Why No Authentic Tab For Effects Types??

zedeloc said:
But isn't the point of modeling to model something?
Click to expand...
Yup. But as stated in the manual of standard/ultra "it's not a modeler in strict sense". And that old approach was just right (for me at least). Just my unpopular point.
In the end I can ignore advanced parameters if I want))

I have "modeler in strict sense" that "exactly recreates control layout and behavior" of real effects. Is it any good? Yes, it's good enough. Is it easier to dial in? Not at all. I'm missing these extra parameters.
 
BTU said:
Yup. But as stated in the manual of standard/ultra "it's not a modeler in strict sense". And that old approach was just right (for me at least). Just my unpopular point.
In the end I can ignore advanced parameters if I want))

I have "modeler in strict sense" that "exactly recreates control layout and behavior" of real effects. Is it any good? Yes, it's good enough. Is it easier to dial in? Not at all. I'm missing these extra parameters.
Click to expand...
an authentic tab would take away nothing for you though, it just offers another way of working.

The extra features can be very handy, but (arguably more?) often they are not needed.
 
MirrorProfiles said:
an authentic tab would take away nothing for you though, it just offers another way of working.

The extra features can be very handy, but (arguably more?) often they are not needed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I understand this and can understand people who are overwhelmed with all this confusing parameters (I was in same situation). But since I found out how to use them and looked on device from the other perspective, everything fell into place. So if I can skip all the advanced stuff, why I need the separate tab with limited set of parameters that already there on other tabs? Just saying.

Maybe I don't understand the concept))
Every subalgorithm of every effect block should has its own dedicated tab with complement set of parameters? And their behavior should be exactly the same as a real thing (attack knob on precision drive for example)? I think this can be a little time consuming... I want see more sufficient improvements (as FAS do right now) rather than that. More FAS amps for that matter, more powerful tools, etc.

And, again just my opinion, I think such approach leads away from the course setted from the very beginning (effect block = generalized algorithm with set of parameters that user can tweak as he want).

Everything above was said from the point of an individual user based on subjective experience.
 
BTU said:
Yeah, I understand this and can understand people who are overwhelmed with all this confusing parameters (I was in same situation). But since I found out how to use them and looked on device from the other perspective, everything fell into place. So if I can skip all the advanced stuff, why I need the separate tab with limited set of parameters that already there on other tabs? Just saying.

Maybe I don't understand the concept))
Every subalgorithm of every effect block should has its own dedicated tab with complement set of parameters? And their behavior should be exactly the same as a real thing (attack knob on precision drive for example)? I think this can be a little time consuming... I want see more sufficient improvements (as FAS do right now) rather than that. More FAS amps for that matter, more powerful tools, etc.

And, again just my opinion, I think such approach leads away from the course setted from the very beginning (effect block = generalized algorithm with set of parameters that user can tweak as he want).

Everything above was said from the point of an individual user based on subjective experience.
Click to expand...
It’s absolutely not about being overwhelmed or lack of understanding.

The design of the original equipment has already made a decision on what range of controls, tapers, interactions etc make sense for what they are creating. Omitting options isn’t because they weren’t able to include them - what they omit is as much part of the design as what they include.

There is a time and place for both approaches - I’m not advocating for purely 1:1 simplified controls, in the same way that I wouldn’t push for the most fully expanded limitless approach. The controls exposed to the user COMPLETELY inform how the effect should be expected to work. If all parameters are available, with no visual bias or visual direction on how to use it, the user is getting a different experience to what was designed. It might lead to better results, it might lead to worse. But you are getting a different experience, even if some sounds happen to overlap.

The design of the effect is more than just the sound you end up with - how you get there is as much a part of the design as the sound it produces.
 
Last edited:
I understand now how such a thing can be useful. Just more convenient way to recreate behavior of specific effect. Am I right?

MirrorProfiles said:
The design of the effect is more than just the sound you end up with - how you get there is as much a part of the design as the sound it produces.
Click to expand...
But in the end my goal is... The sound)
 
Last edited:
BTU said:
I understand now how such a thing can be useful. Just more convenient way to recreate behavior of existing effect. Am I right?
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s assuming the original designer has taken the time to fine tune their device to produce a specific result in a way that makes sense to the user. Discarding these decisions isn’t really necessary, something gets lost by doing so.
BTU said:
But in the end my goal is... The sound)
Click to expand...
Yes exactly. Both approaches are likely to lead to different results because of how we interact with the controls available. If there are 20 parameters available, there is a LOT more possibility to have sounds that aren’t possible from a device that only has 1. Both have merit, but one doesn’t replace the other
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom