Feature Requests....

More
3 months 4 weeks ago #79 by DJ Fresh
Replied by DJ Fresh on topic Feature Requests....
My two cents:

I agree on reverb being crude, it’s really hard to get a tight room sounding verb. In my genres we often distort reverbs. It would be really useful to be able to have more than one reverb in the chain.

One reverb in a modern workflow is usually your sense on space but often I’m finding myself and people I work with use reverb as a pre distortion and filter effect. Both the ability to have more than one reverb and to route the effects more comprehensively would be big for me.

Agreed on FM. The capabilities of the kernels are truly mind blowing but this is somewhat dullened by the necessity to go into such a complex touchscreen managed nested view if all you want to do is add a bit of simple fm to a waveform. Also the envelopes in the kernel pages are not fully featured and incompatible with the other envelopes. If they are to be fully touchscreen then allowing us to load up pre-edited envelopes would at least give you the option to skip the annoying touchscreen editing here?

On this topic, it’s a shame there’s no way to reflect any edited envelope in real-time on an envelope set of controls. I rarely need a second filter envelope but I may want to edit an envelope on a modulator. Would be great if when I open this page, an envelope knob set automatically lights up and maps to it.

I find the distortion a bit cheap sounding for such an expensive synth. The distortion on the serum for example is insanely good, the sine folding and tube in particular, waveshaper distortion is very popular at the moment, you do have that covered to an extent with one of the modes but it’s a bit chaotic compared to a simple curve warping waveshaper.

Also this is a bit of a wildcard but the chord button is quite similar to the latch functionality, the moog one chord button actually lets you record a chord so that when later in chord mode you hit a key you get the recorded chord tuned to that key.. this is a really nice feature!

Keep up the great work!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
3 months 3 weeks ago #80 by vvilms
Replied by vvilms on topic Feature Requests....
A request regarding the Particle Engine:
- an option to synchronize particle length/ position to BPM values would be wonderful. <3

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
3 months 3 weeks ago #81 by paddyryan
Replied by paddyryan on topic Feature Requests....
Can you not just use a Syncd LFO to control particle position?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
3 months 3 weeks ago - 3 months 3 weeks ago #82 by vvilms
Replied by vvilms on topic Feature Requests....

paddyryan wrote: Can you not just use a Syncd LFO to control particle position?

I probably should've clarified my use-case was while using the "Live Granular" mode.

LFO to position would make sense with a static sample, but with live input, you can't (to my knowledge) freeze the buffer.

Edit: For clarity, when in Live Granular mode, position becomes delay amount. I think it'd vastly improve musicality, if you could modulate the position within BPM-related values. The same is true for length. If you could modulate the length of a grain within BPM-related values, you'd get much more musical/ pleasing results.
Last edit: 3 months 3 weeks ago by vvilms.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
3 months 3 weeks ago - 3 months 3 weeks ago #83 by vvilms
Replied by vvilms on topic Feature Requests....
Alright, so after about a week with this gorgeous machine, I have some thoughts/ requests:

1a. My biggest ask is that envelope stages be BPM-syncable. I positively love envelope modulation, but as I always want to retain a sense of musicality, I haven't felt at liberty to start doing this. I believe this would be the most useful addition to this machine.

1b. I'd love if the delay time of the envelopes could be a modulation destination.

1c. +1 for a parameter for controlling/ modulating curve amounts on envelopes.

2a. The ability to feed audio from one layer to the other.

2b. The ability to pull live audio into the Resonator engine.

3. The ability to sync Particle position/ length to BPM-related values.

4. The ability to modulate key-track amount (be it on filters or anything else).

5a. A glide modifier for any arbitrary modulation source. (Ie. The ability to interpolate between "random trig" values)

5b. Random trig/ random trig bipolar generates a new value on every note-on message. I think it would be awesome if there were a similar option for generating a new value on every note-off message.

6. The ability to store my own chord voicings in the chord sequencer, rather than be limited by the 17 chord/ 8 inversion options. (Though, if those params were modulate-able, things would would get pretty interesting. Same for the rest of the arp params. ;).)

7. +1 Filter FM (I'd be ok if it were only available in the Digital Former section, but the digital filters on the Iridium would be wonderful).

8. And lastly (for now):

spinger wrote: 1) Parameter Sequencer “decoupled mode” featuring polyphonic ability.


To augment ^this request. Right now the param sequencer is a global modulation source, meaning it addresses all voices simultaneously. What I'd love to do is be able to set up a list of values (modulation depths) to step through on every note-on message. With chords, this would mean, the value triggered by a voice would stick (discretely) to that voice.

spinger wrote: 2). Ability for each lane in the sequencer to have a different number of steps allowing never repeating modular style behavior. Right now if you change number of steps in one lane they all change.


+1

Sincerely,
Aaron
Last edit: 3 months 3 weeks ago by vvilms.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
3 months 1 week ago - 3 months 1 week ago #84 by vvilms
Replied by vvilms on topic Feature Requests....
Also, the ability to allocate knobs of un-used oscillators to control more Kernels engine params would be super. :)

Maybe this would be easiest implemented if a Kernels engine on Osc. 2 could recognize params of a Kernels engine loaded onto Osc. 1 as being mappable to its controls. Then one would just disengage K1 through K6 on Osc. 2 and have 5 more params to control and modulate Osc. 1. (I'm sure there's a cleaner way, but this seems reasonable to me.)
Last edit: 3 months 1 week ago by vvilms.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.