Massive X 1.4 update!
-
- KVRAF
- 2300 posts since 11 Jan, 2009 from Portland, OR, USA
I genuinely don't understand the UI-haters, griping on and on about how bad this UI is for workflow....but how? why? I use dozens of soft-synths. I don't find MX any less usable than any of the big ones, and it's faster than many of them. Dune 3, Zebra 2 and Omnisphere are still stuck in the dark ages when it comes to assigning modulation. MX uses, naturally, the Massive approach, which innovated the entire industry.
As for the layout, it seems basically standard-fare to me: You've got Oscs, and below them, envelopes. You can toggle that to be LFOs instead, or a combination of Envs / Lfos. You've got a filter. There's a page for MSEGs. There's an FX section over to the right. There's a smoothly implemented 'routing' page if you want to get more advanced. You can make it white or dark...I prefer dark. I think it looks nice. There's a lot to look at, sure, but that's because it's a workhorse instrument with many parts. I understand if people are confused by the Performer page at first, but MSEG implementation is always a bit complicated, and these are VERY powerful MSEGs: you need a lot of controls here.
So how is this a wildly different, totally awful design-flow compared to literally anything and everything else out there? What is so 'bad' about it? I can program it way faster than Zebra, which I've always found very slow despite it's "only show what you use" approach. It's lightyears better than Omnisphere. Dune 3 is also slow for me, with a totally outdated approach to modulation assignment. Makes me wonder what synths the MX-UI-Haters think have 'Great' UI's -- Falcon? Lol. Or are they just comparing it to synths with a fraction of the functionality of MX, making it much easier to have a simple UI? Repro-5 is my favorite synth and also my favorite UI, but it has so, so much less to do than MX, it's clearly not even reasonable to compare...which brings us back to Zebra, Omni, Falcon....Hive? Serum? Ok, Serum has a very nice UI, no doubt. Is that the hate-creating basis of comparison?
Shrug.
As for the layout, it seems basically standard-fare to me: You've got Oscs, and below them, envelopes. You can toggle that to be LFOs instead, or a combination of Envs / Lfos. You've got a filter. There's a page for MSEGs. There's an FX section over to the right. There's a smoothly implemented 'routing' page if you want to get more advanced. You can make it white or dark...I prefer dark. I think it looks nice. There's a lot to look at, sure, but that's because it's a workhorse instrument with many parts. I understand if people are confused by the Performer page at first, but MSEG implementation is always a bit complicated, and these are VERY powerful MSEGs: you need a lot of controls here.
So how is this a wildly different, totally awful design-flow compared to literally anything and everything else out there? What is so 'bad' about it? I can program it way faster than Zebra, which I've always found very slow despite it's "only show what you use" approach. It's lightyears better than Omnisphere. Dune 3 is also slow for me, with a totally outdated approach to modulation assignment. Makes me wonder what synths the MX-UI-Haters think have 'Great' UI's -- Falcon? Lol. Or are they just comparing it to synths with a fraction of the functionality of MX, making it much easier to have a simple UI? Repro-5 is my favorite synth and also my favorite UI, but it has so, so much less to do than MX, it's clearly not even reasonable to compare...which brings us back to Zebra, Omni, Falcon....Hive? Serum? Ok, Serum has a very nice UI, no doubt. Is that the hate-creating basis of comparison?
Shrug.
- KVRAF
- 25391 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
- KVRAF
- 25391 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
Not GUI related, but I don't consider the Performers to be MSEG's. They are more like sophisticated sequencers. To me, one of the most basic requirements of an envelope in a polyphonic synth is to be per voice and the MX Performers are global only.
-
- KVRAF
- 1863 posts since 11 Apr, 2008
From the highlights:
Apparently some folks after a week or two of not using MX have to learn it again because they don't remember the layout and what is what. Normally it would be considered as the first signs of Dementia but here it's UI Designers fault because he/she/they know sh** not like the best graphic designers ever which you can find here on KVR
Also, two different colours of some knobs confuse people to the point that they can't make music with MX anymore. Instead, they fall into deep philosophical considerations about the meaning of colour and symbolism in MX and the universe.
-
- KVRAF
- 2300 posts since 11 Jan, 2009 from Portland, OR, USA
Yeah, which led me to the rambling post, because I don't get it, any of it. Not one of those arguments made a lick of sense to me. I guess the standard MX has to nail with its UI is a non-existent dream synth that resides in the imaginations of the MX-haters, because certainly no other synths on the market that have been mentioned here are demonstrably better than MX is, UI-wise.
- KVRAF
- 25391 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
:sigh: just had to start with the name calling didn't you...mholloway wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:52 pmYeah, which led me to the rambling post, because I don't get it, any of it. Not one of those arguments made a lick of sense to me. I guess the standard MX has to nail with its UI is a non-existent dream synth that resides in the imaginations of the MX-haters, because certainly no other synths on the market that have been mentioned here are demonstrably better than MX is, UI-wise.
-
- KVRian
- 1286 posts since 25 Jul, 2009
Finally had some time to dig into MX a little, and I'm really liking it.
I kind of wrote it off when I first tried it because it seemed buggy. But I can easily see this becoming one of my favorites.
I'm not getting into the gui thing, because I can work with it. And it does a surprising amount of things I look for.
I kind of wrote it off when I first tried it because it seemed buggy. But I can easily see this becoming one of my favorites.
I'm not getting into the gui thing, because I can work with it. And it does a surprising amount of things I look for.
- KVRian
- 1372 posts since 16 Jan, 2004
I bought the 3 expansions for MX. I occasionally do sound design from the ground up, but I'm usually just a preset tweaker. And, I like the packs - a little tweak of a preset here and there and I can get some cool stuff out of the thing.
-
- KVRian
- 1286 posts since 25 Jul, 2009
I remember now why I dismissed it when it first came out. It won't run on my old desktop.
Tried it on my newer laptop and really like it. Thought I would put it on my desktop too,
and it won't run.
Oh well - it's good enough that I'll just live with that limitation.
Tried it on my newer laptop and really like it. Thought I would put it on my desktop too,
and it won't run.
Oh well - it's good enough that I'll just live with that limitation.
-
- KVRist
- 453 posts since 17 Mar, 2005 from Bay Area
Looooove MX over here! MX inside komplete kontrol for midi mapping is bliss, though I wish those mappings were direct. MX is in every project of mine for months.