Perhaps, simply, zynthian in its current state, is not for @Yan. But perhaps it will after a few iterations. If Roland MC-909 could satisfy our fellow @Yan, who knows … RMS ways are certainly unsearcheable!
All the best,
As already explained, Zynthian starts as and embeded sound generator and build around simple hardware controls: Rotary encoders and push buttons.
Self building such periphericals isn’t that hard, and with them you will have à lot of hardware shortcuts, all of them configurables.
An USB keyboard / macro keypad can do the job too.
And I’m sure, this (launch Midi record from everywhere) could easily assigned to one of your midi control surface push button.
Come to think of it, can it also work as a MIDI router? I have several devices which are USB MIDI device only and would love to be able to plug them all into a Zynthian and have them be easily merged and routed to and from the internal and external MIDI ports.
I understand your frustration because you see a huge potential and there are things that are still not possible or simply cumbersome to achieve. But take it as an opportunity to cooperate and getting involved.
We have a very solid foundation, we can try to build new approaches and find a way to integrate them. If have been in the LKML forever (and I mean forever) and the best you can do is prove that your point of view is viable. Fork the project, improve this part of the interface, let’s iron out the details and get it accepted.
Also make sure that you don’t step on anybody’s toes, strong opinions are welcome and nice to read but everything that we have now has been carefully thought, discussed and designed, Even the electronics are no standard and are built on purpose. There are may iterations before the final product is reached, many lost hours, frustrations and mixed feelings.
Zynthian is a very polished open hardware product that promotes and integrates very different open source project ad improves them all. We should be very grateful to everybody that contributes to the project, especially to @jofemodo and @riban .
If I were Linux Torvalds I’d tell you “show me the code”.
Best
Pau
3 Likes
I might be able to offer the middle view of this…
When I got into this, I was able to use it as a multitimbral sound engine within minutes. It is easy to understand how to create an instrument chain and relatively easy to get midi going into those chains.
This alone was enough to make me a fan, because I can’t afford to buy a bunch of hardware synth devices, and likely never will be able to. When we spend $5000 it’s on things like riding mowers and cars, not Moogs. I know Behringer is the edgelord of the music world, but I sure appreciate their working-class synth deals.
Anyways, beyond the sound engines, the other things, they are a bit less easy to implement and use. I understand from learning to use things in the past that I just need to spend time using them and learning how to do stuff - everything that is actually cool and good requires work on your part to have it - but I haven’t had very much time for music lately at all, and when I do, it’s easier to load up a DAW and do what I have always done - I get to make music instead of studying that way.
I’m not looking to denigrate a thing here cause I greatly appreciate everything about the project, but I think UX on the “groovebox” part could still do with a lot of improvement. Possibly some OSC interfaces that can run on tablets which give the sequencer/looper a more intuitive interface, or the addition of an HDMI port and the implementation of a more robust 2nd display that improves one’s instant insight into the state of things.
YMMV of course, cause I have always found interfaces that don’t have physical controls with explicit text labels under them nigh-impossible to use. The ubiquitous touchscreens of the surveillance capital epoch are a nightmare to me.
1 Like
With the exception of the largely now obsolute sound canvas synth engine, The Roland MC-909 is the gold standard for hardware DAW workflow. It outperforms any of the MPCs or even Roland’s latest groovebox iterations.
I recommend reading the manuals and familiarising with its functionality. Particularly in the use of a multitrack midi mixer being the core of groovebox composition workflow and music perfomance. This includes note sequencing as well as motion sequencing. Motion sequencing is ab important expectation from a sequencer. In fact, again, I regard this as a basic expectation. This includes recording sysex commands during real time phrase recording.
When recording a phrase while adjusting parameters on a synth, one expects that the midi control data during that sequencing stores these motions. I regard motion sequencing as absolutely essential, as this allows so much more control over the dynamics of recorded phrases and so on…
Recording control changes may not be sysex. It may be CC. This is currently not implemented in zynthian but it’s on the roadmap. It was always envisaged but we needed to get core functionality working first.
2 Likes
I see allot of promise. Zynthian is the first time I’ve seen a dedicated music machine OS. It’s great !
I’m actually wondering about the viability of more advanced midi sequencing simply using LV2 ?
Could this work ? I.e., loading sequencer plugins into a chain ? It would probably resolve all of my suggested improvements.
The following product looks promising.
https://www.kvraudio.com/product/muse-by-muse
Sounddiver…
Btw, as a side regarding midi control of external instruments. In 1998, Emagic Sounddiver was aquirred by Apple, who discontinued the singularly most promising software for controling the parameters of hardware synthesizers from a computer screen. Looking back, their purchase was an interesting one. Via this aquisition, Apple gained access to the parameter control library for hundreds of synthesizers, effectively obtaining a “roadmap” to their architectures.
Having a control library for hardware synths might be another useful tool, and notable enhancement, but I wouldnt regard this as a basic requirement.