Software vs Hardware

[frag]

Take for example Vangelis. We instantly remember many of his compositions.

I don't remember a single one, although there is that characteristic Blade Runner style/sound that is instantly recognisable.

WTF? WTF!?


Of course you like Vangelis & Jarre, it's just you're not aware of it. Most of the music you make, or like listening to, is related to their work, just like theirs is related to classical composers.

Music is very much objective, just like math. 2+2 is 4 for every man, octave is beautiful and pleasing to anyone who's not deaf. With visual arts it's different.

[El°HYM]

Bono might just be more into John Carpenter and you just not having a clue.

[SoftSynthLover99]

Also to answer your question @IvyBirds "But again I am still waiting for you to show me where any synth sounds on any Taylor Swift record could not have been made with plugins "
So in this video with Jack and Taylor working in his studio Taylor comes up with this idea for a harmony that sounds like "a boys choir pad" and starts singing it at around 1:25 mark. Instead of searching through plugins for that sound Jack just goes over to the Mellotron M4000D and starts playing it and she goes "yep that's it just 5 octaves higher".

So technically yes he could have searched through all his plugins for that sound, but the speed of just walking over to the M4000D and just playing it was immediate and allowed them to stay in the creative flow knowing it will sound right, instead of not being sure if the various mellotron plugins will capture the sound correctly or sound "right" to Taylor.

That is also what I meant by hardware is faster. And in this case the M4000D sounds a lot more realistic than all the plugins I've tried as well.

[kostabanderas]

If you don't mind, how do you go about the mapping itself.........Do you mind sharing an example, or just describe it?

Thanks for the question, let me try to describe it as briefly as possible but it's probably going to be a bit long so apologies in advance

Let me start off by explaining this system never was intended to replace a mouse and computer keyboard. They are still a very important part of my system when it comes to mapping things there are many things especially things that are drop down menus that make no sense to map. The things I usually map are things that have a range of possible values. But for things like switching between waveforms it's usually just as easy to switch those with your mouse. This is intended to enhance your sound design workflow not totally replace it

Another important thing to keep in mind is that what I do is intended for sound design purposes much more than live performance controls. Back in the day when all I had was hardware synths, I would sit down at one and take time to design patches from scratch and/or tweak existing patches/presets. That is what I use this for

My system uses 8 MIDI channels. I have them assigned from 1-8. In the MIDI spec you have 127 possible MIDI CC's to assign values to. Conveniently the Launch Controls XL's I use have 8 pages worth of user layouts to use. They are very easy to switch between just by pressing "User" and then buttons 1-8 on the bottom row. Yes can use my system with a single LaunchControl XL or up to 8 whatever is easier for you, based on desk real estate or financial resources you are willing to commit. Each one costs $159 or less in USD. I expanded my system up to a total of 8 units but then broke it down to two four unit workstations. I find four to be the sweet spot. You can also start with one and add more over time

The Launch Control XLs have a very good software programming tool called "Components" it's free and comes with it as a download, or you can just use a browser based version that works with browsers that support MIDI like Chrome which is what I use

Each user "'page" has one dedicated MIDI channel. I won't go into great detail here but out of the 127 possible MIDI CC's many are already dedicated to things like filter cutoff. There is a handy list here

https://anotherproducer.com/online-tool ... i-cc-list/

You just need to know to use the ones that are unassigned

CC 3, CC 9, CC 14-15, CC 20-31, CC 85-87, CC 89-90, CC 102-119. You will notice some of them are predefined for things you might find handy keep them in mind

I use Components to set each knob and fader on user one to channel 1 and a MIDI CC. The same for user two on channel 2, and so on

When I think of a synth, there are four main "blocks" of things that are important

1.)Sound Generation things like Oscillators, FM Operators

2.) Envelopes

3.)modulation sources like LFOs

4.)real time performance controls and effects

So User 1 and User 2 is deducted to Sound Generation, User 3 and 4 to envelopes, user 5 and 6 to modulation, and 7&8 to real time performance controls and effects

I have the effects setup on page 8 and realtime performance controls setup on page 7. You will find that for performance controls and effects controls many of them already have dedicated CC numbers, and many plugins are already preset to use them so I use those numbers for page 7&8

The Launch Control XLs also have two rows of 8 buttons. I assign CC values to the top row of them and use them as on off buttons for various things usually related to what's above them and I assign the bottom row to be MIDI Notes that toggle on and off set for C each an octave apart from C0 to C7. The notes come in handy as you can toggle notes on and off for things like pads and then use both hands to adjust things by ear

Once you have those values programmed and saved in Components you just transfer them to each unit via USB.

So now you take your programmed controller(s) and set them on your desk. Change the user page to whatever makes sense based on the units you have. My default setup has two of them in either side of my computer monitor. The car left is set to user 1 (my sound design page) the one next to it for user 3 (envelopes) the one on the other side of the monitor to user 5 (Modulations), and the one on the far right to user 7 (performance controls) knowing the other pages are two button presses away if needed

One of my pet peeves with a lot of synths is that they have a separate mixer section that's different from the oscillator section. I have them combined. So on User 1 the bottom 8 faders are reserved for that mixing stage. Just like an analog mixer you just move them up and down. That is also handy for things that have different layers where each layer needs a volume control and if you need more than 8 that is where page 2 comes in play

Above that are 3 knobs. Ask yourself what are the tree most important controls for each oscillator or layer for you and use them for that purpose. Below is a button programmed to be the on and off switch for that oscillator

You get a total of 8 "channels" of controls like this over two pages. That gives you 16 possible "channels" of sound sources.

If I am using a synth with just say 2 oscillators I will only use two "channels" or possibly double them up and assign two per oscillators. The goal here is to decide what the most important controls are for you and map those, knowing you still have the mouse

The beauty in this for me is that I can trigger notes on the keyboard (or by hitting the bottom row) and have the synth play and then reach up with my left hand and adjust the volume of each element, and the three controls that make the most sense. On my main controller keyboard I also have 9 knobs and 9 faders. These duplicate the first 8 knobs and faders with the last being overall volume controls

The next set is envelopes I assign the bottom row of faders as Envelope 1&2 if they are standard ADSR. That gives you two envelopes per row. Then work my way up to 3&4, 5&6, 7&8

If they are say DX7 style envelopes with an R and a L values it's simple they just take a row over and I have 4 envelopes on page 3 and another on pages. For more complex envelopes scenarios I might just skip the controllers entirely and just use the mouse as drawing them with a mouse might make more sense, or just program the attack and release values and draw the rest

I am always asking myself what makes the most sense and use it

In the Mod Matrix controller (5&6) you just assign them per synth as to what makes the most sense. Generally I use the mouse to click the boxes for say whatever LFO 1 will control and then assign values on the controller to control what LFO 1 actually is

Finally you get to the Realtime Performance Controls and effects on the last section. Here is where you put things like Filter Cutoff and Resonance. I also put effects sends in this page. A lot of vintage synth emulations might have breath controllers or other CCs that you would normally assign to a foot pedal or perhaps the mod wheel or velocity or channel after touch or whatever. Here you can assign those to a knob or fader

You will probably have a bunch of extra controls here. I use those on a temporary basis to assign whatever might make sense at the moment to something on a deep synth like say HALion or Falcon that also have good MIDI learn so I can right click on it select MIDI learn, jiggle that control and it's done. The next page is dedicated to effects controls. Many of these are standard MIDI VCO values pre baked into whatever synth you are using

It's really not very complicated and rather easy to learn. I went and drew out a blank chart for everything in MS Word when I was first creating it and would write down what was assigned to what and would reference that as a cheat sheet. You will very quickly not need to reference the cheat sheet however

If you have any further questions just let me know

Tnx for the detailed response. I am fairly familiar with the technical details, I could have spared you writing that part of the explanation, sorry.
Key takeaway for me is, however insignificant it may sound, that you map the plugins to the controller and not the other way around. And that would cover like more than 90% of anything out there. And where it can’t you still can use the mouse and still have other hand free for the control surface.

Now, how do you deal with parameters not corresponding to the actual control positions on the control surface? I am aware of various pickup modes or what not but I was still wondering what is your take on this issue?
Tnx

[frag]

Bono might just be more into John Carpenter and you just not having a clue.

Many things operate on subconscious level.

I was just explaining B. that the reason he remembers Blade Runner sound is not timbre itself, but the musical, meaningful context in which this timbre was used.
You think other players didn't come up with similar sounds at that time!?

Anyway, I wish you good luck. You're going to need it

[El°HYM]

Nah, let me wish you good Luck... on my personal foes - list.

Your foes list has been updated successfully.

[IvyBirds]

Also to answer your question @IvyBirds "But again I am still waiting for you to show me where any synth sounds on any Taylor Swift record could not have been made with plugins "
So in this video with Jack and Taylor working in his studio Taylor comes up with this idea for a harmony that sounds like "a boys choir pad" and starts singing it at around 1:25 mark. Instead of searching through plugins for that sound Jack just goes over to the Mellotron M4000D and starts playing it and she goes "yep that's it just 5 octaves higher".

So technically yes he could have searched through all his plugins for that sound, but the speed of just walking over to the M4000D and just playing it was immediate and allowed them to stay in the creative flow knowing it will sound right, instead of not being sure if the various mellotron plugins will capture the sound correctly or sound "right" to Taylor.

That is also what I meant by hardware is faster. And in this case the M4000D sounds a lot more realistic than all the plugins I've tried as well.

Only that is slower than what I would do. If I was in the studio with Taylor and she asked me for a "Boys Choir Pad" and I thought gee let's use Mellotron for that. I can pull that up significantly faster than by getting up, walking over to MD4000D, pulling up that patch and playing it. I would already be playing that for her, before he even was able to load up the patch, then you have the problem where if she didn't like the Mellotron patch he would then have to go to some other instrument to play another one. That again would take longer than just using a different sample or plugin on my laptop

And if you haven't heard realistic Mellotron samples in a plugin well that's on you, I can't help you there. You will notice however that she didn't ask for a Mellotron sample of a choir, she just wanted a "Boys Choir Pad", there are probably many Synths and samples that would have made her happy.

So that's doesn't answer the question of showing me any sounds used on her record that were not software based. Even the M4000D is just a computer playing software

Hysterical how I asked for something on her record I couldn't do with software and you chose an exact sound I can pull up in 2 seconds using software.

[IvyBirds]

Thanks, that made my morning... couldn't be simpler... I had such a good laugh.

Seriously, maybe you are a savant and it's simple for you.

I am far from a savant, it's dead simple really. Each envelope gets a row. Envelope 1 always goes on the bottom, envelope 2 the row above it. Etc. each row can have up to 8 controls for up to 8 data points in an envelope. You start at the first data point in the envelope and use the first control, move on to the second one for the second data point and so on. Stop when you run out of things to assign for that envelope. I can assign up to 8 envelopes this way and it works universally for synths that have up to 8 envelopes with 8 data points which is at least 95% of every soft synth or more

For those where it doesn't easy use the mouse

That system would be unworkable for me. I would never remember all those changing knobs for each synth and that was only envelopes. Each synth has different LFO's, different Osc's, Filters, etc. I would never develop muscle memory and it would be an unworkable nightmare, that would constantly suck my mental focus instead of the task itself.

You are needlessly over complicating it

And such a system as you're describing, is completely incapable of dealing with many Oscillators in modern softsynths

Nope I can control up to 16 oscs

For example drawing waveforms for a wavetable, or partials for an additive Osc, or editing samples.

Again you are overcomplicating it. As I have said repeatedly now, my goal is not to replace using a mouse or screen. There are some things that are simply better using a mouse and a screen. Drawing waveforms for a Wavetable is one of them, same for drawing anything really

Then there's drawing MSEG's, or wiring any kind of semi-modular synth like Bazille or adding modules in a modular like VCV. And of course it would not deal well with most mod matrices.

And I use a mouse for those things just as I have talked about before

On many synths, the mouse would still be needed for like 75% of sound design.

In my experience that is simply not true

At that point, it takes less mental energy just to stick with the mouse. Then there's also no need to waste time and energy for setting up such a complex system as you describe, nor waste the precious desk space on something that only covers a small amount of sound design on modern softsynths.

My system isn't complex however and it's more efficient and convenient than using just a mouse. My system works because it's uses physical controls for the traditional things that would be assigned to a knob or fader on a traditional hardware synth, or for things where a single control is used to assign a low/high value, these are the things that in many software synths get buried as you go from one page to next. However it still uses a mouse for the things that aren't

Are there some Synths where I use my mouse 95% of the time? Sure, but there are other Synths where I use my controllers 95% of the time, as for the rest of them it's somewhere in the middle. I don't have to use every tool in the tool box every time I work on my car, or use every spice in the cupboard when I am cooking a dish. I use the tools and spices as needed for the job at hand

[Funky40]

The mouse and screen is magnitudes faster and more agile at dealing with different software synths/fx than any midi controller.

my statement was meant in regards to: jamm and perform.
i stated that in my next sentence. You took it out of context by quoting just one part of it. You made then your point -based on my speech- but in context of your own context.
But in regards to that -your- context: do i agree with you.

i see it same. i work to the bigger part same.
just that i use a Trackpad, which is in my case something like 3x faster than a mouse. anyway, ignore that.


It´s exactly how @IvyBidrs makes his points. We both don´t do same to full 100%. But very very similar in many ways. As he says: the mouse is allwayss there anyway.

There is no circumvention around to use the mouse/TP. It´s allways in use anyway.
There is no versus in the play here, mouse vs. mapped HW controls ?
it is a both ! ...It goes hand in hand.

[SoftSynthLover99]

Also to answer your question @IvyBirds "But again I am still waiting for you to show me where any synth sounds on any Taylor Swift record could not have been made with plugins "
So in this video with Jack and Taylor working in his studio Taylor comes up with this idea for a harmony that sounds like "a boys choir pad" and starts singing it at around 1:25 mark. Instead of searching through plugins for that sound Jack just goes over to the Mellotron M4000D and starts playing it and she goes "yep that's it just 5 octaves higher".

So technically yes he could have searched through all his plugins for that sound, but the speed of just walking over to the M4000D and just playing it was immediate and allowed them to stay in the creative flow knowing it will sound right, instead of not being sure if the various mellotron plugins will capture the sound correctly or sound "right" to Taylor.

That is also what I meant by hardware is faster. And in this case the M4000D sounds a lot more realistic than all the plugins I've tried as well.

Hysterical how I asked for something on her record I couldn't do with software and you chose an exact sound I can pull up in 2 seconds using software.

The M4000D does not sound or play like any of the currently available plugins.
Just because plugins sound "similar enough" doesn't mean they are the same. If they sounded the same they would NULL in a NULL test, which they do not.

I have Sampletron 2 from IK, GForce M-Tron pro with all the tapes, UVIs mellotron library, the native Logic Mellotron (which is quite good) but none of them sound like the M4000D.

So yes you can pull up a Mellotron plugin in 2 seconds, but no it won't sound quite like the M4000D. It's not $2,800 for no reason.

[IvyBirds]

Key takeaway for me is, however insignificant it may sound, that you map the plugins to the controller and not the other way around. And that would cover like more than 90% of anything out there. And where it can’t you still can use the mouse and still have other hand free for the control surface.

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner lol. That is the exact take away. You want to have a basic universal controller set up and have your software instruments conform to that system.

For example every synth has some kind of oscillator, sample player, or tone generator, and most have more than one. Generally you can make those louder or quieter. So I assign a fader to those controls universally. Sometimes on the actual synth those settings are in some kind of mixer section which is often in a different section. For me I assign that to a fadet. The next thing you can usually do with those is adjust the pitch of each one ,so right above the fader for volume I assign that knob to pitch. Those are universal controls and I repeat them right across the controller 8 times. So now we can have up to 8 things that make sounds and adjust the volume and pitch for each. This works on things like a Minimoog that have 3 Oscillators, and things like the Korg Triton that have layers, and I can flip to the next page for up to 16 layers. It's universal for every synth. These are also things that are very handy to grab with one hand while you play keys on the other and time and mix by each

Then you can move up to more complex things that are more specific for the synthesis type. For example virtual analog synths often have a PWM control so that gets the next knob up for them while Romplers/Samplers don't buy often have a pan control so they get pan on the next one up next, finally the next knob up which is also the last I use for some type of modulation control, or in the case of multilayer Romplers an effects send

You will notice these are are pretty universal controls that apply to pretty much every analog style synth or rompler/sampler and are the things you can adjust very quickly while playing notes or working on some other page. I don't bother to assign things like footage, or waveform selectors because they are just as easy to use a mouse and generally as a patch is playing you are not switching between say a sawtooth wave and a triangle wave of the fly

Of course what I decide to universally map might be different for you. You have to make your own system

Let me quickly add for FM Synthesis which I do a lot I assign Level to the fader, tune to the one above that (just like before) and course and fine above that

Now, how do you deal with parameters not corresponding to the actual control positions on the control surface? I am aware of various pickup modes or what not but I was still wondering what is your take on this issue?
Tnx

Those are going to be the same way as they are on most hardware synths where when you first load a patch from memory the knob or fader might not be in the right position, but they will grab on when you move past where they are.

I used to start with an Init patch where everything was turned all the way down on every knob and fader but know I don't bother

[IvyBirds]

[
The M4000D does not sound or play like any of the currently available plugins.
Just because plugins sound "similar enough" doesn't mean they are the same. If they sounded the same they would NULL in a NULL test, which they do not.

I have Sampletron 2 from IK, GForce M-Tron pro with all the tapes, UVIs mellotron library, the native Logic Mellotron (which is quite good) but none of them sound like the M4000D.

So yes you can pull up a Mellotron plugin in 2 seconds, but no it won't sound quite like the M4000D. It's not $2,800 for no reason.

When you are reduced to arguing about if two things will NULL in your hardware -vs- software comparisons just take the loss and move on bud

And of course they don't sound 100% the same as they were recorded from different tapes that are decades old. That M4000D isn't going to sound the same as an actual tape based Mellotron either and Taylor didn't ask for a Mellotron sample your confirmation bias assumes sounds better because it's hardware, she asked for a "boys choir" sample and 5 different mellotron samples made from 5 different tapes with different analog front end ahead of the analog to digital conversion as it was samples are all going to sound different

But if that video didn't exist and you were just listening to the song on Spotify like my daughter does as we are riding in the car streaming over Bluetooth from her phone would you be able to tell if it was a Mellotron M4000D or the GForce software? Of course not that's just silly

But remember you decided to play that video because you claimed it was faster to use hardware it's not. Again if I was in that studio with Taylor and she wanted a Boys Choir Pad sound I could pull up the Mellotron sample in GForce in less than 5 seconds. I could play it for her and if he didn't like it in 5 seconds play one from a myriad of other plugins

So I am still waiting for you to show me a synth sound used on that record that couldn't be done with software

[martiu]

hardware is done, software can do so much more with no physical space needed, try to match that hardware, yeah, that's what i tough so

[El°HYM]

https://audioxpress.com/article/you-can ... jo-maestro

[pdxindy]

hardware is done, software can do so much more with no physical space needed

I'm a creature that exists in physical space. I like interacting with the world around me in physical space. I want physical space to be needed.