Can't automate AUfx, and automating AUi is cumbersome
First question: Are there plans for this adding automation support for AUfx soon?
Second question: Any reason why AUi params cant be automated before being mapped to a macro knob? Some AUi's have hundreds and hundreds of parameters, sometimes improperly named, it's poor workflow trying to find the correct one to map.
Comments
Definitely my number one request.
Still hst, loving Nanostudio 2! 🎹💞🎧
AU fx automation being added doesn't necessarily mean that non-macro based AU UI automation for instruments would be added though.
Exactly. Actually it's very unlikely, because it would be against matt's philosophy to not clutter UI for automation editor in sequencer by hundreds of automation lanes - this would move problem of searching right parameter which i want to automate to place, where it will
be a LOT more complicated to solved it than it is in macro screen (ser bellow proposed solution)
At the end, lets face truth - in 90% of cases you never need automate more than 10 parameters for singke track..
That is reason why automation of instruments is binded to macros - instruments have obviously a hell lot of parameters.
Fact is that it is not so user friendly to scroll through long list of plugin params and search the one which i want to automate. Some kind of automap (something like "tweak macro, then go to UI, then tweak parameter in UI, done, it's mapped) was discussed in dev forums, but because of no time it was postponed. Lets see when some of Matt's clones will found some time to add such goodness :-)
If you make macro <-> UI param mapping, and you want record realtime tweakimg, you are not forced to tweak just mapped macro knob - you can now easily tweak directly mapped parameter in plugin UI and automation will be properly recordsd same way like if you tweak corresponding macro.
)
(If not, you should blame plugin creatoe cause it means je did not something properly
You can save default mapping for given instrument, so if you load that instrument anytime later, it loads with your mapping.
To do this, in macro page tap
right hamburger menu icon. After macro knobs are activated for editing, tap one of them (no matter which). In left list with macro knobs scroll down to "All Macros" - tap this option and you will see "save default map". That is it.
Regarding AUfx automation. Fxs are different case because they usually do have limited list of parameter (lot less compared to instruments)
Thats why internal effects have automatable directly all params (with few exceptions like EQ3B)
I'm not sure which method will Matt choose for implementing AUfx automation, but my bets are that for AUfx it will be some form of macro screen too - to avoid cluttering of automation editor by FX with tons of params like for example Fabfilter Q2.
Maybe not, well see, for sure when it will be topic discussed on beta forums, we will take in account all opinions from here, so every point of view to this topic is welcome :-)
Here’s why the current approach with assigning macros doesn’t work.
Exhibit A: two params with the same name, one works one doesn’t.
Exhibit B: finding a param among EIGHT HUNDRED other ones.
I think simply having it so that only recorded/automated AU parameters via the AU UI show up in the sequencer would easily solve this clutter. If a parameter was never automated it should not show up in the sequencer. Other apps do this already and it works fine.
'Didn't automate it via the UI' = 'doesn't show up in the sequencer'
Huge +1 on this. Don’t show the automation lane if there’s no automation on it. Use audio unit UI to automate. All problems solved.
But this would force you record that automation ... what if you want just go to automation editor and add automation by drawing it ? That is what i do in 99% of cases
It would mean again need of some form of list of all available automation params inside automation editor, way to search within it - too much UI inside automation editor... Specially on iphone it would be supecluttered
On other side - in instrument, where you can quickly switch between macro and ui tabs, learn function like i described would be super easy to use, it doesn't need almost any additional UI and it would allow you to choose what you want to automate in almost no time.
I get it, but yah to each their own. I always just twiddle a knob and record automation first, not because I am forced to, but because I simply like to. For me it is much better than lists or macros. The only time a macro is appealing is for X/Y control and then having a learn function like you mentioned would be good.
For me using the AU UI is especially important in things like Aparillo or ProQ2 where the visual feedback is key to the actual function.
Most of this problem is due to AU instruments reporting their controls with non-exclusive or ambiguous names. If there’s an AU instrument you love but has this problem, maybe it would pay to approach the AU’s developer about fixing the problem
800 parameters is still 800 parameters. Proper names or not I am not interested in scrolling through them.
There is (cough) 'another app' (cough) that does this really well for me... (cough), seem to be coming down with something...
that's ok.. my point was that that proposed solution just adds more complexity.. after 4 years in beta team (and 25 years of coding - i'm coder too although not music apps) i learned that it is always important to go to very deep core of problem, identify what is REALLY problem which is neede to be solved and then solve it the way which needs minimum new UI/UX features.
So lets back to basis. What is REAL problem here ?
From my understanding it is that curently it takes too much effort to find what you want to automate, because you need to scroll throuhg gigantic list of params, often with weird short-cur names, to find that one you want to tweak, to add it to macro.
am i right ?
Why have an extra layer of indirection with macros at all? You could add this ‘learn’ functionality for creating automation lanes instead of creating macros.
I disagree. The problem is insisting on creating a layer of abstraction over AU params, in the name of uncluttering UI. This is a logical fallacy: presenting a solution to a problem created by the solution itself.
In other words, this isn’t the only way of reducing clutter. Macros also are useful on their own, and that’s a whole different conversation.
Do you think it would be intuitive UI/UX to be forced to go out of automation editor which is third level of window inside sequencer (sequencer > clip > automation) to instrument UI - which is completely different screen, tweak there knob, and then go again back to automation editor, just to add new automation lane ?
Hell that would be insanely overcomplicated :-) Not speaking about situations like what if i delete all recorded automation - now this lane should disappear ? And if indecise again tomedit it, now i have to again switch back to instrument UI tweak knob and then go again back to completey different screen which is at least 3-4 taps away ?
nightmare
Bottom line: the appeal of NP2 is the clean design with a simple and intuitive interface but really complex innards that you can dig into and move around. That SIMPLICITY is key... and mostly amazing throughout the app. However, there are a few areas that seem to have mixed the boat —automation certainly one of them. This concept has been done much better in lesser apps. Hope to see this simplified in future updates.
I do agree that the list of possible macro control destinations can get way too long. Ideally, it would work exactly like assigning a macro control on Obsidian: enter macro mapping mode, find your control and touch it.
How would you propose that one automates ProQ2?
thats why i think macros would be good concept also for AUfx ..
but lets see what Matt invents to solve AUfx automation issue.. in my experience he is usually 3 steps ahead anyone else :-)))
Only being able to set up ten parameters for automating ProQ2 parameters would render it useless. The point is to explore and determine what needs automation on the fly, not locking into a specific ten. This is even how I feel about synths, just not quite as acutely as an EQ. But, eh, in the end if this isn't the app for automating AUs like ProQ2 (soon to be the amazing ProQ3), then so be it.
No need to invent anything.
This "nightmare" can be looked at from the other perspective as well. See, we can both play this game
"Do you think it would be intuitive UI/UX to be forced to go to outside of the plugin to a different view, pick a macro knob there, press some learn button hidden in some menu, go back to the plugin, turn the knob you wanted to turn, learn it, then actually record automation.
Hell, that would be insanely overcomplicated."
Instead of saving macro knobs templates, you could save automation lane templates. There, problem solved again, without an extra level of abstraction over AUi. I don't understand this insistence on the macro knobs being the only way.
Alas, this is @Blip Interactive's app and they can do whatever they want, I simply echo the fact that it's a shame other apps actually do this better. No matter how much of a fanboy of NS2 I might be, the reality now is that automation is either a pain at the moment, or just not possible at all.
What about AUs that legitimately have lots of params? Like modular synths.
What about AUfx that can end up having hundreds of params as well? Like equalisers.
This isn't a problem with the AUs. This is a problem with NS2's approach.
Yes. Why not?
I think the point was that if the lane disappeared, adding back automation back later isn't instantaneous. Regardless of whether or not this workflow makes sense to us, the most common workflow shouldn't suffer because of these edge cases.
Being forced to use macros to automate something is pretty ridiculous.
Automation of aufx is urgently needed and instruments should be automatable via their own gui without neccessity for macros.
Use macros only for multiple parameter automation.
Tried and tested in every successful daw out there. Proven as optimal workflow and strange decision to detour from it. Surprised beta team let it pass....
@flockz I strongly disagree. It not only declutters the automation tracks (which on iOS can be a serious impediment to workflow), it also encourages the good habit of planning for automation as part of setting up synth presets and tracks.
What I would like to see is the same macros and modulation matrix as in obsidian having access to all parameters in the track, on every track (even tracks that don’t have obsidian - or synths on them.)
I don’t see any appeal for necessity to use macros myself but if some others do then maybe there could be a setting option for people that don’t want that extra step and just want to automate straight from the AU gui with no fuss? I don’t want to have to ‘plan’ automation, I just want to do it
And I might want to automate certain parameters of a preset one day but others on another day. Don’t get me wrong, I like macros, but generally only for multiple parameters on one knob...
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
Wise words @brambos
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