Vital - Released

[ThomasHelzle]

I would highly encourage some kind of guidelines Matt.
It's your universe to design.
Otherwise people will be reluctant to shell out for presets they don't know much about.
The intro via "In the Mix" (again, I don't complain about that specific deal, but will never even consider buying anything from them) wasn't the brightest spot and that colours off on your own work, which is outstanding.
It's always harder to "clean the stable" afterwards.

Cheers,

Tom

[fisherKing]

vital is really inspiring me, am using it a lot. but am a music-maker, not a sound designer (altho i tweak most presets). so, sound designers: am ready to buy more soundsets for vital, i need you to do your jobs!

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I will be releasing more of my sound libraries in the future and I always wondered what's people opinion on macro naming scheme. Do you prefer to name the macro after the component that it's controlling or after the effect the is has on overall sound? For example you could name macro that changes the lowpass filer as "Filter" or as "Brightness". I tend to go more towards the second option. However I've been using these approaches interchangeably. Sorry of off-topic.

Describe what the macro does. I always appreciate a macro where I'll be on a keys sound or whatever and there's a macro that says pad, and then turning that up adjusts the envelopes and timbre and morphs the patch into a pad sound. Easier to just communicate everything happening as "pad." When you say "brightness" I assume your real-world example would include more than just adjusting the filter cutoff and nothing else. If it's more than just cutoff, then yeah, call it brightness. But if all it does is change the cutoff, then call it cutoff. Just like a macro that adds in wet effects could be called "FX" or "Dry/Wet."

[JoeCat]

I'm a macro fiend, I find them invaluable especially working with Push/Live. I have all of my synths saved in Rack format, with any macros assigned to the rack, so that anything from simple, single filter cutoff sweeps, to one knob chaos is quickly and easily available for hands on control on the Push via macro modulation assignments within a synth.

This is me - no presets, only racks (I ever switch DAWs I'm screwed).
I don't always use my Push but even my Alesis Vmini has decent knobs and now with Ableton's ability to save macro states it's an even better way to work.

[pdxindy]

Interesting discussion about macros guys. It's important for me as well that macros do something more that just simple filter sweep or effect dry/wet etc. I always try to program them to make some deep changes to the sound in my own presets if possible. I really like that Vital has properly implemented Mod Remap feature which allows to program macros to do some wild things.

I'm very pleased about the Mod Remap feature... such a powerful tool that opens up some cool possibilities!

[Teksonik]

But to me a great sounding patch without proper modulation is 80-90% there.

Define "proper modulation". Beyond the standard Velocity to Amp Volume and MW to Vibrato, Cutoff, etc is there really any standard definition of proper modulation ?

Certainly that's a matter of personal taste so trying to please everyone with proper modulation is not an easy task.

[fisherKing]

But to me a great sounding patch without proper modulation is 80-90% there.

Define "proper modulation". Beyond the standard Velocity to Amp Volume and MW to Vibrato, Cutoff, etc is there really any standard definition of proper modulation ?

Certainly that's a matter of personal taste so trying to please everyone with proper modulation is not an easy task.

this. i mean, how hard is it to map something to a mod wheel? and how long does that take? instead of worrying whether every preset in a soundbank has that set up, it's easy enough to add something when you get there... when you need it. if a preset moves me, i can (still) change it, add something, whatever. i don't see what the problem is.

zvenx, your definition of "80-90% there" may not be the same as someone else's. so, can't you just take that sound to where you want it to go? it seems to me that you're the one being lazy, and it's not reflective of the work a sound designer may have put into his presets.

(& ok, am still posting about this but i WILL stop now )

[bftucker]

Congratulations on Vital being named this month’s One Synth Challenge #148. I expect great things.

viewtopic.php?p=7961812

[ThomasHelzle]

zvenx, your definition of "80-90% there" may not be the same as someone else's. so, can't you just take that sound to where you want it to go? it seems to me that you're the one being lazy, and it's not reflective of the work a sound designer may have put into his presets.

(& ok, am still posting about this but i WILL stop now )

But then why pay for it.
It's not about being lazy, if I want to do my own presets, I can do that just fine. But if I pay money, I expect some effort being made to create something more than cheap filling. Like I wrote before, depth, versatility, interest.

I don't expect everybody to feel the same about this, but "shallow presets" just don't do anything for me personally anymore. I probably have thousands of them already

And since Matt is selling them in his own store, they will be identified with his "brand"...

Like this whole filter discussion would have been cut short if there would have been more examples for how to get the best out of them...

Cheers,

Tom

[zvenx]

But to me a great sounding patch without proper modulation is 80-90% there.

Define "proper modulation". Beyond the standard Velocity to Amp Volume and MW to Vibrato, Cutoff, etc is there really any standard definition of proper modulation ?

Certainly that's a matter of personal taste so trying to please everyone with proper modulation is not an easy task.

Yet if you go thru Spectrasonic patches, or u-he patches or native instrument patches there is a uniformity in them....... I have not gone thru them and say wow, couldn't they modulate it some?
This is really lacking in control (well except earlier Spectrasonics stuff didnt' use aftertouch).
Or Alchemy which I mentioned earlier too.....They had a standard.. I liked that standard.
rsp

[zvenx]

...
zvenx, your definition of "80-90% there" may not be the same as someone else's. so, can't you just take that sound to where you want it to go? it seems to me that you're the one being lazy, and it's not reflective of the work a sound designer may have put into his presets.

(& ok, am still posting about this but i WILL stop now )

no need to stop.... it is different view points.
And indeed my 80-90% may be someone else's 98%
And I already did answer it, yes I am lazy. That is why I am willing to pay for sound banks from developers whose works inspire me.....

My playing (what and how I play it) is what takes it to where I want it to go..

I said this before on the previous page...
There are some sound developers who I know take me there 98% of the times....
Easier for me to just buy from them..
Simple as that.
So who don't want to use modwheel on their commercial banks, once I know ahead of time, I have no argument. I just avoid them.
rsp

[WasteLand]

is this all about that in the preset banks the mod wheel isn't routed as a modulation?
ok.
o well. every detail is worth to discuss.

[zvenx]

Lol.
Yes it is and yes it is .
rsp

[PieBerger]

Interesting discussion about macros guys. It's important for me as well that macros do something more that just simple filter sweep or effect dry/wet etc. I always try to program them to make some deep changes to the sound in my own presets if possible. I really like that Vital has properly implemented Mod Remap feature which allows to program macros to do some wild things.

I will be releasing more of my sound libraries in the future and I always wondered what's people opinion on macro naming scheme. Do you prefer to name the macro after the component that it's controlling or after the effect the is has on overall sound? For example you could name macro that changes the lowpass filer as "Filter" or as "Brightness". I tend to go more towards the second option. However I've been using these approaches interchangeably. Sorry of off-topic.

I'm one of these difficult people that changes between the two generally speaking, if it's simple I'll call it something like HPF/LPF etc, but if there's a little more going on I'll use something more abstract/descriptive.

[fisherKing]

wait. isn't this thread about vital?

easy enough to start a new thread, about, for example, why can't sound developers do exactly what i think they should do...