Melda 2021 *wishlist* what's yours?

[frizzbee]

I've asked for this a ton of times but still no luck. Annoyingly, all morphing on the market suffers from the same problem. Someone will fix this at some point.

if there's no plugin that can do that, how do you know how good it will sound or that this is the "correct way"? how do you know the many devs havn't already tried (or probably already doing it like that) and that doesn't make a difference or just sounds bad? just keen to see parts of your research. if all plugins on the market from different devs "suffer" from that...

[Nspace]

I still want the same thing I've asked for for years now; real time spectral matching.

Analyse input, analyse output, match frequency response (and allow variable amounts, e.g. 50%), update the matching constantly.

Isn't this morphing I hear you ask; no, morphing is simply a spectral envelope follower, this is why an input sound set to 99% morph doesn't sound anything like the other sound. You need to analyse and compare BOTH sounds and match as needed, morphing only analyses one of the sounds, which is why the results are often horrible, as it's not taking into account what the input sounds like.

Yes, the latency would be bad as it has to do the FFT process twice, but it would be worth it. Not only would it be useful for creative sound design (a 50% spectral match would sound like the exact middle between each sound, rather than a potential mess created by a morph)... but it would also be useful for processing too. For instance, you could take a mix and a master of the same track and use this to blend between the two if you find the master 'too much'. It's potentially everything a morph should be, but without the weird unusable crap you can get out of morphing when the two inputs sound very different.

I've asked for this a ton of times but still no luck. Annoyingly, all morphing on the market suffers from the same problem. Someone will fix this at some point.

Brilliant reasoning and quite attractive usage cases that you describe.
Who better than Voftech to work on this, and improve it within time?

Zynaptiq, iZotope, Voxengo, Wavesfactory, oeksound, or every dev with time I just chose these because they've already done much spectral stuff.

Following your line I would add Nugen, Acon and a few others, but are they willing to do adaptations of their plugins? Voxengo perhaps.

However, Vojtech responsiveness has been on the rise. The way MXXX opened its access to include the option of core+acquired licenses by way of collected ideas in this forum, or what could be called the "open requests" module development of MFS, or the regular adoption of FR as each new version change list show... all point to him as a perfect candidate for such. Without the need to mention his dexterity with algorithms and matrixed development optimizations.

Plus Vectorwarrior is already an staple here, like several users posting above. Many ideas and discussions have been fueled by them. Lets not underestimate the power of a thriving community connected with a responsive and able development team.

[E_Anderson]

i rescind my request as I've discovered you can pretty much already do what I want to do

[Annabanna]

1) Freeforphase module in MSF. t's in MXXX and I use it all the time, but not in MSF for some reason, so I end up creating MSF instruments inside MXXX just to use that one module.

2) A tilt eq plug (and module) that works like GoodHertz TiltShift. Just tell it where you want the rise to start, where you want it to stop, and how much to rise (or fall), and it does what you intuitively intend vs setting up multiple bands to cancel each other out within mDynamic EQ with no easy way to know exactly how much it rose from point A to point B. Try it. You'll see. It's a much better and more intuitive interface for the same basic function.

3) Tiltshift also has continuously variable HPF and LPF rather than 6 or 12dB intervals. Given the choice, it's almost never sounds best to use exact 12db multiples. I don't know exactly how it does that behind the scenes, maybe some parallel blend or something, but there's a big upside, and no downside that I can see (plus I think that makes them automateable), so I would think it would just be a pure benefit to have continuously variable filter slopes for all Melda filters.

4) A variety of better sounding filters for MSF, MPS, etc. I love the flexibility of MSF, but I still end up using synths that are inferior in every other way... but ultimately sound better because of their filters. I don't know enough about filter design to have an opinion on what the options should be, but it seems some sort of dropdown full of various analog modeled or otherwise flavored filter options would dramatically increase the value of the filters in general across the Meldaverse.

[mevla]

MSuperLooper to work under Linux.

Everything else does !

Cheers.

[highstandards]

Sysex support in order to create parameter automation for hardware synths.