Posted
Is it possible to move Rack Modules from an Arrangement Rack to the Global Rack? If not, then consider this as a feature suggestion. Simple drag and drop of the modules would be fine. Or a "Relocate to Global Rack" command.
I started my current project with an arrangement rack, because I thought that it would be a small project with only one Synfire file. But now it's getting bigger and I will probably have to split it into several files. I regret that I did not build up a Global Rack for this project from the beginning (as I usually do). Do I really have to build up this Global Rack from scratch, although I already have assigned all neccessary sounds at the arrangement rack?
Do., 21.11.2013 - 23:08 Permalink
Yes, good idea.
It works only the other way now: Move from global rack to arrangement (inspector menu).
Do., 21.11.2013 - 23:11 Permalink
You can try and save the modules as presets and restore them in the global rack?
Do., 21.11.2013 - 23:57 Permalink
You can try and save the modules as presets and restore them in the global rack?
Yes, that's what I finally did. At least it is possible to copy the private device descriptions to the list of global device descriptions. But it's still laborious. From now on I'll keep my hands off the Arrangement Rack.
Mo., 25.11.2013 - 23:35 Permalink
I know I've complained about this before.. But consider getting rid of the global rack.. It just adds one more layer of confusion to the program.. I don't want to start a song with every instrument I've created.. I'll use a template or create a new set of instruments.. Best will be to start with a template, and modify the patches as I need them..
The global rack has to play the same instruments as the arrangement.. To do any less, is an injustice.. The composer needs to hear the instruments the part is intended for, that is like writing an orchestal piece and all parts played by a piano.. You need to hear the harmonics, the resonances, the eq (and the relative balence of each notes charactoristic. that a particular instrument to write another part.. Motown sound would have never happened if they blanketed, and close miked all the drums for a super dry sound..
Say your guitar has a lot of E and A resonance.. You most likely will add other instruments, and rely on the loud resonance of E and A from the original instrument.. You'll play down those notes or have softer velocity. Good composition is not just about the notes, it's the harmonic and sonic resonances that make a piece charactoristic.. I've written songs, where one part is pretty blah.. But I start experimenting with a different instrument patch of modifying the one I'm using, and presto the plain part is now excellent. It's the 'imperfections' if any our new instruments have that make a piece stand out..
Likewise when auditioning a part from phrase library, it should play in the instrument that is currently highlighted in arrangement . Or define one in phrase box, (not somewhere and not have to jump to global instrument panel). If need be set aside a channel of your current instrument, and have SFP temporarily, set the sound to the desired preview sound, and when you click back to arrangement, have SFP re-assign the instrument to it's original sound.
I understand the need of global instruments but don't agree. It's just too complicated.. If anything, simplify it and call them templates. That's the term every other music program in the world uses. When I audition a sound or play from the'matrix' page (please rename it 'mixer'.. That's what most people are gonna use it for. I love the fact you can change parameters from there, but most people are going to use the arranger page to do that . Also the fact you have to constantly turn parameter on/off to access them in the matrix page is a drag.. Make the parameters in the Matrix page up/down scrollable.. This could be a very important page, for quickly adjusting and whipping a performance into a cohesive whole.
I am glad to see SFP grow and evolving.. Just like in Logic some people only rely on the piano roll editor, others use the even list, or the score page.. SFP is evolving towards that.. I envision some people being more comfortable with the "MIXER" page, all the parameters are there, they might become much more adept at using that than the arrange page for certain jobs..
Yes, Cognitone has made a lot of improvements, but this new version is different, not necessarily simpler than before. if anything harder it's to comprehend that before. because we got used to working the old way..
The new user is going to overwhelmed by the sheer complexicty, the processess unique to SFP, the terminology etc.
Even if you start to use a more standard terminology, people will have something to grasp, and will learn that although its the same term but it works slightly different SFP. When you throw someone 50 new concepts to grasp using SFP; it's hard to get a foothold some where.. First thing the brain does, is start comparing things to what's stored in it's data bank (brain).. Oh... oK.. it's got an arrangement page.. I'm familar with them. It's got an overview mixer page.. Yep know that too.. Now the person can begin mapping out the logic of SFP..
When everything is foreign, it's hard to get that first stable foothold to build from..
Look I love the program, I wouldn't complain if I didn't feel strongly.. Also the $1200 investment also forces me to come to terms with it.. I do not want to feel like I made a bad investment.. Most synth players I've talked to are too turned off by price, they won't even give SFP a fair inspection.. In my opinion, if some of this simplification takes place, it is a wise investment.. It's worth it just from what it's taught me in the last two years.. Although I often feel it has the upper hand over me..
Sincerely and respectfully
Mark Styles
Mo., 25.11.2013 - 23:38 Permalink
sorry the rant posted twice.. I'm calmer now..
Is there a way for the original poster to delete a post?...
Mo., 25.11.2013 - 23:53 Permalink
I think the idea of a visual (rack) is much better than the old synfire...do you agree ?
Keep that in mind
A global rack or a arrangement rack ..do you know the difference/similarities between those two racks?
There is now a visual concept of the soundassigning...a big improvement with the old synfire in terms of userfriendlyness.
You can start with a arrangementrack and make some copies from it and use this as a template for a new arrangement file by chancing some sounds. ( forget the global rack than for now :) )
Di., 26.11.2013 - 11:22 Permalink
Hi Mark,
But consider getting rid of the global rack.
You can get rid of it in an instant. Simply don't use it for your songs. I've just done a 20 minute workflow video showing how to arrange a song and I did not use the global rack at all. I did not even mention it:
(https://users.cognitone.com/content/arranging-song-part-1)
Other users like Juergen use the global rack all the time, sometimes even exclusively. For orchestral music projects, it is a huge advantage. Everyone can use Synfire the way that is most convenient for them.
I understand the need of global instruments but don't agree. It's just too complicated.
Please set up a separate plugin or synth for the 6 global instruments alone that is independent of the Tyros you use for your songs. Do this once and then forget about it. That will eliminate the confusion. Please try this. It will help you a lot. The globals may sound crappy, but you won't use them for your songs anyway.
Likewise when auditioning a part from phrase library, it should play in the instrument that is currently highlighted in arrangement.
It does so. It does even preview the phrase in the tempo and harmony of the current container. Enable the link switch (chain icon) at the top of the embedded library -- and there you are.
If need be set aside a channel of your current instrument, and have SFP temporarily, set the sound to the desired preview sound, and when you click back to arrangement, have SFP re-assign the instrument to it's original sound.
That's exactly what the dynamic sound management does all the time. That's what enables Synfire to open multiple arrangements at the same time.
When everything is foreign, it's hard to get that first stable foothold to build from
True. On the other hand, it is important to name different things differently, or users will be trapped by false expectations, leading to even more confusion.
The Matrix actually isn't a mixer at all, despite the vertical faders. There is not much one could do with respect to mixing, except for volume and pan midi. If it was labeled "Mixer", users would expect to see automation, audio routing, side chains, effects, busses, you name it. Naming it "Matrix" ensures that they think twice "Hm, what's that? Looks like a mixer, but obviously it's something different. A grid of green buttons." The matrix is for throwing parameters around between instruments and containers.
Di., 26.11.2013 - 16:25 Permalink
The Matrix actually isn't a mixer at all, despite the vertical faders. There is not much one could do with respect to mixing, except for volume and pan midi. If it was labeled "Mixer", users would expect to see automation, audio routing, side chains, effects, busses, you name it. Naming it "Matrix" ensures that they think twice "Hm, what's that? Looks like a mixer, but obviously it's something different. A grid of green buttons." The matrix is for throwing parameters around between instruments and containers.
This is exactly the answer I was about to write. But then I thought again and didn't do it because now I'm not quite sure if naming it "Mixer" really would hurt so much. Of course, the term "Matrix" is more correct and it expresses better than "Mixer", what this view actually is. If it would be called "Mixer", then the user could misinterpret the green LED's as a sort of effects.
On the other side you must see that the software is aimed at musicians, not at mathematicians or IT specialists. I can well imagine that such terms as matrix, vector, drone may seem daunting to some. If possible you probably really should use terms that people are used to. In this sense, perhaps the term "Mixer" could be justified. Why not, throwing parameters around between instruments and containers is also a sort of "mixing", isn't it? And the "drones" perhaps could be called "connecting modules" or "link modules". At the DAW they could show up as "Cognitone Link". Then no one would need to be afraid of "drones" anymore. (There already was a thread in this forum that reminded me of a "drone war" ;-) )
Anyway, if you want to avoid that the user perceives the Matrix view as a mixer, then you must make sure that it does not look like a mixer. Then the volume fader would have to be omitted.
Di., 26.11.2013 - 17:34 Permalink
I can well imagine that such terms as matrix, vector, drone may seem daunting to some.
There are countless technical/math terms used in music hardware and software today, these have certainly also been daunting to some, back in the days when they were first used in the context of music. I still think misinterpretation is worst than wondering.
Drones are bees! Consequently, their counterpart framework/DLL is named Queen.
Those remote-controlled air craft need not necessarily be military devices. They can be built and used by everyone today. Playing with drones actually is a hip hobby currently.
Save the bees!
Di., 26.11.2013 - 18:18 Permalink
i don't care the names but Reaper does ...
edit...
i think this is the same for all DAW s and of course for all my old projects and my beloved Device Descriptions too
Oh yes, sure! I didn't think about that. Would be probably the same at Cubase.
Drones are bees
Ok, understood. Then you could display a friendly looking bee at the user interface of the drone to make that clear. The face of the bee 'Maya' comes to mind. :lol:
Di., 26.11.2013 - 18:49 Permalink
The naming is somewhat arbitrary: I would have probably chosen 'Patchbay' instead of 'Matrix,' as that seems the conceptual equivalent in the DAW/ music production world.
But, things cannot be being renamed all the time.
Videos are great and necessary for illustrating certain things, but a manual with hypertext is also essential in a complex program where there are lots of terms needing definition.
No one wants to read a glossary, but if the manual shows the word 'Matrix' in hypertext and then you click to a glossary that says, as Andre just has, " a device for applying Synfire instrument parameters from one instrument to another," everyone understands and is satisfied. Now, click 'back' to resume what you were reading.
One problem, in my opinion, is that the forum provides many answers from the pastor to the choir ... but the congregation at large has little clue where to look in the forum to find the answer because they don't understand enough about Synfire to know the term for a search ... or often to ask an intelligent question.
I appreciate that development is the engine that drives Synfire and keeps us all excited and eager ... but at some point old fashioned, solid documentation is equally essential.
Di., 26.11.2013 - 18:56 Permalink
It's fun to watch what strange problems arise from using a certain kind of software.
I've made a living as a software developer, too. Always wondered about those strange users. :)
This time I'm on the user side... but for me it doen't really matter how Andre names the stuff he invents as long as a name is remotely related to the intention, it's okay.
Andre creates software that helps us making music and works fine (at least most of all time), so just let him choose names for files, dlls, menu items, forms and whatnot.