Complex from Propellerhead

This forum is for discussing Rack Extensions. Devs are all welcome to show off their goods.
User avatar
Ahornberg
Posts: 1558
Joined: 15 Jan 2016
Location: Vienna, Austria

Post 21 Dec 2018

My 2 cents: The whole synth could have been built with a modulation matrix instead of cables. IMO a modulation matrix is more powerful than a cable connection because it can offer "amount" and "scale" values like in Thor.

But Complex-1 without cables wouldn't have got that response as seen here in the forum. So IMO using cables was a wise marketing decision. Congrats to PH!

User avatar
Faastwalker
Posts: 1363
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 21 Dec 2018

Ahornberg wrote:
21 Dec 2018
So IMO using cables was a wise marketing decision.
It's a Eurorack decision.

User avatar
antic604
Posts: 1587
Joined: 23 Oct 2017
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Post 21 Dec 2018

fretshot7 wrote:
21 Dec 2018
Then I got a bunch of REs and it gave me more endless possibilities.
And now Complex -1 with even more endless possibilities.
Technically speaking, you can't have "more" endless possibilities ;) :P
Reason 10 // Bitwig 2 // Live 10 @ Surface Pro 4 i7 8/256GB
My music: https://soundcloud.com/antic604

User avatar
antic604
Posts: 1587
Joined: 23 Oct 2017
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Post 21 Dec 2018

Ahornberg wrote:
21 Dec 2018
My 2 cents: The whole synth could have been built with a modulation matrix instead of cables. IMO a modulation matrix is more powerful than a cable connection because it can offer "amount" and "scale" values like in Thor.

But Complex-1 without cables wouldn't have got that response as seen here in the forum. So IMO using cables was a wise marketing decision. Congrats to PH!
That's true, but considering you can drag multiple cables from / to single socket it'd have to be quite a huge mod matrix, possibly the size of the synth itself :)

Secondly, cables allow for happy accidents and facilitate experimentation, which is not the case with mod matrix that feels more like Excel :?

Lastly, let's not kid ourselves - cables just look so much better :D
Reason 10 // Bitwig 2 // Live 10 @ Surface Pro 4 i7 8/256GB
My music: https://soundcloud.com/antic604

User avatar
Ahornberg
Posts: 1558
Joined: 15 Jan 2016
Location: Vienna, Austria

Post 21 Dec 2018

antic604 wrote:
21 Dec 2018
Ahornberg wrote:
21 Dec 2018
My 2 cents: The whole synth could have been built with a modulation matrix instead of cables. IMO a modulation matrix is more powerful than a cable connection because it can offer "amount" and "scale" values like in Thor.

But Complex-1 without cables wouldn't have got that response as seen here in the forum. So IMO using cables was a wise marketing decision. Congrats to PH!
That's true, but considering you can drag multiple cables from / to single socket it'd have to be quite a huge mod matrix, possibly the size of the synth itself :)

Secondly, cables allow for happy accidents and facilitate experimentation, which is not the case with mod matrix that feels more like Excel :?

Lastly, let's not kid ourselves - cables just look so much better :D
Yes, cables are a lot of fun ...

User avatar
buddard
Posts: 497
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 21 Dec 2018

Ahornberg wrote:
21 Dec 2018
IMO a modulation matrix is more powerful than a cable connection because it can offer "amount" and "scale" values like in Thor.
Almost all destinations seem to have Amount attenuators, and up to three connections can be scaled via the Scale & Amp module. I'm guessing that it's pretty rare that you need to scale more than three connections?

User avatar
SebAudio
Posts: 64
Joined: 08 Mar 2015

Post 21 Dec 2018

Faastwalker wrote:
21 Dec 2018
Ahornberg wrote:
21 Dec 2018
So IMO using cables was a wise marketing decision.
It's a Eurorack decision.
That is the same thing, isn’t ? :lol:
There are trends in the synth world as there are in other domains. Glad in this time, the Props are almost on time with trends ! I mean Complex-1 is out now, not so long after Arturia Easel, itself not so long after Reaktor west coast block, itself not so long after Madrona Labs Aalto ! Says the guy who’s been waiting for 10 years for an FM synth in Reason since NI released FM7 :!:

fullforce
Posts: 76
Joined: 18 Aug 2018

Post 21 Dec 2018

Whoopdiedoo, cables on the front. Now Reason has everything.

User avatar
Krell
Posts: 53
Joined: 06 Aug 2017

Post 21 Dec 2018

fullforce wrote:
21 Dec 2018
Whoopdiedoo, cables on the front. Now Reason has everything.
Hahaha :lol:
Reason 10 // Bitwig 2 // Logic Pro X // UAD // Soundtoys // Vintage Hardware

User avatar
ScuzzyEye
Posts: 1091
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 21 Dec 2018

antic604 wrote:
21 Dec 2018
That's true, but considering you can drag multiple cables from / to single socket it'd have to be quite a huge mod matrix, possibly the size of the synth itself :)
You can drag multiple cables from but not to a single socket. So by my quick count, you'd need a matrix with 68 entries, one for each target.

User avatar
antic604
Posts: 1587
Joined: 23 Oct 2017
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Post 21 Dec 2018

ScuzzyEye wrote:
21 Dec 2018
antic604 wrote:
21 Dec 2018
That's true, but considering you can drag multiple cables from / to single socket it'd have to be quite a huge mod matrix, possibly the size of the synth itself :)
You can drag multiple cables from but not to a single socket. So by my quick count, you'd need a matrix with 68 entries, one for each target.
Indeed. That also makes sense. 68 is still quite large :)
Reason 10 // Bitwig 2 // Live 10 @ Surface Pro 4 i7 8/256GB
My music: https://soundcloud.com/antic604

User avatar
AttenuationHz
Posts: 1866
Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Location: Back of the Rack-1

Post 21 Dec 2018

Ahornberg wrote:
21 Dec 2018
My 2 cents: The whole synth could have been built with a modulation matrix instead of cables. IMO a modulation matrix is more powerful than a cable connection because it can offer "amount" and "scale" values like in Thor.

But Complex-1 without cables wouldn't have got that response as seen here in the forum. So IMO using cables was a wise marketing decision. Congrats to PH!
:lol:

It would not be the same beast without the connections on the front. If all those connections were put on the back yes you would get similar results but your work-flow would be hampered by trying to remember what connections are which when you needed to make changes but again it would not be the same beast because you have a limited amount of connections you can make. You have a limited amount of destinations with a mod matrix and an even more limited amount of sources, with the cables being on the front you have all the amount of sources you can reach and every destination.

I have to remind you that Reason has always used cables and was one of the first pieces of Software to do so before it was a growing trend.

I'd have to disagree entirely the whole RE could not have been built with a mod matrix.
Waiting for Navigation by Routing to be added! viewtopic.php?p=275484#p275484f=6&t=749 ... 97#p275497
:refill: http://rwrd.io/qx9m5wx Referral!

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7464
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 21 Dec 2018

ScuzzyEye wrote:
21 Dec 2018
antic604 wrote:
21 Dec 2018
That's true, but considering you can drag multiple cables from / to single socket it'd have to be quite a huge mod matrix, possibly the size of the synth itself :)
You can drag multiple cables from but not to a single socket. So by my quick count, you'd need a matrix with 68 entries, one for each target.
So true - and even at a conservative 11 pixels per slot (vertically) that's already taller than the largest size allowed!

Not only that but you can effectively send slots to other slots (stacking Mix or Scales & Amp slots), something you cannot do with any mod matrix.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7464
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 21 Dec 2018

AttenuationHz wrote:
21 Dec 2018

I'd have to disagree entirely the whole RE could not have been built with a mod matrix.
Maybe. But it would be an entirely different user experience if it was, due to all the compromises you'd have to make to pull that off. In the BEST case scenario, you would have to switch out the ENTIRE panel for the mod matrix in order to accommodate the same routing possibilities. And even after doing that, the matrix would still likely have to scroll in order to account for the same routing possibilities.

Even if the matrix could be double wide, it would still take up around 6U tall, leaving 3U for the rest of the synth. And that's all based on NOT allowing multiple outputs from a single source, as you can now do.

This is a great example how the UI (rather than the feature set) can direct the experience. For example, we could create a giant spreadsheet that can do exactly the same thing that Complex-1 can do. But how many folks would be inspired to work with it? Same exact feature set, totally different user experience. Which is why you cannot judge a synth (or any device, for that matter) by it's feature set alone!
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
ScuzzyEye
Posts: 1091
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 21 Dec 2018

selig wrote:
21 Dec 2018
Not only that but you can effectively send slots to other slots (stacking Mix or Scales & Amp slots), something you cannot do with any mod matrix.
selig wrote:
21 Dec 2018
Even if the matrix could be double wide, it would still take up around 6U tall, leaving 3U for the rest of the synth. And that's all based on NOT allowing multiple outputs from a single source, as you can now do.
You're looking at it backwards. There's not multiple outputs from a single source. There are multiple inputs receiving from the same source.

Seems like a trivial distinction, but it turns writing the code from a near impossible task to a simple list. You list all 68 inputs, and the one thing they are being modulated by. It's the reverse of how matrices have been traditionally presented, but it makes this device work.

User avatar
dioxide
Posts: 948
Joined: 15 Jul 2015

Post 21 Dec 2018

Just a thought, I don't know if it can answered without breaking an NDA. Is it possible to have an interactive display like this on the back of the device? This would allow cabling to be done on the back (and save with patches) but have a more traditional front UI.

User avatar
theshoemaker
Posts: 573
Joined: 21 Nov 2015
Location: Germany

Post 21 Dec 2018

I am overwhelmed ... will have some playtime over christmas.

I've just been throwing my REndmozier on complex ... need to create some meaningfull randomization rules first.

But it's really nice doing random exploration. Here is a short 15 minute 'Let's REndomize'

:PUF_figure: latest :reason: V10 on MacOS Sierra

User avatar
4filegate
Posts: 876
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 21 Dec 2018

I'm the slow sort. For the short time I had I was really convinced, the price is too high because I also have to pay the idiot tax (CHF) on it.

Soon we have patchcable manufacturer emulations and modify the GUI, in near future they sell another branded cables now as an upgrade option?
R10 msi gt72 windows10 abluesky mediadesk 2.1 CME WaveIdea Bitstream 3X/Xkey37 4filegate YT ▢▢ allihoopa

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7464
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 21 Dec 2018

ScuzzyEye wrote:
21 Dec 2018
selig wrote:
21 Dec 2018
Not only that but you can effectively send slots to other slots (stacking Mix or Scales & Amp slots), something you cannot do with any mod matrix.
selig wrote:
21 Dec 2018
Even if the matrix could be double wide, it would still take up around 6U tall, leaving 3U for the rest of the synth. And that's all based on NOT allowing multiple outputs from a single source, as you can now do.
You're looking at it backwards. There's not multiple outputs from a single source. There are multiple inputs receiving from the same source.

Seems like a trivial distinction, but it turns writing the code from a near impossible task to a simple list. You list all 68 inputs, and the one thing they are being modulated by. It's the reverse of how matrices have been traditionally presented, but it makes this device work.
Seems like it's both, no? How can you have one without the other?

I was describing it from the user perspective, maybe you're describing it from the coding perspective? Either way, it's not like a traditional mod matrix for many reasons, which is why you just can take the code and switch out a mod matrix for the cables, right?
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
ScuzzyEye
Posts: 1091
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 21 Dec 2018

selig wrote:
21 Dec 2018
Seems like it's both, no? How can you have one without the other?

I was describing it from the user perspective, maybe you're describing it from the coding perspective? Either way, it's not like a traditional mod matrix for many reasons, which is why you just can take the code and switch out a mod matrix for the cables, right?
Selecting a few of the cables in the screen shot on the shop page would yield a matrix like this:
Screenshot from 2018-12-21 10-55-32.png
Just imagine it is exactly 68 rows long. The left column is every possible target, the right is a pop-up menu that has all the possible sources. There'd also be a field for the scaling value.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
DiZo
Posts: 122
Joined: 20 Jan 2015

Post 21 Dec 2018

please korg see this for ms20RE :)

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7464
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 21 Dec 2018

ScuzzyEye wrote:
21 Dec 2018
selig wrote:
21 Dec 2018
Seems like it's both, no? How can you have one without the other?

I was describing it from the user perspective, maybe you're describing it from the coding perspective? Either way, it's not like a traditional mod matrix for many reasons, which is why you just can take the code and switch out a mod matrix for the cables, right?
Selecting a few of the cables in the screen shot on the shop page would yield a matrix like this:
Screenshot from 2018-12-21 10-55-32.png

Just imagine it is exactly 68 rows long. The left column is every possible target, the right is a pop-up menu that has all the possible sources. There'd also be a field for the scaling value.
Indeed, that's how the code would see it, plus a number of possible sources horizontally for each target (not sure the internal limit, maybe 8-9?).
But that won't work well as a UI for a few reasons. For one, it's wasted space, since few if any patches use EVERY possible target. For another, you'd need to support 8 sources for each target, which would exceed the 754 (minus 60) pixel width of REs.

As one example, the default patch (Canada) uses 19 patch cables. Let's assume this is probably around average for a patch, and double that number providing 40 traditional slots. That will likely include slots for scaling and mixing too, if designed well, simply by adding a modifier choice (multiply, add, subtract, min, max) which would allow each slot to act like a mini-function on every slot (expanding on the feature set).

In fact, why not do both? Cables for the most common functions, mod matrix for advanced and additional functions. This would be no different from a Eurorack module that has jumpers on the circuit board for additional features, which can alternatively be brought to the front via expander modules (represented in this case by the mod matrix). There's plenty of room on the back panel, hint hint (though they could not be automated).
:)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
esselfortium
Posts: 1065
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 21 Dec 2018

Complex certainly could have a mod matrix like ScuzzyEye described, but it doesn't need one: it already has an alternate, text-based method of making patches without using cables at all. You can do everything using the mod-source dropdown menus on the main view, which work basically the same way as they do in Europa or VK2.
Sarah Mancuso
New album「Transmission Control: Music from Subserial Network」is out now!

User avatar
AttenuationHz
Posts: 1866
Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Location: Back of the Rack-1

Post 21 Dec 2018

theshoemaker wrote:
21 Dec 2018
I am overwhelmed ... will have some playtime over christmas.

I've just been throwing my REndmozier on complex ... need to create some meaningfull randomization rules first.

But it's really nice doing random exploration. Here is a short 15 minute 'Let's REndomize'

Just a thought perhaps a few more excludes and batch the randomness would be in order there. Approach it locally per module?

The way I see it there is far to many possible combinations to get to a patch that might yield favourable results. Might be better to randomise on 1 or 2 outputs at a time also!
Waiting for Navigation by Routing to be added! viewtopic.php?p=275484#p275484f=6&t=749 ... 97#p275497
:refill: http://rwrd.io/qx9m5wx Referral!

User avatar
AttenuationHz
Posts: 1866
Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Location: Back of the Rack-1

Post 21 Dec 2018

ScuzzyEye wrote:
21 Dec 2018
selig wrote:
21 Dec 2018
Not only that but you can effectively send slots to other slots (stacking Mix or Scales & Amp slots), something you cannot do with any mod matrix.
selig wrote:
21 Dec 2018
Even if the matrix could be double wide, it would still take up around 6U tall, leaving 3U for the rest of the synth. And that's all based on NOT allowing multiple outputs from a single source, as you can now do.
You're looking at it backwards. There's not multiple outputs from a single source. There are multiple inputs receiving from the same source.

Seems like a trivial distinction, but it turns writing the code from a near impossible task to a simple list. You list all 68 inputs, and the one thing they are being modulated by. It's the reverse of how matrices have been traditionally presented, but it makes this device work.
Half Full/Half Empty on that, same difference.
Waiting for Navigation by Routing to be added! viewtopic.php?p=275484#p275484f=6&t=749 ... 97#p275497
:refill: http://rwrd.io/qx9m5wx Referral!

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], korsun and 2 guests