I'd be interested to know what percentage of Synfire users actually using the software came from a notation based workflow compared to how many came from a DAW background. This forum's active user list averages less than 10 each day, so a lot of it's users must be using the product/workflow with minimal issues (or they've given up). Nearly all the complaints posted on these forums come from people moving from a DAW workflow as do the majority of the suggestions on how it could be improved If the majority of users are silently happy coming from a non DAW background, then I can understand why Andre spends so long designing, developing and testing changes that may impact it's workflow especially having to tred carefully between the DAW and non DAW userbackgrounds. After all he is very quick to release bug fixes, often in a day or less; not something you see from DAW developers; so the long lead times between feature updates isn't due to a lack of technical ability.
As Lytz1 said 'This is it, basically in a nutshell... By nature, this just takes a looooong amount of time and requires a looooot of patience from user-side.' So I keep using it as it is and wait to see what improvements will come. I'm not sure throwing money at it will make things happen any faster, not that I've got any spare to throw.
As for me, I come from the prehistoric era of paper and pencil, I'm used to think in blocks and structures. For this reason Synfire is very congenial to me. One real big problem (again, for me) is to keep in mind that a sub-container replaces the figure already present in the same instrument the parent container. This does not happen into a DAW unless the user puts a track in mute mode, and this overlapping of priorities between nested (or not-nested) containers is not easy for me to follow, and in my opinion deserves a reflection from the developer.
Erm. Synfire is unique, but by no means a monopoly. We can't afford to rest on our merits. Nor do we have the resources to launch multiple incarnations of Synfire in parallel, to learn which choices work best. There is a lot of pressure to do things right from the start, with little room for trial and error. Cognitone may be small, but it's healthy and we want to keep it that way. This requires some patience from our users. We are grateful for that.
Regarding forum activity, what you see here is merely the tip of the top of the iceberg. We know a lot of Synfire users that are really enthusiastic about it but aren't even registered here. As said, writing about one's personal workflow, let alone sharing music examples, isn't probably for everyone. I happen to also own very complex software that I never registered for in a forum anywhere. So nothing to worry about.
As blacksun pointed out, how Synfire pans out individually depends on a user's background, DAW vs. Notation. Synfire caters to a top-down, laid back "design" workflow with an emphasis on experimentation and surprise. It's not suited for live performance or recording. It's also not merely a DAW with a chord track, running Figures instead of a piano roll (one can use it this way, but that's a very limited perspective).
Chord tracks of a DAW, by the way, are ok for forcing chord stabs and bass lines into different chords. Don't expect them to do anything meaningful with more complex input.
Synfire users come from all imaginable backgrounds: Bedroom producers, retired engineers, DJs, jazzers, researchers, game designers, female singer/songwriters, celebrity producers and Hollywood types urging to fly to Germany for personal training (just to name a few other challenges). Some get productive from the start (even if bumpy at times), others need months to take the learning curve and then never want to go back.
Looking at the wide spectrum of users (and uses), we feel responsible for choosing the best path forward that serves the most of them best. Synfire already has depth, substance and potential. Adding extra features on a quarterly basis isn't always the best choice. It risks a lock-in, as, understandably, removing features at a later time is usually met with resistance. Expect something more substantial to emerge from this once we sorted it out.
Back to topic: While I appreciate the idea, throwing crowdfunding money at us at this stage won't speed things up much, as it also adds distraction and responsibilities on top. You already contributed to Synfire with your purchase and the money is being used wisely, exactly as intended.
Orb is going toward the right direction: a high-level composing tool based on designing the whole form rather than assembling it with chunks or loops. But it’s rather stiff and, above all, yet midi-only.
So., 18.11.2018 - 21:00 Permalink
I'd be interested to know what percentage of Synfire users actually using the software came from a notation based workflow compared to how many came from a DAW background. This forum's active user list averages less than 10 each day, so a lot of it's users must be using the product/workflow with minimal issues (or they've given up). Nearly all the complaints posted on these forums come from people moving from a DAW workflow as do the majority of the suggestions on how it could be improved If the majority of users are silently happy coming from a non DAW background, then I can understand why Andre spends so long designing, developing and testing changes that may impact it's workflow especially having to tred carefully between the DAW and non DAW userbackgrounds. After all he is very quick to release bug fixes, often in a day or less; not something you see from DAW developers; so the long lead times between feature updates isn't due to a lack of technical ability.
As Lytz1 said 'This is it, basically in a nutshell... By nature, this just takes a looooong amount of time and requires a looooot of patience from user-side.' So I keep using it as it is and wait to see what improvements will come. I'm not sure throwing money at it will make things happen any faster, not that I've got any spare to throw.
So., 18.11.2018 - 22:14 Permalink
As for me, I come from the prehistoric era of paper and pencil, I'm used to think in blocks and structures. For this reason Synfire is very congenial to me. One real big problem (again, for me) is to keep in mind that a sub-container replaces the figure already present in the same instrument the parent container. This does not happen into a DAW unless the user puts a track in mute mode, and this overlapping of priorities between nested (or not-nested) containers is not easy for me to follow, and in my opinion deserves a reflection from the developer.
Mo., 19.11.2018 - 00:37 Permalink
Erm. Synfire is unique, but by no means a monopoly. We can't afford to rest on our merits. Nor do we have the resources to launch multiple incarnations of Synfire in parallel, to learn which choices work best. There is a lot of pressure to do things right from the start, with little room for trial and error. Cognitone may be small, but it's healthy and we want to keep it that way. This requires some patience from our users. We are grateful for that.
Regarding forum activity, what you see here is merely the tip of the top of the iceberg. We know a lot of Synfire users that are really enthusiastic about it but aren't even registered here. As said, writing about one's personal workflow, let alone sharing music examples, isn't probably for everyone. I happen to also own very complex software that I never registered for in a forum anywhere. So nothing to worry about.
As blacksun pointed out, how Synfire pans out individually depends on a user's background, DAW vs. Notation. Synfire caters to a top-down, laid back "design" workflow with an emphasis on experimentation and surprise. It's not suited for live performance or recording. It's also not merely a DAW with a chord track, running Figures instead of a piano roll (one can use it this way, but that's a very limited perspective).
Chord tracks of a DAW, by the way, are ok for forcing chord stabs and bass lines into different chords. Don't expect them to do anything meaningful with more complex input.
Synfire users come from all imaginable backgrounds: Bedroom producers, retired engineers, DJs, jazzers, researchers, game designers, female singer/songwriters, celebrity producers and Hollywood types urging to fly to Germany for personal training (just to name a few other challenges). Some get productive from the start (even if bumpy at times), others need months to take the learning curve and then never want to go back.
Looking at the wide spectrum of users (and uses), we feel responsible for choosing the best path forward that serves the most of them best. Synfire already has depth, substance and potential. Adding extra features on a quarterly basis isn't always the best choice. It risks a lock-in, as, understandably, removing features at a later time is usually met with resistance. Expect something more substantial to emerge from this once we sorted it out.
Back to topic: While I appreciate the idea, throwing crowdfunding money at us at this stage won't speed things up much, as it also adds distraction and responsibilities on top. You already contributed to Synfire with your purchase and the money is being used wisely, exactly as intended.
Mo., 19.11.2018 - 10:08 Permalink
Mo., 19.11.2018 - 09:07 Permalink
Orb is going toward the right direction: a high-level composing tool based on designing the whole form rather than assembling it with chunks or loops. But it’s rather stiff and, above all, yet midi-only.
Di., 20.11.2018 - 14:02 Permalink
is scaler for creating new chord progressions to feed these into synfire or what are you using it for?
Di., 20.11.2018 - 14:22 Permalink
Scaler does a better job of naming the actual chord than synfire. With synfire you get more of a approximation.