Has Vojtech Covered EVERY plugin??

[UnbalancedBeats]

No he should make a sick sampler slicer machine.

+1 !!

+1

[UnbalancedBeats]

I'd like to see an Iris replacement in MSoundFactory given that iZotope have given up on it.

Me, too!

please, delete this post.

[mladi]

I'd like to see an Iris replacement in MSoundFactory given that iZotope have given up on it.

Me, too!

please, delete this post.

What??? Why should he delete his post?

[UnbalancedBeats]

I'd like to see an Iris replacement in MSoundFactory given that iZotope have given up on it.

Me, too!

please, delete this post.

What??? Why should he delete his post?

I meant my post, I made a mistake and think is dfuplicated.

[Kalamata Kid]

No he should make a sick sampler slicer machine.

+1 !!

+1
IIRC I mentioned this about MSF elsewhere.

[Kalamata Kid]

I'd like to see an Iris replacement in MSoundFactory given that iZotope have given up on it.

+1
Vojtech will do a great job on a what Iris 3 would have been like.

[Kalamata Kid]

One area he's not covered at all to my knowledge is MIDI. Which is a shame, since the Melda approach to MIDI processing would be fascinating to see! Simply imagining the use of all standard Melda modulators on MIDI parameters makes my mouth water:)

Perhaps allow third party VSTi midi fx.
Allow midi in and midi out within MSF to avoid any mischief.

Or maybe make a deal with Colin @ Architect for an Architect for MSF plugin.

Ok I am all in for Vojtech to make his own midi modules!!!

[David]

"Colin @ Architect for an Architect for MSF plugin."

Love this idea, and the larger one of allowing other devs to create new plugins for the MSF/MXXX/MPS grids!

Definitely +1 on MIDI I/O, both internally and out to the rest of the world, for MSF!!

[Kalamata Kid]

"Colin @ Architect for an Architect for MSF plugin."

Love this idea, and the larger one of allowing other devs to create new plugins for the MSF/MXXX/MPS grids!

Definitely +1 on MIDI I/O, both internally and out to the rest of the world, for MSF!!

So MSF midi in and audio and midi out to the world. Love it!

And yea! besides Architect other developers can make their own modules or plugins for MSF.
If Live can do it with Max4Live so can we!

But then again there are already over 100 VST midi fx that would compliment MSF if only it could host them. Doing this would not necessitate and midi track so routing would be less complex.

[topaz]

I vote for MSlicer, slicing re-sequencing mega machine

[crystalmsc]

Want to see MTurboAnalog, a kind of Diva with the Model 72's level of authenticity. Tired of waiting for an accurate emulation of the Memorymoog and Moog Modular. Would love to see Vojtech wizardy for those kind of things.

[vectorwarrior]

A spectral matcher would be awesome and something I've been asking for for a long time. Analyse side chain, analyse input, make input spectrally match side chain.

Mspectraldynamics and mmorph can't match. Mmorph is close, but it only level follows the side chain, rather than matching the signals together.

Not only world a spectral matcher be amazing for sound design, e.g. when half matching one sound against another to get a hybrid, but if you could tap into some analysis output data, vojtech could use that data to build models and emulations, e.g. see exactly what vintage hardware is going to all sorts of signals...

[VariKusBrainZ]

Mmorph is close, but it only level follows the side chain

I believe you're mistaken

Unlike simple cross-fading, which is just like having 2 faders one going down and the other going up

[vectorwarrior]

I believe you're mistaken

Yeah, this is a common misconception, but I can explain. MMorph is not a direct matching tool, it is a spectral level follower.

What's the difference? What MMorph does is takes the side chain input, analyses it and then applies the spectral shape on top of the main input... but it doesn't MATCH them, it doesn't look at the input and 'compares' them. For it to do that, it would need to analyse both the input and the side chain, then see what it needs to do to make them match, e.g. boost here, cut there, etc. MMorph instead 'imprints' the spectral characteristics on to another sound, but isn't aware of what that other sound is doing.

You can confirm this with a simple test in MXXX:
- add two oscillators with the same frequency, one on lane 1, one on lane 2
- make the oscillators on lane 1 really quiet (-50db), the other loud (-3db) so they are different
- add a mmorph module below them and morph one osc into the other
- as you change the ratio knob, you'll see that the signal stays the same volume (set the 'dry range' in advanced settings to 0 so you never hear the dry)... shouldn't it be matching them? It's level following from 0dB with a side chain signal that is at -3dB... meaning it's almost full volume and because it's not comparing to the main input, it's just leaving it as-is
- press the 'swap A and B' buttons, now changing the ratio DOES change the volume, because now morph is level following with the really quiet signal, and so changing the ratio is increasing the intensity of the level follow on this quiet signal.

If it was doing true MATCHING, the ratio control would yield identical results and it wouldn't matter which way around A and B were.

I hope that makes sense, it's a little complicated to explain, but maybe the above steps help explain the issue. With a true spectral matcher, you could get some incredibly interesting 'hybrid' sounds and 'true' morphing in a way that is currently not possible at all.

FYI - vocoding suffers from the same problem, they're both essentially multi-band level followers, just using different tech. Still super cool, but I would LOVE a true matcher!

[Michael L]

Unmixer