Massive X 1.6.1 update (September 2025)!

[EvilDragon]

Why are people fixated on limitations rather than exploring the wealth of possibilites that are already there...

[Danilo Villanova]

GIU is fine, IMO. It's the browser problems for 3rd party sound designers, poor LFO functionality, slow opening times, and (above all) the inability to automate/MIDI map every parameter for me. My level of frustration is proportional to how awesome the synth sounds. That turns this into one of the greatest ball drops ever.

[martinjuenke]

Wavetables seem to be like Pokemon for some guys: You gotta have them all.
You'll never use them, but hey, we are hunters and collectors!

[Old Norse]

Auditioning 80 000 wavetables sounds like so much fun!

https://kcrosley.gumroad.com/l/wavetables

[dellboy]

"Dated" GUI? This ain't Synth1, yo. THAT is a dated GUI. MX is not.

In the five years that I have owned Massive X I have hardly used it. Synth1 is always installed, and I use it often. If Massive X disappeared I would not miss it. When Synth1 eventually stops working it will be a sad day.

[IvyBirds]

It's not deep and complex when you compare it to synths like Avenger or Rapid. It's modulation may be complex but its architecture is not when compared to more powerful synths.

Awesome so why you pooping on it then? If you don't think it's deep or complex why do you care about importing thousands of Wavetables into it? Why don't you just import those into Wavetable Synths that you actually do find deep and complex?

So you would be reduced to using them in the traditional Wavetable way, and why would you want to do that?

"Reduced to using them in the "traditional Wavetable way" would still provide function beyond the limited number of wavetables included so that's why I would want them.

But again why? It would take hundreds of hours to go through the trouble of auditioning the thousands of Wavetables you have deemed to be so important, and then organize them in some sort of meaningful way, and then import them into Massive X. So why does it make sense to do that for a synth that you already think is neither deep or complex? And then strip out even more functionality to use it in a traditional way? Wouldn't it make sense invest that time into a more traditional Wavetable synth that you find deeper and more powerful?

One of the major advantages to software synths is the fact that they are insanely inexpensive (or even free) especially when compared with Hardware options and take zero physical space like hardware synths do. Now that we have inexpensive hard drives that are Terabytes in size there is no reason not to have multiple plugins even of the same Synthesis types and use them for what they are good at and not try to shoehorn them into something they are not

It's really easy to find Wavetable Synths that allow you to import whatever Wavetables you want and use them in a traditional way. Some of them are even free, and would be a better choice if your goal is to use Wavetables in a traditional way when it comes to Synthesis options. That is their strength, Massive X has different strengths, I choose to use Software Synths for their strengths and not care that much about any perceived weakness because I can pretty much always find another Software Synth that fills the niche of that perceived weakness

[EvilDragon]

"Dated" GUI? This ain't Synth1, yo. THAT is a dated GUI. MX is not.

In the five years that I have owned Massive X I have hardly used it. Synth1 is always installed, and I use it often. If Massive X disappeared I would not miss it. When Synth1 eventually stops working it will be a sad day.

The comment was about the GUI, not about how much you do or don't use a thing, though

[dellboy]

"Dated" GUI? This ain't Synth1, yo. THAT is a dated GUI. MX is not.

In the five years that I have owned Massive X I have hardly used it. Synth1 is always installed, and I use it often. If Massive X disappeared I would not miss it. When Synth1 eventually stops working it will be a sad day.

The comment was about the GUI, not about how much you do or don't use a thing, though

Yes, I know you were talking about the GUI. I love Synth1 GUI. I know I am in a majority of one, but its the truth. Massive X GUI is just too complex for my simple tastes. For one, why does NI have to give its patches such silly names? I want a patch to reflect what it is. Synth1 patches often have simple names to show what they do. In Massive X you have to double click to audition a patch. Synth1 allows you to select and play.

[wikter]

"Dated" GUI? This ain't Synth1, yo. THAT is a dated GUI. MX is not.

In the five years that I have owned Massive X I have hardly used it. Synth1 is always installed, and I use it often. If Massive X disappeared I would not miss it. When Synth1 eventually stops working it will be a sad day.

The comment was about the GUI, not about how much you do or don't use a thing, though

Yes, I know you were talking about the GUI. I love Synth1 GUI. I know I am in a majority of one, but its the truth. Massive X GUI is just too complex for my simple tastes. For one, why does NI have to give its patches such silly names? I want a patch to reflect what it is. Synth1 patches often have simple names to show what they do. In Massive X you have to double click to audition a patch. Synth1 allows you to select and play.

Synth1 GUI is tweakable & resizable since 2005 but it has no wavetable. In 2025 there's still plug-ins not fitting that outdated GUI specs, even in NI product line.

[EvilDragon]

It actually does have a single wavetable, sawtooth. It is fixed and user cannot load new ones

[pdxindy]

Why are people fixated on limitations rather than exploring the wealth of possibilites that are already there...

I can only speak for myself, but I have lots of synths with a wealth of possibilities that don't have the ridiculous limitations of MX. Given this, there is no reason to waste my time on something only half implemented.

MX has been out for about 6 years now, and there has been no appreciable development in that time.

[Sinisterbr]

Why are people fixated on limitations rather than exploring the wealth of possibilites that are already there...

I can only speak for myself, but I have lots of synths with a wealth of possibilities that don't have the ridiculous limitations of MX. Given this, there is no reason to waste my time on something only half implemented.

Ok. So don't. Goodbye.

[IvyBirds]

Why are people fixated on limitations rather than exploring the wealth of possibilites that are already there...

I can only speak for myself, but I have lots of synths with a wealth of possibilities that don't have the ridiculous limitations of MX. Given this, there is no reason to waste my time on something only half implemented.

Awesome then don't. MX is just a tool. Nothing more nothing less. Like all tools it serves a purpose, that purpose may or may not be useful for you, or might not be the best option for what you are trying to do, if so use a different tool

[EvilDragon]

I can only speak for myself, but I have lots of synths with a wealth of possibilities that don't have the ridiculous limitations of MX. Given this, there is no reason to waste my time on something only half implemented.

It's not half-implemented if it was intended to be like that.

Some things are just, you know... different and unique? MX does some things better than any other synth out there. Not every synth needs to have everything.

[digitalboytn]

Why are people fixated on limitations rather than exploring the wealth of possibilites that are already there...