POLL: Save to Block Library and copy/paste inclusive of block's scene channels/bypass settings

[BobXX]

Currently, the Save to Block Library and the Block Copy to Clipboard functions don't save its block scene settings (channels and bypass). This is typically considered the only right approach by master users, because they are related to the preset scenes, not to the block.

But in practice, in 1 year of use of AXE and FM9 I would have liked to have this possibility 100% of cases, saving a lot of time.
Just courious to see the average thinking and if I'm so out of mind.

 

[skolacki]

Saving modifiers would be a nice option. I don’t understand why you would want scene info saved in a block.

 

[sprint]

I voted "never use" because block bypass/channel settings (whether on or off and active on which channel) are in the context of a preset, not the block on its own (I tend to operate based on that - but maybe I don't understand the question).

Not at my Ax3 but if I remember correctly, copy to clipboard does include modifiers, but not save to blocklib (would be nice to have it there). I would like to have global modifiers, but that's another thing.

Edit: On Ax3, save to blocklib does include modifiers if saving entire block (but not when saving channel only). Copy channel or entire block to clipboard always includes modifiers.

 

[yek]

The wish was already posted. Why again?

 

[BobXX]

The wish was already posted. Why again?

It's a poll

 

[BobXX]

I voted "never use" because block bypass/channel settings (whether on or off and active on which channel) are in the context of a preset, not the block on its own (I tend to operate based on that - but maybe I don't understand the question).

Not at my Ax3 but if I remember correctly, copy to clipboard does include modifiers, but not save to blocklib (would be nice to have it there). I would like to have global modifiers, but that's another thing.

Thank your for your opinion.
On the contrary I'd use that option every time I copy/paste and save to library and then eventually modify the settings.

You're right: copy to clipboard copies the entire block with its modifiers,
saving to blocklib has 2 options: save only 1 channel (default) or save the 4 channels of the block with its modifiers.

 

[unix-guy]

This is typically considered by master users the only right approach

Sorry, but I don't agree with this.

Just because you consider yourself a "master user" doesn't mean you speak for others, nor that you know what we want or think is correct.

No issue with your poll, but that certainly come across as trying to "load" the results in the way you want to see them.

 

[BobXX]

Sorry, but I don't agree with this.

Just because you consider yourself a "master user" doesn't mean you speak for others, nor that you know what we want or think is correct.

No issue with your poll, but that certainly come across as trying to "load" the results in the way you want to see them.

Unix-guy I don't absolutely consider myself a Fractal master user! I'm exactly on the other side, just a newbie (1 year).

I am not a newbie in general, though. From people like me sometimes may come good ideas, like gapless switching or give contributes like this, typically much criticised here at first, than people appreciate the approach. It happened with Roland, Korg and others.​

​

I want to trust the architectural point of view of master users that say "block scene channels&bypass belongs to preset scenes", based on that it should be illogical to allow to store these also along with block files.

But in practice I have found and continuously finding now that 100% of houndreds of times I would use that option if it were available.

This poll is just for my curiosity to see the general thinking, so I tried to describe both points of view equally, maybe underlining more the point of view of master users (that should have more experience and then deserve more trust, also by myself).

PS: I appreciate that you wrote somewhere that you are open if it would be an option.

 

[unix-guy]

Unix-guy I don't absolutely consider myself a Fractal master user! I'm exactly on the other side, just a newbie (1 year).

I am not a newbie in general, though.​

I can sometimes give good ideas, like gapless switching or give contributes like this, typically much criticised here at first, than people appreciate the approach. It happened with Roland, Korg and others.​

​

I want to trust the point of view of master users that say block scene channels&bypass belongs to preset scenes, so it's illogical and not useful to allow to also store these along with block files.

But in practice I have found and continuously finding now that 100% of houndreds of times I would use that option if it were available,
I'd just like to see how crazy I am, and at the moment I'm loosing dramatically the poll.

PS: I appreciate that you wrote somewhere that you are open if it will be an option.

Sure, I think it's a good idea as an additional feature. I am definitely not opposed to these kinds of things even if I would probably never use the feature, because I think it could be beneficial to other users.

I always try remember and to promote the idea that everyone has different use cases which may not be my own, and to be considerate of this when commenting on wishes and suggestions.

 

[Rumbletone]

The bypass state, as well as which of the 4 scenes is selected, is scene-dependent (unless scene ignore is enabled …) - i.e., it’s linked to the particular scene and not to the block. And I would not find it useful, since when I paste a block into a new preset the bypass state will be unique to the scenes in that preset. To me this falls under the general issue of ‘you can’t copy scenes from one preset to another’.

 

[BobXX]

The bypass state, as well as which of the 4 scenes is selected, is scene-dependent (unless scene ignore is enabled …) - i.e., it’s linked to the particular scene and not to the block. And I would not find it useful, since when I paste a block into a new preset the bypass state will be unique to the scenes in that preset. To me this falls under the general issue of ‘you can’t copy scenes from one preset to another’.

I sincerely understand your point of view, but let's see three other ones:

1) I'm copying an AMP, a DEL, a PITCH, a PEQ in the same preset, for stereo, duplicate, test or other purposes.

what is better/typical:​

a) use the same/similar channel/bypass setting, at least as option (and start from it for eventual changes)​

b) use an old setting for that block (what happens now) from a previous unrelated work, maybe used months ago and deleted ?​

2) I have several presets with similar scenes organisation: 1 2 rhythm 3 4 5 lead 6 7 clean 8 special

So blocks have a similar scene channels/bypass settings (e.g. for the AMP), but everytime I need to manually copy blocks' scenes channel/bypass since save/load doesn't store them.​

3) You have 2 PITCH in AXE, and need to split preset into two for FM9: one using only PICTH1, the other with only PITCH2, renamed "PITCH1".

80% of my AXE presets have 2 PITCH (1 as capo/octaver, 1 as harmonizer).​

You can't directly rename the number of a block.​

So... try yourself to do that rename manually once, just to see.​

If you copy PITCH2 into PITCH1, it will keep scene settings of PITCH1 (logical?) not copying the PITCH2 ones. ​

The same happens saving PITCH2 to file and then importing into PICTH1 block.​

The only solution: every time manually and patiently rebuild scene blocks' channel ABCD and bypass for its 8 scenes of that f** PITCH1.​

Then try to do it hundreds of times, like I did... and you will start to have mystical visions... ​

There are other examples.

Many answers sound like theological "you can't: you must die clicking thousands of times in the name of the architecture, and loose your mind among the errors you will certainly do"
I'd personally prefer the more flexible "there's an option for whom interested"

I'm generally an innovator to the core, I don't even think it is such a case. With this poll I just wonder if I am that badly made.

 

[Rumbletone]

I understand your point of view, but let's see three other ones:

1) I'm copyin an AMP, a DEL, a PITCH, a PEQ in the same preset, for stereo or other purposes.
Is it more typical to use the same/similar channel/bypass setting or is it better to keep an old one (what happens now) from a previous unrelated work for that block (maybe deleted months before)?

2) I have several presets with similar scenes organisation: 1 2 rhithm 3 4 5 lead 6 7 clean
So blocks have a similar scene channels/bypass settings (e.g. for the AMP), but everytime I need to manually copy blocks' scenes channel/bypass since save/load doesn't store them.

3) You have 2 PITCH in AXE, and need to split preset into two for FM9: one using only PICTH1, the other with only PITCH2, renamed "PITCH1".
80% of my AXE presets have 2 PITCH (1 as capo/octaver, 1 as harmonizer).
Try to do that rename once. No way to do it avoiding to rebuild scene blocks' channel/bypass setting manually for its 8 scenes.
Then do it hundreds of times, like I did.

There are other examples.

I don't like "you can't: must die clicking thousands of times", I prefer "there's an option for you".

Understood and agreed. For me the (imperfect) solution is usually to start with a copy of a preset where I’ve set up all the complex stuff (controllers, routing, etc), then delete/mod from there. But even then of course sometimes I need to load a saved block and do some re-assignment.

I suspect we’ll get ‘copying of scene-specific parameters’ if/when we get the ability to copy scenes or parts of presets into another preset. Though even if it happens, I suspect it can’t be done without some challenges that would require re-config of some items. I’d be curious to see how other modellers deal with this?

 

[BobXX]

...when we get the ability to copy scenes or parts of presets into another preset. Though even if it happens, I suspect it can’t be done without some challenges that would require re-config of some items....

There's people here asking something like it. But I suppose this is even much much much more difficult to be done, maybe easier in a different processor-editor philosophy that may come in the future.

 

[JoKeR III]

I'm trying to understand how Preset Templates aren't a solution for this.

 

[unix-guy]

I'm trying to understand how Preset Templates aren't a solution for this.

The OP is concerned with replicating presets between Axe Fx and FM9.

 

[BobXX]

Interesting...
at first, choice 4 ("never") was overflowing with support,
now choice 2 ("I would like to have it as an option") has caught up completely and is neck and neck with choice 2.

 

[rossipedia]

I don't see the harm in adding it as an option, even if I'd never use it. I wouldn't want to lose the current behavior either though.