Massive X 1.6.1 update (September 2025)!

[EvilDragon]

MSEGs are usually polyphonic. Performers in MX are not.

[Daru925]

MSEGs are usually polyphonic. Performers in MX are not.

That could indeed be a limitation, depending how you build your patches. Good to know

[Dencheg]

Ok, I think I've almost made peace with MX.
For other synths I usually assign my expression pedal to filter cutoff. Not possible in MX... but!
I understand that the macro system is necessary because of the "semi-modular" nature of the synth. Actually, I can percieve that sound designers may "offer" many parameters via the macro, not only the filter cutoff, so this approach can actually be more multi-dimensional, where the filter is just one of the adjustable parts. So the macro approach grows on me.

Unfortunately, there is no way to MIDI-learn these knobs, but I can assign them to my Roland A-500 via Reaper's "last touched" assignment. I assume the same way as in FL Studio.

Of course I'd rather have MIDI-learn for them, cause in order to remember those assignent I have to save MX as a track template.
If I need to insert MX into the plugins of an existing track, I have to add new MX track from that template, and then drag'n'drop the MX into desired place in the plugins list of the old track
Omg, why no MIDI
Also preset browser and mousewheel support need some love.
The sound is good.

[zzz00m]

For other synths I usually assign my expression pedal to filter cutoff. Not possible in MX... but!
I understand that the macro system is necessary because of the "semi-modular" nature of the synth. Actually, I can percieve that sound designers may "offer" many parameters via the macro, not only the filter cutoff, so this approach can actually be more multi-dimansional, where the filter is just one of adjustable parts. So the macro approach grows on me.

Unfortunately, there is no way to MIDI-learn these knobs

I just did a quick MX comparison with Phase Plant, another "semi-modular" synth, and Voltage Modular.

Phase Plant also has a macro knobs system, but additionally offers 64 assignable *automation slots that you can assign to individual controls in your preset. No MIDI learn.

*From the Phase Plant user's guide: "The macro knobs are also useful when setting up automation from your DAW. Many parameters in Phase Plant can't normally be targeted for automation, but the macro knobs can be. A common practice is to automate the macro knobs and then use the modulation system to route them to any other parameter."

Voltage Modular also has a macro knobs system. Additionally it has MIDI learn available for any macro, knob or slider used in the preset, and also offers 128 assignable automation slots.

Neither of these synths requires you to use the macros like MX does, but they are there as an option.

[pdxindy]

I understand that the macro system is necessary because of the "semi-modular" nature of the synth.

It's not necessary... it is a choice. Plenty of semi-modular synths have full parameter automation.

[_leras]

I understand that the macro system is necessary because of the "semi-modular" nature of the synth.

It's not necessary... it is a choice. Plenty of semi-modular synths have full parameter automation.

I think it's a good choice. If you consider a piano to be a patch, it has a group of parameters that allow expressivity.

I see the macros as a way for the patch designer to describe the intent of a patch as an instrument. Different sounds have a different set of inputs to 'work'. I think macros are great for this.

That's not to say a synth should omit the ability to map controls, especially basics like ADSR, cutoff, resonance etc.

[sQeetz]

That's not to say a synth should omit the ability to map controls, especially basics like ADSR, cutoff, resonance etc.

How much parameters does one really want/need to control, though? If you want cutoff and res separately, put them on 15, 16
You still have 14 controls left.

[zzz00m]

I understand that the macro system is necessary because of the "semi-modular" nature of the synth.

It's not necessary... it is a choice. Plenty of semi-modular synths have full parameter automation.

I think it's a good choice. If you consider a piano to be a patch, it has a group of parameters that allow expressivity.

I see the macros as a way for the patch designer to describe the intent of a patch as an instrument. Different sounds have a different set of inputs to 'work'. I think macros are great for this.

That's not to say a synth should omit the ability to map controls, especially basics like ADSR, cutoff, resonance etc.

It would appear that Massive X was designed mainly for compatibility with the Komplete Kontrol keyboard controllers. 8 Knobs. No faders.

[chk071]

I understand that the macro system is necessary because of the "semi-modular" nature of the synth.

It's not necessary... it is a choice. Plenty of semi-modular synths have full parameter automation.

I think it's a good choice. If you consider a piano to be a patch, it has a group of parameters that allow expressivity.

I see the macros as a way for the patch designer to describe the intent of a patch as an instrument. Different sounds have a different set of inputs to 'work'. I think macros are great for this.

That's not to say a synth should omit the ability to map controls, especially basics like ADSR, cutoff, resonance etc.

It would appear that Massive X was designed mainly for compatibility with the Komplete Kontrol keyboard controllers. 8 Knobs. No faders.

That's my theory. Could be wrong, of course.

Anyway. I don't think any further talk about these missing features will change anything. NI will be well aware of it.

[zzz00m]

It would appear that Massive X was designed mainly for compatibility with the Komplete Kontrol keyboard controllers. 8 Knobs. No faders.

That's my theory. Could be wrong, of course.

Anyway. I don't think any further talk about these missing features will change anything. NI will be well aware of it.

I'm sure that NI are aware. Their forums have a few outspoken critics!

Speaking of missing features, I recently looked into a 3rd party preset bank for Massive X.

In the user documentation for installation, it showed that you will find the new presets in your "User" bank folder. No custom folders yet. I realize that this has been discussed before, but I was reminded again of what a brain dead "feature" this is. SMH.

[_leras]

That's not to say a synth should omit the ability to map controls, especially basics like ADSR, cutoff, resonance etc.

How much parameters does one really want/need to control, though? If you want cutoff and res separately, put them on 15, 16
You still have 14 controls left.

Yes can be worked around.

But nearly every synth has a bunch of standard controls. It's normal that you'd want to map these out to a controller.

It's definitely one of, quite a few, omissions in MX.

I still quite like it, even with its imperfections.

[zzz00m]

I still quite like it, even with its imperfections.

Agree, but at the same time, those MX imperfections make it easier to like your other synths more.

[loachm]

...just my 2ct - the notion, that due to its semi-modular nature it would be impossible to enable more or all parametres for host automation is wrong. Take Pigments, for instance, same paradigm and everything can be controlled either via host automation or midi ccs. And on top of that Arturia offers to use midi ccs via multiple midi channels within one synth, which is pretty helpful and also mind-boggling, why this isn't more common or even standard, as this possibility isn't exactly new. So, the whole thing is either a choice or plain neglect by the MX team.

Regarding the question, how many controls do you want to automate - this is irrelevant. Even if I just wanted to control a single control, it is an unnecessary task to put on the user to map it oneself each and every time (f**king work-flow killer and again, no technical reason for it to be like this!!!).

And if you wanted to create templates for different user scenarios, then 16 controls don't do it (still not enough to have a good playground), and you lose the flexibility of the synth, as you're reducing it to a one-trick-pony for every scenario (even though I do this with Pigments, but still I can access and control hundreds, most likely thousands, of its parametres).

So why is it important to have a more immediate or ideally direct access to its controls? First and foremost automating parametres yourself is the easiest and direct way to humanise and personalise your sound. Every playing musician will tell you, that how you play and articulate your music is one, if not the most, important aspect of it. Pretty difficult with a synth, as you can't shape the sound on so many levels simultaneously so easy like with an acoustic instrument. This requires a lot of knowledge and planning and is done via macros. (Or new or improved controllers and protocols). So NI is offering macros with MX, which is good, but on the other hand, they make it hard and unpleasant, so almost impossible, for a user to develop this oneself (a deeper usability through accessability/playability). So on the one hand, they're selling highly playable and excellent sounding presets, but on the other hand, It's not a player's synth, as you can't record your parametre tweaking sessions, have happy accidents and ultimately, at least for me, it prevents establishing a close relationship with the instrument. Probably not NI's commercial interest.

For instance, Maschine allows parametre morphing, but only, if parametres are available for automation. Imagine designing sound with MX, tweaking parametres and saving a new lock state, whenever you hit a new sweetspot.And then you can morph between these lock states, who would need to buy MX expansions? I insinuate, that this is the product management's fear of their own user base. My theory is, it wouldn't hurt their sales, as people would still want to play and study the expansions. But its current state surely locks out people from sinking their teeth into its capabilities and even causes banale usability problems (I can't quickly mouse automate or midi learn this parametre) - not worthy for a flagship synth.

So, given how deliberately user-unfriendly some feature choices are (added to an unfortunate GUX and odd synth architechure choices), makes it pretty obvious, what the X in its name means. It's a synth with very capable engines to provide a vast spectrum of sound, while limiting or preventing the user access to play with it. It's just a vehicle to sell expansions. Sound designers can create a plethora of excellent sounds, but the user is limited to sticking with their choices - good as a preset machine, but not as an instrument.

Don't get me wrong macro knobs are very important, they're great and having 16 of them is more than enough, but you need to have access to the single parametres on top of that.

Considering, how user-friendly and powerful original Massive still is, makes it even more infuriating to see, which direction the development of MX took. Its modules sound so good, it could be so powerful, but it's like having a Ferrari, but you're limited to driving it in the first gear only. A flagship synth should be able to fulfill advanced requirements and MX does that, but whose demands it fulfills is quite one-sided.

[sQeetz]

Yes can be worked around.

It's no workaround if it's the way it's intended to be used.

[pdxindy]

Yes can be worked around.

It's no workaround if it's the way it's intended to be used.

It is a workaround because MX is lacking common features that make some basic tasks easy.

You said "If you want cutoff and res separately, put them on 15, 16
You still have 14 controls left."

You are suggesting a workaround for the lack of direct parameter automation and/or midi learn in MX.

In other synths, I can assign cutoff and res to the host macro controls or to dedicated knobs on my midi controller and they will automatically work across all the synth's presets. The workaround you suggested only works for a single preset. To make it work across all presets you would have to edit every single preset one by one in MX. So in this case, the workaround would take a week to do something I can do in other synths in under a minute.