Synth Rack

[dawman]

I have these great presets and sub presets in my SpaceF mixers which are great for live work, as the effect remains loaded, but the blue led's when disabled bypass the effect w/o off loading it, hence the name Load State.

I will be needing to use 4 to 6 synths in a similar " synth rack " for my projects in XITE-1.
Each could have 4 similar synths so that the MIDI CC's could be shared for the freq cutoff, rersonance, LFO rate/ depth, etc.

I am using Modular chains right now, and a few synths all serialized.
Since they share the same MIDI Channel when I send a program change message, they all go to preset 1-127. Naturally one must have matching banks for chaining so that I can layer them as needed, and having a preset w/ zero volume on it means that synth is not part of that particular layer.

I am sure this is no biggie for most, but for live work it is crucial.
My concerns are for screen real estate also. Having some of these would enable me to have an uncluttered screen, and if need be a simple clicking of the insert will bring up the synth for editing.

These could be relatively small as far as module size goes, and would allow for a good workflow for live or recording as you could concentrate on mixing and other chores.

My PWindows from using VDAT and hardware effects, and monitors for the ears, and mics has made my main DAW's window totally undesirable, and mostly because of the synths needing to be free of virtual cabling, etc. Sometimes I want to edit or save something on a synth that I liked, and can hardly bring it up between all of these freakin' virtual cables.

Is this possible to do? If not, I can take the torture as I am used to it already, but imagine the clutter I will have from the sheer amount of power the XITE-1 will bring to the table.

Thanks For Even Reading This.

[dante]

Have you ever checked out the 'Combinator' in Reason ? If not, you should. And so should a SonicCore developer. I remember a rack device in creamware, but it went no-where near as far as Combinator in terms of submixing, external routing options, heirachical compartmentalisation of complexity and user interface in general.

[dawman]

In all honesty my work around performs as expected. It's the size of the Project Window that I am concerned with.
I stack 'em on top of each other now and leave a corner for each one exposed so I can snag it w/ a mouse click if I really need to.
It is a crude but an effective way of serializing in Scope w/o adding clutter to my already cluttered windows.

It seems that a module from Soniccore must be made to achieve what I am after. It seems like what Medhi's LBH is going to do, might be a solution later on after Scope 5.0 is released.

It would be similar in size to a modular 8 x 8 shell, but capable of dragging synths into the shell and assigning their associated audio outputs. Seperate MIDI channels aren't necessary as the synths could be muted and layered together sharing a preset list like I do currently.

[dante]

With regards the Reason combinator, I wasnt referring to its picture interface (although I like that
as well). More its effectiveness in managing complexity.

For example, in combinator I can set up 3 or 4 synths or samplers, routed through effects and mixed in a 6 channel line mixer. This may take up 7 or 8 stereo cable pairs. However, coming out of the combinator is only a single stereo output. This means that viewing the back of the entire reason rack, those cables within a closed combinator are not shown and tangled in with the rest of the devices.

However, the option to route midi inputs to individual devices within the combinator or to all as one is still open. Not only has combinator hidden the complexity of 6 device cables, but it has done so while still allowing flexibility over how incoming midi signal is routed.

By subgrouping ALL reason devices into combinators ( say 4 for a project), looking at the back of the reason rack only shows 4 cable pairs, whereas without combinators, there may be 30 or 40 cable pairs to navigate. Only when I expand a combinator to change its routing do I need to be concerned with its internal cabling.

A concept like this in SCOPE would be brilliant IMHO, aside from type of graphics.

I am not sure scope should go the 'reason' way of picture modelling gear.
Actually thats what I always disliked in reason:
The limits of the rack and the rack unit user interfaces.

[dante]

Yep you got it. Also I forgot to mention - each combinator can save and load its own patches. For example, I have 6 samplers set up with various orchestral string ensemble samples connected to a 6 channel mixer and I call the combinator for those 'String Section'. I can then load 'String Section' into any other project.

V powerful. Would love to have this in Scope.

[dawman]

And So It Will Be.....

So It Shall Be Written, So It Shall Be Done. ( Yule Brennar as Ramsees II in Exodus, Metro Goldwyn 1956 ).