Automap (almost) completely useless
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:54 pm
I'm sick of the automap-functionality, or better: i'm sick how it is implemented. The idea is very good, though. It also works perfectly, how it is intended to work.
But the concept is not based on the daily work.
For those who are not familiar what Automap in Live does: it's for hardware-controlling of plugins and if you click a plugin and have set up a supported hardware-controller, then Live sends the first eight parameters in the automation-list of this plugin to the hardware controller, so the controller reflects their values. Then you can turn the knobs and the plugin is edited. By pressing bank-knobs on the HWC, the other parameters are sent to the controller and become editable. That way you could control the plugins.
In theory. In marketing speech.
But it's almost absolutely useless for daily mixing work, when it comes to plugin editing (EQ tweaking!). Because it maps always all parameters in consecutive order, no matter if they are needed or wanted by the user, on the HWC.
How should it work?
What does the user need? Always the same parameters, no matter what synth he uses, on the same knobs on his HW-controller.
No one uses only one virtual synth, he needs the possibility, to decide, where each of the parameters should be mapped to. That's necessary, because no one can keep 100+ parameters per each and every synth in mind and where they are mapped to! Or is it intended to make spreadsheets of every plugin with the list of it's parameter numbers?! Ridiculous.
Tweak EQ-gain in band 1? Aha, knob4. Gain in band 2? Change bank, because it is on the next page! But there it's not on knob4 ofcourse, but on knob 1. And where was the hi shelf?
UNUSEABLE!!!
Whoever planned the concept, has obviously never produced with a HW-controller, or only knows the Mackie-control.
And it must be said: the Mackie-control is fine for mixing, but for plugin editing, it is the same pain in the a..! Because of the same concept: eight parameters stupidly mapped in their native sequential order.
What would be needed for daily work to tweak plugins:
The user must be able (if he wants) to define per plugin the order of the parameters, that are sent to the hardware controller!
Additionally he should be able to decide the number of parameters, that are sent. Many HWCs these days have more than eight encoders and faders and are not that limited like the old Mackie-control.
And btw: the expensive displays on HW-controllers are only necessary, if the mapping of the parameters is stupidly sequential. If the user can define it, it's not needed anymore, because everyone knows, where he has mapped the EQ-parameters, compressor-parameters on his HWC.
An idea how this concept could be implemented:
An additional layer above the plugin-parameters, where from each plugin the original place in the parameter list is simply mapped to a user definable place. The size of one page (bank), is also stored in this automap-layer. Maybe even the size of each bank (how many parameters each bank will transmit).
That allows, that the user can decide per plugin, how many parameters are on one bank (maybe he prefers for EQs, to have only the gain-settings of all EQ-bands on one bank - or another user wants the parameters band-wise available).
Ableton, thanks for listening.
But the concept is not based on the daily work.
For those who are not familiar what Automap in Live does: it's for hardware-controlling of plugins and if you click a plugin and have set up a supported hardware-controller, then Live sends the first eight parameters in the automation-list of this plugin to the hardware controller, so the controller reflects their values. Then you can turn the knobs and the plugin is edited. By pressing bank-knobs on the HWC, the other parameters are sent to the controller and become editable. That way you could control the plugins.
In theory. In marketing speech.
But it's almost absolutely useless for daily mixing work, when it comes to plugin editing (EQ tweaking!). Because it maps always all parameters in consecutive order, no matter if they are needed or wanted by the user, on the HWC.
How should it work?
What does the user need? Always the same parameters, no matter what synth he uses, on the same knobs on his HW-controller.
No one uses only one virtual synth, he needs the possibility, to decide, where each of the parameters should be mapped to. That's necessary, because no one can keep 100+ parameters per each and every synth in mind and where they are mapped to! Or is it intended to make spreadsheets of every plugin with the list of it's parameter numbers?! Ridiculous.
Tweak EQ-gain in band 1? Aha, knob4. Gain in band 2? Change bank, because it is on the next page! But there it's not on knob4 ofcourse, but on knob 1. And where was the hi shelf?
UNUSEABLE!!!
Whoever planned the concept, has obviously never produced with a HW-controller, or only knows the Mackie-control.
And it must be said: the Mackie-control is fine for mixing, but for plugin editing, it is the same pain in the a..! Because of the same concept: eight parameters stupidly mapped in their native sequential order.
What would be needed for daily work to tweak plugins:
The user must be able (if he wants) to define per plugin the order of the parameters, that are sent to the hardware controller!
Additionally he should be able to decide the number of parameters, that are sent. Many HWCs these days have more than eight encoders and faders and are not that limited like the old Mackie-control.
And btw: the expensive displays on HW-controllers are only necessary, if the mapping of the parameters is stupidly sequential. If the user can define it, it's not needed anymore, because everyone knows, where he has mapped the EQ-parameters, compressor-parameters on his HWC.
An idea how this concept could be implemented:
An additional layer above the plugin-parameters, where from each plugin the original place in the parameter list is simply mapped to a user definable place. The size of one page (bank), is also stored in this automap-layer. Maybe even the size of each bank (how many parameters each bank will transmit).
That allows, that the user can decide per plugin, how many parameters are on one bank (maybe he prefers for EQs, to have only the gain-settings of all EQ-bands on one bank - or another user wants the parameters band-wise available).
Ableton, thanks for listening.