changed.

MX is the most click heavy softsynth I have. There are many tabs and lots of little menus all over. There is no support in MX for mousewheel. So one cannot hover over a menu and use mousewheel. It is necessary to click to open the menu, click to select and then click to close. There is also no support for arrow keys to move through menus and other lists.

There are no parameter values displayed. There are also no options for copy/paste of say an Osc. If I have an Osc in one preset that I might want to use in another, it is impossible to do that.

MX has no undo/redo. Okay, this I can work around when I want to try something by looking at the existing parameter value, edit it and go back to the original value if I don’t want the edit. But MX does have parameter values either. So then I would have to save it as a preset, try the edit and the reload the preset to make sure I get exactly back where I was. Quite clunky.

If I want to see all possible parameters that might be controlled by a macro in an existing preset, it is necessary to click on 18 different tabs to check as there is no visual feedback which tabs have modulations.

I vaguely remember that this might have changed, but there was no FX bypass... one had to bypass each of the FX individually and could only do so on the routing page. SO that is 5 clicks for a task that is 1 click on other synths I use. Etc.

These are a few things off the top of the head why I didn’t like working with MX... visually I like the appearance of MX, but I found the workflow tedious in comparison to other synths I regularly use.

[Sinisterbr]

What do you guys think if we make a feature request thread here at KVR and send it later to NI?
I did take a look at NI's own MX forums, but that place is so dead!

[chk071]

This place is anything but dead: https://support.native-instruments.com/ ... 1575669489

[FarleyCZ]

I'll have to apologize to Massive X. Gave it a second chance, changed the skin to the dark one so it's easier on the eyes, and so far I'm really enjoying my stay. The OSC section is especially nice. They imo kinda lie, some of these are not pure wavetables. As in the original Massive. Single cycle wavetable wouldn't be able to have inharmonic content in it by definition. But that makes it only more interesting. I have been too pre-judgemental towards that synth. I'd still like it to have 3 oscs, though. I do miss one.

[Sinisterbr]

This place is anything but dead: https://support.native-instruments.com/ ... 1575669489

Sorry, but I'll disagree. It's pretty much empty. Very little interaction and, for the most part, just people reporting issues. The pinned threads are all them over a month inactive.

[trusampler]

Ni killed off this project for alot of us, the moment they mentioned it wasn't able to load our older projects, songs, etc. N the thousands of presets made for massive 1.
If you haven't noticed their pattern by now, Ni does this alot, Ala kore..

[V0RT3X]

Ni killed off this project for alot of us, the moment they mentioned it wasn't able to load our older projects, songs, etc. N the thousands of presets made for massive 1.
If you haven't noticed their pattern by now, Ni does this alot, Ala kore..

Its a different project, the architecture is clearly different. I think massive X was built from the ground up as its own project.


Honestly If you want to use the thousands of presets for massive 1 then you still can. They havn’t discontinued massive and I don’t see them doing this anytime soon.

[Functional]

Ni killed off this project for alot of us, the moment they mentioned it wasn't able to load our older projects, songs, etc. N the thousands of presets made for massive 1.
If you haven't noticed their pattern by now, Ni does this alot, Ala kore..

You can use Massive to load projects that you use Massive in. To remain backwards compatible with Massive, Massive X wouldn't have 50% of the features it currently boasts.

[Functional]

What do you guys think if we make a feature request thread here at KVR and send it later to NI?
I did take a look at NI's own MX forums, but that place is so dead!

Tbh I doubt any kind of feature request thread would pan out too well. I speculate that they're going to implement MPE in future, perhaps streamline the automatization process and that's that - after that there's going to be just bugfixes. NI went under a "restructuring" (i.e. laid off people) and that kind of sounds like they're going to put in as minimal effort as they can into existing products - especially ones that people booted down by spreading misinformation or just ridiculous complaints.

[Sinisterbr]

What do you guys think if we make a feature request thread here at KVR and send it later to NI?
I did take a look at NI's own MX forums, but that place is so dead!

Tbh I doubt any kind of feature request thread would pan out too well. I speculate that they're going to implement MPE in future, perhaps streamline the automatization process and that's that - after that there's going to be just bugfixes. NI went under a "restructuring" (i.e. laid off people) and that kind of sounds like they're going to put in as minimal effort as they can into existing products - especially ones that people booted down by spreading misinformation or just ridiculous complaints.

You may be right. NI has been saying since MX's release that they'd keep continuously improving and updating it, but that may not be true, and yet I did believe in them. We'll see.

[Functional]

You may be right. NI has been saying since MX's release that they'd keep continuously improving and updating it, but that may not be true, and yet I did believe in them. We'll see.

They have a history of... not doing that. I'm not sure whenever they promised updating and improving with any of their other plugins, but virtually nothing aside from Kontakt, Maschine (and their other hardware-related software) and Reaktor have really got any kind of feature updates, only bugfixes. As far as I know, anyway. Not to be too judgy about this though - this is how most companies plugin developers operate anyway.

I could be wrong and I do hope I am wrong; Massive X is their flagship synth. But it didn't probably get the excitement they originally hoped for.