Well, GP is not MS
Trying to make GP be like MS will not really work very well, the paradigm is different.
But one of the features of rackspaces in GP is that you see specifically and only what you actually need for a particular song. So, for example, if you have a song and the only real time control you need for that song is the cutoff filter of a synth plugin, you donāt need a āmaster panelā representing all the controls of your keyboard, you just need a single widget in the panel so you map just that to the desired control of your keyboard.
For me there is a main difference between GP and MS:
The workflow in MS is like working with a virtual mixing desk.
The workflow in GP is like working with a modular synthesizer, therefore you have a much greater flexibility.
To that particular difference, we donāt think that musicians should have to be mix engineers and have to deal with buses, aux channels and so forth.
Just connect your stuff together and you can see exactly what will happen. And that process got even faster with the new ability to insert blocks between other blocks.
It also turns out that there are certain kinds of things that are easier to do with a visual approach. See this blog article
An another question re using widgets or not. If was to say make a set of widgets in a rack that control everything in Arturias Hammond.
If i then want to use the Hammond rack ive created in a song, can i simply import it into the song, and still have control of everything ive mapped with the widgets?
I understand that GP is not MS and that it is a different approach. That said, there will ultimately be a comparison period while you try and figure out how to port projects over.
As far as the master panel thing goes, I donāt think you are understanding the meaning behind that comment. In MS, Iāve simply pre-built a library of CC controls that are all labeled based on the section of the Nord they belong to. With that in place, using your example, I can just open my list, click on the cutoff freq entry and then click on the cutoff in the plugin option and it is done.
I donāt need to build a middle-step visual screen control because I mapped it to a knob that is already labeled as cutoff, and I donāt have to click on learn and turn the knob every time I want to map something to it because I did that part upfront. I find the process to be very efficient, so Iām just trying to figure out how I might build something that produces a similar level of efficiency.
I get the differences in the approach. I donāt however agree that one approach is by default far more flexible. You can do some incredibly intricate stuff with MS. Some of witch might feel more difficult than the GP approach, while others feels much easier and more intuitive. Itās all just a matter of what your most used to. A mixer environment makes way more sense to me because thatās how I did everything before a computer was involved.
In GP I use the Rig Manager to assign a name to all the buttons, knobs & sliders on my controller that I want to use and then Learn each button, etc. to itās name. Then, when building a rackspace and in the edit mode, you can quickly assign to whatever parameter one of your controllers via a drop-down list which contains all of those names from the Rig Manager. In one rackspace you may want a slider to control the volume of something. In another rackspace you may want that same slider to maybe operate a Hammond drawbar. The drop-down list makes the work flow a lot quicker than learning over & over again.
This is something you can do using the GP Rig Manager.
You can do the same in GP, but indeed, the Rig Manager labeled MIDI controls list and the plugin parameters list are available from the properties ofā¦ a widget. But, I am not sure you would loose much time working with widget, it is only different. It is not the time to add a widget which is time consuming, but rather the time you need to select the controls and parameter in the list. And to tell the truth even If I have every single MIDI controls I use defined in Rig Manager, I prefer to MIDI learn the controls and learn the plugin parameters, but moving a knob or a slider.
Furthermore, it is sometimes very convenient to have widgets. e.g. I have a panel with all the controls of my motorized control surface (Icon Platform M+) which is currently still mainly used to control the virtual mixer of my Audio Interface (TotalMix FX). When I donāt have my control surface in the rehearsal studio, I can still use my touch screen and the widgets panel to control the mixer.
I gotta say, Iām enjoying all the effort being put in to convincing me how valuable screen controls are. And FTR, I do understand. I use them all the time for a lot of different things. I just think they are wasted time when building out rock rig with a hardware controller and no laptop in sight.
That said, Iām diving into the rig manger now, and I do think it will be useful. It would just be more useful if I didnāt have to load a widget to access the mappings I add to it.
I am not convinced by that, but you could build once for all a panel figuring a list of text label widgets representing all your controls. Then each text label could be assigned to the plugin parameter of your choice.
How could I suggest thisā¦ while you could rather use buttons, sliders, knobs, and have a visual control of everythingā¦
Deeply! I started with MS, many years ago ā had it done everything we needed we wouldnāt have bothered to develop GP!
I thought I had demonstrated in that video that you could do those mappings to a physical controller up front (and very fast!) and then use that panel (or rackspace) as your starting point in every new rackspace so you donāt have to map again. Did I miss something?
So did I.
I also found MS much more complicated than GP and if you have understood the mechanics of widgets, For me GP is much more handy than MS and way more fast in construction of a needed rackspaces.
If you are more comfortable in using MS, then use it.
But I personally think that would be an fault, because after a small time of training with GP you will love its flexibility and speed.
And FTR, I do understand. I use them all the time for a lot of different things. I just think they are wasted time when building out rock rig with a hardware controller and no laptop in sight.