MIDI Mapping for pitch & frequency sliders removed by quantize switch

[eenixon]

On Mac OS version 10.12.6. with the Buchla in stand alone mode. I've created a map on a nanoKontrol2 that at this point uses sliders and knobs to control the sliders in the two oscillators and the Low Pass Gate. Saved and restored while I evaluate the software.

However I discover that the mapping on the pitch and frequency sliders of the two oscillators goes away if I change the Quantize switch position. And returns when I switch it back.

I have done and extensive/exhaustive test but I haven't yet found any other interactions among interface controls.

Is this expected behaviour? If so, how is one supposed to work with this? It's far from intuitive.

[LBH]

I can confirm this. It's not good as you need 2 hardware controls to control the same parameter slider, unless you have a DAW or other possibilities where you can assign multiple parameters to the same hardware control.

In my DAW the Quantized and the Unquantized automation parameters actually is two different parameters, even if they are controlled by the same sliders on the GUI. So the behavior seems to be in the design. But to me it's wrong. Even in a DAW the parameter in effect is depended on the quantize switch setting, so it make no sense in any way it's like this.
It also require two automation lanes/ setups as it is. It's doubble work and confusing.

I don't find this to be exspected behavior.

Why is it so Arturia? Is this something that has been overlooked?

EDIT: I suddenly remembered this https://forum.arturia.com/index.php?topic=91831.0
But Arturia it's not good you have to remap a control everytime you have a preset using quantize or not.
If the mapping was saved with a preset, then it would be nice, and a little better, but still there would be troubles in DAWS using other assignment methods. EDIT END

[eenixon]

Thanks for this response and for the link to the other thread.

I don't find the Arturia response adequate, mainly because it assumes a use-case that Arturia sees as poor/unlikely.

However, Arturia isn't paying (a lot) for this product and trying to use it. It's _entirely_ likely that, in the course of developing a patch, the musician will want to experiment with the quantized versus the unquantized versions of an oscillator set-up. That the musician is forced to switch gears, reprogram the mappings of his or her controller is just poor design. Convenient for the developers of the software for keeping easy track of parameters in the code; inconvenient for the user for making music efficiently.

With all the brouhaha about homage to tradition, quality of emulation, playability, this is a very strange posture for the company to adopt. I'm glad I haven't purchased this product.

[Germain.arturia]

Hi all, sorry for the delay.
As LBH said, this issue has been spotted on another topic (thanks LBH, as usual )

"I don't find the Arturia response adequate, mainly because it assumes a use-case that Arturia sees as poor/unlikely."
So yes, it has been done by design . But the answer i gave was purely personal, and "live performance" was in my mind. i even used the IMHO acronym. But that's not the debate.

Anyway, i'll log this immediately in our bugtracker, and hope this issue will be considered on a future update (don't have no info about the schedule yet)

Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for your understanding.

Best,

[LBH]

Great Germain.
For the functionality it'll be good to fix this.

Best

[Christian_S]

Anyway, i'll log this immediately in our bugtracker, and hope this issue will be considered on a future update (don't have no info about the schedule yet)

Great! I can not wait for it to finally work properly.

[eenixon]

Well. Here I am, more than a year after starting this thread. And I'm having the same issues with MIDI mapping of the freq sliders in the oscillators.

Reading what was written after I lost interest in the evaluation back in 2018, I see that there was a commitment to log this as a 'bug' and work it out in a subsequent release.

I now own this product and during the licensing a new release was downloaded and installed.

The problem -- and it *is* a problem -- persists. What is going to be done to resolve this? I can see no reason from the standpoint of usability why the same MIDI mapping cannot be applied to the freq slider for both quantized and unquanitzed configurations. Yes, there are likely heavy, heavy mathematical reasons having to do with 'linear' or 'exponential' or some other subtlety. But these sliders are played by ear as far as I can tell; that was the initial and overriding design goal. Would the sliders in a hardware version of this synth jump around and stop functioning if, in the unlikely event, the device new or cared about quantized signal flow? I doubt it.
 
At minimum, the courtesy of a response would be expected. What is going on here?

[MajorFubar]

At minimum, the courtesy of a response would be expected. What is going on here?

Arturia have unfortunately little to no interest bug-fixing and updating their existing hardware and software, it's all about launching the next big thing. If you think you've been waiting long for a response, you want to see how long the Matrix Brute people have been waiting for bug fixes to its firmware.

I bought V Collection 4, upgraded to 5, then to 6, but the way it's going I feel I won't be upgrading any further when they release a new version, because I simply don't like their current business model of launching software and hardware and then abandoning it shortly afterwards because their horizon has moved on to the next big thing. It's not the way they used to work, but these days they're spinning too many plates and they just simply can't keep them all spinning at once.

You don't have to delve very far through this forum to see the emerging pattern of users who have invested in Arturia hardware and software who feel abandoned because the bug reports and feature requests they post in the relevant section of the forum would appear to fall on deaf ears.

It's an unfortunate and sad state of affairs.  I hate it when a good company seems to be going bad, especially when the influential people who could change it and improve it don't seem to be able to see the rot setting in.

[eenixon]

Well that is dispiriting news. And I'm sure, in this particular instance, Don Buchla is spinning in his grave.

I guess the Buchla corporation or whatever it calls itself now (that it contemplates a new Eurorack product line) sold its right to complain about the implementations of licenses it is now selling by the handful. And the various social media hucksters crow about the 'truth' of this product.

But I have only myself to blame: I read the User Manual, saw the numerous spelling errors and grammatical gaffs (not to mention the unfulfilled promises) and still went for it. Another West Coast Dream washed up on a beach somewhere.

I was looking at the MIDI behaviours via the Quick Controls interface in Cubase just now. There is indeed an implicit and undocumented connection between the status of the Quantize switch and the automation of the frequency sliders: When quantize is 'on' "Mod/Comp Osc Feq Q" is engaged; when quantize is 'off' "Mod/Comp Osc Freq" (no Q) is engaged.

So in a scenario where I would wish to create a Play List -- which to attempt some fairness *is* a nice feature -- in order to compose an, ahem, larger or more highly structured piece, my playing interface is constrained to one or the other quantize modes OR I must remember/know/notice which mode I'm now playing in and then also remember where the relevant slider is located. This is definitely not a problem a *real* Easel owner would have to deal with.

This is not even to question the whole notion of Quantization. For example, why should it be dictated that the only quantization available to me is based on the 12th root of 2? I.e., what is called equal temperament. In fact, I'm accustomed to creating sound based on the 25th root of 5, invented by Stockhausen and which is also equal tempered, the difference being the pitch ratio, rather than being 2:1 is 5:1, and the sequence of steps is 25 rather than 12.

The architecture and design of this aspect of the Easel V is poorly thought out and needlessly restrictive. It doesn't even take into considerations the conventions that already exist in the industry with respect to MIDI, quantization and alternate tunings (via the use of .scl or .tun definitions.) The Easel V is at the high- or premium-end of the price point for VSTs and yet its use value in this particular context doesn't make it past 100 bucks.

But, as you say, no one is listening or caring so I'll fold my pulpit and call it done. Thanks for your response; misery loves company.
 

[LBH]

I don't think neither the current or the original hardware Buchla Easel had Quantize functions at all. It does'nt look like it. And as Pitch in the hardware versions is generated by voltage, then i also don't think the hardware versions can be tuned to certain scales. The Keyboard tuning produce equal-tempered half-step pitch relationships.

One can say, that if you take into account that Arturia have added quantize functions, then you should never use this setting to have it work like the original Easels, and then you don't have the controller issues that is this threads topic.

But as Arturia has added Quantize (and that's very good), then it should not be needed to use 2 MIDI CCs to control what perhaps in the coding is 2 sliders, but in use only show as 1 slider. This is mostly to not use multiple MIDI CCs for a function.
I can understand the argument that you in a performance will set it to one fuction and not switch between them. But who knows, when it's possible? Anyway then, the MIDI CC should be the same, as it's annoying you can't.

It's not a huge disadvantage you need to use 2 controls for a slider when compared to the originals, as the originals apparantly did'nt have this Quantize settings at all.
And they apparantly therfore also could'nt be tuned to quantize to different scales, so that is'nt a disadvantage either that you can't do that in Arturias version. But you can wish for it. It would make sense in Buchla Easel V to have many scales to use for the Quantize functions.

[eenixon]

Thanks for this LBH.

I can understand the rationale you are outlining. And it has the virtue from a software designer and vendor's perspective of being pragmatic and very much in the middle of the road of current synth conventions. And I don't think I would get particularly excited about it if we were discussing another synth emulation, particularly one that was more equal tempered, piano keyboard-centric.

But a great deal is made by you all, with respect to the Easel V, of how closely it hues to the traditions and, may I say it, ideology of Don Buchla's designs. So on one level, it's a matter of principle that a slider is a slider is a slider and Arturia's very laudable decision to expand the capabilities of the instrument should not interfere with that by changing a slider into a different slider.. sometimes.

I'm not a ksyboard player and I'm not really interested in the type of music making that is restricted to a 400 year old system of tuning, particularly when the world is full of alternatives that would make for fascinating sound when combined with the marvelous audible magic that the Easel V can create. And let's not forget that people like Morton Subotnik managed some very impressive results without quantization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G1hRNLlYpg  And many continue to do so today.

In any event, this is all a matter of opinion and I've had my say about it. I apologize to all those front line folks who might have to read what was likely quite a negative screed yesterday. It wasn't written to or against you folks: the executives and senior managers of Arturia are the ones who make decisions about what to fund and how much. In my view and the view of a significant number of other customers apparently, not enough is being done with respect to maintaining and repairing the current inventory. And, I think, it will have a large cost for Arturia going forward, in the mid- to long-term.

Over and out. And thanks again for your response.          ...edN

[eenixon]

I wanted to provide a short Coda to this thread by way of a 'happy' ending.

If you are an Ableton Live user and you, like me, find the implementation issues around pitch/frequency sliders on Easel V an impediment to *really* developing some kinesthetic connection while playing Easel V, you should take a look at this product from nativeKontrol:

https://www.nativekontrol.com/DDC.html

nativeKontrol, if you're not aware of it, is a company that sells scripting components for enhancing the functionality of MIDI Controllers in the Live environment. DDC is a system that helps you build mappings to Live native instruments or 3rd part VSTs with generic MIDI controllers like the nanoKontrol2, LaunchPads, etc. It's a solution or workaround for the quantized versus non-quantized slider mapping because it permits multiple 'pages', up to 8, for each of 6 possible devices. Therefore, while it's not perfect, it allows you to create a collection of alternative mappings that each use the same physical controls but which use the appropriate CC code depending on the quantized/non-quantized configuration of the patch. Each page can be accessed either through its own button on the controller or via a 'Next page' button. User configurable.

It's well documented and well supported by a very smart guy who has been working in this area for quite a while. It's a robust setup and, in my experience, much more solid than standard MIDI mapping, either with Easel V directly or indirectly via Live MIDI mapping.

There are videos that explain the product and its advantages. And I commend you to the other products this company provides as well, all of which in one way or another extend the functionality of controllers in flexible ways. Finally, this is non-paid bumpf in support of some excellent value added work in support of Arturia customers who want to up their game a bit.

...edN