Posted by: Koshdukai
« on: May 27, 2016, 12:05:57 pm »Mr Koshdukai:
Please think a minute, in a live gig its logic to have a direct access to some basic controls like the cutoff of the filter, the resonance, the attack of the envelopes, etc.... I understand this.
This point of view applies more to simple synthesizer designs like a Minimoog, but I am talking about the ultra complex designs like the Matrix 12, the Modular or the Synclavier that are nor conceived for an instant approach programming.
The complexity of the architecture of this designs force to spend hours or most times days in the develope of quality programs.
But well,....if you use a Matrix 12 like a Minimoog, forgetting all the modulation devices and the matrix itself, you are loosing your time, better leave all the advanced designs and get a real Minimoog clone and be happy moving pots and pushing buttons.
In complex synthesizers to have "total recall" is a must, like also it is to have a complete System Exclusive implementation for realtime reprograming.
Ending, I understand that what I'm proposing is going against the current and never my point of view would be considered by any marketing study.
But the designs of the real Synclavier, the real Modular Moog and the real Matrix 12 probably would never get the approval of the marketing management today, due its concepts simply are oriented to a small elite.
Now there is a real contradiction by Arturia: Create elite products that require deep knowledge and skills for a proper use and at the same time pretend that focus groups of teenagers beginners opine on them properly.
Are we still talking about Bank+Program Changes? Or are you now talking about parameter MIDI mapping? Because that exists too in all Arturia soft-instruments.
Traditionally and maybe as a way to cut on development (and testing) costs and due to the VST inherited automation capabilities, SysEx isn't usually added as the most critical feature to be supported on a software instrument. SysEx was/is important on hardware since that's really the best low-level generic way to access most if not all of its parameters. VSTs use a different way to expose their "internals" to their hosts/DAWs so SysEx has no real use, unless you're trying to do a perfect 1:1 100% emulation of an hardware device for... scientific purposes or research, which obviously none of the Arturia virtual instruments are. These are playable, tweakable emulations that try to capture the essence of the originals and extend them in musical/playable ways... at least, that's how I see them (obvious personal opinion, not based on any "official" Arturia comment, so I could be wrong).
So, besides the lack of Bank Change on some of the instruments, what is really and specifically (non generic) issue with what Arturia instruments regarding MIDI standards ? Because now I'm really curious which of the existing MIDI mappable parameters aren't you able to control through MIDI and why would you need SysEx to control a VST when VSTs have already their own parameter exposing API, because that's how DAWs automate them.
Are you trying to use soft-instruments as standalone virtual hardware replacements, without a DAW ? Even so, MIDI Mapping might prove enough(?) remote access to the instrument parameters (granted, not all, in some cases).
