MSoundFactory 60% Off

[Larry Shelby]

$132 at Plugin Boutique

https://www.pluginboutique.com/products/6076

[Spice3d]

PB did a pretty in depth interview with the developer. I’ve  always ignored this synth but have changed my mind. 

https://youtu.be/w9LkAI9f0qg

[Larry Shelby]

 

[mibby]

For piano junkies, here's a link to the beginning of the "Meldway Grand" piano instrument.

 

 

[Brian Walton]

Wow, now I have to figure out how to move my melda libraries to an external drive to demo that 40GB "beta" piano.  That was quite impressive.

[Anxiousmofo]

MSF is so feature rich. The range of preset instruments could be more fully developed but the tools provided go so deep. What a great deal. 

[Chandler]

I'm biased towards it since I make devices and presets for it, but it really is a synth that can do almost anything. Besides the normal synthesis stuff and sampler it also has a lot of physical modeling features that IMHO sound really good. Here is a Taiko drum I made using it. 

 

Also there are new modules planned for things like granular synthesis and spectral synthesis. 

[kevin H]

42 minutes ago, Chandler said:

I'm biased towards it since I make devices and presets for it, but it really is a synth that can do almost anything. Besides the normal synthesis stuff and sampler it also has a lot of physical modeling features that IMHO sound really good. Here is a Taiko drum I made using it. 

 

Also there are new modules planned for things like granular synthesis and spectral synthesis. 

Chandler, thanks for all your tutorials.  Learn so much from them.

[user 905133]

@Chandler  Over the past several months I have also watch a number of your targeted tutorials showing how to design sounds.  I find them very helpful--chock full of tips, nice step-by-step approach, etc. They greatly match my learning style. Thanks!!!

Edited March 25, 2022 by User 905133
spacing

[Fleer]

Yeah, Chandler rocks big time. 

[Brian Walton]

20 hours ago, Chandler said:

I'm biased towards it since I make devices and presets for it, but it really is a synth that can do almost anything. Besides the normal synthesis stuff and sampler it also has a lot of physical modeling features that IMHO sound really good. Here is a Taiko drum I made using it. 

 

Also there are new modules planned for things like granular synthesis and spectral synthesis. 

That sounds amazing.  For those of us that have the LE version and can't deep dive, have you made that available for us to use?

 

(unrelated I downloaded the "beta" piano and while there are some bugs it seems like yet to be worked out using it in 15.02, it is easily one of the best piano VSTis I've personally ever used.  The sound and control of different aspects of it is just outstanding).  

[kitekrazy1]

23 hours ago, Chandler said:

I'm biased towards it since I make devices and presets for it, but it really is a synth that can do almost anything. Besides the normal synthesis stuff and sampler it also has a lot of physical modeling features that IMHO sound really good. Here is a Taiko drum I made using it. 

 

Also there are new modules planned for things like granular synthesis and spectral synthesis. 

This is something I should consider doing. 

 

[Chandler]

9 hours ago, Brian Walton said:

That sounds amazing.  For those of us that have the LE version and can't deep dive, have you made that available for us to use?

 

(unrelated I downloaded the "beta" piano and while there are some bugs it seems like yet to be worked out using it in 15.02, it is easily one of the best piano VSTis I've personally ever used.  The sound and control of different aspects of it is just outstanding).  

Thank you. It isn't available yet, but it should be soon. I've made a device based on this with FX, the ability to change pitch, release times, and 4 different drums. Hopefully it will be available in one of the next few updates. 

 

Thank you everyone for the kind words. I'm glad to hear people are enjoying the tutorials. 

[kitekrazy1]

5 hours ago, Chandler said:

Thank you. It isn't available yet, but it should be soon. I've made a device based on this with FX, the ability to change pitch, release times, and 4 different drums. Hopefully it will be available in one of the next few updates. 

 

Thank you everyone for the kind words. I'm glad to hear people are enjoying the tutorials. 

I'm amazed how you get your head around Melda stuff.  For some these always look complex.  Do you read the manuals or play around with them.  I always found Melda's biggest weakness is video content of how to use their stuff.  The 3rd party tutorial sites don't bother with Melda.  Sure they've gotten better but it seems like they hold back their greatness by lack of instruction and few people have the discipline to read a manual.

[Chandler]

12 hours ago, Paul Young said:

I'm amazed how you get your head around Melda stuff.  For some these always look complex.  Do you read the manuals or play around with them.  I always found Melda's biggest weakness is video content of how to use their stuff.  The 3rd party tutorial sites don't bother with Melda.  Sure they've gotten better but it seems like they hold back their greatness by lack of instruction and few people have the discipline to read a manual.

I play around with them. Sometimes I find things that they do that I didn't realize. Often times I have an idea and then just try to figure out how to do it with the melda plugins and most of the time I can. I find I learn the most that way. 

[Starship Krupa]

12 hours ago, Paul Young said:

few people have the discipline to read a manual.

My biggest issue with my favorite plug-in house is that the manuals....ain't so hot. I'm a reader, my comprehension and retention aren't as good with videos. The written documentation is better than it used to be, but it suffers from, among other things, a tendency to tell how to do things but not why. As in what kind of program material to use it on, use cases, etc. I'm okay with the basic food groups of FX, but when it gets into "spectral gating" or something like that where I'm not even familiar with the the effect sounds like, I need more guidance.

[user 905133]

13 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

The written documentation is better than it used to be, but it suffers from, among other things, a tendency to tell how to do things but not why.

You raise an excellent point that ties in with some of my concerns about written documentation (and videos, too).  To me, well designed text-based instructions are more accessible than most videos I have seen.  Partly this has to do with my learning style.  But I am not sure that all people who write manuals design them based on sound principles--esp. one that takes into account different learning styles.

For example, some manuals (and online documentation) simply state what the different buttons, knobs, sections, etc. do. I suspect we have all seen these!  But as far as I am concerned, the visual elements of the UI serve that function if they are not esoteric, obtuse, etc. I do not need to be told things like, "The button opens the XYZ dialog," or "Use this button to toggle the XYZ feature on and off." Many manuals (and other documentation) often do not go beyond basic descriptive characteristics of what I can see with my own eyes.

I mention this particular issue, because it is part of the reason why I said that Chandler's videos match my learning style.  Before there were videos I found I learned best from what some gear manuals present as "Instant Gratification:" a progressive set of hands-on mini tutorials--short series of steps to try and to learn with what elements on the gear (or in a UI) do what followed immediately by another short series of steps that build progressively on the preceding  mini-tutorial. 

I find the videos I can relate to best are similar and allow me to do the hand-on thing either mentally or actually by pausing the video and rewinding a few seconds to make sure I did it right (kind of like re-reading the previous step in text-based "Instant Gratification" style mini-tutorials.  Again, Chandler's videos work well for me because he helps me to learn how to do it by systematically trying out the steps.

Another part is what you mention when you say you want to see more of the "why."  I cannot learn by seeing or reading steps to follow.  I need to see more of the causation that is happening. For me the causation is part of the "why."  "How" to do something in its basic form is just a long list of steps to blindly follow.  It is a chronological/sequential  ordering of what to do and either implies or includes basic description of the elements, etc.

Well designed "Instant Gratification" style mini-tutorials allow me as a reader to fill-in what's missing, to construct the why/causation on the fly.  Once I have done that, I can read the rest of the details in the more dense sections of a manual because I have a personal sense of the manufacturer's modus operandi based on the hands-on exploration of what does what and why.

But, there are many different paths to learning.  Each of us is different, even if some of our learning preferences jive with those of others.

JMO: It behooves each of us to understand the details of how we best learn.  And I believe that creators of documentation and manuals really ought to take into account multiple learning styles. 

That being said, I suspect part of the appeal of Chandler's tutorials for me is that he seems to put into practice a long-held belief I've had: The best teachers are excellent learners, can effectively communicate to others their own learning methods, and can relate well to and implement multiple learning modalities.

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to set down in writing some observations I have had over the years.

Edited March 27, 2022 by User 905133
punctuation and word choice corrections

[kitekrazy1]

9 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

My biggest issue with my favorite plug-in house is that the manuals....ain't so hot. I'm a reader, my comprehension and retention aren't as good with videos. The written documentation is better than it used to be, but it suffers from, among other things, a tendency to tell how to do things but not why. As in what kind of program material to use it on, use cases, etc. I'm okay with the basic food groups of FX, but when it gets into "spectral gating" or something like that where I'm not even familiar with the the effect sounds like, I need more guidance.

I would think writing a good manual is harder than developing.  It would be easy to leave something out that they take for granted.  I also have a short attention span when it comes to videos.   I have subs for two of the video tutorial sights.  I have back log on those as well.  It's hard to devote 4 hours just to learn a plugin.

[Starship Krupa]

4 hours ago, User 905133 said:

I am not sure that all people who write manuals design them based on sound principles--esp. one that take into account different learning styles.

For example, some manuals (and online documentation) simply state what the different buttons, knobs, sections, etc. do. I suspect we have all seen these!  But as far as I am concerned, the visual elements of the UI serve that function if they are not esoteric, obtuse, etc. I do not need to be told things like, "The button opens the XYZ dialog," or "Use this button to toggle the XYZ feature on and off." Many manuals (and other documentation) often do not go beyond basic descriptive characteristics of what I can see with my own eyes.

I mention this particular issue, because it is part of the reason why I said that Chandler's videos match my learning style.

As video tutorials go, Chandler's are some of the best.

To me, most of the Meldaproduction documentation fits your description of "state what the different buttons do." I have a lot of the "TurboLE" versions, which are their effort to make things simpler, with graphical UI's and the deeper parameters hidden. But I also have MReverbMB, which exposes everything. I don't really know what to do with a multiband reverb. I get that you can apply different settings to different frequency bands, but to what end and what do people usually do with it? Longer or shorter on the highs or lows? Deeper? It's tantalizing, because I'm really interested in spatial effects (big fan of Tipper and Telefon Tel Aviv's stuff), and I suspect that a multiband reverb might be a good tool, and I'm sure that the one I have is excellent, but I just don't know what to do with it beyond slapping it on a bus and using the beautiful algorithms as a send.

My learning style is what I think is called "top down," which frustrated me while attending school and trying to learn things like math. I can learn and understand the importance of fundamentals, but if I can't see the path to the "finished product" I get frustrated and wonder if the knowledge I'm taking in will even help. The way I really shine is by starting out with a goal and then acquiring whatever skills I need to accomplish that. Unfortunately, at least when I was in school, that made things more difficult, because schools focus on acquiring fundamental skills.

I don't know how it is now, but 40-50 years ago, it seemed like one of the biggest insults you could give to a teacher was "how is this going to help me in the real world?" And sure, most of the kids who asked it were being confrontational, but to me, that's an opportunity to give a student motivation. I remember one kid in algebra class tossing out "how is this going to help me be an airline pilot?" Well, if I were that teacher, I'd have pointed out that if you're going to have any hope of learning navigation, fuel usage, yada yada, algebra is going to be all over it. Want to program computers? You'll be dealing with sets every time you sit down to do it. Want to learn music? Make beats? A good understanding of fractions will move you forward in the game.

I'll be charitable and say that some of that problem, I think, is that people went into teaching with a pure affinity for the subject itself, so to them, the learning itself was the reward. I now understand that the fundamentals they were teaching us were building blocks that I use to this day, but at the time, it felt like some kind of punishment I was forced to endure. "I had to learn this, so you have to learn it."

3 hours ago, Paul Young said:

I would think writing a good manual is harder than developing.  It would be easy to leave something out that they take for granted.

Disclosure: I've written manuals, both as an employee taking in the notes from the developers and for my own products, so I'll speak from that POV.

I don't know that it's harder, but it requires certain skills including being able to communicate with highly technical people and translate what they're saying. Ideally, you put yourself in the viewpoint of someone who's never seen the product before. These are "soft" skills that skilled engineers often don't have. If they wanted to be teachers or writers, they would have chosen those professions.

As far as taking things for granted, by the time a product is ready for market, the engineer responsible has spent countless hours with it, they know every feature because they just created them. Putting themselves in the position of someone who knows nothing about it is difficult. For an engineer, by the time the product is ready to ship, as far as they're concerned, the job is DONE. Anything else is trivial drudgery. It's about as appealing as doing your taxes.

Vojtech is much better than most with the soft skills, he's a gregarious guy who communicates well (and he listens), but inevitably, he takes things for granted about his audience's understanding. I know because I've conversed with him in his forum (which is great that he makes himself so accessible).

Fun discussion! It's cool to hear everyone's thoughts about this stuff.

[antler]

17 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

I don't really know what to do with a multiband reverb. I get that you can apply different settings to different frequency bands, but to what end and what do people usually do with it?

A common thing that I do when applying a reverb is EQing the low end off the wet portion: keeping the mid/highs lets you keep the tails going for a bit without the low end becoming mud with the other bassy stuff. I guess you could do that with a multiband reverb - let the higher frequencies have a longer decay to shine, but having a much shorter decay on the lower frequencies.