Zynthian JFK (Just For Keys)

Using Zynthian
1

Hi @jofemodo :slight_smile:

I am posting this question here because this seems the more possibly related thread, but the query in itself is of a more general character.

Since at the moment there seems to be a definite push, of the new coming Zynbleton Vangelis distro, towards turning the machine in a self-contained sequencer station and groove box - which is obviously fine and interesting in itself -, I wonder what plans are possibly in place for maintaining and/or differentiating the functions of the original main application of the device, as a multichannel and multitimbral Midi expander.

Things naturally evolve, so It would be interesting to know if the two operational scenarios (expander+FX unit and sequencer+FX unit, in brief) will somehow diverge and consolidate in two separate OS, or will keep on being developed alongside, with each functional layout preserving the operations of the other main usage of the machine (or maybe even some kind of modular arrangement of the OS, to be chosen on startup).

All the best :rainbow:

7 Likes
Zynbleton Vangelis - READ ME
Need to find some sound patches
2

Hi @Aethermind !

Good question, mate!
There are plans in my head…

Although i’m enjoying implementing and playing the sequencer and “groovebox” features, i don’t forget the primary use-case for zynthian is keyboard-expander.

All these new features can be distracting and certainly they add complexity that could be unwanted or confusing for keyboardists. Because of this, there is an idea flying in my head from some time ago. Indeed, it already has a name:

Zynthian JFK (Just For Keys)

The idea is to develop a more simple, specific and highly curated User Interface for keyboardists. We would keep all the core functionality inside, but only a subset would be available from the UI, that would be extremely simple and very stage-focused.

At the moment, only ideas in my head and this image:

zynthian_jfk_proto_02
zynthian_jfk_proto_022267Ă—1403 89.9 KB

This is only a bare sketch, but good the get the concept:

  • No mixer UI
  • No sequencer
  • No MIDI chains
  • Very basic routing options

It would be a step backward, keeping all the power but using only what is needed for playing keys in the stage.

The typical JFK user wouldn’t be the current typical “full” zynthian user. We want to reach less techie users: more music and less options!

The JFK would be a kind of “zynthian snapshot player”. Standard zynthian snapshots would be loaded and presented in the JFK UI. We could have several options to interpret the zynthian snapshots:

  • Chains would be presented as instruments. Each instrument would have access to synth banks and presets.

  • ZS3s would be used to create a tree of instruments with presets (the details in my head).

  • Regarding parameters, we would use “chain controllers” for showing a subset of all available synth + FXs parameters.

Creating new snapshots with JFK would be limited because much complexity will be hidden from the UI. Having a set of highly curated snapshots is a key point for JFK. For instance:

  • Jazzman

    • Grand Piano
    • Rhodes
    • Wurly
    • Clavinet
    • Hammond

  • Synth80s

    • Dexed
    • OBXd
    • Noize maker (or TAL-U-NO-LX)
    • etc.

  • General MIDI

    • 16 chains with FluidR3 soundfont

  • Etc.

Current zynthian devices could run JFK or the full version. Indeed, we could have both in the same SD image and choose what to run from the admin menu (or from a boot menu).

A new hardware standard, more simple, would be defined. I play with the idea of using just 2 encoders and 4 buttons. This would allow to run JFK in all currently existing devices without problem.

Ideas, ideas, ideas … but before starting the POC phase, we need to land the vangelis version. Until then, we could brainstorm about it :wink:

@Aethermind, I split this thread to a separated one, OK?

Regards,

10 Likes
3

Hi @jofemodo ,

I completely agree with @Aethermind , but JFK is the other extreme. I don’t mind the sequencer functionality, but it should not interfere with the basic keyboard-expander functionality. Removing it altogether is not what I have in mind, I still like to see how it works and maybe start using parts of it in the future.

I would certainly miss the rest of the functionality you describe ( no mixer UI, no midi chains, no advanced routing). If that would be the outcome, I would happily accept more sequencer/groovebox funtionality even if I don’t use it (at the moment).

Just brainstorming…

Kind regards,
Hans.

2 Likes
4

I don’t think the beatbox functionality interferes with the keyboard expander and there is no plan to reduce the keyboard expander functionality.

I laughed when I saw that JFK would remove (hide) much of the functionality that I implemented. Maybe it should be nicknamed “sin riban”. :rofl:

4 Likes
5

Sounds like a Zynthian Live.

1 Like
6

:innocent:
Not remove, just hide from UI. The underlying power would be there available to use when needed.

1 Like
7

That’s the idea. A zynthian version for keyboard performers totally stage-oriented.

As i told, the targeted users would be quite different to current crowd. Less technical-skilled, more “pure-musicians”. Of course, there would be an intersection, but as @riban said, avoiding the sequencer is easy, just don’t open the zynpad/launcher. It doesn’t interfere the keyboard-expander functionality. It’s the “dawish” style what i think could be intimidating for the average keyboard player. Many of them want to avoid the PC, but they don’t want to replace it with a micro-DAW, and here is where JFK enters with a DAW-less spirit. The DAW engine is still in the basements, but not presented as such. Instead, i propose an instrument-oriented UI. Something that most keyboard players would accept in the stage. The JFK competitors wont be Ableton or Akai MPC, but Nord Stage / Electro keyboards :wink:

Of course, if you are a zynthian user and want all the power and options, you can keep using the full UI. We don’t plan to reduce the keyboard-expander functionality. Indeed, we would keep improving it as it’s the core of zynthian project.

Regards,

5 Likes
8

HI all,

Why not make it user-configurable? With some prededined presets for the non-technical musicians.
I really would like that.

Cheers,
Maarten

1 Like
9

Hi @jofemodo, @HansR, @riban and @jawn :slight_smile:

The discussion on this topic gets interesting and involving! First off, thanks @jofemodo, for the sketch of your concept of a dedicated Hw and Sw incarnation of the Zynthian as a live unit for keyboardists.

While extremely well-targeted per-se (at the gigging Clavia/Korg/Yamaha/Roland stage keyboard customers base), it wouldn’t fit my personal requirements as a composer who drives the Zynthian from an external computer/DAW, and I am with @HansR, in believing that the GUI of the main Zynthian implementation should continue to expose its foundational multitimbral and multichannel framework, with user availability of synthesis parameters, ample variety of engines and full FX and audio treatment facilities.

My suggestion, if any are accepted, would be to keep all the functions together, but in a polished and neatly laid-out general interface, from which a few presets of usage scenarios would inflate in a tailored combination of screens, with a sort of nested functions paradigm of tree branches.

In this way, assuming that the size of the OS doesn’t become too cumbersome, it would be possible to make visible and available to the user only the functions useful for a specific workflow. Alternatively, the operational profiles (like multi expander, groove station and live box) could be stored on the same SD, and made available as functions+GUI layouts on system startup.

Just ideas in flight… :smiley:

All the best! :rainbow:

1 Like
10

This could be usefull but i don’t see the need to eliminate the mixer view. I guess a Zynthian expander should be a multi timbre one with the possibility to spread different sounds across the keyboard. A mixer/pan view for managing every sound/timbre is mandatory in my mind , but maybe i’m missing the point.

2 Likes
11

Let me add to the topic that I would love to be able one day to sketch compositions on the Zynth on-the-go, on a custom bare-bone fork of MuseScore, considering that its slim basic soundfont library is already more than capable of delivering draft orchestral mock-ups.

Implementing this specific application would obviously require that:

  • Muse Group refrain itself from making at a given point MS a not-so-open and half-proprietary source code, which is not that unlikely, if the excellent notation app keeps gaining traction.

  • The Zynthian project starts considering a larger screen real-estate on (a version of) the official hardware, since 8 inches is the absolute minimum for writing and visually controlling even a limited number of parts.

Cheers :slight_smile:

12

These are really interesting thoughts indeed. Here are some considerations:

Hopefully the full Zynthian experience will not become subscription based service. :wink:

I would appreciate that if it will not be divided into separate images. More sort of an overlay you could volontarily start.

Me personally would not use this, but it might be interesting for some folks. I would ask if it would be worth the hassle of maintaining two different hardware standards. I would think that a Zynthian JFK could gain from different reduction of complexity, but reducing the number of encoders wouldn’t be it. From my POV you would need an additional full Zynthian to edit your snapshots to run on the reduced hardware if I’m not wrong.

I’d worry about that if the selectable instruments would be presented as chains in snapshots it would mean that Zynthian JFK would have to allocate resources not only for the current selected instrument but for all possible ones. So huge sample based ones are difficult then. Obviously the idea is to erase any loading time for changes, right?

I think I’m absolutely into this. What I actually wish for Zynthian as it is right now would be some UI streamlining in a way that the interdependencies of different screens are reflected visually. In some menus and controller pages I don’t exactly know what context it is aiming at (for example a menu in Zynseq context were you don’t know if these options apply to the pattern or the sequence). So the UI could feature some common building blocks for better orientation (for example keeping the track tabs on the bottom end always on to let the user know in which track he edits patterns, options or controls). Making this more modular and configurable could lead to a framework where a subset of UI bulding blocks would represent the JFK view.

13

As i told, dear zynthianers, most of you are not the target for JFK, perhaps “some of you”, but not “most of you”.

Of course, it would be fantastic to create a custom UI for each use-case, for each user, but this is not possible, sorry. We want to develop UIs for large-enough user groups. So currently we have created a hugely customizable system with a lot of options and possibilities. The current Zynthian UI is a micro-DAW that can be configured to solve a zillion use-cases and this is not going to change. In the contrary. More power, more options more use-cases. This is the path to follow for the Zynthian UI.

JFK is just the opposite. If you have a special use-case, it’s not for you. If you want to play “a la JMJ” or like to do “a-la-Vangelis” performances, JFK is neither for you. What you want is the full Zynthian UI (well, indeed you would like a customized UI for your specific use-case because you know exactly what you need and how you want it, but this is simply not possible unless you want to develop it by yourself).

JFK is for the average keyboard player (a large-enough user group with a common use-case). For those who enjoy playing a Nord Electro keyboard, those who want to play one instrument at once and don’t know or don’t want to remember what a MIDI channel is. You select the instrument & preset, you play. You may want to adjust the volume and a few, well chosen, parameters. Nothing more. Of course, there would be some extra options, like transpose, key-split and perhaps multi-timbral basic adjustments, but not much more.

Regards,

2 Likes
14

Never. You can bet!
Always open, always free. JFK too, of course!

Typical JFK target wouldn’t want to create snapshots.They would use available snapshots (saving the user adjustments, of course). The 4 JFK buttons are thought to save/restore user presets (ZS3s).

It’s expected that the intersection user group would help to create “curated JFK snapshots” and share with the rest. I would create an initial set.

We are improving and refining the UI all the time, but the process is slow because we have to keep compatibility with three UI styles (V4, V5 & Touch) and we don’t want to affect audio performance. Devil lives in the tiny details, so we proceed step by step. Anyway take a look to the UI from 2 or 3 years ago and you will see the difference.

Regards,

2 Likes
15

I would agree with that.

1 Like
16

The average keyboard player probably wouldn’t agree. A mixer is something managed by a very specific person. He is an instrument player not a sound engineer. The Nord Electro has not a mixer UI, neither the Korg SV1.

When i played in bands, some mates never got close to the mixer in the rehearsal room. Some of them never put a hand on it. Too many buttons, too many options.

Regards,

2 Likes
17

I definitely see the development even within the year I’m in the boat now, and it is great. I think what I would tend to improving the UI is to have some shared guiding UI elements that lets you being aware of where you are climbing within the tree right now. One possibility would be to keep the “track tabs” on the bottom always on, since most of the UI pages you deal with a certain track. A common UI element could just show if you are configuring stuff regarding a chain → master → global, or pattern → sequence → scene, or if you are within a tree of for example instrument chain → processor → preset → controls

18

In that regard for the JFK I would actually agree. Not only because of the reduced complexity, but mainly because in this setup the chains would not represent tracks conceptually, but preloaded instrument presets, so the mixer view would be somewhat misleading.

2 Likes
19

Does such a creature exist?

I’ve used the mixer rather like a drawbar organ with different sounds on different faders and it’s worked for technical averce users. Piano on 1, Strings on 2, Trumpet on 3, switched by ZS3 the mixer acts as great confirmation in this rig.

Perhaps it’s another tranche of admin options, to decide which particular components are displayed in the base GUI presentation?

3 Likes
20

Simply count the red keyboards you see on stage. Each time you see one, you probably have an AKBP (or at least, someone from the “intersection group”) :nerd_face:

And of course, beloved @wyleu, you are not an AKBP. OMG!!! :face_blowing_a_kiss: