Revival's Control Routing... KUDOS!
I just want to give a shout out/kudos to Sononics Revival for putting the routing control matrix on the back. I love having a routing control matrix on a synth, it is a very useful thing, but it is really ugly on every synth that I have seen. Seriously every synth that has one, it is hideous to look at... and takes up too much space. Anyway, Sononics was brilliant for putting it on the back and saving that valuable room for other more important and aesthetically pleasing knobs/controls.
The last 3 synths I have beta tested, I have suggested they move the routing controls to the back. Nobody has implented my suggestion and I'm unsure why.
What do you guys think?
The last 3 synths I have beta tested, I have suggested they move the routing controls to the back. Nobody has implented my suggestion and I'm unsure why.
What do you guys think?
Yep, i like it too in the back.
No, but is there any synth that allows automation of the mod matrix?tiker01 wrote:Knobs on the back cannot be automated AFAIK.
The only downside I see to placing the mod matrix in the back is that you don't get a good overview of your patch, but maybe that's just me?
Well, if your patch involves CV routing to other devices (or within itself), then you will need to see the back anyways.buddard wrote:No, but is there any synth that allows automation of the mod matrix?tiker01 wrote:Knobs on the back cannot be automated AFAIK.
The only downside I see to placing the mod matrix in the back is that you don't get a good overview of your patch, but maybe that's just me?
With the modulation matrix on the back—you see ALL modulation routing in one place (on the back). Actually seems much more consistent to have it this way.
Out of curiosity is it possible to have it on the front and the back (maybe only a few slots) and have a mirroring between the two representation?joeyluck wrote:Well, if your patch involves CV routing to other devices (or within itself), then you will need to see the back anyways.buddard wrote:No, but is there any synth that allows automation of the mod matrix?tiker01 wrote:Knobs on the back cannot be automated AFAIK.
The only downside I see to placing the mod matrix in the back is that you don't get a good overview of your patch, but maybe that's just me?
With the modulation matrix on the back—you see ALL modulation routing in one place (on the back). Actually seems much more consistent to have it this way.
Budapest, Hungary
Reason 11 Suite
Lenovo ThinkPad e520 Win10x64 8GB RAM Intel i5-2520M 2,5-3,2 GHz and AMD 6630M with 1GB of memory.
- JiggeryPokery
- RE Developer
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Yes. Thor does, and it's Remote™-able. PolySix does.buddard wrote:is there any synth that allows automation of the mod matrix?tiker01 wrote:Knobs on the back cannot be automated AFAIK.
Ammo 400/1200's Re-ARM section does, and it's Remote™-able as well. I'd be surprised if they're the only ones. No other RE synth else allows that? Seriously?
Er... yes, probably would work.tiker01 wrote:
Out of curiosity is it possible to have it on the front and the back (maybe only a few slots) and have a mirroring between the two representation?
I think the space saving and appearance improvements would out-weigh the chore of hitting the tab button to see the programmer on the back. I'd rather hit tab.buddard wrote:No, but is there any synth that allows automation of the mod matrix?tiker01 wrote:Knobs on the back cannot be automated AFAIK.
The only downside I see to placing the mod matrix in the back is that you don't get a good overview of your patch, but maybe that's just me?
Also, if only the knobs could be mirrored on the front and the back, that would make them automatable. Three more synths I know of that have automatable knobs in the control programmer are Predator, Oberon and Zero.tiker01 wrote:Out of curiosity is it possible to have it on the front and the back (maybe only a few slots) and have a mirroring between the two representation?joeyluck wrote:Well, if your patch involves CV routing to other devices (or within itself), then you will need to see the back anyways.buddard wrote:No, but is there any synth that allows automation of the mod matrix?tiker01 wrote:Knobs on the back cannot be automated AFAIK.
The only downside I see to placing the mod matrix in the back is that you don't get a good overview of your patch, but maybe that's just me?
With the modulation matrix on the back—you see ALL modulation routing in one place (on the back). Actually seems much more consistent to have it this way.
BTW, I'm not knocking any of the synths that have a programmer on the front... I just think it would be cool if more developers put them on the back.
That's very cool, I had no idea!JiggeryPokery wrote:Yes. Thor does, and it's Remote™-able. PolySix does.buddard wrote:is there any synth that allows automation of the mod matrix?tiker01 wrote:Knobs on the back cannot be automated AFAIK.
Ammo 400/1200's Re-ARM section does, and it's Remote™-able as well. I'd be surprised if they're the only ones. No other RE synth else allows that? Seriously?
It seems that you can only automate modulation and scaling amounts (and not sources/destinations), but still very useful.
- JiggeryPokery
- RE Developer
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Yeah, I thought there must be far more, and that Revival was actually more likely to be the only one that didn'tbuddard wrote:That's very cool, I had no idea!JiggeryPokery wrote:Yes. Thor does, and it's Remote™-able. PolySix does.buddard wrote:is there any synth that allows automation of the mod matrix?tiker01 wrote:Knobs on the back cannot be automated AFAIK.
Ammo 400/1200's Re-ARM section does, and it's Remote™-able as well. I'd be surprised if they're the only ones. No other RE synth else allows that? Seriously?
It seems that you can only automate modulation and scaling amounts (and not sources/destinations), but still very useful.
PolySix allows does, however, automatable selection of the ... er ... destination, I think? With Ammo we couldn't as I remember we were right up at the limits of automatable parameters, so couldn't include them.
I find that as a general rule, I want to see all the controls involved in creating the sound in one place, and as such I don't see modulation matrixes as "set and forget" types of functions that can be relegated to back panel status. But it's probably more based on how I like to work than any huge design "rule" of any sort, possibly my modular synth background?
I'll go further and suggest that I'd prefer to see even MORE direct visual feedback as to the routing of a patch than less, but I'm not sure the current SDK allows all that would be required for this advancement at this time. In other words, software synths should ultimately have MORE visual feedback than hardware rather than less as to what is going on with the patch IMO.
I'll go further and suggest that I'd prefer to see even MORE direct visual feedback as to the routing of a patch than less, but I'm not sure the current SDK allows all that would be required for this advancement at this time. In other words, software synths should ultimately have MORE visual feedback than hardware rather than less as to what is going on with the patch IMO.
Selig Audio, LLC
Hm, I guess integrating mod controls to a collapsable section (Like the RV7000 Remote Programmer) of the synth would serve all individual preferences regarding Workflow or GUI and still provide full automation options. No?
- submonsterz
- Posts: 989
- Joined: 07 Feb 2015
yup !! I agree fullyVNUprod wrote:Hm, I guess integrating mod controls to a collapsable section (Like the RV7000 Remote Programmer) of the synth would serve all individual preferences regarding Workflow or GUI and still provide full automation options. No?
*snicker*mcatalao wrote:Yep, i like it too in the back.
I caught that too.dvdrtldg wrote:*snicker*mcatalao wrote:Yep, i like it too in the back.
So, yeah, if we are dreaming here, and the Props decided to upgrade the SDK to allow collapsible sections like Thor and RV7000, then that would be an ideal place to put the modulation matrix.
Most software synths though (outside of Reason) involve pages. And I suppose I don't see much of a difference between flipping to a modulation routing page and flipping to the back panel. And where there are limitations with RE; might as well take advantage of where there are possibilities and real estate—the back panel. And again, makes sense particularly if you are also routing CV to see all of your routing in one place (internal and external).selig wrote:I find that as a general rule, I want to see all the controls involved in creating the sound in one place, and as such I don't see modulation matrixes as "set and forget" types of functions that can be relegated to back panel status. But it's probably more based on how I like to work than any huge design "rule" of any sort, possibly my modular synth background?
I'll go further and suggest that I'd prefer to see even MORE direct visual feedback as to the routing of a patch than less, but I'm not sure the current SDK allows all that would be required for this advancement at this time. In other words, software synths should ultimately have MORE visual feedback than hardware rather than less as to what is going on with the patch IMO.
One other thing I would like to point out is the selection of knobs on Revival for the back. Not sure any or many REs that incorporate knobs other than the default back panel knobs.
That being said, and I've mentioned it before... why won't somebody create a modular system synth with nice knobs for all the functions on the back panel? Could mirror the knobs on the front. The front would have the exact same layout as the back, minus the CV connections.
That being said, and I've mentioned it before... why won't somebody create a modular system synth with nice knobs for all the functions on the back panel? Could mirror the knobs on the front. The front would have the exact same layout as the back, minus the CV connections.
Well, i was referring to revival... You are the ones with the dirty mind, not me...challism wrote:I caught that too.dvdrtldg wrote:*snicker*mcatalao wrote:Yep, i like it too in the back.
So, yeah, if we are dreaming here, and the Props decided to upgrade the SDK to allow collapsible sections like Thor and RV7000, then that would be an ideal place to put the modulation matrix.
IMO you've possibly made my argument stronger, at least in MY mind(!) - pages are just as bad as rack flipping for important features IMO! That most soft synths use pages is NOT a good reason for an RE to put important controls out of view IMO. And there ARE many users that do not regularly visit the back of the rack. Also, unlike other soft synths there's no regular need to flip the rack thanks to auto routing and shift drag for re-routing, while on other soft synths there IS a need to move to other pages to make critical settings.joeyluck wrote:Most software synths though (outside of Reason) involve pages. And I suppose I don't see much of a difference between flipping to a modulation routing page and flipping to the back panel. And where there are limitations with RE; might as well take advantage of where there are possibilities and real estate—the back panel. And again, makes sense particularly if you are also routing CV to see all of your routing in one place (internal and external).selig wrote:I find that as a general rule, I want to see all the controls involved in creating the sound in one place, and as such I don't see modulation matrixes as "set and forget" types of functions that can be relegated to back panel status. But it's probably more based on how I like to work than any huge design "rule" of any sort, possibly my modular synth background?
I'll go further and suggest that I'd prefer to see even MORE direct visual feedback as to the routing of a patch than less, but I'm not sure the current SDK allows all that would be required for this advancement at this time. In other words, software synths should ultimately have MORE visual feedback than hardware rather than less as to what is going on with the patch IMO.
But my point still stands, that IMO I like to be able to visualize routings and their effects as much as possible from one screen. Synths like Massive come close to this ideal by showing which controls are modulated and by how much - VERY useful, but not supported by the current SDK sorry to say…
Selig Audio, LLC
I've envisioned something similar but for different reasons. IMO, CV routing would be easier if you can "see" the front panel controls on the back. At the very least, the same front panel layout (minus the knobs) printed on the back would make extensive back panel routing simpler and more like an analog modular FWIW. This is how I would approach creating analog style module within Reason.joeyluck wrote:One other thing I would like to point out is the selection of knobs on Revival for the back. Not sure any or many REs that incorporate knobs other than the default back panel knobs.
That being said, and I've mentioned it before... why won't somebody create a modular system synth with nice knobs for all the functions on the back panel? Could mirror the knobs on the front. The front would have the exact same layout as the back, minus the CV connections.
Selig Audio, LLC
Just revisiting this as I would really like to see this. I also wish the smiley was instead a wink as if to suggest you are working on this very thingselig wrote:I've envisioned something similar but for different reasons. IMO, CV routing would be easier if you can "see" the front panel controls on the back. At the very least, the same front panel layout (minus the knobs) printed on the back would make extensive back panel routing simpler and more like an analog modular FWIW. This is how I would approach creating analog style module within Reason.joeyluck wrote:One other thing I would like to point out is the selection of knobs on Revival for the back. Not sure any or many REs that incorporate knobs other than the default back panel knobs.
That being said, and I've mentioned it before... why won't somebody create a modular system synth with nice knobs for all the functions on the back panel? Could mirror the knobs on the front. The front would have the exact same layout as the back, minus the CV connections.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests