GForce OB-1

[kraster]

Anyway. OB-1 is a great synth. Infectious from the get go and making its way into my tracks already.

I really love it.

There's something very lively about the sound of it from the get go. Almost messy.

But it really makes it as you say, infectious.

The whole synth feels like one big sweet spot.

[BONES]

That's the logical fallacy the Hardware Only guys engage in when they dismiss software. They have to pretend that a mouse is the only controller available when if they really want hands on controls and not just say they do online they would embrace software as it can offer far more hands on controls for far less money

You are kind of doing the same. I have "hands on" control with a mouse for the simple reason I have my hand on the mouse. I'm still using my hand to change the controls, to patch the instrument, it's just that my intermediary is a mouse, not a knob or a slider. It's the same muscles, the same use of muscle memory even. It's just an order of magnitude more convenient and faster, so it probably feels like something else.

Most of my MIDI controllers have knobs and/or sliders on them but it has never occurred to me to even work out how to assign them because it seems like such a pointless exercise. OTOH, assigning parameters to Aftertouch and Mod Wheels and Joysticks seems well worth the effort because it improves my ability to play expressively. I mean, nobody wants to stand up in front of 1000 people and twiddle their knob, do they?

Or maybe there are pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses of both approaches. Use whatever methods and tools work for you, in whatever context it's appropriate...

Of course but the problem is that too many people have to believe that the way they do things is objectively better than any other way, which is clearly ridiculous in this instance. Yes, I understand that I am probably as bad as anyone else in that department, but that's only because I tend to seek the objectively best way of doing things, just so I can get it over and done with as quickly and painlessly as possible (because I hate doing it). As I said, I love my hardware but, f**k me, it is so much more work and effort than doing everything ITB that I just can't be bothered with it any more. I can't bring myself to part with it, though, so it sits and rots.

As if it wouldnt even make any sense to just use both.

It doesn't to me. I mean, I did it for a long time (longer than I was 100% hardware) but now that I have finally made the decision never to use hardware again, my life is a lot simpler and everything goes much more smoothly.

This discussion might seem irrelevant to the topic but I don't think it is at all, in that we have softsynths like OB-1 that are at least the equal of their hardware counterparts, which means we no longer have to make any compromises on sound quality to work entirely ITB. That means synths like this one make clinging onto hardware impossible to justify any more, except as personal preference. We all need to embrace the New Age and do away with old things. Anyone who has spent any time with GForce's OB-1 would have to agree, surely?

Anyway. OB-1 is a great synth. Infectious from the get go and making its way into my tracks already.

Sure is. I've already got it doing the main bassline on one song (Simple Minds' Changeling) and the synth part in another (Devo's Girl-U-Want). In both places it blows what I was previously using out of the water. It cuts through where you need it to, yet in other places it sits in beautifully with the parts around it, all with very little effort. The bottom end is really good.

[IvyBirds]

You are kind of doing the same. I have "hands on" control with a mouse for the simple reason I have my hand on the mouse.

Only I am not, but I get it, you have a need to be troll and lie about what people are actually saying. As I have said before

That's why I dumped all my hardware except for my gigging Montage and went with a combination Mouse/Controller ecosystem

A mouse is a very handy tool, but so are knobs and faders, especially when you have complex soft Synths that use multiple pages/screens. So I can click away on one screen while using a knob or fader to adjust something that's not on the current screen/page

And if course with things like faders and knobs I can play a note or a chord on my synth, and then use my sustain pedal while adjusting two own ore things at the same time like filter cutoff and resonance

It's amazingly handy and works great on soft Synths like the OB-1

But I get it it's probably not as fun for you as trolling is

[stoopicus]

You are kind of doing the same. I have "hands on" control with a mouse for the simple reason I have my hand on the mouse.

Only I am not, but I get it, you have a need to be troll and lie about what people are actually saying.

Let's assume good intent here. I didn't read that as a troll; I think that it might have seemed like there was an implicit dismissal of mouse control in your post.

I understand that there wasn't, but I could see how it was read that way.

My own experience is somewhat closer to BONES', in that I have a very nice KeyLab Mk. II that I never, ever find myself using MIDI Learn with any more because it's just faster and more instinctive for me to mouse.

For me, as far as hardware vs softsynths goes, last year hammered the final nail in that coffin for me. I decided to have another go at hardware to see if my opinion had changed. I bought three excellent hardware synths, tried hard to like them in my workflow, gave them a real shot, and yet all it did was remind me of how glad I was to be rid of hardware. Sold them and bought softsynth versions of the same synths and am much happier now.

I am perfectly willing to believe that some people have happy workflows involving both. I am definitely not that guy.

[BONES]

A mouse is a very handy tool, but so are knobs and faders, especially when you have complex soft Synths that use multiple pages/screens. So I can click away on one screen while using a knob or fader to adjust something that's not on the current screen/page

You're talking about things you might need to do less than 1% of the time. It's an excuse, not a rational justification.

And if course with things like faders and knobs I can play a note or a chord on my synth, and then use my sustain pedal while adjusting two own ore things at the same time like filter cutoff and resonance

Again, not a use case to justify the effort or expense. I can't think of any time over the last 40 years I've wanted to adjust the cutoff and resonance at the same time. You tend to set one, then adjust the other to find the sweet spot. Cutoff and envelope modulation depth, maybe, but not often. Of course, we are also talking about something that is really only a tiny part of production anyway. If it takes me 50 hours to finish a song (which is probably a reasonable average), I doubt I spend more than one of those hours on creating sounds. So, in reality, it's 1% of 2% of production time, not worth the time it takes to set it all up.

[beely]

I can't think of any time over the last 40 years I've wanted to adjust the cutoff and resonance at the same time. You tend to set one, then adjust the other to find the sweet spot. Cutoff and envelope modulation depth, maybe, but not often.

This is the thing though - you're talking about your own workflow needs, because of how you work. Not everyone is you, though, or have the same needs.

I very often engage in juggling multiple controls (eg, filter cutoff, resonance, filter env amount, filter envelope controls) to get a sweet spot, and doing this with two hands is way quicker than adjusting one control with one mouse. And the way I have hardware control of softsynths set up makes this easy, nothing to think about, all my controls for this are under the same consistent control scheme, and there's no doubt at all for me that having synths with the core things controllable by knobs makes them come alive in the way that they don't using a mouse *for me*. (This was the main reason I set up this control scheme in the first place.)

It's faster for those core controls that are important, can be done with no visual focus necessary, and you can feel the limits of knobs in a way that abstractly moving a mouse up and down doesn't give you, and you can use both hands to move around quickly and balance multiple things. In short, there are benefits of the tactile nature of knobs (just as there are limitations too.)

Just as it would be silly to denigrate people that are fine using only a mouse, people denigrating all hardware controls as useless because those people have had a poor experience with them is just as silly. When it comes to workflow across the various things I do, I usually go for a "best tool for the job" approach, and quite often this is mouse control (sometimes trackpad, sometimes graphics tablet, sometimes custom workflow solutions), especially for more complex interfaces that really don't map onto physical controls well at all. But sometimes, I find just reaching for your filter cutoff knob, or envelope knobs while the song is playing to quickly get into the sweet spot, or do a performance, is just a way better experience, for me.

And yes, any workflow that requires manual MIDI learning or the kind of faff a typical generic controller gives you is usually not worth persevering with. The state of synth controllers generally is very poor, leaving many people frustrated and giving up, and I don't blame them one bit...

[IvyBirds]

You're talking about things you might need to do less than 1% of the time. It's an excuse, not a rational justification.

I see you want to do to continue your trolling. However this is something I do 100% of the time when I program soft Synths.

Again, not a use case to justify the effort or expense.

If you were anything other than a troll you would plainly see that my comments before you decided to troll me were focused on the Hardware only crowd who jumps on a forum dedicated to software instruments to say how they suck and how there hardware synth that costs thousands of dollars is superior because ***wait for it*** they want hands on controls and not a mouse. As for expense the MIDI controllers that work best for what I am describing cost $159 or less. Things like the Akai MIDI Mix, or the Novation Launch Control XL which is my personal weapon of choice. As for effort it's dead simple and you only have to do it once.

I can't think of any time over the last 40 years I've wanted to adjust the cutoff and resonance at the same time. You tend to set one, then adjust the other to find the sweet spot.

So what you are saying is you adjust one then adjust the other, but lack the creativity to see the benefit of adjusting both at the same time to find the sweet spot wow. But it's not just filter cutoff. My Sound Design Controllers are set up in a way where everything about an oscillator is in a cluster of controls. For example I always find it idiotic when Hardware synth designers put the mixer section of a synth away from the oscillator controls. That paradigm often transfers to the software instrument as well. So in my setup I have a nice fader set up to control the amplitude of that oscillator, right below that is a button that turns it on and off, and below that is a button that toggles a note on or off. This bottom row of buttons since I have 8 of them is programed from C1 to C8 left to right. I use two columns of controls per oscillator so in my universal template I have 8 knobs/faders per oscillator of the things I find handy to me and my workflow. I have one master template and it works for all my analog style synths, the controls are universal

I doubt I spend more than one of those hours on creating sounds. So, in reality, it's 1% of 2% of production time, not worth the time it takes to set it all up.

And there is the rub, as a troll you feel the need to lecture people who actually enjoy and do sound design when you spend 98-99% of your time not doing sound design. You assume everyone works like you do and as a troll assume the world revolves around you

Amazing to see someone who says they spend 98-99% of their time not doing sound design, who also lacks the creativity and vision to see how people who spend a significant time on sound design might want to have a system set up to do exactly that

[machinesworking]

This is definitely one of those arguments that really depends on how you work. I personally have found that I do get a good amount of use out of preset macros and synths that have them, and I do appreciate the DAWs that do global mapping of 8-24 parameters and automatic control surface support to those mappings. This all depends though on how much sound design is involved in the process, if I'm starting from scratch then mapping isn't that useful for anything with over 16 parameters, so nearly every instrument.

Starting from scratch hardware is mostly easier, but, touch screens and decent GUIs really change this. Personally I'm not a fan of setting up notes in a DAW to come up with a sound every time. Mousing gets in the way of adjusting a parameter while playing a part at the same time, but with a touch screen you can do this no problem.

Because of the way I work and DAW I choose, I do a small amount of MIDI assigning to knobs, and mostly use the touch screen to come up with a patch. Komplete Kontrol for one or two instruments in a song. To me whatever is fastest wins, but I see the point of using a half dozen soft synths and FX that you assign to a controller in as logical of a way as possible. I just don't see the point of trying to map all of the parameters to a controller, too many of the elements that make a particular synth unique are not universal, so having a logical layout of blind knobs isn't my ideal choice.

Mackie tried to solve this almost two decades ago with the C4, but the lack of order that soft instrument developers publish plugin automation in made it not that popular, which is too bad. The other just glaring thing, had the C4 allowed you to rearrange the order of the plugin parameters and save that for that plugin, it would IMO be universally popular, but instead of investing in it, they let it die. NI have Komplete Kontrol which adds a layer with the plugin host, and it kind of gets in the way of deeper tweaking..

So IMO in general there is a distinct advantage to hardware synths in the sound design process as long as there isn't a lot of menu diving. The elephant is how dead easy soft synths are to use in the DAW itself. You choose which is a bigger PITA and most of us on this site anyway have chosen soft synths. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

[beely]

Mackie tried to solve this almost two decades ago with the C4, but the lack of order that soft instrument developers publish plugin automation in made it not that popular, which is too bad. The other just glaring thing, had the C4 allowed you to rearrange the order of the plugin parameters and save that for that plugin, it would IMO be universally popular, but instead of investing in it, they let it die.

Indeed. And it does *exactly* this, in Logic, which is what it was designed for.

But you are correct in that C4's approach was pretty good, and it's that approach I'm using to this day (in Logic). Basically, my Launch Control XL is pretending to be a C4 (in User mode, for plugin control - in Factory mode it pretends to be a HUI for mix stuff.)

Logic easily lets you reorder plugin parameters via a text file, and all I need to do once on getting a new plugin is get Logic to generate this file (CSParameterOrder.plist), and spend a minute or so just moving up/down the various parameters to fit into my preferred generic layout. (Generally, top row is osc controls, second row is filter controls, third row is anything else interesting I'd like to control, and the faders are for amp and filter envelopes). I could go on to map more pages, but the value for me is quick tactile access to the important musical stuff and keeping a somewhat consistent layout for muscle memory - the detail stuff I'm fine with using the GUI for.

So, if I put my controller in instrument edit mode, as I select different tracks with different instruments, the selected instrument is instantly controllable from knobs. Or I can flip to plugin edit mode and select the desired insert to control FX plugins. This is good for channel strips for instance, if I keep my channel strip on the same insert, as I select each track, I'll have instant hands on EQ/compression etc just as back in the hardware mixer days.

The only thing the XL lacks is screens (a la C4) which would be ideal, I haven't found a better small footprint generic controller, and I have a solution for parameter display if I need it anyway. The C4 is too large for my desk, as it is for my Mackie Controls, so I like a small footprint controller that I can stick in a back with my laptop and take with me.

[trusampler]

Filter sweeps are done with two hands turning the filter cutoff and resonance, positive and negative, and that's just one basic trick in the bag. Two hands on knobs or faders, is not only a thing, but critical for sound design and performance. One guys way of doing things, isn't LAW.. stop trying to dictate how others create. That's just weird

[IvyBirds]

I just don't see the point of trying to map all of the parameters to a controller, too many of the elements that make a particular synth unique are not universal, so having a logical layout of blind knobs isn't my ideal choice.......So IMO in general there is a distinct advantage to hardware synths in the sound design process as long as there isn't a lot of menu diving.

I don't think anyone really maps all the parameters of every soft synth to a controller. Just like with hardware once you get into complex sound design you start getting into menu diving. Synths that are pretty basic don't have menu diving and don't have a lot of physical controls as such it's very easy to map emulations of them in a universal way

Take the GForce OB-1 the topic of this thread. It has two VCOs just like a ton of other synths. On the GUI itself you adjust various things with virtual knobs. There is a frequency knob, a fine tune Frequency knob, a knob to select the waveform, and two modulation knobs one for frequency modulation and the other for wave modulation, moving further along we get a mixer section and a noise generator level control and a knob to go between white and pink. We have two standard ADSR envelope generators, a filter section with a frequency knob, a fine tune knob, resonance, and two modulation knobs

If you are at all familiar with Analog Style synths at all you will find many of those controls are pretty much universal to every Analog synth, you will also find many deeper plugins while they might have hundreds of parameters to edit still have a lot of these basic controls

Create a template of the more universal controls you use frequently and just use that across all your plugins, for more unique things don't map them use a mouse, unless of course you use something a lot then go ahead and map it if you find it useful

[Scotty]

TouchOSC is a reasonable solution for creating custom controller setups. If you carefully set up a midi loop you get full parameter feedback. I've made TouchOSC maps for several synths and other external hardware that responds well to CC messages. Given it will run on Android or Ipads or Phones it is great way to get some hands on control for some synths that are a heavy on the menu diving.

I just don't see the point of trying to map all of the parameters to a controller, too many of the elements that make a particular synth unique are not universal, so having a logical layout of blind knobs isn't my ideal choice.......So IMO in general there is a distinct advantage to hardware synths in the sound design process as long as there isn't a lot of menu diving.

I don't think anyone really maps all the parameters of every soft synth to a controller. Just like with hardware once you get into complex sound design you start getting into menu diving. Synths that are pretty basic don't have menu diving and don't have a lot of physical controls as such it's very easy to map emulations of them in a universal way

Take the GForce OB-1 the topic of this thread. It has two VCOs just like a ton of other synths. On the GUI itself you adjust various things with virtual knobs. There is a frequency knob, a fine tune Frequency knob, a knob to select the waveform, and two modulation knobs one for frequency modulation and the other for wave modulation, moving further along we get a mixer section and a noise generator level control and a knob to go between white and pink. We have two standard ADSR envelope generators, a filter section with a frequency knob, a fine tune knob, resonance, and two modulation knobs

If you are at all familiar with Analog Style synths at all you will find many of those controls are pretty much universal to every Analog synth, you will also find many deeper plugins while they might have hundreds of parameters to edit still have a lot of these basic controls

Create a template of the more universal controls you use frequently and just use that across all your plugins, for more unique things don't map them use a mouse, unless of course you use something a lot then go ahead and map it if you find it useful

[Scotty]

- delete double post -

[drsyncenstein]

Mackie tried to solve this almost two decades ago with the C4, but the lack of order that soft instrument developers publish plugin automation in made it not that popular, which is too bad. The other just glaring thing, had the C4 allowed you to rearrange the order of the plugin parameters and save that for that plugin, it would IMO be universally popular, but instead of investing in it, they let it die. NI have Komplete Kontrol which adds a layer with the plugin host, and it kind of gets in the way of deeper tweaking..

Novation tried it with automap. Nektar has it's own system.
But it's something the DAW should solve in my opinion, not the controller.

Some pages back i argued that few DAWS have solved this.
For me this is one of the main strengths of Bitwig; map plugins once and for all, choose your own parameter names and order them in pages of 8 until you mapped them all.

Combine it with a controller that has a display which shows the parameter name in 4 characters or more and a bank button for switching the mapped pages and you are good to go. Every time you load a plugin it's mappings get loaded too, the focus of the controller determines which plugin gets controlled. So no problem controlling multiple instances.
Define different mappings per preset if you want. Those will be stored with the preset.

Plain midi mapping is possible too if you need that.
It's not perfect, but close to hardware and very usable.
A little work and you have a custom version of Komplete

Not all manufacturers expose all parameters though and it can sometimes be a bit of search to find parameters (some use totally unrelated internal naming) but i can do it pretty fast.
Usually i do that first thing after buying our demoing, have about 120 plugins done.
The files can be shared and exchanged with other users, so no need to start from zero.

#ad ends

[Scotty]

Your overall comments across this topic make a lot of sense to me in the context of live gigging and preparation. That isn't where I am coming from.

Obviously with the modular reference I am not overly concerned with patch recall with that kind of music making. If I want to revisit something that I have manually patched I have to document it with photos or diagrams. This isn't "fun" but I accept it unless I am pressed for time and then software wins and the modular isn't touched.

In terms of digitally controlled hardware and preset recall, I agree. Trying to grab a parameter by sweeping a physical knob until it latches or jumps isn't ideal. I prefer synths that have endless encoders with LED halo rings for that reason but there aren't that many out there. If sufficiently motivated, I make custom controller templates with TouchOSC provided the synth or hardware effect is CC friendly. Those virtual controls will snap to the proper values if you set up parameter feedback properly.

Prior to that, I defined controller templates with the BCR2000 and made cutout overlays with knob names and placement that made sense to me. There are 32 endless encoders and a dozen or more addressable switches on that box. I haven't found any controller keyboard that is satisfactory to me although the Komplete MK II cuts it when i need to quickly map something.

Now back to the OB-1. Love the sound of this thing. I was going to buy the Behringer hardware version but the additions that G-Force made and how great it sounds with polyphony has ruled that out.

Some prefer not to be tied to a laptop or monitor as it reminds them too much of work.

If that's true, those people can't be very creative and, therefore, might be better off taking up a different hobby.

Even DAWs look like spreadsheets these days.

Not as much as my Korg Trinity did and it had the best interface of any hardware sequencer I ever used.

IF ( caps intentional) the hardware is close to a one for one control scheme it CAN be more immediately satisfying.

Not if it has patch memory, because the positions of the controls will not tell you anything about the current values of the parameters, so you'll need to go searching for the current value if you need to make changes.