Software vs Hardware

[kritikon]

So, we're unanimous that midi controllers are still universally shit then? Good to get that cleared up.

[swilow11]

Changing rhe subject a bit, your setup sounds interesting. Have you any photos for us to get jealous over?

I don't have any on my phone, but I would be happy to take some, what would you like to see?

Probably this controller thing you've been mentioning. I'm trying to make my own setup more ergonomic but struggling for inspiration...

[swilow11]

So, we're unanimous that midi controllers are still universally shit then? Good to get that cleared up.

Not universally shit but not really sufficient for full 1 to 1 mapping of parameters. That said, not even my hardware synths are fully 1 to 1 so probably should recalibrate expectations.

I did like to use Komplete Kontrol with my NIA49 as a container for VSTS with all soft synth parameters mapped to the knowbs, but of course, this could entail page after page of stuff. These days, I use my Argon8 as my main midi controller but literally never map anything anymore. I've got an AKAI LPD which is a tiny little device with 8 drum pads and 8 encoders if I want to twiddle with things manually. And all I ever end doing is assigning 1 knob to filter cutoff and recording "live" sweeps which i almost always end up significantly modifying via piano roll.

[IvyBirds]

So, we're unanimous that midi controllers are still universally shit then? Good to get that cleared up.

No more so than Hardware Synths that are universally shit from an ergonomic perspective as none of them but the absolute most basic ones are knob per function

Hope that clears that up for you

But if you want to say MIDI controlers are shit hardware synths also must be for the same reasons

[IvyBirds]

Changing rhe subject a bit, your setup sounds interesting. Have you any photos for us to get jealous over?

I don't have any on my phone, but I would be happy to take some, what would you like to see?

Probably this controller thing you've been mentioning. I'm trying to make my own setup more ergonomic but struggling for inspiration...

Sure let me clean up my studio a bit and I'll upload some in the next day or two

My studio was setup for efficiency and comfort not for Instagram so not sure how envious people will be

But I am happy to share none the less

[swilow11]

Same with my setup. It's not sexy but it's got what I need. Keen to see your setup whenever you've got time

[frag]

I have one knob - it does the job!

[Gam456]

I have never seen a hardware synth with 192 physical control, 128 of then being knobs and faders

I can't barely remember what my 51 knobs, 8 faders and 61 switch does on 1 synth.
Why on earth should we need more ?
Tell me why ?

So the question isn't why do you need more than 51 controls, it's why do you want to invest that amount of space and cash for just one synth?

We not I. It's a joke. The question is for you ?

[kostabanderas]

Changing rhe subject a bit, your setup sounds interesting. Have you any photos for us to get jealous over?

I don't have any on my phone, but I would be happy to take some, what would you like to see?

If you don't mind, how do you go about the mapping itself? That's one of my major gripes with these setups. I found it's best not even trying to map it visually but dedicate separate sections for each of the "usual" controls. Say for substractive synths, do you dedicate one entire controller for oscillators, another for filter and so on? For example - let's say i want one launchpad to control oscillators. And let's say we want those 24 knobs to always control oscillators, in all possible soft synths, right? Because we definitely do not want them controlled differently, right? Because that would be impossible to remember. Then, let's say we can map up to 3 oscillators, with up to 8 knobs for each oscillator. But then, comes up one synth where we would want to control 9 parameters per oscillator. Or comes a synth with 4 oscillators. Then what do you do? Speaking in broadest terms, when setting up things, do you dedicate controls for the largest number of controls, meaning that many of them will not be used in most cases but leave room for more complex stuff if it comes along (in above example, dedicate 2 rows of knobs per osc, knowing that in most cases you will not use more than one row). Or do you put a hard limit and find the common denominator and always map only those, possibly leaving out the ones that would never be mapped, eventually edited with a mouse?

Or am I completely off the mark here? And you approach it differently?

Do you mind sharing an example, or just describe it? For example, if you have Diva, how did you map that? I guess that would be a good example because it has different number of parameters depending on the selected oscillator, filter, envelope...

[SebAV]

Yeah, midi controllers are so poor even today. I can't imagine anything less inspiring or useful than a row of blank knobs and sliders.

I'm not sure how many MIDI controllers have this, but mine has certain items printed on it: Cutoff, Resonance, Vibrato, Tuning, Panning, etc. so I can map those to the corresponding knobs. The sliders are the same way: Portamento time, Attack/Decay/Release, 2 Effect amounts, etc.

Those can be mapped to something other than what is printed on the controller of course, but it's helpful to have a starting point of some sort.

I’m curious what controller you have ? Thank you

Roland A-800Pro

Do you have an overlay ? I only see generic labels printed on the A-800Pro

[Examigan]

Yeah, midi controllers are so poor even today. I can't imagine anything less inspiring or useful than a row of blank knobs and sliders.

I'm not sure how many MIDI controllers have this, but mine has certain items printed on it: Cutoff, Resonance, Vibrato, Tuning, Panning, etc. so I can map those to the corresponding knobs. The sliders are the same way: Portamento time, Attack/Decay/Release, 2 Effect amounts, etc.

Those can be mapped to something other than what is printed on the controller of course, but it's helpful to have a starting point of some sort.

I’m curious what controller you have ? Thank you

Roland A-800Pro

Do you have an overlay ? I only see generic labels printed on the A-800Pro

No overlay, I just meant it does have some labels that are semi useful (the usual basic stuff….Cutoff, Resonance, Vibrato, Tuning, Panning, etc. and they can be assigned to other targets if needed of course.

[Ah_Dziz]

I've got zero interest in the majority of hardware outside of live performance. Even most good hardware synths have a form of macro control so you don't have to worry about fiddling with menus and shift functions while performing. When using soft synths I prefer mouse control since that was what they were designed for.
Basically if you're live music is so improvisational that your making your sounds from scratch as you perform, then go with whatever works for you. Otherwise, still just do what works, but softsynths give far more options than piles of hardware synths.

In a normal (playing songs you've already written) performance the difference between hardware synths and software synths is minimal provided you've prepared.

Hardware can make sounds software can’t (yet) and the other way around, too. Why limit yourself if you don’t want to?

I've not encountered this in synthesizers. As I said, do what you like, how you like to do it. If you're in a modular improv group, you'll probably want to lean into the hardware side of things. For more traditional performance, synth based music will have very little practical differences once your gear is set up.

[foosnark]

I've spent thousands of dollars on midi controllers and always, always end up back using mouse and keys for software. The mouse is literally 10 times faster than generic midi controllers for everything but playing.

Not universally shit but not really sufficient for full 1 to 1 mapping of parameters.

This. I have never felt like it's worth trying to assign a generic MIDI controller to every parameter of a software synth. I'll use a mouse and keyboard for the sound design, and then assign a couple of performance controls (MPE pressure, expression pedal, fader, touch strip, joystick etc.) on a temporary basis to play it.

There is still something different about how I design sounds when I'm using dedicated controls vs. a mouse, even though I don't mind using a mouse.

[Scotty]

The Native Instruments NKS system although somewhat closed is a reasonable solution for automatic mapping of plugin parameters particularly if you are using NKS enabled libraries from NI or other vendors that take the integration seriously. The other controllers that I have tried have me going back to the mouse after a few months.

I've spent thousands of dollars on midi controllers and always, always end up back using mouse and keys for software. The mouse is literally 10 times faster than generic midi controllers for everything but playing.

Not universally shit but not really sufficient for full 1 to 1 mapping of parameters.

This. I have never felt like it's worth trying to assign a generic MIDI controller to every parameter of a software synth. I'll use a mouse and keyboard for the sound design, and then assign a couple of performance controls (MPE pressure, expression pedal, fader, touch strip, joystick etc.) on a temporary basis to play it.

There is still something different about how I design sounds when I'm using dedicated controls vs. a mouse, even though I don't mind using a mouse.

[vitocorleone123]

I've got zero interest in the majority of hardware outside of live performance. Even most good hardware synths have a form of macro control so you don't have to worry about fiddling with menus and shift functions while performing. When using soft synths I prefer mouse control since that was what they were designed for.
Basically if you're live music is so improvisational that your making your sounds from scratch as you perform, then go with whatever works for you. Otherwise, still just do what works, but softsynths give far more options than piles of hardware synths.

In a normal (playing songs you've already written) performance the difference between hardware synths and software synths is minimal provided you've prepared.

Hardware can make sounds software can’t (yet) and the other way around, too. Why limit yourself if you don’t want to?

I've not encountered this in synthesizers.

In order to say that you must have very limited experience with different hardware and software synthesizers. Or perhaps we're talking about slightly different things.

I have 4 hardware synths. Not one of my dozens of software synths sound just like any of the hardware. Perhaps you are happy settling for approximation. Not everyone is.

It's okay if you don't like hardware - it isn't for everyone.