RANT: Untethered parameter numbers

[Jim Alfredson]

A conversation I had once with David Weiser centered around the arbitrary parameter value ranges of most synths in the digital age. Constricted by the MIDI protocols limit of 128 quantized values, most manufacturers have not bothered to ditch the 0 to 127 range that we are all familiar with when editing filters, envelopes, chorus rates, etc. In these modern times, they still cling to these weird numbers even though internally the control resolution is much finer.

Kurzweil's offerings do not do this. Filter cutoff is in Hz. Delay times are in seconds or milliseconds. Same with envelope times. Chorus rates are in Hz. Amplitudes are in dB. It makes sense and is far easier to program and to predict what you're going to get when tweaking. It has spoiled me, quite frankly. Well that and working in a DAW. You never see a DAW EQ using some weird scale that has no relation to Hz. It would make things so confusing.

 

Contrary to the Kurzweil is the Prophet X I just picked up. I love the synth and I'm intrigued by the programmability of it but dammit, Dave Smith (love you, RIP) why is the filter range from 0 to 255?!? What does that MEAN? Likewise delay time is 0 to 255. Okay. 255 what? It has no relation to BPM or seconds or anything. It's just 0 to 255. If I want a specific delay time, I just have to wing it and then use my phone as a stop watch to make sure I'm hitting the mark, I guess. The fine tuning control is in cents at least. It doesn't actually tell you that but I confirmed it with my tuner.

 

I own many synths and most of them are the same. The HydraSynth is another example. 0 to 127 for most parameters. Delay and reverb times are at least in seconds or milliseconds but that's about it. Everything else is some arbitrary number that is basically meaningless.

 

I've been watching a lot of videos about the Waldorf Iridium because I'm considering one and thankfully it appears that at least the key parameters are represented in standardized notation; Hz, ms, etc.

 

Why don't more manufacturers pay attention to this?

[Dave Bryce]

As someone who’s been using Kurzweil synths for years, I couldn’t agree more.

 

dB

[Docbop]

Blame computer geeks....   8 bits  11111111 = 255.    

[Theo Verelst]

It's not mainly the parameter's range and quantization choices that are on apron strings to concern me most. In the prophet, are those 2^7 or 2^8 values well chosen, for instance containing all the tones in an octave and their harmonics, and how is the internal accuracy of the final filter control signal? And, is the final analog signal reaching the analogue filter control input adjustable for offset and range, or even linearity?

 

Of course there's a design there to meet the sound specs set by probably Dave. Ina digital device, it's essentially possible to present data in more human form, but it could be that instead of filter 0-255, you get 256 values in Hertz on your display, but they aren't very nice numbers, and quite possibly the digital signal path designers wouldn't for the life of them know the exact frequency their filter works on, actually.

 

T

[bjosko]

I have a relatively observation. Some keyboards today is built up in a way that every control from keys to sustainpedal to every tweak able controller seems to communicate internal to the sound engine through the Midi protocol. So if you have one single midi glitch, the whole keyboard goes silent and unresponsive.

My guess is that it is constructed this way so it will  be easier  to implement the midi protocol for sending and receiving  the same controls through external midi. 
That might be a reason for the 0-127 resolution.

[CyberGene]

I’d take my Hydrasynth over any Kurzweil any day or night, even if it counted things in Roman numeral 😀 That being said, I agree that 0-127 is a bit awkward and could be changed. Even a percentage 0-100 is more intuitive. 

[AnotherScott]

I think there could be a number of possible issues here...

 

One possibility is that manufacturers might think (and not necessarily unreasonably so) that their typical user doesn't have a sense of what dB, Hz, or ms mean. So a simple "minimum to maximum" range, identical for all (or most) parameters, might be seen as user-friendlier.

 

Also, picking up from bjosko's point, some boards do use MIDI for the internal functionality, and so parameters may be limited to 127 values. This can make the "real" values less user-friendly again, as the min/max range needs to be somehow divided into 127 units (maybe 127 linearly equal values, maybe not), so the values available will not be simple integers.

 

Even if the board does not use MIDI for that internal functionality, it may still use 127-value MIDI parameters for its external functionality, and again it might not be so user-friendly to have one set of numbers for internal operation and a different set of numbers that apply to the same parameters when operation is made part of a MIDI sequence. (Or one set of figures for "programmed" values and a different set of figures if these parameters are mapped to real-time controls.)

 

And the potential complication may not be just for the user... it can also be more work for the developers to code for two sets of values (i.e. a higher resolution "real" value for internal operation and a lower resolution "MIDI-friendly" value) for all of these parameters, for a benefit that they do not think would be significant to many customers.

 

But yeah, I'm just spitballing. IOW making things up. ;-) But those are some possibilities that popped into my head.

[Tusker]

Need real world parameters!!

I remember the dark ages of super JV synths which were very capable and popular but didn’t have any real world information such Hz for filter cutoff. Well it’s nice to have resonant filters but how to tune them?

 

Fortunately there were kind souls in that community who had built tables with this data, so you would squint over these tables, much as a previous generation of high school students looked up logarithmic tables to do math. Uggh!

[Reezekeys]

49 minutes ago, AnotherScott said:

And the potential complication may not be just for the user... it can also be more work for the developers to code for two sets of values (i.e. a higher resolution "real" value for internal operation and a lower resolution "MIDI-friendly" value) for all of these parameters, for a benefit that they do not think would be significant to many customers

 

That would be my guess. Time is money and the synth manufacturers probably figured "why bother"? You have to decide how to map your internal parameters to 127 midi values, or get into the more complicated NRPN for finer control - which means sending up to four midi messages to set one value (think about goosing a slider and how much midi data would need to be generated). Now with midi 2.0 this should change, correct? It makes sense to me that having an expanded range of values able to be sent in a single message should make things easier for programmers to map finer parameter controls to midi – making it easier to map them to real-world values.

[Adam Burgess]

Having gone thru almost every SysEx message I could on my Integra, every parameter is in Hz that should be, for example. That does mean that the values when moving in steps of 0.1Hz greatly go beyond 128 steps (and, therefore, longer and longer SysEx messages…) Same with delays in steps of 10ms - and, these can be represented easily as note values if they're tied to the clock. Best of both. 

So, Roland definitely do it. I'm sure Korg have for a long time…

Regarding MIDI 2.0 fixing this, a 45/60mm slider, or a pot hardly gives the greatest resolution, and keyboards with actual encoders, especially with visual feedback, are still expensive. Everyone wants a cheap MIDI controller that does everything.

[Theo Verelst]

Those 256 different filter values could also be irregularly tuned, for instance logarithmic, or rounded numbers.

 

For digital a lot of digital filters have z theoretical correction factor for higher frequencies, because of sampling errord, which requires additional computations for the filter coefficients.

 

The Langweils since the PC3 at least have no publicized Midi protpcol, partly that might be because the concatenation of Dsp elements might be collectively tuned based on the user parameters, i.e. there isn't a direct, one to one relation between one signal path compute element and one user parameter.

 

T

[PianoMan51]

I fell in love with VAST in my mid-90s K2500 because of the ‘musicians language’ of the user interface. Fell directly out of love when I spent hours to make simple modifications in a patch, having to dive level upon level for each minor tweak. 
 

I’ve designed UIs, and experienced the panic when a design is required to add multitudes of unexpected features. IMHO there is no correct solution, and I’m happy to mentally juggle terminology if I can just accomplish what I want to do.

[Al Coda]

12 hours ago, Jim Alfredson said:

why is the filter range from 0 to 255?!? What does that MEAN? Likewise delay time is 0 to 255. Okay. 255 what? It has no relation to BPM or seconds or anything. It's just 0 to 255.

 

0-127 = 128

0-255 = 256

2x 128 = 256

 

I don´t own the instrument,- but I can imagine it´s the same control range,- w/ in display visible double resolution,- maybe to make it easier to store more precise adjustments into memory by usage of interim values.

In the past, users often complained the resolution of 128 steps for p.ex. filter cutoff frequency.

How does it sound when sweeping the Prophet X´s filter cutoff local and over MIDI and compared to other synths you own ?

Can you hear any differences ?

 

 

A.C.

[RABid]

I have to say that in 40+ years of programming synths I have never EVER sat down and thought "gonna dial the filter to XXX hertz. It has always been a tweak and listen process. And the problem isn't just MIDI, digital encoders that are not endless have a finite range and resolution. I'm sure manufacturers had to put in work arounds to allow users to fine tune oscillators. Can you imagine using a true 128 system to tune oscillators? I wonder how they approached that with early analogs that had patch savings. I never really noticed a difference in tuning my Chroma or Moog Source, both having membrane buttons and a master control to dial in a value, and my MemoryMoog which had dedicated knobs for octave, course and find tuning. 

[Jim Alfredson]

Yes, I understand that 0-127 and 0-255 are based in binary computer speak, having cut my teeth in the world of 8bit Commodores back in the day. And that was WAY back in the day. We're getting on 40+ years. Other manufacturers have figured it out since then.

I honor and respect Dave Smith and everything he did for the world of synthesis. I own a Prophet 12, Pro2, Prophet 10 rev4, Oberheim OB-X8, Prophet X, and a Mopho Keyboard. His modern synths are already classics, imo. But there are some functionality quirks that just don't make sense to me in the modern age. For example, on the Prophet X, you can load samples in via a USB flashdrive but you have to load actual patches that use those samples via SYSEX over MIDI. Why!?!? It's archaic and inconvenient.

 

But I'm not just complaining about Sequential; a lot of modern synths don't use standard units of measurement. 

 

[Jim Alfredson]

20 minutes ago, RABid said:

I have to say that in 40+ years of programming synths I have never EVER sat down and thought "gonna dial the filter to XXX hertz. 

 

I'm a piano tuner and a mix / mastering engineer. So yes, I think of EQ in terms of frequencies.

[Al Coda]

10 minutes ago, RABid said:

I have never EVER sat down and thought "gonna dial the filter to XXX hertz. It has always been a tweak and listen process.

 

QFT !

 

OTOH,- see below ...

 

12 minutes ago, RABid said:

the problem isn't just MIDI, digital encoders that are not endless have a finite range and resolution. I'm sure manufacturers had to put in work arounds to allow users to fine tune oscillators. Can you imagine using a true 128 system to tune oscillators?

 

Well. analog and digital world CAN behave different in that department.

P.ex. inside a Kurzweil, everything works via MIDI,- all the sliders, buttons, pedals connected as also the big dial.

Doesn´t mean all depends on that so called "128" system.

Tuning the filter to Hz,- that´s what the display shows in DSP page,- is not everyone´s cup of tea,- but it also doesn´t prohibit from adjusting by ear.

Tuning "oscillators" to HZ and cents doesn´t too while trying to do using a 128-system would.

 

22 minutes ago, RABid said:

I wonder how they approached that with early analogs that had patch savings. I never really noticed a difference in tuning my Chroma or Moog Source, both having membrane buttons and a master control to dial in a value, and my MemoryMoog which had dedicated knobs for octave, course and find tuning. 

 

Well, when one of my MInimoog D got stolen and I bought a MOOG Source to replace, I quickly recognized it was impossible because I recognized "steps" when using it´s encoder to adjust oscillator beating/ fine tune OSC #2 to OSC #1.

So,- digital control of analog OSCs already didn´t work perfect because of resolution possible at that time.

It didn´t had to do w/ MIDI at all though.

Never owned a Chroma or Memorymoog and I can imagine these worked somewhat different.

I think, in the past, it was all about what electronic components and a Z80 processor were able to achieve.

Today´s components are way more precise, especially when user UI´s allow perfect access.

 

But what we love from true analog is imperfection to a degree.

 

 

A.C.

[Tusker]

1 hour ago, RABid said:

I have to say that in 40+ years of programming synths I have never EVER sat down and thought "gonna dial the filter to XXX hertz. It has always been a tweak and listen process. 

I can only tell you what I do … The two most common patches for tuned filters are the resonant-filter sine wave patch (which sounds a bit like using a sine wave oscillator but different) and an organ/pad patch with each of the four tones pitched as different partials. Both patches sound different from using a sine waveform because you can send noise through the filter to add character. There are other patches using the peaking filter (resonant all-pass) where tuning the filter to a harmonic of the waveform passing through the filter is very helpful. It’s great for gongs, timpani, sub-bass and percussive stuff like that. It just saves time to use the frequencies first and you can use your ears to go off the beaten path from there. Since you have filter envelopes you have more than 128 steps. Filter envelope depth and envelope sustain level are two more variables which come into play.
 

It’s not for everyone but using filters as sound sources can be very cool.

[The Real MC]

It depends on the device.

 

Arbitrary numbers never stopped me from enjoying my Memorymoog and other vintage synths.  I do appreciate the real world units on my Kurzweil 1000 series racks. On my Andromeda... can't say they are crucial to my sound design.

 

Digital delays, reverbs, mixers... there have BETTER be real world units when I tweak them.

[AnotherScott]

8 hours ago, PianoMan51 said:

I fell in love with VAST in my mid-90s K2500 because of the ‘musicians language’ of the user interface. Fell directly out of love when I spent hours to make simple modifications in a patch, having to dive level upon level for each minor tweak. 

While the PC4 has made basic things (like splits and layers) easier to deal with than on earlier generations, I still avoid the deeper VAST programming, as I discussed recently at https://forums.musicplayer.com/topic/183098-yamaha-modx/?do=findComment&comment=2912570

 

[Al Coda]

10 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

I still avoid the deeper VAST programming

 

 

Why ?

It´s not really difficult,- at least not that much as it appears to be when looking into the instrument´s menues.

On my PC3, which I bought by interest in learning VAST, I always use it´s small display and avoided using the buggy editor software after a few days.

The FUNs were the most cryptic to me, but I learned using ´em by trial ´n error and usage by ear.

When I got the sound I wanted, that was it.

But you can get lost because of the many possibilities VAST offers.

It might become time consuming because it´s fun too.

 

 

A.C.

 

 

[AnotherScott]

18 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

I still avoid the deeper VAST programming

7 hours ago, Al Coda said:

Why ?

It´s not really difficult,- at least not that much as it appears to be when looking into the instrument´s menues.

 

I think part of it is just that it is different from everything else, so it can be harder to intuit what to do from my previous experience on other boards, I'll give an example.

 

First, just to make sure we're all clear on the terminology used:

 

A single, selectable, keyboard playable sound on the listed boards below would be a Yamaha Part, Roland Tone, Korg Program, or Kurzweil Program.

A single component of that sound would be a Yamaha Element, Roland Partial, Korg Oscillator, or Kurzweil Layer.

 

Okay, so let's say you want to alter the volume of one component of a sound...

 

...on Yamaha MODX, from the Part editing screen: Select the Element you want to modify, select Amplitude, adjust the Level parameter.

 

...on Korg Kronos, from the Program editing screen: Select Osc, adjust the Level parameter for the Oscillator you want to modify.

 

...on Roland Fantom-0, from the Tone editing screen: Select Amp, select the Partial you want to modify, adjust the Level parameter.

 

While the "order" in which you navigate the steps to get to the necessary parameter differs, ultimately you are using what is essentially the same process to get to the same place on each of those boards. Each fundamental component of a sound has a Level parameter to alter its volume, and in looking at the menus, it was in a place where I would expect to find it (either on a screen of editing for those components, or on a screen where you specify levels). Having never done anything of this type on any of these boards before, but just with knowledge of the terminology and basic navigation of the board, I could easily locate these parameters.

 

I went to do this on the Kurzweil. So from the Program editing screen...

 

... first I tried selecting the Layer tab (the equivalent of the Korg/Yamaha approach of selecting the "component" first and expecting to then see the adjustments you can make to that component), and while it provides 20 parameters for each layer, none of them are volume, level, or gain.

 

... then I tried selecting the Output tab (closer to the equivalent of the Roland reverse approach of selecting the type of adjustment first, and expecting to then see where you can apply that adjustment), and while it provides an additional 7 parameters for each layer, again, none of them are volume, level, or gain.

 

The way that "made sense" to me to locate this function didn't work. You need to know a Kurzweil-specific way of locating it. But here's the funny thing... unlike any of those other boards, where there is only one place to make this adjustment, the Kurzweil actually gives you TWO places you can make this adjustment. The irony here is that they put this setting in two places, and neither was one of the places where I expected to find the control!

[Al Coda]

1 hour ago, AnotherScott said:

let's say you want to alter the volume of one component of a sound...

 

1 hour ago, AnotherScott said:

I went to do this on the Kurzweil. So from the Program editing screen...

 

... first I tried selecting the Layer tab (the equivalent of the Korg/Yamaha approach of selecting the "component" first and expecting to then see the adjustments you can make to that component), and while it provides 20 parameters for each layer, none of them are volume, level, or gain.

 

... then I tried selecting the Output tab (closer to the equivalent of the Roland reverse approach of selecting the type of adjustment first, and expecting to then see where you can apply that adjustment), and while it provides an additional 7 parameters for each layer, again, none of them are volume, level, or gain.

 

The way that "made sense" to me to locate this function didn't work. You need to know a Kurzweil-specific way of locating it. But here's the funny thing... unlike any of those other boards, where there is only one place to make this adjustment, the Kurzweil actually gives you TWO places you can make this adjustment. The irony here is that they put this setting in two places, and neither was one of the places where I expected to find the control!

 

RTFM !

In a Kurzweil, each layer can contain different algorithms,- p.ex. a sample map/ keymap, a VA-1 algorithm,- the MOOG filter emulation which consumates a complete layer, a sync OSC which consumates a complete layer too,- while "master" and "slave" OSC both consumate an individual layer,- and/or stuff in the signal chain after the filter.

Each layer contains a invisible "amplifier",- but it´s also possible to place an amplifier w/ AMPENV in the very last layer in the signal chain of a program in DSPMOD page.

(in Kurzweil world, splits and layers in the sense of the other machines can be created already on program level,- you don´t need "setup" / "Multi" to do so.)

On the "bottom left" parameter column of each (cascaded) layer´s DSP parameter page, there´s a parameter you can adjust in "dB".

That would be the one you´re looking for,- WHEN this layer is routed directly to the "amplifier".

It controls the volume of that layer.

If it´s NOT, the amplifier of that layer is overridden and it has to be because you cascade components inside several layers on DSP level.

You cannot change that parameter (or,- it´s does nothing) WHEN this layer is routed into a follow up layer !

In that case,- you leave it to "-97 dB" and go to the very last layer where you ´re able to adjust gain of that layer.

THIS is what controls the overall volume of these cascaded layers and the AMPENV is active there too as also all the other modifiers/modulators modulating amp amplitude.

 

In the program edit menue,- you simply go to the "Common" page and cut or boost overall PROGRAM output level to your desire.

THIS is what you haven´t found even it´s not hidden !

 

Once you know this,- it´s pretty simple and very logical.

 

In opposite to the machines you mention above, the Kurzweil VAST synthesizer is a MODULAR engine.

There are no fixed assignments of synthesis components for THE LAYER.

You assign different DSP tools to it,- depending on the algorithm and the arrangement of DSP blocks inside that algorithm,- and you´re able to change DSP routings inside each algorithm as well.

You can even create your own algorithms !

 

The idea of VAST is killer and all the other machines cannot do what VAST can.

You´d buy a VAST machine because of these features and not when you want all to be simple and like it is in other machines.

 

The defiinition of "LAYER" is not different from other machines per sé,- but you´re able to layer different things:

 

layer "Layers" inside a "Program" (or cascade layers inside a program,- or a combination of both = layer groups of cascaded layers p.ex.)

 

or

 

layer "progams" inside a "setup" / "multi"

 

In setup / multi, you adjust relative levels for each zone and when yopu go to master FX page,- there´s multiband-compressor and EQ.

You can change the sequential order of both and you adjust overal setup/ multi level on the output of the very last effect which in my case is always "EQ".

 

The "layer" inside a VAST program is comparable to a synth-row of a Yammi CS80 synth which has 2 rows of these.

In VAST, you get up to 32 !

A CS80 synth-row comes w/ a fixed order of single OSC and modifiers.

In VAST, it is all modular.

 

I typed from my head ...

So again,- RTFM before complaining and when you don´t want a modular machine, don´t buy one.

The best way to learn VAST is reverse engineering existing programs and programming your own programs from scratch.

 

There are a few other things to blame on Kurzweil machines, but for sure it´s not the modularity of VAST !
 

 

 

A.C.

[Delaware Dave]

1 hour ago, Al Coda said:

So again,- RTFM before complaining ..   

 

 

True Dat!

[AnotherScott]

19 hours ago, Al Coda said:

RTFM !

Maybe that's it in a nutshell... When it comes to sound editing, I can get much farther WITHOUT reading a manual (or just looking up an occasional thing here and there) on a Roland/Yamaha/Korg than I can on the Kurz.

 

19 hours ago, Al Coda said:

(in Kurzweil world, splits and layers in the sense of the other machines can be created already on program level,- you don´t need "setup" / "Multi" to do so.)

That's also true on a comparable Yamaha, Roland, or Korg.

 

19 hours ago, Al Coda said:

In the program edit menue,- you simply go to the "Common" page and cut or boost overall PROGRAM output level to your desire.

THIS is what you haven´t found even it´s not hidden !

No, I was not looking to change the level of a Program, I was looking to change the level of one of the up-to-32 Layers WITHIN a Program. (And yes, I did find it, but it just wasn't in a place where I would have thought to look... it's a DSP function.)

 

19 hours ago, Al Coda said:

In opposite to the machines you mention above, the Kurzweil VAST synthesizer is a MODULAR engine.

There are no fixed assignments of synthesis components for THE LAYER.

You assign different DSP tools to it,- depending on the algorithm and the arrangement of DSP blocks inside that algorithm,- and you´re able to change DSP routings inside each algorithm as well.

You can even create your own algorithms !

 

The idea of VAST is killer and all the other machines cannot do what VAST can.

You´d buy a VAST machine because of these features and not when you want all to be simple and like it is in other machines.

This essentially started with my saying that, for program editing, Kurz is more complicated for me to use than Yamaha/Roland/Korg, and your saying it's not difficult... but much of what you're saying here, to me, just confirms that it IS more difficult. More flexible, yes, but also more challenging. That's my point, and it sounds like we may be largely agreeing here after all.

 

19 hours ago, Al Coda said:

So again,- RTFM before complaining and when you don´t want a modular machine, don´t buy one.

The best way to learn VAST is reverse engineering existing programs and programming your own programs from scratch.

I don't care about having a modular machine--EXCEPT to the extent that it may have let other people (like Dave Weiser) create great sounds with it, which I can then use. I'm generally not interested in programming sounds from scratch (except on something like my Nord Lead 3). I bought the PC4 because of its sounds, action, weight, and numerous other features, but not for its deep user-programmability. The board works for my uses, so I'm not buying into your implication that I bought the wrong machine (i.e. " when you don't want a modular machine, don´t buy one."). It's still a great board for what I do use it for. But if you're going to ask why I avoid deep program editing on the Kurz when I readily tweak programs on other boards, you seem to be giving the same answer I gave... i.e. that VAST is not like other systems, so there's going to be a significant learning curve.

 

I'm perfectly happy with the Kurz interface for creating Multis and such. But if I need to get into deeper program editing... I'll do that on one of my other boards, where I can already do what I need, more quickly and easily. I'm sure VAST can do more, but it's not necessarily stuff I need to do. If I can do what I need to do more easily elsewhere, I will. I'm not sufficiently motivated to learn to drive an 18-wheeler when I can get where I need to go in my Subaru. But who knows, maybe some day I'll feel inspired to take the dive. ;-)

[Al Coda]

14 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

I'm generally not interested in programming sounds from scratch

 

Which says it all.

It indicates you´re not a skilled synthesist and/or synthesizer programmer.

To my understanding, you´re a preset jockey occasionally tweaking existing factory- or commercial and free 3rd party patches on demand.

Nothing against that,- but then I still wonder why you buy synthesizers,- machines offering amazing tweakability and programming possibilities,- where you use just only a very few percent of their potential.

 

I´m different in that department trying to squeeze the absolute max out of every piece of gear I bought and will buy in future.

It might be the reason why I don´t buy latest/greatest when released,- often not at all,- being satisfied w/ what I own and use it as long as possible until I feel a urgent need to aquire something new because I´m missing something I cannot achieve w/ the gear I own.

 

In Kurzweil world, I´m still satisfied w/ my now "ancient" PC361 because I programmed a lot of patches for and even PC3K, Artist, Forte, PC4 and K2700 were/are available.

Nonetheless the K2700 is still a candidate for me when I decide to retire the PC361.

That´s why I´d like to see something like a K2700-7 (73 or 76 keys) and/or K2700-61.

 

 

A.C.

[stoken6]

1 hour ago, Al Coda said:

That´s why I´d like to see something like a K2700-7 (73 or 76 keys) and/or K2700-61.

Definitely. PC4-7 is nice, but I would welcome an internal PSU.

 

Cheers, Mike

[AnotherScott]

 

On 10/18/2022 at 8:02 AM, Al Coda said:

On 10/17/2022 at 4:56 PM, AnotherScott said:

I'm generally not interested in programming sounds from scratch

Which says it all.

It indicates you´re not a skilled synthesist and/or synthesizer programmer.

 

You left out "I'm generally not interested in programming sounds from scratch (except on something like my Nord Lead 3)."  Heck, back in the day, I was thinking about replacing my Minimoog with a Moog Source (yay! user presets!) but even then, did not want to deal with single-knob one-parameter-at-a-time programming, with no immediate visual overview of how all the pieces fit together.

 

But despite that, you're mostly right. ;-) As you say...

 

On 10/18/2022 at 8:02 AM, Al Coda said:

To my understanding, you´re a preset jockey occasionally tweaking existing factory- or commercial and free 3rd party patches on demand.

 

That covers 99% of my usage, yes. And I find that tweaking to be easier on Fantom-0 than on PC4 (with MODX in between). But that works out okay. Because Kurzweil sounds are so good that I rarely feel tempted to tweak, whereas on the Roland, I have to modify the factory presets quite frequently to get them closer to what I'm after.

 

ETA: To be more fair here, the Kurz is more often used as a "bottom" board, and the Roland as a top, which means I emphasize different sounds on the two boards. When it comes to what are more typically my "top board" sounds, yes, sometimes a Kurz sound hits the spot, but other times not at all... and I'll just live with the closest preset I can find or get the sound from another board. 

 

On 10/18/2022 at 8:02 AM, Al Coda said:

Nothing against that,- but then I still wonder why you buy synthesizers,- machines offering amazing tweakability and programming possibilities,- where you use just only a very few percent of their potential.

 

Because while I may not be much into programming, I'm very much into playing, composition, and live performance. I don't need to do any programming for the PC4-7 to be one of the most useful boards I've had. It sounds great, and has great performance features (e.g. aftertouch, ribbon, custom sample loading, easy zoning, good MIDI functionality, assignable outs, easy selection of favorites, reasonably seamless patch switching), has an action I enjoy playing, all in a sub-20 lb package I can easily take to gigs. It just happens to come with a bunch of other stuff I won't use. I'll probably never use its sequencer, either. But there's no reason to wonder why I'd buy it. What else ticks those boxes as well?

[ProfD]

On 10/16/2022 at 4:29 PM, RABid said:

It has always been a tweak and listen process. 

 

On 10/16/2022 at 5:38 PM, Tusker said:

It just saves time to use the frequencies first and you can use your ears to go off the beaten path from there.

Agreed. Maybe beyond the limitations of nomenclature and/or values, the engineers aren't putting more effort into refining it with the belief that sound designers and musicians will always use their ears before printing and/or playing a sound. 😎

[Al Coda]

19 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

You left out "I'm generally not interested in programming sounds from scratch (except on something like my Nord Lead 3)

 

That was because I never bought anything NORD.

But that´s another story.

 

19 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

I'm very much into playing, composition, and live performance

 

That´s good !

 

But I typed my lines above because, IMO, when buying a Kurz, some more in depth programming skills are essential.

At least, these were for me,- just because I wasn´t satisfied w/ a s##tload of PC3 factory programs.

I´m aware Kurz added some better multisamples in piano- and electric piano department which makes it easier to use out of the box as also basic strings and orchestral programs were good enough already in the PC3.

But when it came to synths, I rarely found something I didn´t had to edit in depth or program from scratch.

The KORE 64 synths were a joke IMO and lots of older VAST stuff is derived from former K-series programs,- use sampled synth waveforms instead of VA-1 (which wasn´t available in K2000, 2500, 2600).

P.ex. I also re-programmed some factory patches using less layers and consequently save voices for more overall polyphony, just only by using the VA engine,- instead using sampled waveforms, each in a layer together w/ filter and amp, then stack all the layers for detune.

It consumates too much DSP power/ voices for just only one program.

Anyway,- but when I only prefered factory patches with or without minor tweaks,- I possibly bought a Yamaha Mofif series in the past or a Montage today.

 

 

A.C.