[midphase]

#49548

@Andrew K wrote:

@midphase wrote:

Ok… I’ve already done a preset. However, do you want to boost the subs… or also dull the High freqs? I just made it boost the subs (and added some hair to the low end).

I think just boosting the subs. I like to maintain as much of the crisp high end as possible since that’s a good way to maintain presence in a busy mix.

Thank you!

[Andrew K]

#49549

@midphase wrote:

@Andrew K wrote:

@midphase wrote:

Ok… I’ve already done a preset. However, do you want to boost the subs… or also dull the High freqs? I just made it boost the subs (and added some hair to the low end).

I think just boosting the subs. I like to maintain as much of the crisp high end as possible since that’s a good way to maintain presence in a busy mix.

Thank you!

I think we’ll have a couple “Sub” MorphFX presets. They all have their own personality. The user will have to dial-to-taste. One can overdrive the signal if not careful.

Cheers,

Andrew K

[soulofsound]

#49550

When tuning it’s a bit hard to see the value you’re at. Can you make it bigger?

[Andrew K]

#49551

@soulofsound wrote:

When tuning it’s a bit hard to see the value you’re at. Can you make it bigger?

There should be a floating Tuner Value when you touch a table… is that not big enough for you?

[attachment=0:1fbu56gj]Tuner Value.png[/attachment:1fbu56gj]

Cheers,

Andrew K

[soulofsound]

#49552

Never mind sorry. When i’ve been working long hours my vision becomes worse, but i checked and it’s pretty much as big as any other meter value in Logic. It’s just that i use the tuning more than anything else and that the precise value is more important to read out than it is with other parameters. But it’s fine.

[Andrew K]

#49553

@soulofsound wrote:

Never mind sorry. When i’ve been working long hours my vision becomes worse, but i checked and it’s pretty much as big as any other meter value in Logic. It’s just that i use the tuning more than anything else and that the precise value is more important to read out than it is with other parameters. But it’s fine.

No worries. BTW… that “flaoting Value” was harder to code than one may think… as are most thing involving graphics in KSP

Cheers,

Andrew K

[soulofsound]

#49554

I hear you. GUI programming is the hardest thing in the world. I think you did a fine job.

[Andrew K]

#49555

@soulofsound wrote:

I hear you. GUI programming is the hardest thing in the world. I think you did a fine job.

Well all the credit for graphics integration goes to Seb!! He was to one who took the graphic assets and applied them.

Cheers,

Andrew K

[Sagar]

#49556

Hi Guys.

Sorry to jump in a bit late here, but I wanted to share some impressions too.

First, I think the patches are freaking beautiful. While I’m sure future reviewers will rightly focus on more percussive aspects like the toms (which are amazing), bass drums, and wide-ranging cymbal articulations, I was also blown away patches like the glockenspiel and guitar pad. They might not be the first thing people think of when it comes to orchestral percussion, but my goodness they are gorgeous.

Also, the keyswitching is seamless, which means I can play around with different transitions in the moment. That’s hugely important as I can see a lot of compositional ideas springing from this kind of free experimentation. I am still going through the videos to get under the hood more, but am very encouraged by the opening remarks on this thread about the primacy of offering an intuitive user experience. I’m not a MIDI master like some of you guys, and the sheer proliferation of control change options can be overwhelming. (“Your modern world con-fu-ses me…”) But the main interface of LADD feels intuitive. I don’t need to print out a list of keyswitches because I can just refer to the wheel to see what keyswitch I’ve triggered, and can quickly compare it to the one I just left.

(As a comparison, I’m also learning the Electri6ity electric guitar library. Man, talk about an encyclopedia of keyswitches… I had to buy a whiteboard just to tape everything up above my monitor.) So kudos to you guys for clearly designing LADD with the user in mind.

Cheers,
Sagar

[midphase]

#49557

I feel like it’s been a bit quiet around here since the update.

I wanted to chime in and say that so far, I’m having a pretty good experience with LADD v.2, it’s stable and I’m not having any significant CPU issues despite running a riduncolously low buffer on my machine.

One of the presets I find myself pulling up quite often is actually the Hi Hats and Shakers. I think they sound crisp and cut through quite well. I do have to run them through some pretty aggressive Mastering compression to even out the levels (as I might have mentioned before, level discrepancy is probably my #1 issue with LADD).

As LADD nears its finished stage (I assume you guys are trying to release this before the holidays), as far as I’m concerned once the levels have been evened out a tad more and some of the instruments cleaned up a bit (mostly I would prefer if all instruments load up defaulting to C0 as the FX setting, and I personally would prefer if there aren’t any “gaps” on the keyboard which can lead me to press the key over and over wondering if I just can’t hear the actual sample), this puppy is ready for the masses.

I haven’t meticulously gone through sample by sample for each and every instrument (although I have for a number of them), and I haven’t encountered any glitches or other bugaboos. Lastly…sorry if I haven’t posted any feedback regarding the manual, I should really try to force myself to read it…but, as Andrew would say, I have an allergy to manuals. Seriously, I think the tutorial videos are a much quicker and more efficient way to convey pretty much all of the information that the user needs to know. In recent years I have begun using VFX software and video plugins, and many of them don’t come with any printed documentation eschewing traditional manuals and instead relying on online tutorial videos to get the users up to speed.

Anyway, those are my thoughts for this week. (but yes, I will make an effort to read the manual as well)

[Andrew K]

#49558

@midphase wrote:

One of the presets I find myself pulling up quite often is actually the Hi Hats and Shakers. I think they sound crisp and cut through quite well. I do have to run them through some pretty aggressive Mastering compression to even out the levels (as I might have mentioned before, level discrepancy is probably my #1 issue with LADD).

Hi Kays,

Thanks for the kind words and feedback. Can you describe what you mean a little more about having to use some aggressive mastering compression to even out levels. When you mention level discrepancy… what exactly do you mean. One thing we don’t want to do with LADD is kill dynamics… but we also don’t want “discrepancies”… so I’d love a little more info on that if you can.

Cheers,

Andrew K

[midphase]

#49559

Hello Andrew,

I love dynamics too, but there is a fine line where they tend to work against you in a mix rather than for you (or alternatively they tend to make you avoid a particular loop sequence because it just won’t cut through the mix).

The way I have started using LADD in my music is to do a couple of passes, the first is to simply program in the keyswitches for the various LADD sequences I want to use in a particular track, and then I do another pass where I’m riding cc1 and adjusting the dynamics of the sequences the way they best fit the rest of my arrangement. IMHO this is a very powerful way to work (although I do wish for also the ability for LADD to recognize input velocity on the sequence keyswitches as a way to potentially cut the second step at times). In fact, I would say that one of the most powerful features of LADD, and one which certainly sets it apart from other similar libraries, is the ability to ride out the dynamics of the various loops, with the results being extremely musical.

The problem I’m running into is that some of the sequenced loops are far too low in volume and presence to begin with (at their maximum velocity range) that they tend to get completely lost in a busy mix. I don’t currently have LADD in front of me, but I’ll be more than happy tomorrow to give you specific instances on specific instruments that IMHO are simply too low in volume compared to the other sequences in the instrument. Since LADD gives me a very efficient way to add dynamics (or rather reduce velocity values in a subtractive way), I would prefer that all of the default sequences are at the higher range of the velocity values.

[Andrew K]

#49560

@midphase wrote:

Hello Andrew,

I love dynamics too, but there is a fine line where they tend to work against you in a mix rather than for you (or alternatively they tend to make you avoid a particular loop sequence because it just won’t cut through the mix).

The way I have started using LADD in my music is to do a couple of passes, the first is to simply program in the keyswitches for the various LADD sequences I want to use in a particular track, and then I do another pass where I’m riding cc1 and adjusting the dynamics of the sequences the way they best fit the rest of my arrangement. IMHO this is a very powerful way to work (although I do wish for also the ability for LADD to recognize input velocity on the sequence keyswitches as a way to potentially cut the second step at times). In fact, I would say that one of the most powerful features of LADD, and one which certainly sets it apart from other similar libraries, is the ability to ride out the dynamics of the various loops, with the results being extremely musical.

The problem I’m running into is that some of the sequenced loops are far too low in volume and presence to begin with (at their maximum velocity range) that they tend to get completely lost in a busy mix. I don’t currently have LADD in front of me, but I’ll be more than happy tomorrow to give you specific instances on specific instruments that IMHO are simply too low in volume compared to the other sequences in the instrument. Since LADD gives me a very efficient way to add dynamics (or rather reduce velocity values in a subtractive way), I would prefer that all of the default sequences are at the higher range of the velocity values.

In the Setup section of the Man page, would turning the Velocity Curve knob all the way to the right help in this instance? Or perhaps drawing a curve that doesn’t start so low in dynamics?:

Power User Tip: You can assign a CC to the Velocity Curve knob and ride it in real time to add tons of Balls to your parts. “Balls” is a very technical mixing term

[attachment=0:1aiqoqy1]Screen Shot 2014-10-19 at 1.19.43 PM.png[/attachment:1aiqoqy1]

Cheers,

Andrew K

[soulofsound]

#49561

I hadn’t tried the velocity curve yet. Pretty awesome curves/compression effects there.

[Sebastian K]

#49562

@midphase wrote:

Hello Andrew,

I love dynamics too, but there is a fine line where they tend to work against you in a mix rather than for you (or alternatively they tend to make you avoid a particular loop sequence because it just won’t cut through the mix).

The way I have started using LADD in my music is to do a couple of passes, the first is to simply program in the keyswitches for the various LADD sequences I want to use in a particular track, and then I do another pass where I’m riding cc1 and adjusting the dynamics of the sequences the way they best fit the rest of my arrangement. IMHO this is a very powerful way to work (although I do wish for also the ability for LADD to recognize input velocity on the sequence keyswitches as a way to potentially cut the second step at times). In fact, I would say that one of the most powerful features of LADD, and one which certainly sets it apart from other similar libraries, is the ability to ride out the dynamics of the various loops, with the results being extremely musical.

The problem I’m running into is that some of the sequenced loops are far too low in volume and presence to begin with (at their maximum velocity range) that they tend to get completely lost in a busy mix. I don’t currently have LADD in front of me, but I’ll be more than happy tomorrow to give you specific instances on specific instruments that IMHO are simply too low in volume compared to the other sequences in the instrument. Since LADD gives me a very efficient way to add dynamics (or rather reduce velocity values in a subtractive way), I would prefer that all of the default sequences are at the higher range of the velocity values.

Hi Kays,

Are there two patches in particular you might mention as an example of the issue. I’m curious to see if the problem lies in:

1. The velocities in the programmed sequence

2. The mixer setup (or chosen KeyFX)

…or some combination of both.

Regards,
Sebastian

[soulofsound]

#49563

I think the new humanize and spread features are great, very essential. Overall the product really shines.

If you’d like to hear what would be nicer, but really not very important as LADD can well do without:
1. autopan speed control
2. automatic gain compensation for the width (as wider is always louder)
3. visual representation of the chopper waveform
4. different lp filter types if that would add more sonic variety with the filter (not sure here)

It still feels a bit like working next to a cliff when changing parameters in LADD, because of the Key FX that -when hit- delete all unsaved changes. Despite all my fears i have not run into this situation yet.

LADD is such a great system to work with. The sonic possibilities are pretty much endless. Yet i think more sounds are always welcome as you’ve done such a great job with the pads. For regular drums it would work equally well.

[Author]

Posts