@brambos said:
I suspect that a lot of novice AU developers aren't aware that they don't have to expose all parameters to the end-user. Surely having hundreds of exposed parameters is not good practice and isn't all that useful in the real world. Like... I'm happy my gearbox only exposes a single gear stick and not all the individual cogs that are purring away on the inside
I’m not sure I understand things from an au dev pov. I just know that as a user in other daws, iOS and desktop, I never wished I could set up a bunch of individual parameter macro knobs instead of just free form automation...ableton, reaper, bitwig..... and I very rarely had to deal with massive lists of parameters etc. never been an issue or crossed my mind as something that would be useful if I could set up an individual parameter on a macro instead of just automating it there and then...
Being forced to use a macro per au gui automation parameter feels bit like having a knobby hardware synth and having to route each knob to another controller just for the sake of it.
iOS has the benefit over desktop/laptop of being able to just dig in and tweak knobs with fingers on touch GUi. That’s one really big USP of iOS over laptop/desktop. This implementation really doesn’t take full advantage of that imho and instead adds extra steps to setting up/using automation. Maybe I just don’t understand the benefits or they don’t apply to my use/workflow.
B3 macros are cool because you can assign multiple parameters to one knob, that’s the main purpose of macros as I always understood it? This ns2 system really confuses me but I guess I’m in the minority
I interpreted it as an imposed limitation that was taken to maintain technical performance of the app on device. Is it an absolute though? Can it/should it/could it/will it be undone? Could optimizations be done in other areas that would free up bandwidth? Am I 100% not a coder and can only guess? Of that last one, yes.
But I wonder if the problem faced with macros could be addressed with macro snapshots instead? So for example where a limit of 8 macros within one pattern available to an AU could then have the choice of switching say four macros to another parameter mid pattern, where the previous macro was saved at whichever value it was last saved at? This would keep down the amount of complexity but at the same time increasing the amount of values that a limited set of macros could control at one given time.
How many things does one actually automate on a single device in a single song? Curious what the answers are and some audio examples to point me to. For me personally I can’t imagine automating more than 10 things on a single device for a specific track. I use like 40 or 50 channels frequently. I use specific sounds on each track. I don’t try to make something into a new something by automating 30 different parameters. I just drop in a new synth or whatever on a new channel and make a new sound. Even if I only use it for 2 measures.
So does anybody have some audio examples of what they have done this on? Genuinely curious.
@flockz said:
macro knobs instead of just free form automation...ableton
Ableton Live is my desktop DAW, so I’ll just quickly point out that if you load a 3rd party plugin into Ableton, you need to map each control you want to automate into, yes, macros. Many plugins have automaps for the most used or all controls if there aren’t too many but many also don’t. Granted, the mapping process is super easy, but still, essentially the same situation.
I am fine with only being able to automate ten or less parametes provided the hookup is quick. Feels like an ‘AU learn’ could happen. For FX though... something like ProQ2... mmmm, not so much....
We can currently automate the shit out of AU instruments. Hurrah! And the vast majority of them do not have anything approaching 800 controls to scroll through. Hurrah! And we can save macro setups for or most commonly used controls. Hurrah!
Sure, it could be a little quicker to set up and it would be fun to record automation directly from the AU's UI but we should be mindful that all development comes at the cost of other development.
That said, if improving the AU instrument automation experience rises to the top of the todo list:
I like the "learn" idea. Especially if it worked like it does in Obsidian. Quick, easy and consistent.
10 automation destinations is plenty. I'd guesstimate that is true of +98% of automation use cases. It's a mobile music making app, not Live/Logic/Reaper.
A maybe one day extension on the "learn" method... Perhaps there could be a 'just in time' macro assignment mode. When you hit record on the sequencer and twiddled a knob in the AU's UI the app would automatically "learn" that UI control to the next available macro knob. If none are available, it would overwrite the first macro that does not have automation recorded. Otherwise, it would just fail silently because who the hell do you think you are that you need to automate 11 parameters?
If number 3 happened, it could perhaps be extended to Obsidian.
@Will said:
2 cents with regard to automating AU instruments.
We can currently automate the shit out of AU instruments. Hurrah! And the vast majority of them do not have anything approaching 800 controls to scroll through. Hurrah! And we can save macro setups for or most commonly used controls. Hurrah!
Sure, it could be a little quicker to set up and it would be fun to record automation directly from the AU's UI but we should be mindful that all development comes at the cost of other development.
That said, if improving the AU instrument automation experience rises to the top of the todo list:
I like the "learn" idea. Especially if it worked like it does in Obsidian. Quick, easy and consistent.
10 automation destinations is plenty. I'd guesstimate that is true of +98% of automation use cases. It's a mobile music making app, not Live/Logic/Reaper.
A maybe one day extension on the "learn" method... Perhaps there could be a 'just in time' macro assignment mode. When you hit record on the sequencer and twiddled a knob in the AU's UI the app would automatically "learn" that UI control to the next available macro knob. If none are available, it would overwrite the first macro that does not have automation recorded. Otherwise, it would just fail silently because who the hell do you think you are that you need to automate 11 parameters?
If number 3 happened, it could perhaps be extended to Obsidian.
You can use the AU UI to record automation provided you set up the macro first, so not too shabby!
Looks like Synthmaster One has an AU modwheel parameter too, so there I go. I also find that the macro UI helps with flow in that the AU UI can be a bit cycle hungry whereas the macros run super smooth. Eh, life good.
@Audiogus said:
You can use the AU UI to record automation provided you set up the macro first, so not too shabby!
Looks like Synthmaster One has an AU modwheel parameter too, so there I go. I also find that the macro UI helps with flow in that the AU UI can be a bit cycle hungry whereas the macros run super smooth. Eh, life good.
Good'uns. Both solid entries on the hurrah list. Hadn't really considered that second one with regard to resources. Could be a big deal indeed. For instance, the Model D's UI rendering is a massive CPU hog. I haven't checked it in NS but having Model D's UI open in AUM makes my Air 1's CPU meter go way way up. I can run two instances at once in AUM if I never open the UI. If open one of them, it's a crackle fest and it will not go away until I restart AUM. Will try making a default macro map for Model D in NS2 and see if I can get away with two.
This can be spun either way.....But in response to the ‘this is all great’ view points in above posts...
Yeah, ableton makes macros when you automate a parameter BUT it’s automatic and I only ever pay attention to them when I want to modulate or map those to hardware etc. But in terms of general ableton automation workflow it’s totally instant and all done from the vst gui when used on surface pro.
All good and well to say ‘oh but model d is resource heavy’, if people don’t have an iPad that can cope with Model D then yeah for sure this is a nice option. But for everyone else, and looking forwards to more powerful iPads being the norm among the user base, it’s irrelevant and slow workflow. Setting individual parameter macros would be nice as an ‘option’ for people with iPads that are struggling with graphics. But it isn’t an ‘option’ atm, it’s the only way...
10 parameter limit. I can think of a LOT of cases where I’d exceed this per au limit over the course of a song. And it’s only get to get worse as more and more complex au appear. Drambo for instance looks like it’ll have loads of things people will potentially want to automate.
I understand that it’s ‘useable’, it’s not ‘broken’. But feels like some group brainwashing going on with the reasoning when persuading that its ‘optimal’
It makes me wonder how much of ns2 was mapped out and vaguely in place prior to AU becoming a thing and becoming popular. These limitations and awkward workflows maybe stem from AU being late in to the picture during development?
But feels like some group brainwashing going on with the reasoning when persuading that its ‘optimal’
Please, avoid direct on indirect attack to users with different opinion. We want keep this discussion constructive. We don't want to turn it to series of insults.
Adding own opinions and insights to topic is great and helpful, every opinion, every subjective point of view can bring something what moves things forward.
Insulting other users for their opinions is not helpful at all.
Thank you for understanding that, and looking forward for more ideas and insights from your side !
But feels like some group brainwashing going on with the reasoning when persuading that its ‘optimal’
Please, avoid direct on indirect attack to users with different opinion. We want keep this discussion constructive. We don't want to turn it to series of insults.
Adding own opinions and insights to topic is great and helpful, every opinion, every subjective point of view can bring something what moves things forward.
Insulting other users for their opinions is not helpful at all.
Thank you for understanding that, and looking forward for more ideas and insights from your side !
peace.
Lighten up
I didn’t insult any opinion...I meant that it felt like people were trying to avoid what’s plainly in front of them by searching for positives and brushing the negatives under the carpet to reassure each other. Instead of focusing on fixing the problems. No insult intended.
@flockz terms like 'brainwashing' certainly are indeed unhelpful. The NS2 roadmap has been well thought-out and defined clearly and although there may be areas that will need some modification, the decision by the developer to keep things simple very much carries on from the ethos behind the previous product, NS1, for reasons of efficiency and workflow. On the contrary, I don't believe a limit of ten macros assigned to an AU is a 'problem' or a 'negative'. I very much see this as a positive.
In my experience as a producer, I've rarely had to deal with tracks that have needed more than 10 connections to automate a plugin. I understand your concern that in order to compete with the likes of Ableton as well as Reaper, an iOS DAW should in theory work in a similar way. But iOS has never shared the same platform performance as a desktop system has, mainly probably because of its screen limitations, as well as reliance on touch rather than mouse (Reaper in particular I find overly complex in the sheer amount of pull-down option screens that overwhelm the user).
However, if this ever changes, and if dual monitoring, mouse control, multiple windows et al does come to iOS in more powerful Pro versions of the iPad, rest assured the subject will be readdressed at that time, if need be.
Now go make some NS2 music, and don't forget to post it here!
@tom_tm said: @flockz terms like 'brainwashing' certainly are indeed unhelpful. The NS2 roadmap has been well thought-out and defined clearly and although there may be areas that will need some modification, the decision by the developer to keep things simple very much carries on from the ethos behind the previous product, NS1, for reasons of efficiency and workflow. On the contrary, I don't believe a limit of ten macros assigned to an AU is a 'problem' or a 'negative'. I very much see this as a positive.
In my experience as a producer, I've rarely had to deal with tracks that have needed more than 10 connections to automate a plugin. I understand your concern that in order to compete with the likes of Ableton as well as Reaper, an iOS DAW should in theory work in a similar way. But iOS has never shared the same platform performance as a desktop system has, mainly probably because of its screen limitations, as well as reliance on touch rather than mouse (Reaper in particular I find overly complex in the sheer amount of pull-down option screens that overwhelm the user).
However, if this ever changes, and if dual monitoring, mouse control, multiple windows et al does come to iOS in more powerful Pro versions of the iPad, rest assured the subject will be readdressed at that time, if need be.
Now go make some NS2 music, and don't forget to post it here!
Sorry for using ‘brainwashing’, I hope people knew how I intended it to be taken within the context and weren’t too offended, but genuine apologies if anyone was though.
I understand what you’re saying but it’s not a case of ‘competing with ableton’ or any other daw. A 10 parameter automation limit is just massively restricting in terms of being creative with some of the great AU out there in iOS that devs have bust their ass to make as accessible for this stuff as possible... Say for example you have an 8 track drum machine AU. Automating each track’s volume and you’ve eaten 8 of those automation slots already...what about pitch, attack and decay and so on? Could easily use 30 channels of automation just automating a pretty basic drum machine. What happens when beasts like Drambo appear as AU.....ns2 will be badly crippled compared to the competition in terms of freedom and creativity when using AU. Even a synth like Zeeon I’d often use more than 10 automation paramaters over the course of a track....
In my experience as a producer, I've rarely had to deal with tracks that have needed more than 10 connections to automate a plugin. I understand your concern that in order to compete with the likes of Ableton as well as Reaper, an iOS DAW should in theory work in a similar way. But iOS has never shared the same platform performance as a desktop system has, mainly probably because of its screen limitations, as well as reliance on touch rather than mouse (Reaper in particular I find overly complex in the sheer amount of pull-down option screens that overwhelm the user).
This is very much the way I see it. If I set up that much midi/control stuff in my “songs” I’d never finish a track. At some point music would start to feel like a chore.
@tom_tm said: @flockz terms like 'brainwashing' certainly are indeed unhelpful. The NS2 roadmap has been well thought-out and defined clearly and although there may be areas that will need some modification, the decision by the developer to keep things simple very much carries on from the ethos behind the previous product, NS1, for reasons of efficiency and workflow. On the contrary, I don't believe a limit of ten macros assigned to an AU is a 'problem' or a 'negative'. I very much see this as a positive.
In my experience as a producer, I've rarely had to deal with tracks that have needed more than 10 connections to automate a plugin. I understand your concern that in order to compete with the likes of Ableton as well as Reaper, an iOS DAW should in theory work in a similar way. But iOS has never shared the same platform performance as a desktop system has, mainly probably because of its screen limitations, as well as reliance on touch rather than mouse (Reaper in particular I find overly complex in the sheer amount of pull-down option screens that overwhelm the user).
However, if this ever changes, and if dual monitoring, mouse control, multiple windows et al does come to iOS in more powerful Pro versions of the iPad, rest assured the subject will be readdressed at that time, if need be.
Now go make some NS2 music, and don't forget to post it here!
Sorry for using ‘brainwashing’, I hope people knew how I intended it to be taken within the context and weren’t too offended, but genuine apologies if anyone was though.
I understand what you’re saying but it’s not a case of ‘competing with ableton’ or any other daw. A 10 parameter automation limit is just massively restricting in terms of being creative with some of the great AU out there in iOS that devs have bust their ass to make as accessible for this stuff as possible... Say for example you have an 8 track drum machine AU. Automating each track’s volume and you’ve eaten 8 of those automation slots already...what about pitch, attack and decay and so on? Could easily use 30 channels of automation just automating a pretty basic drum machine. What happens when beasts like Drambo appear as AU.....ns2 will be badly crippled compared to the competition in terms of freedom and creativity when using AU. Even a synth like Zeeon I’d often use more than 10 automation paramaters over the course of a track....
Yah I brought up this same sort of scenario regarding ProQ2.
I wonder how old are the people in here and what are their genres and their other daw experiences to compare ns2 to? I don’t mean that in any kind of ‘one way is right and one way is wrong’ kind of way. I’m genuinely curious as I’m beginning to wonder if these kinds of clashes are in part down to a generational thing maybe and it’s just a case of two camps being totally out of touch with each other? First time I’ve heard people ‘asking’ for limited automation on any music production forum!
@flockz said:
I wonder how old are the people in here and what are their genres and their other daw experiences to compare ns2 to? I don’t mean that in any kind of ‘one way is right and one way is wrong’ kind of way. I’m genuinely curious as I’m beginning to wonder if these kinds of clashes are in part down to a generational thing maybe and it’s just a case of two camps being totally out of touch with each other? First time I’ve heard people ‘asking’ for limited automation on any music production forum!
Who was asking for limited automation? If it was me, please quote me.
@flockz said:
I wonder how old are the people in here and what are their genres and their other daw experiences to compare ns2 to? I don’t mean that in any kind of ‘one way is right and one way is wrong’ kind of way. I’m genuinely curious as I’m beginning to wonder if these kinds of clashes are in part down to a generational thing maybe and it’s just a case of two camps being totally out of touch with each other? First time I’ve heard people ‘asking’ for limited automation on any music production forum!
Who was asking for limited automation? If it was me, please quote me.
Erm...The posts directly before mine and implied or approved in many other posts in the thread. I didn’t tag you personally..
( I think you posted again while I was posting.... I wasn’t referring to your post
@flockz said:
I wonder how old are the people in here and what are their genres and their other daw experiences to compare ns2 to? I don’t mean that in any kind of ‘one way is right and one way is wrong’ kind of way. I’m genuinely curious as I’m beginning to wonder if these kinds of clashes are in part down to a generational thing maybe and it’s just a case of two camps being totally out of touch with each other? First time I’ve heard people ‘asking’ for limited automation on any music production forum!
Who was asking for limited automation? If it was me, please quote me.
Erm...The posts directly before mine and implied or approved in many other posts in the thread. I didn’t tag you personally..
I think people were saying that they were fine with it, not that they wanted it per se.
@flockz said:
I wonder how old are the people in here and what are their genres and their other daw experiences to compare ns2 to? I don’t mean that in any kind of ‘one way is right and one way is wrong’ kind of way. I’m genuinely curious as I’m beginning to wonder if these kinds of clashes are in part down to a generational thing maybe and it’s just a case of two camps being totally out of touch with each other? First time I’ve heard people ‘asking’ for limited automation on any music production forum!
Who was asking for limited automation? If it was me, please quote me.
Erm...The posts directly before mine and implied or approved in many other posts in the thread. I didn’t tag you personally..
I think people were saying that they were fine with it, not that they wanted it per se.
They’re saying that more automation would give them a headache and stop them finishing songs. That’s basically the same as asking for it to remain limited...
Matt has said the most popular requests will get attention. So people saying that kind of stuff is just as influential as actually verbalising ‘we want it limited’.
If people don’t care either way (which I wouldn’t if it was a feature I can just ignore) then they shouldn’t hit threads with those kind of comments as people then need to constantly try to reply and debate each new argument in the hope Matt thinks a FR has worth, if he can be bothered to wade through all the noise in these threads that is
I don’t think I’ve commented on any feature requests that were for things that I don’t want but that I could easily just ignore if they were added...No energy for those kind of arguments..
@flockz said:
I wonder how old are the people in here and what are their genres and their other daw experiences to compare ns2 to? I don’t mean that in any kind of ‘one way is right and one way is wrong’ kind of way. I’m genuinely curious as I’m beginning to wonder if these kinds of clashes are in part down to a generational thing maybe and it’s just a case of two camps being totally out of touch with each other? First time I’ve heard people ‘asking’ for limited automation on any music production forum!
Who was asking for limited automation? If it was me, please quote me.
Erm...The posts directly before mine and implied or approved in many other posts in the thread. I didn’t tag you personally..
I think people were saying that they were fine with it, not that they wanted it per se.
They’re saying that more automation would give them a headache and stop them finishing songs. That’s basically the same as asking for it to remain limited...
Gotcha. I interpret it differently as them saying that lifting the limitation is not a priority to them.
I really do imagine it is a balancing act between performance/stability and flexibility. I am all for opening up the AU parameter gates provided it does not a) introduce performance/stability issues b) delay the precious audio tracks from being released
PS. i love glitch hop, Tipper type stuff. Will I be making it on a glorified Angry Birds machine? Not just yet. Partly because of the tech, mostly because of me not being anywhere good enough to do so.
I’ve got used to having to set up the Macros now. Going through a process of setting up my most used AU instrument parameters to macros and then just adjust the odd one in individual circumstances. I can live with that.
Would love to see the AU fx parameters have a row of macros too though and a memory of this set up for each individual fx or rack of fx
I’ve got used to having to set up the Macros now. Going through a process of setting up my most used AU instrument parameters to macros and then just adjust the odd one in individual circumstances. I can live with that.
Would love to see the AU fx parameters have a row of macros too though and a memory of this set up for each individual fx or rack of fx
Yeah I can live with that too, until I run out of macros and have to choose which other lane/s to sacrifice I don’t think anyone is saying what’s there doesn’t work, just that it could be much better. I can’t think of any other daw that has these type of limitations and extra workflow steps... I think the basic question is -
Do people ideally want unlimited AU & AUfx parameter automation to be available? And with macros automatically setting themselves up during any automation interaction with the AU GUI. Instead of having to manually set up each macro....
It’s a simple yes/no really but instead lots of bickering
I’ve got used to having to set up the Macros now. Going through a process of setting up my most used AU instrument parameters to macros and then just adjust the odd one in individual circumstances. I can live with that.
Would love to see the AU fx parameters have a row of macros too though and a memory of this set up for each individual fx or rack of fx
Yeah I can live with that too, until I run out of macros and have to choose which other lane/s to sacrifice I don’t think anyone is saying what’s there doesn’t work, just that it could be much better. I can’t think of any other daw that has these type of limitations and extra workflow steps... I think the basic question is -
Do people ideally want unlimited AU & AUfx parameter automation to be available? And with macros automatically setting themselves up during any automation interaction with the AU GUI. Instead of having to manually set up each macro....
It’s a simple yes/no really but instead lots of bickering
At the risk of sounding like I am 'bickering' about the 'bickering... I just don't see 'bickering'. I see the same sorts of multifaceted discussions that happen at work (app development) that result in actual progress.
@Audiogus said:
At the risk of sounding like I am 'bickering' about the 'bickering... I just don't see 'bickering'. I see the same sorts of multifaceted discussions that happen at work (app development) that result in actual progress.
Imagine Matt reading this thread. Imagine we now discuss whether my use of the word ‘bickering’ was totally accurate. Inagine people replying with their opinion on that. Imagine Matt stopping reading the thread...
Comments
I interpreted it as an imposed limitation that was taken to maintain technical performance of the app on device. Is it an absolute though? Can it/should it/could it/will it be undone? Could optimizations be done in other areas that would free up bandwidth? Am I 100% not a coder and can only guess? Of that last one, yes.
Good thread.
But I wonder if the problem faced with macros could be addressed with macro snapshots instead? So for example where a limit of 8 macros within one pattern available to an AU could then have the choice of switching say four macros to another parameter mid pattern, where the previous macro was saved at whichever value it was last saved at? This would keep down the amount of complexity but at the same time increasing the amount of values that a limited set of macros could control at one given time.
Just a thought.
A huge +1 from me!!!
Please add automation for AU<3 effect plugins
@tom_tm I like the idea a lot.
I’m just curious...
How many things does one actually automate on a single device in a single song? Curious what the answers are and some audio examples to point me to. For me personally I can’t imagine automating more than 10 things on a single device for a specific track. I use like 40 or 50 channels frequently. I use specific sounds on each track. I don’t try to make something into a new something by automating 30 different parameters. I just drop in a new synth or whatever on a new channel and make a new sound. Even if I only use it for 2 measures.
So does anybody have some audio examples of what they have done this on? Genuinely curious.
Ableton Live is my desktop DAW, so I’ll just quickly point out that if you load a 3rd party plugin into Ableton, you need to map each control you want to automate into, yes, macros. Many plugins have automaps for the most used or all controls if there aren’t too many but many also don’t. Granted, the mapping process is super easy, but still, essentially the same situation.
I am fine with only being able to automate ten or less parametes provided the hookup is quick. Feels like an ‘AU learn’ could happen. For FX though... something like ProQ2... mmmm, not so much....
2 cents with regard to automating AU instruments.
We can currently automate the shit out of AU instruments. Hurrah! And the vast majority of them do not have anything approaching 800 controls to scroll through. Hurrah! And we can save macro setups for or most commonly used controls. Hurrah!
Sure, it could be a little quicker to set up and it would be fun to record automation directly from the AU's UI but we should be mindful that all development comes at the cost of other development.
That said, if improving the AU instrument automation experience rises to the top of the todo list:
You can use the AU UI to record automation provided you set up the macro first, so not too shabby!
Looks like Synthmaster One has an AU modwheel parameter too, so there I go. I also find that the macro UI helps with flow in that the AU UI can be a bit cycle hungry whereas the macros run super smooth. Eh, life good.
This can be spun either way.....But in response to the ‘this is all great’ view points in above posts...
Yeah, ableton makes macros when you automate a parameter BUT it’s automatic and I only ever pay attention to them when I want to modulate or map those to hardware etc. But in terms of general ableton automation workflow it’s totally instant and all done from the vst gui when used on surface pro.
All good and well to say ‘oh but model d is resource heavy’, if people don’t have an iPad that can cope with Model D then yeah for sure this is a nice option. But for everyone else, and looking forwards to more powerful iPads being the norm among the user base, it’s irrelevant and slow workflow. Setting individual parameter macros would be nice as an ‘option’ for people with iPads that are struggling with graphics. But it isn’t an ‘option’ atm, it’s the only way...
10 parameter limit. I can think of a LOT of cases where I’d exceed this per au limit over the course of a song. And it’s only get to get worse as more and more complex au appear. Drambo for instance looks like it’ll have loads of things people will potentially want to automate.
I understand that it’s ‘useable’, it’s not ‘broken’. But feels like some group brainwashing going on with the reasoning when persuading that its ‘optimal’
It makes me wonder how much of ns2 was mapped out and vaguely in place prior to AU becoming a thing and becoming popular. These limitations and awkward workflows maybe stem from AU being late in to the picture during development?
Please, avoid direct on indirect attack to users with different opinion. We want keep this discussion constructive. We don't want to turn it to series of insults.
Adding own opinions and insights to topic is great and helpful, every opinion, every subjective point of view can bring something what moves things forward.
Insulting other users for their opinions is not helpful at all.
Thank you for understanding that, and looking forward for more ideas and insights from your side !
peace.
Lighten up
I didn’t insult any opinion...I meant that it felt like people were trying to avoid what’s plainly in front of them by searching for positives and brushing the negatives under the carpet to reassure each other. Instead of focusing on fixing the problems. No insult intended.
@flockz terms like 'brainwashing' certainly are indeed unhelpful. The NS2 roadmap has been well thought-out and defined clearly and although there may be areas that will need some modification, the decision by the developer to keep things simple very much carries on from the ethos behind the previous product, NS1, for reasons of efficiency and workflow. On the contrary, I don't believe a limit of ten macros assigned to an AU is a 'problem' or a 'negative'. I very much see this as a positive.
In my experience as a producer, I've rarely had to deal with tracks that have needed more than 10 connections to automate a plugin. I understand your concern that in order to compete with the likes of Ableton as well as Reaper, an iOS DAW should in theory work in a similar way. But iOS has never shared the same platform performance as a desktop system has, mainly probably because of its screen limitations, as well as reliance on touch rather than mouse (Reaper in particular I find overly complex in the sheer amount of pull-down option screens that overwhelm the user).
However, if this ever changes, and if dual monitoring, mouse control, multiple windows et al does come to iOS in more powerful Pro versions of the iPad, rest assured the subject will be readdressed at that time, if need be.
Now go make some NS2 music, and don't forget to post it here!
Sorry for using ‘brainwashing’, I hope people knew how I intended it to be taken within the context and weren’t too offended, but genuine apologies if anyone was though.
I understand what you’re saying but it’s not a case of ‘competing with ableton’ or any other daw. A 10 parameter automation limit is just massively restricting in terms of being creative with some of the great AU out there in iOS that devs have bust their ass to make as accessible for this stuff as possible... Say for example you have an 8 track drum machine AU. Automating each track’s volume and you’ve eaten 8 of those automation slots already...what about pitch, attack and decay and so on? Could easily use 30 channels of automation just automating a pretty basic drum machine. What happens when beasts like Drambo appear as AU.....ns2 will be badly crippled compared to the competition in terms of freedom and creativity when using AU. Even a synth like Zeeon I’d often use more than 10 automation paramaters over the course of a track....
Eh
This is very much the way I see it. If I set up that much midi/control stuff in my “songs” I’d never finish a track. At some point music would start to feel like a chore.
Yah I brought up this same sort of scenario regarding ProQ2.
I wonder how old are the people in here and what are their genres and their other daw experiences to compare ns2 to? I don’t mean that in any kind of ‘one way is right and one way is wrong’ kind of way. I’m genuinely curious as I’m beginning to wonder if these kinds of clashes are in part down to a generational thing maybe and it’s just a case of two camps being totally out of touch with each other? First time I’ve heard people ‘asking’ for limited automation on any music production forum!
Who was asking for limited automation? If it was me, please quote me.
Erm...The posts directly before mine and implied or approved in many other posts in the thread. I didn’t tag you personally..
( I think you posted again while I was posting.... I wasn’t referring to your post
I think people were saying that they were fine with it, not that they wanted it per se.
They’re saying that more automation would give them a headache and stop them finishing songs. That’s basically the same as asking for it to remain limited...
Matt has said the most popular requests will get attention. So people saying that kind of stuff is just as influential as actually verbalising ‘we want it limited’.
If people don’t care either way (which I wouldn’t if it was a feature I can just ignore) then they shouldn’t hit threads with those kind of comments as people then need to constantly try to reply and debate each new argument in the hope Matt thinks a FR has worth, if he can be bothered to wade through all the noise in these threads that is
I don’t think I’ve commented on any feature requests that were for things that I don’t want but that I could easily just ignore if they were added...No energy for those kind of arguments..
Gotcha. I interpret it differently as them saying that lifting the limitation is not a priority to them.
I really do imagine it is a balancing act between performance/stability and flexibility. I am all for opening up the AU parameter gates provided it does not a) introduce performance/stability issues b) delay the precious audio tracks from being released
PS. i love glitch hop, Tipper type stuff. Will I be making it on a glorified Angry Birds machine? Not just yet. Partly because of the tech, mostly because of me not being anywhere good enough to do so.
I’ve not read the whole thread.
I’ve got used to having to set up the Macros now. Going through a process of setting up my most used AU instrument parameters to macros and then just adjust the odd one in individual circumstances. I can live with that.
Would love to see the AU fx parameters have a row of macros too though and a memory of this set up for each individual fx or rack of fx
Heh, looks like we are simul-editing our posts.
Yeah I can live with that too, until I run out of macros and have to choose which other lane/s to sacrifice
I don’t think anyone is saying what’s there doesn’t work, just that it could be much better. I can’t think of any other daw that has these type of limitations and extra workflow steps... I think the basic question is -
Do people ideally want unlimited AU & AUfx parameter automation to be available? And with macros automatically setting themselves up during any automation interaction with the AU GUI. Instead of having to manually set up each macro....
It’s a simple yes/no really but instead lots of bickering
At the risk of sounding like I am 'bickering' about the 'bickering... I just don't see 'bickering'. I see the same sorts of multifaceted discussions that happen at work (app development) that result in actual progress.
You work as app developer ?
Imagine Matt reading this thread. Imagine we now discuss whether my use of the word ‘bickering’ was totally accurate. Inagine people replying with their opinion on that. Imagine Matt stopping reading the thread...