Massive X 1.6.1 update (September 2025)!

[sQeetz]

I remember, back in the days... when I was a Fruity Loops aficionado. I really knew all the nooks and crannies of it.
There was also some FL vs Reason going on at the time, and every time some Reason guy said how you could do something with Reason, what you could not with FL I went on and described exactly how you could do that exact thing.... some people called it a "workaround" I said it was the way FL was designed to work, hence not

[EvilDragon]

Agreed. It's not a workaround if it's the way it was meant to be used. It's a choice.

[_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

[pdxindy]

I think it's a good choice.

The word choice in this context refers to NI choosing NOT to add direct parameter automation.

You of course are welcome to think it was a good choice on their part. Not sure why anyone would prefer not to be able to directly automate parameters. From my perspective, MX is somewhat crippled, both in functionality and workflow because it.

[dionenoid]

From my perspective, MX is somewhat crippled, both in functionality and workflow because it.

Yeah we know that by now, you posted it a thousand times in this thread alone.

[SamDi]

I think it's a good choice.

... Not sure why anyone would prefer not to be able to directly automate parameters...

Maybe because if you have several keyboards, controllers, MPE-devices, etc. on the one side and several VSTs, synths, instruments on the other side, the mapping of each against each would be PITA, besides that many VSTs don't support multiple mapping profiles anyway. What's the solution? To map via the DAW, means :

Input device controllers --> DAW remote controllers / macros
DAW remote controllers / DAW macros ---> VST device macros
VST device macros ---> VST internal parameters

So you map each input device to the DAW macros once and each VST device to the DAW macros also once and that's it. Then for each input controller you use, you have access to the same (e.g. 8 ) macros on each device.

If you then create a patch, with the the thing in mind that the change of the sound shall be done exclusively via the macros, the synth offers, you just map to "outside" what you wanna use/do. It's then like each instrument offers the same interface to yo (an amount of macros). What's behind it is then dependent of the patch.

Pretty modern approach, I would say.

[digitalboytn]

NI are getting their ship together with Massive X and it is sailing along quite nicely now...

There is no doubt that this is a class act with an enormous amount of power under the hood and it sounds incredible..

NI will sort everything out in time and Massive X will become another classic from the peeps who used to be the masters of virtual instruments...

While the're sorting things out,it might be nice if they could give us a stand alone micro host and a zero latency option as well

[EvilDragon]

Zero latency option?

Microhosts exist already on both Win and Mac... Feel free to use them?

[digitalboytn]

Zero latency option?

Microhosts exist already on both Win and Mac... Feel free to use them?

I have microhosts,but I want the official NI Massive X version, coded with love in Berlin

[chk071]

From Vienna with love. https://www.hermannseib.com/english/savihost.htm

[pdxindy]

If you then create a patch, with the the thing in mind that the change of the sound shall be done exclusively via the macros, the synth offers, you just map to "outside" what you wanna use/do. It's then like each instrument offers the same interface to yo (an amount of macros). What's behind it is then dependent of the patch.

Pretty modern approach, I would say.

Yes, it is good to have macros... lots of synths do. But it is good to also have direct parameter automation... like most synths with macros also do.

Having macros is not some new thing that NI did with MX... such macros have been around a long time in other synths. The only 'new' thing NI did was stop supporting direct parameter automation which is a loss of valuable functionality, not a gain of some sort.

[CinningBao]

Zero latency option?

this piqued my interest, so I did a test.. Knowing Zebra2 reports 16 samples, and assuming the built-in Logic synth Retro doesn't report anything , since' it's so simple, I lined up MX, Zebra and Retro all triggered by the same MIDI to see.

Screenshot 2022-08-27 at 15.00.01.jpg

Interesting output..

- starting at the bottom in the audio editor frame, is MassiveX's audio; that waveform starts the sample it was triggered.
- the purple-ish region is the Retro synth, and it took 3 samples to play the saw
- the middle one is Zebra2, and although this does report 16 samples (verifiable in Bidule) it seems the audio started betting written around 70 samples before the MIDI note.

So, it looks like MX reports no latency, and performs with none, Retro doesn't report the 3 samples to Logic, and Zebra2 does things with space and time I don't understand. How can Logic have written audio at a distant greater than the reported latency?

[zzz00m]

Having macros is not some new thing that NI did with MX... such macros have been around a long time in other synths. The only 'new' thing NI did was stop supporting direct parameter automation which is a loss of valuable functionality, not a gain of some sort.

Exactly!!!

[sQeetz]

nah

[SamDi]

If you then create a patch, with the the thing in mind that the change of the sound shall be done exclusively via the macros, the synth offers, you just map to "outside" what you wanna use/do. It's then like each instrument offers the same interface to yo (an amount of macros). What's behind it is then dependent of the patch.

Pretty modern approach, I would say.

Yes, it is good to have macros... lots of synths do. But it is good to also have direct parameter automation... like most synths with macros also do.

Having macros is not some new thing that NI did with MX... such macros have been around a long time in other synths. The only 'new' thing NI did was stop supporting direct parameter automation which is a loss of valuable functionality, not a gain of some sort.

I was just answering your question, who prefers to not use direct access (ok, to prefer not to be able to directly automate parameters, literally). So me personally - I couldn't care less. Why NI met this decision, I cannot tell you, if there is a higher sense, or they just dropped it in a similar manner, as they rolled out the shitty browser, which is fortunately fixed now.

But on the other side - is it really a blocker to you? I mean this doesn't prevent you to do things you couldn't do with direct access. It's just a small inconvenience, not worth the rant IMHO.

I guess Massive X is a great synth with some cool ideas, but unfortunately not playing in the top league. I regard it as a kind of "niche boutique synth" with some special ideas. But it's also not my goto...