Sync FX1 / FX2 / FX3 button Minifreak V and Minifreak

Hi all,

my hardware minifreak is linked to my minifreak v. Sync actually works good. The only thing not working is the sync of the FX1 Fx2 and FX3 button.

For example, if I press FX2 on the hardware minifreak, nothing changes in the software. The software GUI remains in FX1. Is this a known bug? What could be the reason?

My system
Apple Mini M1 (latest system)
Ableton Live 11
Hardware connection via USB Midi

Thank you
Ronald

Minifreak firmware: 2.0.0.1560
Minifreak V latest software

What could be the reason?

Well, one assumption could be that it is the modest quality of the software and/or the firmware inside this device. Otherwise there wouldn’t be so many bugs, right?

Are you thinking about the FX tabs not being selected? If so, that’s not a bug - the HW is not supposed to manipulate the GUI layout of the SW. It’s just like how using the Shaper editor or the mod matrix on the HW doesn’t change the bottom view options in SW.

Dude, the bitterness is off the scale in your posts. Do you really have to pull this one in every thread?

Hmm, ok. Changing tabs in the software GUI synced to the hardware would be really nice. It’s a pity.

Using the VST and editing with hardware is so nice, would be even nicer to see the changes in relevant areas. And for me the visual references of the software GUI regarding effects would be helpful.

But nevertheless great sounding synth and usability.

I understand your wish, but personally I’d prefer that the GUI stays at rest, but with the parameters changing, like it is now.

If anything there could be an option to sync the SW GUI “visibility” changes with the HW and vice versa.

However, then something like selecting the LFO SHAPER tab in the SW GUI would cause the HW synth UI to jump into Shaper editor mode and, also following the LFO 1 and 2 tabs (if this feature were to be consistent across the board). Not cool if you were working on the sequencer. IMHO this would be confusing and counter productive, so I agree with the design decision Arturia made there.

Hm. Come to think of it, by not syncing the SW GUI and HW-UI visibility, you can e.g. have the SHAPER EDITOR selected in the SW GUI and still mess with the sequencer on the HW without any conflicts. And you can have the FX 1 knobs ready to go on the HW while the FX 2 knobs are active on the SW. I.e. if editing simultaneously on both the SW and HW, you get access to more things simultaneously as it is now.

@DrJustice
It would be bitterness if there were no substantial truth. But since true statements form the substance of my postings, it is simply the truth.

I recommend consulting a good dictionary.

Dayum, the snark is also off the scale!

Edit: I should bite my tongue, but the “shock reaction” took over :wink:

Yes, it doesn’t make sense for every area. But for the effect section I cannot see a disadvantage …

I agree that it wouldn’t be very “damaging” for just the FX section. You can always submit a feature request for it :+1:

I asked the same question to Arturia support (when I had a support request).
The answer was it’s just a feature not yet implemented (same is true for the Macro-strips), but they will add it to their ToDo-List.

Let’s hope we’ll see an update with this implemented soon!

Stefan

BTW: In understand the frustration of some people when software isn’t working as desired.
But: Arturia is doing an amazing job and giving us beautiful products. That there are problems here and there is not too unusual.
And one always has the option to no longer use Arturia and switch to another vendor.
So, I’d very much appreciate a more respectful ‘tone’ in some comments (referencing to some answers of this post, not you personally).

1 Like

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

thank you Stefan, would be nice to see it in one of the next updates

there is not 100% or 0%, but a lot of in between. I have to say I enjoy playing my Micro Freak software an hardware very much. I would say feels like 90% for me. The wish regarding the topic above lies within the last 10%. So, for me personally, all good! :wink:

1 Like

What wrong with you?
If you don’t like Arturia or their products, why are you bothering us here by spreading such annoying comments?
No, I’m not in marketing, I have been a developer for the most time in my professional life, so I have respect for the challenges to develop such complex software.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

What kind of reasoning is that anyway? It’s hard to build airplanes, so it’s OK to build ones that crash, like Boing & Co are doing right now? Because that’s exactly what you said here, if I exaggerate the example.

No, quite the opposite: build less useless shit and concentrate on the essentials, but then do it sensibly. It’s as simple as that. A few software projects manage to do that, but unfortunately 90% don’t.

Some people have too much time for these off topic comments :grinning: I opened the thread, my question was discussed and answered above, so that ends the thread for me. Thanks Stefan and DrJustice.

These comments costed me 2-3 mintes, so no, not much time.

Furthermore: as poorly as the device currently works, this is probably more like 50%. Who is talking about 0 or 100% here, apart from you of course. But 90% should at least be possible for a product for which money is being asked. And most of the errors occur in connection with modulation, as if this were not one of the main features of the device (including the modulation matrix, which is probably one of the main features of this device).