What do you use to create patches?

[Byrdman]

I cannot say I have got deeply into creating my own patches. Sure I mess with stock patches on my Rompler to try to improve them, but once I get past simple stuff, like cutting back the reverb or adjusting the amount of detune, I generally find myself making things worse rather than better.

 

Do people have software they like to use or do most experts in this area prefer to work directly with the front panel. It seems to me software that laid out the possible signal paths graphically with all the controls shown in the appropriate places, would be easiest to use (but them, I am used to reading schematics).

 

Is there software that works this way - and, perhaps supports a wide range of synths? Is there a different presentation scheme that experts prefer?

[M Peasley]

I use SoundDiver to program my FS1R and my K2000.

 

Software editors win by lightyears over tiny LCD screens and menus. Altho even SoundDiver can't get to 100% of all the parameters, but it gets to 99% of them.

 

But what works best boils down to what you are used to. Some people get the LCD menus down so well in their memory and fingers that they work fastest from the front panel.

 

But all other things being equal, the software editors give you so much more access to so many parameters all at once on the big computer screen. Plus the advantage of saving your patches to unlimited computer memory, etc.

 

The downside to software editors is support, upgrades, getting orphaned like PC users of SoundDiver now that Emagic will no longer support Windoz....

 

M Peasley

[RABid]

I don't use any purchased program. Sometimes I think I would like to have something for my Emu P2500, but it is not really that bad to program. I almost prefer programming the Roland XV's without the software. It makes me focus more on what I want in a sound, rather than being distracted by the 10 windows in the XV editor. If more software editors were designed as eliquently as the Nord Modular software then I would do much more with it.

 

If you keep in practice so that you can remember the menues most hardware is not bad. Having said that, now that VSTi's are so prominant I do very little hardware programming. Some VSTi's are a true joy to program.

 

Robert

[Superbobus]

I use the tiny fucked LCD screen on my CS6x... Mostly because I'm lazy , also because I don't have a studio and the thing rests in its case waiting for live gigs , third of all because the crappy Yamaha software makes fun of my Mac and because I don't have any space for the board at my computer .

But it worked for me. I got myself some nice home made patches and I can do my gigs with 'em. And sometimes I sit down at the little screen again for an hour.

[Magpel]

For the QS 8, I use the Unisyn editor that came with the software bundle. Works fine.

 

I recently acquired a "defunct-ware" Windows editor for the Z1 but have not warmed to it yet. I've spent so much time learning to program that thing from its panel that I think I'll just keep it that way for now.

 

Softsynths, of course, are there own software editors.

 

I agree that soft editors are great, but I think it's probably a good practice to learn to program on the board itself before availing yourself of the software.

 

MIDIQuest stuff looks good, though I've never tried it.

[Markyboard]

I also use and really like Sounddiver. I use it with my FS1Rs, Z1 and Wavestation EX(soon to be Wavestation A/D).And I just got into Sounddiver EIV editor for the first time last night. Seemed to work fine. For the analogs, I use the knobs. Why else would they put them there.

 

I cannot say I have got deeply into creating my own patches. Sure I mess with stock patches on my Rompler to try to improve them, but once I get past simple stuff, like cutting back the reverb or adjusting the amount of detune, I generally find myself making things worse rather than better.

You cant make a sound worse then the factory preset. You can only make them yours.

[realtrance]

If you get intimate with a particular synth over a period of time, you'll often find that the hardware interface -- LCD or knobs or combination thereof -- is MUCH more intuitive, performative and sensitive than any software you might find to "lay it all out in front of you at once."

 

The problem with having it all in front of you is that you're then reduced to carpal-tunnel syndrome-inducing micro-movements of your mouse, or learning the right shift-alt-ctrl-left-click combinations to nudge control X you've just micro-move-selected with your mouse one value up, etc. -- and pretty soon it feels just about as frustrating and intimidating and unintuitive and distracting as any hardware interface limited to three knobs and a two-line LCD. Oh, and that wonderful software will be outdated, you'll upgrade something else which will crash the system and lose your data, you'll be on PC-to-synth life support systems which when unhooked will leave you near death with anxiety, etc. etc.

 

Me, I just dig into the hardware interface and use the most important software I have, the one behind my eyeballs. Good reading about the principles of music, sound, acoustics, reverberation, etc. will all do more for you than any new hardware or software acquisition you may be tempted by.

 

The reason you're "making it worse than it was before" is that you're scrounging around in the dark, not sure of what you're doing.

 

Fix that. You'll be amazed how efficient most synthesizer interfaces will suddenly become soon thereafter. Yes, even Roland (I'm one of the rare few who actually think Roland interfaces are brilliant acts of refinement and careful understanding of the real use of the instrument over a long period of time, by experienced and knowledgeable musicians -- foolish of me, I know).

 

rt

 

rt

[M Peasley]

Part of the deal I think depends on the synth itself. For example, with the FS1R, you've got basically 16 sound oscillators to mess with in each basic program or layer. Having all 16 up on the screen really helps you keep track of what the heck you're doing. You can copy and paste envelope shapes and the like with software, too. Having copy and paste is pretty intuitive, I think.

 

Also with the K2000, you can have 32 layers in a single program. Having them all up there, at least within quick scrolling distance, also makes keeping track a lot easier.

 

But with lots of other synths where you're maybe not juggling so many parameters and layers, etc., maybe the software doesn't make that much difference.

 

Some synths, like the FS1R, are famous for having interfaces that are really tedious button-pushing mazes. THe K2000 interface is very well thought out and you can get most anywhere with 2-3 button pushes. I still prefer SoundDiver, tho.

 

But I don't agree that the software editors are loaded with complex key combinations. But I do agree with disliking mousing for some tasks, especially for things like turning virtual knobs or pushing virtual sliders. But that's what gizmos like Phatboy and Oxygen8 are for....

 

knobs over sliders

sliders over buttons

buttons over touch-screen

touch-screen over mousing

mousing over typing

typing over punch cards

punch cards over flipping switches

flipping switches over figuring it out yourself

figuring it out yourself over paying someone else to figure it out

paying someone else to figure it out over stumbling blindly in the dark

stumbling blindly in the dark is the best way to make new patches by:

 

turning the knobs over sliders........

 

M Peasley

 

***wait a minute****

 

M Peasley

[aeon]

I use a mixture of front-panel editing, editing via a MIDI knob box and editing via software. That said, editing via software is the way to go when possible, but I always make sure I can do it from a devices front panel.

 

I dont think any way is the right way, but I do think you need to take the device in question into consideration when deciding how you might like to approach it. For example, if you look at a synth like the Roland MKS-70, the fact that it has a classic late-80s-style interface (inc/dec/enter, etc.) means that editor software might be the way to go...but at the same time, the synthesis engine is simple enough that editing it from the front panel would not be the end of the world.

 

Also, editing a device from the front panel also varies in appeal based on the maker and how well they design interfaces. For example, my Roland JD-990 is fairly easy to edit from the front panel, whereas my now-departed Yamaha SY99 was a complete clusterf*ck of a user interface...like many Yamaha devices.

 

I like using editor software because it allows me to quickly organize, manage and back up my programming work, because it makes some operations so much faster than they would be on the front panel (e.g., step-sequencers with no knob control, envelope copy and paste, editing multi-layer PCM synths), and because it allows me to study the architectures of synths I do not own.

 

If I consider my synths on a case-by-case basis:

 

Clavia Nord Modular - Comes with an editor, so issue solved!

 

Waldorf Pulse - Fairly complex engine for a monosynth, so given its matrix-style UI, I prefer to use a computer editor. Also, I acquired it used and the knobs were already somewhat loose, so I just threw it in a rack and I edit it remotely.

 

Waldorf Q Rack - Even with its behemoth engine, this synth is fairly easy to edit from the front panel given its endless rotaries and banks of switches. That said, I like to edit it with a computer for two functions: 1) getting really deep into the modulation matrix (setting up more than a dozen modulation paths, use of math ops), and 2) programming its very powerful arpeggiator. The arp has many modes and settings, and for each step in the arp pattern you may program glides, accent levels, logic functions that control direction and chording, per-step timing shifts and gate modulations...and the synth has no dedicated panel controls for these functions! Seeing the arp pattern in grid format also helps me in terms of conceptualization. The Q also has a 32-step analog-style step-sequencer that can send modulation data as well as note triggers, and while that is fun to use from the front-panel knobs, it is useful to edit and tweak those creations on-screen.

 

Waldorf MicroWave XTk - Like the Q, this synth is fairly easy to program from the front panel, but at the same time, the use of an editor is nice because of things like an 8-stage time-and-level envelope with trigger modes and multiple loop points and a 16-slot modulation matrix with math ops and ~40 sources and destinations. On the other hand, using a computer for editing is a requirement if you want to create your own wavetables. I like that because it allows me to create wavetables via sampling, additive synthesis, frequency modulation, waveshaping, conversion of bitmapped pictures to frequency spectra, etc.

 

Access Virus b - While the Virus does have a fair bit of its functions tucked away in menus, on the whole it is easy to edit from its front panel, and I feel fine editing it either way.

 

Roland JD-990 - I know it from the front panel so well that I can just blaze around that way, but at the same time, using an editor is faster for some functions, especially envelope editing. Also, when I build a patch that uses offset duplicate tones for stereo panning or widening, it is nice to be able to copy envelopes and other settings and then quickly edit them to create the "mirrored" tone.

 

E-mu XL-7 - As far as two-line LCD interfaces go, no one does it better than E-mu, and I can get around the engine fairly quickly. The added front panel buttons and knobs make it faster yet. That said, I much prefer using an editor for this synth for the following reasons: 1) editing modulation paths (cords) is so much faster, and these are key to bringing out the best in this synth...and with 108 potential routings per patch, with ~80 sources and destinations, that two-line interface gets tedious fast. 2) the modern E-mus have a very powerful, polyphonic pattern arpeggiator (32 of them actually) that just begs to be programmed via an on-screen grid-based display. To be honest, I left this aspect of the instrument largely unexplored until I started using a softeditor...and now it drives its own engine and other synths too.

 

E-mu UltraProteus - While it has half the tone layers of the XL-7, and no arpeggiator, this box demands an editor because 1) it has such a small screen 2) it has a deep mod matrix 3) it has two function generators per patch...these are basically 8-stage loopable envelopes with absolute and delta-based level modes, 63 available shapes per segement, logic-based conditional jumping and sequencing...you get the picture.

 

Elektron Machinedrum SPS-1 - The perfect interface...a joy to edit from the front panel, and indeed, that becomes part of the performance aspect of the device. It all happens live, in real-time, and edits become part of the sequences. Every other company should study this box and take notes on how a musical, intuitive interface should be designed!

 

Korg OASYS PCI - Comes with an editor since it is a computer-based card, and given that it has over 80 synthesis engines of varying architectures and over 160 effects modules, I am certainly glad.

 

DaveSmithInstruments Evolver - I edit the synth engine itself directly from the front panel, and I find its matrix-based editor to be fast and painless. On the other hand, I like editing its 4 x 16-step sequencer with the sliders of my Peavey PC1600x...it brings an analog step-sequencer feel to the Evolver, and that is a very good thing...fun and musical.

 

In the end, I feel computer editing allows me to do more programming, and deeper programming, in less time. It allows me to get the most from each synth, thereby maximizing my investment in each of them. It allows me to explore programming options that I may have never chosen if I only had a front panel to work with.

 

Some synths happen to come with keyboards, but to be honest, I am no keyboardist...I am a sound designer and explorer, I love to program, and computer editors are a welcome part of that endeavor.

[Jose Cobelas]

Originally posted by aeon:

E-mu XL-7 - As far as two-line LCD interfaces go, no one does it better than E-mu, and I can get around the engine fairly quickly. The added front panel buttons and knobs make it faster yet. That said, I much prefer using an editor for this synth for the following reasons: 1) editing modulation paths (cords) is so much faster, and these are key to bringing out the best in this synth...and with 108 potential routings per patch, with ~80 sources and destinations, that two-line interface gets tedious fast. 2) the modern E-mus have a very powerful, polyphonic pattern arpeggiator (32 of them actually) that just begs to be programmed via an on-screen grid-based display. To be honest, I left this aspect of the instrument largely unexplored until I started using a softeditor...and now it drives its own engine and other synths too.

 

Aeon, what editor are you using with the XL-7?. I have an MP-7 and I haven´t found anything yet. I´ve tried to fool SoundDiver into believing that it is a Proteus 2000, with little success.

 

I tend to use the synth´s front panels too, especially for tweaking a sound to fit a particular sequence, but having a software editor available is always useful.

 

I use SoundDiver for the Kawai K5000S (it is better to edit all those harmonics graphically), and sometimes for the modulation matrix of the Waldorf MicroQ, as you do, but somehow I find the Waldorf´s layout comfortable.

 

regards,

 

Jose.

[aeon]

Jose asked:

Aeon, what editor are you using with the XL-7?.

MOTU Unisyn.

[Jose Cobelas]

Originally posted by aeon:

Jose asked:

Aeon, what editor are you using with the XL-7?.

MOTU Unisyn.

Thanks, man. Fast reply.

[Gulliver]

Anybody using MidiQuest out there? How it is compared to the better known SoundDiver and Unisyn?

[marino]

As I see it, much of the choice depends on the computer editor - if it is really well done and invites tweaking while giving a complete picture of the patch, I'll use it. That said, I've only used editors for the really complex machines - the Wavestation, SY77 and TG77... But the only one which I really enjoyed using is the Dr.T editor for the Kawai K5. It ran on the Atari (sigh), and it really gave me precious insights on additive synthesis. In fact, even on the Wavestation and SY, once I had grasped the architecture, I stopped using the editor and returned to the front panel.

In my view, one of the most brilliant ideas for synth interfaces was the one implemented on Roland samplers - some way to directly plug a monitor and mouse into the instrument. I used that all the time on Roland stuff.

[aeon]

marino said:

In my view, one of the most brilliant ideas for synth interfaces was the one implemented on Roland samplers - some way to directly plug a monitor and mouse into the instrument.

Agreed, but I have to say, the SoundDiver adaptation for the S-series is better yet...it even makes the labyrinthine hierarchy that is the Roland S-760...make sense!

[M Peasley]

One great use I find for SoundDiver is in reverse-engineering a patch someone else has created. On a deep synth like the K2000, who knows how many parameters have been tweaked in a particular patch. To try and find all the tweaks on the LCD screen would take a really long time - long enough on a complex patch to dissuade me from the effort much of the time.

 

But SoundDiver shows the whole picture of the patch right there on the big screen, and I can quickly find the vital tweaks.

 

Also, for tasks like building drum programs and building keymaps...the little screen is hellishly slow, and so tedious it's really easy to lose track, and your temper.

 

M Peasley

[coyote]

On the JP8000 I twiddle knobs and move sliders til I get something I like, then I save it.

 

Eventually I will likely get a control surface or computer editor for the QS7.1. Just recently I'm finding a desire to start seriously programming it. I know it's capable of lush pads but none of the presets are giving me anything close to what I want and I'm using the JP for other things on that particular song.

 

Does anyone have a copy of the old Unisyn (which came free with the Alesis) that they'd consider sharing with an Alesis owner?