U basically said everything I just said....lol. Wish I'd read further down the posts.Alphacodex wrote:I agree, also I dont understand the criticism concerning MVocoder having no internal synth. As MVocoder is meant to be put on the carrier (usually the synth), it is very quick and easy to select any VSTi you might have and add MVocoder to that channel. Any DAW built in synth will probably be better than every built in vocoder synth out there, so what is the point? Is it about 2 more clicks?
However I agree that the gui could a bit easier to use and to understand:
e.g. why are there no labels on the matrix so we know which axis affect mod and which the car?
Why are the axes in the graph view not labeled?
On the third video about MVocoder while explaining how the frequency graph affects the spreading of the bands you show a explanatory graph with red frequncy bands, why dont you add exactly that graph (maybe a bit simplified, with only bars) in an extra window? It would make understanding what I am doing so much more easy...
Some easy suggestions that would make MVocoder much more accessible...
MVocoder - new vocoder from MeldaProduction available for a riddiculous introductory price!
-
- KVRer
- 16 posts since 16 Dec, 2013
-
- KVRAF
- 3361 posts since 31 Dec, 2004 from People's Republic of Minnesota
It has to do with workflow. A lot of people like having them on one interface. Same reason why a lot of people like channel strip plugins, and why slate's VMR is so convenient. If you want to argue that there's no point, fine. But you may as well ask why so many synths have so many built in fx. Same principle.