I know it has been discussed in other threads, but I followed dblbass' suggestion for a new dedicated thread, for clarity purposes...
My suggestions:
-More stereo outputs
-Possibility to modulate the envelopes with controllers of our choice.
-More than 16 instruments at the same time.
STS improvement suggestions
great - and let's hope the programming gnomes over at CW are sensible enough to read this thread.
Just to get these all in one place, here are the ideas from previous thread, attributed:
from ohmelas:
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dblbass on 2002-04-05 21:22 ]</font>
Just to get these all in one place, here are the ideas from previous thread, attributed:
from ohmelas:
from ernest@303.nu:
Giga/Halion compatible
8-layers per note
Added Direct support of Kurzweil, EMU and Roland Formats
from me:
assigning MIDI controllers by simply right-clicking the parameter, like 99,9953402% of the other Pulsar devices. I don't like the current procedure. This would also offer a solution to my next wish:
much much more cc# destinations!!!!
and why no unlimited number of layers?
possibility of relative global editing of sample parameters within a program. For example, sometimes imported .sf2/akai programs have a tuning offset for the different keygroups, things get f*cked up when I touch one of the settings
more than 16 program slots! (I like to assign multiple programs to the same MIDI channel and running out of slots is easy this way)
setting STS-2/3/4/5k modus per program to free up DSP
possibility to disable the fixed modulation assignment (cc# 7/10/11/67/70/72/73). They can come in handy to free up controllers but sometimes they're fighting with other instruments I'd assigned the same cc#'s
drag'n'drop of multiple programs at once from Explorer
I can go on forever
any more??
1. better SF2 support
2. some kind of streamin mode, and import of giga format. (would this improve RAM use with STS? are there some kind of patent problems?)
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dblbass on 2002-04-05 21:22 ]</font>
make all controlers assignable
I'm still seeing new things in life.
<p><a href="http://mp3.com/dxl">www.mp3.com/dxl</a></p>
<p><a href="http://mp3.com/dxl">www.mp3.com/dxl</a></p>
Full software sampling surface - no emulations of this crappy minidisplay shit of 20 year old samplers.
No sample editor, it´s useless - even shareware does a better job.
Easier effect modulation routine...
A Change of the filterengine: Replace the crappy 4 Filters with one good one or do not implement one or just implement a full functional insertslot there.
basically a change the whole surface, I DO NOT fancy for crappy mini displays...I could buy 20 year old hardware if I`d like that stuff.
No sample editor, it´s useless - even shareware does a better job.
Easier effect modulation routine...
A Change of the filterengine: Replace the crappy 4 Filters with one good one or do not implement one or just implement a full functional insertslot there.
basically a change the whole surface, I DO NOT fancy for crappy mini displays...I could buy 20 year old hardware if I`d like that stuff.
One or more unified windows for assiging mod sources. Grid-like format, with parameters down the side, and mod sources across the top (some fixed, some user selectable via drop-downs)
at the intersections of each parameter/modsource row and column would be a button, blank if un-assigned, illuminated if assigned. Double click to set sensitivity, range, etc.
This basic grid-type window design could be used at the program level, the key-group level, and so on, adapted as need for whatever is modifiable at that level.
this might make it much more user friendly to see things all at once, and accelerate the learning curve
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dblbass on 2002-04-23 21:55 ]</font>
at the intersections of each parameter/modsource row and column would be a button, blank if un-assigned, illuminated if assigned. Double click to set sensitivity, range, etc.
This basic grid-type window design could be used at the program level, the key-group level, and so on, adapted as need for whatever is modifiable at that level.
this might make it much more user friendly to see things all at once, and accelerate the learning curve
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dblbass on 2002-04-23 21:55 ]</font>
here's a more controversial idea, but maybe worth considering:
Like many others who don't come to it from a hardware sample background, I find the interface of the STS a bit clumsy, and found it an impediment to learning the program.
I got to better understand my STS5k once I grasped its hierarchial structure: a sampler holds several programs which hold keygroups which hold zones which hold (pointers to) samples.
Why not redesign the interface so it clearly reflects this hierarchial structure. Imagine a Window Explorer-like framework, with left and right panels. (apoligies to Mac friends -you'll know what I mean) In the left panel would be a tree structure, expandable and collapsible by clicking on little plus and minus signs, not unlike nested folders.
Depending on what is selected on the left, a different control panel would be displayed in the right panel. For flexibility in navigation, in all cases, moving up and down through the hierarchy could be done by selecting, expanding and collapsing on the left. At the same time, in many cases buttons or controls on the right would also move you around. If you move around using buttons in the control panels, the highlighted item on the tree in the left panel would change accordingly, so you'd always have a handy visual reference of where you were.
If the STS root were selected on the left, the right could look more or less like the present main STS window, with a couple of basic settings and a display of the program slots. Other buttons in this panel would bring up detailed global settings boxes; it would be very clear graphically that you are working at the STS root level - it would stay visible and highlighted in the tree in the left panel.
A plus sign next to the STS root would indicate one or more loaded programs. Expanding would list currently loaded programs. Right click on the STS root would bring up Add New box. and so on.
Select a given program, right panel would show a program-level settings control panel and a key groups graphic. Access to detailed settings for one or both of these might be accessed through a sub-panel, a button away. at the same time, access to the panel for a given key group could be made by expanding the program in the left panel, and selecting on the the keygroups lists within. On the left, keygroups would probably be best identified in by the MIDI note numbers of the key range.
and so on down through the sample level
Somewhere in the overall structure would be a bar showing the Windows path of the item currently selected in the left panel. This would be the Pulsar Project when the STS root is selected, the Program file when a program or key group is selected, and would change to the path to the wave file when one is working at the sample level.(Possibly with some color shading to draw attention to the fact that edits here are now in the sample, not the program.)
Also there might be a way to shift- or option-click in the left to slect mutip[le items. Edits on the right would then have affect across mutiple items. For settings where this is simply not possible or is meaningless, the relevant controls on the right could be greyed out.
In general, I would prefer that the interface clearly reflect the fact that STS is a SOFTWARE sampler. I would much prefer a user metaphor and a look and feel closer to the actual software "files, settings and playback" that is actually going on inside Pulsar/Windows. Hardware samplers controls look the way they do because hardware buttons and LCD displays are expensive, not to mention custom design of GUIs. In software, we have loads of existing controls and GUI metaphors lying around ready for use (both Windows and Mac, and of course Pulsar's sometimes cool, sometimes infuriating proprietary GUI stuff).
Naturally, the virtual Akai look could be maintained if they think some users will prefer it. Just user-select one versus the other look. The underlying settings would be the same with either.
Like many others who don't come to it from a hardware sample background, I find the interface of the STS a bit clumsy, and found it an impediment to learning the program.
I got to better understand my STS5k once I grasped its hierarchial structure: a sampler holds several programs which hold keygroups which hold zones which hold (pointers to) samples.
Why not redesign the interface so it clearly reflects this hierarchial structure. Imagine a Window Explorer-like framework, with left and right panels. (apoligies to Mac friends -you'll know what I mean) In the left panel would be a tree structure, expandable and collapsible by clicking on little plus and minus signs, not unlike nested folders.
Depending on what is selected on the left, a different control panel would be displayed in the right panel. For flexibility in navigation, in all cases, moving up and down through the hierarchy could be done by selecting, expanding and collapsing on the left. At the same time, in many cases buttons or controls on the right would also move you around. If you move around using buttons in the control panels, the highlighted item on the tree in the left panel would change accordingly, so you'd always have a handy visual reference of where you were.
If the STS root were selected on the left, the right could look more or less like the present main STS window, with a couple of basic settings and a display of the program slots. Other buttons in this panel would bring up detailed global settings boxes; it would be very clear graphically that you are working at the STS root level - it would stay visible and highlighted in the tree in the left panel.
A plus sign next to the STS root would indicate one or more loaded programs. Expanding would list currently loaded programs. Right click on the STS root would bring up Add New box. and so on.
Select a given program, right panel would show a program-level settings control panel and a key groups graphic. Access to detailed settings for one or both of these might be accessed through a sub-panel, a button away. at the same time, access to the panel for a given key group could be made by expanding the program in the left panel, and selecting on the the keygroups lists within. On the left, keygroups would probably be best identified in by the MIDI note numbers of the key range.
and so on down through the sample level
Somewhere in the overall structure would be a bar showing the Windows path of the item currently selected in the left panel. This would be the Pulsar Project when the STS root is selected, the Program file when a program or key group is selected, and would change to the path to the wave file when one is working at the sample level.(Possibly with some color shading to draw attention to the fact that edits here are now in the sample, not the program.)
Also there might be a way to shift- or option-click in the left to slect mutip[le items. Edits on the right would then have affect across mutiple items. For settings where this is simply not possible or is meaningless, the relevant controls on the right could be greyed out.
In general, I would prefer that the interface clearly reflect the fact that STS is a SOFTWARE sampler. I would much prefer a user metaphor and a look and feel closer to the actual software "files, settings and playback" that is actually going on inside Pulsar/Windows. Hardware samplers controls look the way they do because hardware buttons and LCD displays are expensive, not to mention custom design of GUIs. In software, we have loads of existing controls and GUI metaphors lying around ready for use (both Windows and Mac, and of course Pulsar's sometimes cool, sometimes infuriating proprietary GUI stuff).
Naturally, the virtual Akai look could be maintained if they think some users will prefer it. Just user-select one versus the other look. The underlying settings would be the same with either.
"Virtual Akai" is pretty useless if you're not familar with Akai. Agree 100% with Zer. The new NNXT and Kontakt both take advantage of 1024x768 ergonomics. A better GUI - and therefore user efficiency - would go a long way to improving the STS range.
Perhaps CW could also think about have a downloadable sound library for registered users. A nice touch perhaps given the way most companies these days bundle at least a few CDs.
Perhaps CW could also think about have a downloadable sound library for registered users. A nice touch perhaps given the way most companies these days bundle at least a few CDs.
-
King of Snake
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Contact:
I have to agree with dblBass here. The STS is a software sampler, but it seems CW has not taken the trouble of trying to implement anything that could be done in software but not in hardware (interface wise). So what we get is a very clumsy interface that (apparently, I've never used one) resembles a bunch of pretty old AKAI samplers.
The STS seems allright if you want to do traditional instruments/multisampling, but I'd also like to see some more extensive feautures for sound mangling/sculpting. Just look at something like NI's Kontakt, and then ask yourself why can't STS be like that?
Why try to imitate a limited hardware design when you have all the freedom of software?
I now actually have two STS3000's (one with the Pro-pack and one with the second-hand PS I bought) but I've still hardly used them.
Which I think is a shame.
The STS seems allright if you want to do traditional instruments/multisampling, but I'd also like to see some more extensive feautures for sound mangling/sculpting. Just look at something like NI's Kontakt, and then ask yourself why can't STS be like that?
Why try to imitate a limited hardware design when you have all the freedom of software?
I now actually have two STS3000's (one with the Pro-pack and one with the second-hand PS I bought) but I've still hardly used them.
Which I think is a shame.
Just to put my 2 cents in. I agree with what has been said here.
As I mentioned in a previous thread the idea to copy an outdated hardware sampler is *totally* idiotic.
The STS series is small and tedius to use. Make it full screen when you open it and show more data at once and try to add innovative features not found on the Akai.
I loved the feature of the Emax which mixed transients of two samples. This process created some beautiful and often unexpected results but took hours (or days). On a modern computer it would be much faster.
Don't assume that we only have one sample CD we leave in the computer and a tiny hard drive. I often forget to save my sample volume, then when I load my project with another CD or no CD I have to find which CD or CDs the samples are on. This is the single most annoying thing for me.
There ought to be an "Archive Project" option when saving my project so I can save all the volumes and settings and everything needed for that project with one mouse click!
As far as being limited to 16 intruments, this is not a problem for me as I can always add an STS 2000 module for that.
As I mentioned in a previous thread the idea to copy an outdated hardware sampler is *totally* idiotic.
The STS series is small and tedius to use. Make it full screen when you open it and show more data at once and try to add innovative features not found on the Akai.
I loved the feature of the Emax which mixed transients of two samples. This process created some beautiful and often unexpected results but took hours (or days). On a modern computer it would be much faster.
Don't assume that we only have one sample CD we leave in the computer and a tiny hard drive. I often forget to save my sample volume, then when I load my project with another CD or no CD I have to find which CD or CDs the samples are on. This is the single most annoying thing for me.
There ought to be an "Archive Project" option when saving my project so I can save all the volumes and settings and everything needed for that project with one mouse click!
As far as being limited to 16 intruments, this is not a problem for me as I can always add an STS 2000 module for that.
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
hehe, judging from how poorly they've implemented the current interface tho.. I wouldn't be too greedy. Imagine if they came up with a sensible wave editor.. betcha it'll have so many bugs in it, you might as well feed it leaves.
But it would be awesome if all the windows could be unified in some way. All these sts windows all over the place can get messy at times.
For me, I thought stereo outs would be nice, though it's still possible with a bunch of extra clicks on the current version... composing is about style and STS, believe me, is not built with style. I mean, we are artists you know.. can't mess up our artistry with such clumsy workflow.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2002-05-09 09:50 ]</font>
But it would be awesome if all the windows could be unified in some way. All these sts windows all over the place can get messy at times.
For me, I thought stereo outs would be nice, though it's still possible with a bunch of extra clicks on the current version... composing is about style and STS, believe me, is not built with style. I mean, we are artists you know.. can't mess up our artistry with such clumsy workflow.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2002-05-09 09:50 ]</font>
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the STS range offer far more polyphony per dsp than any other CW device? why not put this to good use. A range of sound modules based on the STS architecture would in my opinion be a welcome addition to the CW arsenal. All it would take is some sonic creativity and a redesigned GUI. The end results could also be sold on as STS expander packs.