Wish "Assign Settings to Scenes" instead of "Scene Controllers"

J

jsnleo

New Member
Really hope we can just assign parameters to scenes like Quad Cortex does, instead of having to use Scene Controllers. Please.
 
jsnleo said:
Really hope we can just assign parameters to scenes like Quad Cortex does, instead of having to use Scene Controllers. Please.
Click to expand...
I prefer that method as well. Block channels and scene controllers can handle any job I've needed so far, but they're not nearly as convenient to set up as having every parameter saved per scene. I'm sure there are good reasons for this. The axe has far more potential parameters than the QC overall for one thing. And from the demos I've heard, the QC has clearly audible gaps when switching scenes.
 
Admin M@ said:
Would you trade the ability to change the TYPE on each channel? I wouldn't.
Click to expand...
No. That would have to be part of what was stored/recalled in a scene. I don't know if the QC can do this either. In about the time it takes me to gripe about not having everything stored in a scene, I can set up block channels and scene controllers. I prefer flexibility over convenience.
 
jsnleo said:
Really hope we can just assign parameters to scenes like Quad Cortex does, instead of having to use Scene Controllers. Please.
Click to expand...


Scenes are probably the single most confusing part of the FAS architecture. The number of posts where newcomers expect scenes to work as the OP describes probably numbers in the 100's. It's safe to say there's room for improvement in the Axe-FX IV. Or, as I've said many times, just stop calling them "scenes" since that implies something different than how they work on the Axe-FX.

There are pros and cons to using channels compared to conventional scenes (very few pros for scene controllers though), but it's fairly common for scene systems to permit changing enumerated parameters like type, so I wouldn't call that a pro for channels.

Probably the most important advantage to the conventional scene design over channels is the common use case of "I want scene 2 to be scene 1 except for a few parameters I want to differ", especially when you want to update scene 1 after creating scene 2. That's easy with conventional scenes, but difficult with channels. Channels OTOH make it easy to group a bunch of changes to be used in multiple scenes.
 
Yes I use block channels all the time but I still think “assign to scene” is a better way. I kinda feel if I just wanna change the values, but use the same amp or effect, I should just keep using the same channel. But scene controllers can sometimes be confusing. Besides, if I change my mind and wanna change them, I can’t do that in the block, and have to go to scene controller pages.
 
jsnleo said:
Really hope we can just assign parameters to scenes like Quad Cortex does, instead of having to use Scene Controllers. Please.
Click to expand...
What are you trying to do that cannot be accomplished by block channels or without scene controllers?
 
Habuman said:
What are you trying to do that cannot be accomplished by block channels or without scene controllers?
Click to expand...

A common way to use scenes/snapshots (I'll call what the OP is asking for "snapshots") is to take one configuration of parameters and make a slight variation of it. For example, alter a handful of amp block parameters of scene 1 to make scene 2. You can do that easily with either channels or snapshots. Now if you go back to scene 1 and alter some other amp block parameters, how do you get those changes into scene 2 so you can achieve the goal of having scene 2 based on scene 1 with only the original handful of differences? It's not easy with channels, but it happens automatically with snapshots. You can sort of do that on an Axe-FX with scene controllers, but it's limited and awkward.

OTOH there are situations where channels are more convenient than snapshots. For example if you want scenes 1-4 to share the same set of parameter values for a block and scenes 5-8 to share a different set.

IMHO it's possible to get the best of both, but it would take a rethinking of the scene controllers UI, so you can modify them in the block editor directly on the parameter control instead of in the scene controller editor (and also increase the number of scene controllers).
 
The plus of the channels model to me is that you can easily reuse that aspect of a scene in another one. "This scene has the chorus from that other one, but different amp settings." You don't have to copy every setting from the original chorus setup, just set the chorus to same channel in both scenes.

It's true that the channels model takes some getting used to, really felt that coming from Helix. But at this point I'm pretty settled in, it's not a problem. I do sometimes wish all blocks had 8 channels though, which is another way of saying I want independent settings for each scene. That would actually be the best of both worlds, with both independent settings per scene AND reusable channels.
 
Dave Merrill said:
The plus of the channels model to me is that you can easily reuse that aspect of a scene in another one. "This scene has the chorus from that other one, but different amp settings." You don't have to copy every setting from the original chorus setup, just set the chorus to same channel in both scenes.

It's true that the channels model takes some getting used to, really felt that coming from Helix. But at this point I'm pretty settled in, it's not a problem. I do sometimes wish all blocks had 8 channels though, which is another way of saying I want independent settings for each scene. That would actually be the best of both worlds, with both independent settings per scene AND reusable channels.
Click to expand...

More channels would be better, but as I mentioned above, channels are not a substitute for snapshots. Each has its pros and cons, but they are suited for different use cases. Scene controllers could be a substitute for snapshots, but would require a different UI.
 
Habuman said:
What are you trying to do that cannot be accomplished by block channels or without scene controllers?
Click to expand...
I don't feel restricted. I'm just saying Scene Controllers can be confusing at times.

If I'm using the same amp model, but only wanna change Gain and Bass, for example, using two channels makes me feel it's kinda a waste for some reason. But if using Scene Controllers, they're not as straightforward, you have to go to a different page. And let's say if you wanna make some adjustments, or maybe use another amp, you have to go back and forth. If you made a preset a long time ago, or maybe only a week ago, used all four scene controllers. You did a gig, or you went to rehearsal, and then felt you needed to make a few changes, it's very unlikely you could remember which scene controller is which.

I don't have Helix but I preordered a Quad Cortex, though I only used it a couple of times. "Assign to Scene" is really a better, easier way. You can literally have as many "Scene Controllers" as you want, and very straightforward.
 
GlennO said:
More channels would be better, but as I mentioned above, channels are not a substitute for snapshots. Each has its pros and cons, but they are suited for different use cases. Scene controllers could be a substitute for snapshots, but would require a different UI.
Click to expand...
I think 99% of "i need a variation" is limited to a couple of parameters: gain/level, delay time/feedback, so on.
Maybe adding an "alternative" channel with a couple of user assignable parameters will do. Like doubling the number of channels, but without adding redundant parameters in memory and storage.

(I like the X/Y or A/B concept, intuitive and easy to use and implement with switch/button/slider).
 
Smilzo said:
I think 99% of "i need a variation" is limited to a couple of parameters: gain/level, delay time/feedback, so on.
Maybe adding an "alternative" channel with a couple of user assignable parameters will do. Like doubling the number of channels, but without adding redundant parameters in memory and storage.

(I like the X/Y or A/B concept, intuitive and easy to use and implement with switch/button/slider).
Click to expand...

Maybe. But IMHO scene controllers would be better for that than channels. That’s why scene controllers exist. The problem with scene controllers is the UI. It would be better if the scene controller UI worked more like Helix snapshots where you assign the parameter value to a scene directly from the parameter control. That’s typically how scenes work in music apps.
 
GlennO said:
The problem with scene controllers is the UI. It would be better if the scene controller UI worked more like Helix snapshots where you assign the parameter value to a scene directly from the parameter control. That’s typically how scenes work in music apps.
Click to expand...
I agree. The main reason why scene controller have this UI is because they are more than a simple switch of values, they controll limits, motions, transitions. I would like to keep the actual SC and add a simple switch of parameters. "The following params are changed <list>, do you want to save them as alternative of actual scene?". Or something like. :) yuh :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom