So, First off - KL3 is amazing - quality way beyond any other controller I’ve ever owned or seen.
But the one thing I’ve always wanted, and I’m still not sure that KL3 does it … I want to able to edit a preset from the KL3 - just like the whole (KL3 + whatever plugin) is a proper ‘synth’. Messing with the KL3 and Analog Lab it seems to me that you basically have to edit any plugin on the computer (yes, with the mouse) and then you can assign whatever parameters as macros to be controlled by the encodes and/or the sliders.
That obviously makes KL3 a very good expressive instrument, but it still falls short of providing any kind of synthesizer edit interface. Or am I wrong?
I realize that with these plugins, editing a present directly from the KL3 would involve tons of parameters - so you’d have to page through (etc. etc.) … but you still want this feature - it’s what the whole muscle memory of synth editing is all about.
… or maybe the KL3 is just a very nice quality controller, where any real in-depth editing still goes on on the computer screen.
I’m pretty sure you’re right about your claims. I think that the idea is to go through 2 main phases: 1) Modeling; 2) Performance. So you do the initial sound modelling with a computer in individual presets and then assign the software controls you want to the physical controls you have on your MIDI controller. Then, during performance, you use the physical controls for program changes and expressive sound tweaks.
FWIW, I recently realized the following so I’m not sure you’re aware about this. All sliders, knobs and pedals in AL can be reassigned (not just the Macros). You go to Controls (click the button at the bottom of the Edit Preset screen) and right-click on knob/slider labels and Assign to pretty much all controls of a softsynth. Of course, it’s not 1:1 between physical knobs and software controls so you have to choose the subset you want (if the existing assignments don’t suit you).
As far as controlling absolutely everything with some paging, I’m guessing you’d still need to have a hardware synth. I personally prefer the above 2-phases approach because I hate deep menu diving on hardware and dealing with touchscreens or complicated button presses. I also don’t trust vendors to maintain their patch editor software (when available) through years of OS upgrades. Also, if we look at softsynths like Pigments, we’d have pages and pages to dig through on a small screen if it were implemented in hardware. And let’s not get into the discussion of repairs/replacement of hardware.
Oh, one more thing. On my end, I use my Minilab 3 for the Modeling (often on a couch) and a simple hardware synth (with shallow menus) as MIDI controller for the Performance part. I find it nice to have the ability to have a different environment for both phases (with my back problems).
Just my view. Not sure if this helps.
Cheers, Eric.
HI @sequencer and welcome to The Sound Explorers Forum!
Firstly, myself and the other ‘External Moderators’ do not work for Arturia, so this is my own opinion here.
I think your post is broadly correct.
In addition to the excellent points raised by @EricP , i’d also add that i’ve never seen Midi controllers as any kind of replacement for the control panel of a hardware synth. I have a fair collection of hardware synths here and they’re all different, even the mono-synths with two oscillators and a sub oscillator, they’re ALL different and most have way more controls than would be practical, even with menu diving and muscle memory would only come into it if one was to edit the same synth over again.
It’s one of the reasons myself, and many other people, have got back into hardware synths. Not to replace soft-synths by any means, more a case of one augmenting the other, the best of both worlds as it were.
If i want to get into that ‘hardcore’ tweaking in realtime whilst recording, then i’ll break out my Moog SQ37 or Bass Station 2 or similar, which are ideal for those kinds of tasks.
If i, or a visiting player just wants to ‘perform’, then it’s a Midi controller. This seems to be the way most people i know operate too. Obviously though YMMV.
Rant coming up, sorry! I too have had my share of analog synths with lots of knobs in the past. What made me somehow grow out of them is that I don’t tinker as much anymore while rehearsing or playing live (beyond the common 8-9 sliders + 8-9 knobs & more importantly, per-preset pedal configs). Yes, the muscle memory, that’s true. It sure accounts for something but it could be true if you choose your MIDI assignments carefully (with soft-synths) – i.e. focusing on what’s necessary for playing live. Less brain overload as people are watching. OK, my age has something to do with it too LOL. But the reliability of hardwired stuff is also an important point so I agree that combining things is the right thing to do.
I guess that part of my own evolution is that I realized that the layout of analog synths (and even current digital ones) aren’t as logical/obvious as they should be. Of course, when you commit to something, you learn it. But then, you’re stuck with it too (who would sell their precious synth? LOL). I remember my MS-20 mono synth which I had the block diagram in my head and understood how to rewire things with the patch cords. I feel I don’t want to think like that anymore.
Going back to my Pigments example. I find it’s so logical in how it’s designed and so flexible that I wouldn’t expect event current synths to come near wrt the enjoyment of sound design. Ah but I haven’t tried the Astrolab nor the Freaks. I could be stood corrected?
I have to I confirm though that I’m also still combining hardware and soft synths. But I choose my hardware to be more simplistic with shallow menus and as said, little dependence on external software editors.
EDIT: Lastly, For pure soft-synth tinkering, one could use host software and create a panel with lots of knobs matching most plugin knobs and use some kind of paging on the MIDI controller (different channels or config profiles). I’ve done that before with Mainstage, my Minilab 3 and switching between Minilab User Profiles.
I’m hoping this will trigger more rants from others.
@EricP
I wish all rants were that civilised and respectful!
You mentioned your ms20, you probably already know that Korg actually made a hardware controller for their plugin that actually looked like a smaller ms20 shine years ago, so as far as I’m aware it was mapped 1:1 with the plugin.
I do know there are other companies that make controllers for other plugins, such as the prophet v and others too.
Am on mobile currently, so a bit tricky to link to them at the moment.
Oh, I wasn’t aware of that. Pretty cool! But for @sequencer, that’d be out of topic with the Keylab. On my end, I still feel that this time passed for me as I become more and more of a minimalist.
@sequencer - Try starting the standalone version of Pigments (or other Arturia softsynth) and create a big list of synth-specific mappings to your Keylab (by clicking the gear icon and going to the MIDI tab, choosing your MIDI Controller and expanding the list). It looks like it would be possible to have what you’re looking for by then using multiple User Profiles (aka Device Memories) in the Keylab, with lots of CC-to-Control mappings. You’d need to configure them via MIDI Control Center (MCC) to support your multiple pages of knobs idea.
I just opened Standalone Pigments just now and seen how my controller can interact with it and how many synth controls I’d be able map to MIDI CCs (appearing in purple in Learn mode). It’d just be a matter of having all the knobs/sliders defined for those controls (as said, through multiple memory banks / user profiles). For example, I clicked learned and added CCs 20-23 mapped to Pigment knobs (starting from the factory mappings for Keylab):
But after typing all this, I’m realizing that Pigments may have too many controls to map for any common MIDI controller. Better test this with a simpler softsynth IMO (like the Mini Moog).
Hey - thanks for the responses guys - interesting topic. One caveat I should throw in here is that I’m only just scratching the surface of some of these plugins . Ignoring (for now) the Arturia takes on old classics (be it Jupiter or DX7 etc.) their new ‘original’ synths are beyond belief in their complexity … I’m thinking particularly of Pigments and the ‘Augmented’ series, all of which are brilliant. If there was a way of mapping the whole of (say) Pigments onto the hardware interface - I’d probably get it round my neck and end up with the plugin interface anyway.
I’m also only just getting my head round the KL3 as well, I just need to put more effort in
One interesting example I do have is the Korg Wavestate - lots of 1-1 controls on that, but it’s still hard to navigate - until you pull up the editor that is - which is how you can really sort out the ‘sequences’ that are the Wavestate’s power.
I’ll just have to wait for Arturia to make Pigments a hardware synth - but I do realize it would be a $5000 beast - if done correctly, and such things probably don’t make economic sense - either for Arturia, or users.
So, I’m just rambling really. Good to be on the forum … and, yes, I did just subscribe to the newsletter.
I completely agree! In fact, @sequencer made me think of one question. Is there a place on this forum where end-user content can be exchanged? It would make sense that for a given controller (e.g. Keylab), people would share their multi-bank mappings for specific softsynths (using import/export in their standalone interface and the MCC).
The first person that would initiate this collaboration would ensure that mappings are not all over the place (for the muscle memory). He/she would provide a spec for each bank by submitting his/her MCC mappings - e.g. User 1: Osc/EG Control, User 2: LFO/Filter Control…
That same person would provide the CC-Control mappings for a first soft synth.
Then the next person would use the MCC banks and program a different softsynth and publish. And so on…
I’m not sure if that would work because of how different all synths are. But anybody starting to do this should do a bit of design before starting (using a spreadsheet). I’ve done that myself for “knobbing” my old Korg Kross with a Minilab. See picture.
It might be an idea if you were to create a ‘feature request’ post as it’s more likely to be picked up by Arturia staff.
Again though, i do think it would potentially be a REALLY handy resource for The Community.
Oh, so you and I have something in common: using Korg editors to simplify the workflow (instead of physical menu diving). It bugs me that Korg isn’t updating their KROSS Editor through MacOS releases and their support doesn’t offer much help around workarounds, etc. The answer is, switch to Windows. I still have my KROSS and I probably will still use the editor (now knowing how not to crash it) but this helped me want to get more into softsynths.
Makes sense. If I understand well, a Feature Request for a new category/space in the Forum meant for Collaboration, right?
I’ll let @sequencer initiate that if that topic is something he strongly believes in. On my end, as I said here, I’m happy to keep working in Analog Lab (with the 2 separate phases of Modelling & Performance) and have a single set of mappings (per preset) and switching easily between instruments/multis. But I’d happily share my thoughts (and even mappings) if something like this starts to get some traction.
BTW - an interesting datapoint here … I put down Analog Lab and picked up Native Kontrol (which is NI’s kinda-equivalent)… this wraps Pigments with what appears to be every single parameter available. I don’t have an NI keyboard, so I’m not sure how this all maps to hardware - but it’s there - there is also a massive list in Logic’s automation-able parameters.
Interesting!
That top screenshot of Native Kontrol as a wrapper for Pigments - it defines 16 pages of 8 controllers pre-mapped … the list in Logic Pro automation is way longer - looks like every single parameter in Pigments to me.
Seems Arturia’s own implementation of control parameters, in it’s own hardware, is somewhat lacking.
Of course, whether you can get your head around the complete list of controls mapped to keyboard encoders - not sure - but it does seem some attempts (NI ?) have been made in this direction.
@sequencer - It’s good you’re trying to find clever ways to simplify things.
I’m not sure if the NI stuff you’re showing is making you progress into what you really need in practice but I’m curious to know if you’ll end-up using this. It’s kinda neat though that they wrap things like this. I’m guessing that NI’s automatic mappings to physical controls goes to their 8 knobs and possibly with labels shown on the Kontrol’s display? Though it feels you’d end-up doing a lot of page switching to find specific controls.
Could be something for Arturia to look into and improve upon?
@sequencer - Here’s another interesting datapoint…
I also use Logic Pro and have a Minilab 3. As said, one of my main reasons for getting my Minilab originally was for a similar knobbing goal as yours (but for hardware synth). Nevertheless, you mind find the following interesting.
My first thought about knobbing soft-synths was that to accomplish this 1:1 synth control, you’d need LOTS of knobs (like 50+) OR easy bank switching with just 12-16 knobs/faders (e.g. Minlab: 12 x 8 banks). My idea of using multiple User Profiles with a Minilab doesn’t work as well because of the linear scrolling between profiles.
So I started looking into MIDI mixers with lots of knobs and noticed what Akai does for their MIDIMIX. The device have lots of knobs but it also has “Bank Right” and “Bank Left” buttons. I thought this would expand into more MIDI CCs but it doesn’t. With Logic Pro, those buttons simply change the mode in the Controller Settings. I didn’t know anything about this concept of Modes in Controllers but it has the effect of allowing multiple banks for a given controller:
So I’m thinking that this can provide better control from an Arturia controller when using Logic Pro. So I’ll be experimenting with this on my Minilab as follows. I’ll configure the 8 pads as Mode switching in Logic Pro. Pad 1 for OSC control, Pad 2 for Filter Control, Pad 3 for LFO… If I’m successful, then we can talk about standardizing knob/fader assignments and setting up more tracks in Logic Pro for different software synths.
My testing with Logic Pro and Minilab 3 seems conclusive but with caveats…
I’m able to configure the Minilab Control Surface in Logic Pro to switch modes when pressing pads (8 modes with Pad Bank A, 16 modes with both Pad Banks A+B). Then in each Mode, I’m able to have each physical encoder/fader have a different assignment for synth control (software knobs/faders) in different Modes. Plus, when I move knobs/sliders on the Minilab, it’s LCD shows which software knob it modifies because the Control Surface config supports sending information back to the Minilab via Text Feedback (see figure).
But in practice, we get lost with the knobs/sliders, not knowing which one to change unless we modify a value. AFAIK, each knob would end-up having a different function when using a different software synth. So IMO, for the muscle memory part, we’d have to commit to one software instrument that we want to control from within Logic and configure it well – i.e. using just Track 1 in Logic – and stick with it. IMO, the right choice of Software Instrument would have to be one that doesn’t have too much complexity, with a “flat UI” – e.g. Mini Moog, Jupiter 8 (not Pigments).
Alternatively, Pad Bank A could be for SoftSynth 1 (e.g. Moog Mini) and Pad Bank B could be for SoftSynth 2 (e.g. Jupiter X) so that my standardized Knob Bank idea would work? I’ll do some more testing…
Anyhow, after some more testing with Logic, I’ve decided that it’s too much pain to work on these multi-bank knob assignments and then later try to remember which knob does what (too much fiddling). And trying to add clear-enough physical labels would be tricky. So I still think that using Analog Lab and working with a limited set of knobs per preset is the way to go (separating sound modeling from performing). In other words, I agree with you that KL3 is a very nice quality controller but in-depth editing still goes on on the computer screen (with a mouse).
Very interesting topic! Currently debating with my keyboard player (me) what would be the perfect solution that wouldn’t be too expensive and yet expansive.
I came across this midi controller at Bristol’s gearfest Bristronica, a controller specifically designed and built for Arturia OP-Xa V. Having had a chat with the developer, one question was if it were possible to build that kind of controller but with all the generic midi configs so that the controller could be used with any Arturia plugin from the V collection.
I’d imagine a set of cardboard cards with labels in place you could fill in yourself depending on your preferred mapping. He liked the idea, however chances that such a device would be built remains unlikely.
Do you think there would be takers for such a device? (Arturia… you listening? :)))
