GForce OB-1

[zerocrossing]

There still isn't anything ITB that matches the immediacy of hardware for playing.

Sure there is, I have more fully mapped physical controls ITB than I would on the TEO-5 and it's universal for every analog style synth

If I want to play something immediately, I will just sit down at my piano or pick up my acoustic guitar

If I want to play electronic music with hardware or software Synths I am up and running in less than 60 seconds unless the hardware synth takes longer than that to boot up

Once up and running (again in less than 60 seconds) I am recording all the audio and all the MIDI for instant recall if needed

I love the people who are like, “but I can just turn on my Minimoog and start playing! after a 20 minute warm up period.”

[machinesworking]

Nothing beats a piano or acoustic guitar for immediate playing for sure. I literally pick up my Gretsch more often because it's a semi acoustic, not because it sounds better per say than the Les Paul. Reality is nothing beats in the box for ease of recall though. I like my hardware synths, but they're not any doubt at all more work.

Hardware with knobs and sliders has it's charm but even then, the Slate Raven here makes that moot to me, I'm not a purist and do not lament the touch screen.

[Igro]

I don't understand the HP filter in the effect section. It doesn't sound as ordinary HP filter.

[drsyncenstein]

What's an ordinary hpf to you? It's different than the Roland style hpf's that are used for thinning out the low end, for pads etc. The ob1 filter seems a clone of the ob1 lpf, with a reversed curve to make it hpf. Without resonance and no modulation options. Except for keytrack and xmod.
But it has the same 12 or 24db slope option as the lpf.

[kraster]

What's an ordinary hpf to you? It's different than the Roland style hpf's that are used for thinning out the low end, for pads etc. The ob1 filter seems a clone of the ob1 lpf, with a reversed curve to make it hpf. Without resonance and no modulation options. Except for keytrack and xmod.
But it has the same 12 or 24db slope option as the lpf.

It's definitely a high pass filter with a fixed resonant peak.

It's very good for adding a bump in the bottom end or further up creating a kind of resonant band pass filter.

[drsyncenstein]

You are right about the resonance. I just looked at the settings of the hpf, not how it sounds.
The manual says this: The filter has a set Q factor to boost frequencies around the cutoff frequency.
would be nice if resonance could be controlled with a cc or by xmod

[trusampler]

I don't get the how software's not as immediate as hardware thing, especially when GForce has such great midi mapping features. If your not mapping your midi controllers, I could see it, if you had to use a mouse that'd be weird, but if you actually use the plugin how they absolutely offer it to be used, then there's nothing better about using hardware vs a plugin that supports great midi mapping.

In that case, as long as the sound is incredible, which in this case it is, it's probably better then using hardware alone for recall + routing audio + midi reasons etc..
GForce may be among the best sounding plugins I've ever heard in the box arguably.

[drsyncenstein]

There are lot's of daws where mapping is not implemented in a way that you can set up a mapped instrument, load it on another track, change focus to the new track and control the synth, then load another vst on another track and control that. In daws who do that properly, there is arguably little difference with a hardware workflow. Mapping in the plugin itself is fine when you use few plugins, when you have hundred it's not so great anymore.

[trusampler]

The minute a Daw didn't allow me full control over the actual instrument or effects I use to actually create the music, then I'd get rid of that DAW quick,but to each their own. A DAW should never dictate the expression of your music. At that point, it's wasting time.

[drsyncenstein]

Well, do you know many Daw's that give you complete control? Because i don't.
To be clear, i'm not saying that most daws can't map controls.
I was trying to say that most of them can not be setup in a way where you have one hardware controller and whatever synth or fx you touch, they are immediately mapped to the controller. And mapped in a way that makes sense. All controls.
Saved in the general preferences, not in a songfile\set.

[Igro]

You are right about the resonance. I just looked at the settings of the hpf, not how it sounds.
The manual says this: The filter has a set Q factor to boost frequencies around the cutoff frequency.
would be nice if resonance could be controlled with a cc or by xmod

That's what I thought. It is very spiky and resonant. Not something I would use to remove the lows.

[_leras]

I don't understand the HP filter in the effect section. It doesn't sound as ordinary HP filter.

I guess it's not in the original so people put it there instead of properly in the signal path.

If doing that I wish designers would choose to just go to a proper dual filter setup. At least that way you can have extra routing options and everything is in the proper signal chain.

[_leras]

You are right about the resonance. I just looked at the settings of the hpf, not how it sounds.
The manual says this: The filter has a set Q factor to boost frequencies around the cutoff frequency.
would be nice if resonance could be controlled with a cc or by xmod

That's what I thought. It is very spiky and resonant. Not something I would use to remove the lows.

Yeah that sounds more like the hpf trick to boost the bass, but remove the subs. No resonance control seems an unnecessary omission.

[trusampler]

Well, do you know many Daw's that give you complete control? Because i don't.
To be clear, i'm not saying that most daws can't map controls.
I was trying to say that most of them can not be setup in a way where you have one hardware controller and whatever synth or fx you touch, they are immediately mapped to the controller. And mapped in a way that makes sense. All controls.
Saved in the general preferences, not in a songfile\set.

Understood, I use Cubase, so I can map things how I want to with midi remote manager. I also use the Nektar LX88 Plus for more controllers, as well as a small desktop device, all within reach. The great thing about the Midi remote manager in Cubase is I can map several devices / controllers to do certain things on multiple plugins, and keep a uniform format, so I'm constantly reaching for the same physical knob,fader or buttons. This is a huge reason I use Cubase,along with mediabay, as most daw dev's haven't figured out the power in browsers for recall of track presets,settings, all while being able to tag them.

Also I find having EQ's, and HP/LP Filters mapped to my desktop controller, to quickly tame things does help. The device on my desk is a cheap midi controller from China, Worlde easycontrol. Far more effective than the Console MK3 I was using before it.

[IvyBirds]

[quote=drsyncenstein post_id=8937661 time=1721424596 user_id=781]
Well, do you know many Daw's that give you complete control? Because i don't.
To be clear, i'm not saying that most daws can't map controls.
I was trying to say that most of them can not be setup in a way where you have one hardware controller and whatever synth or fx you touch, they are immediately mapped to the controller. And mapped in a way that makes sense. All controls.
Saved in the general preferences, not in a songfile\set.
[/quote]

I use Cubase so it's not an issue.

Beyond that however all you need to do is design a universal template for your own personal workflow then map that workflow to your controllers

Once you do that you just map the software to your universal template

Switch from one plugin to another? Not a problem as it also will be mapped to the same template

Design a template and force the software to mold to your template