What's new

The bird has landed!

R. Naroth

Member
Yeah, definitely my computer. I have the dual 6 core 2.4GHz Xeon processors. Never hit any issues with the DAW because of the abundant cores but even a Zebra patch that use the Diva filters takes me to the limit sometimes. Need to live with this for a bit. Maybe when the new Mac Mini with M1 pro max comes around, I’ll upgrade.
 

cmillar

Active Member
Yeah, definitely my computer. I have the dual 6 core 2.4GHz Xeon processors. Never hit any issues with the DAW because of the abundant cores but even a Zebra patch that use the Diva filters takes me to the limit sometimes. Need to live with this for a bit. Maybe when the new Mac Mini with M1 pro max comes around, I’ll upgrade.
I have very similar computer, and what I do is to load Falcon as a plugin in VEP7, on the same machine.

Whatever it's 'doing', it works for me even when loading in IRCAM intensive sounds.

No audio crackling and much, much lower hit on the CPU.

VEP7 is pretty handy for a lot of reasons.
 

R. Naroth

Member
I have very similar computer, and what I do is to load Falcon as a plugin in VEP7, on the same machine.

Whatever it's 'doing', it works for me even when loading in IRCAM intensive sounds.

No audio crackling and much, much lower hit on the CPU.

VEP7 is pretty handy for a lot of reasons.
Thanks, VEP seems to be a good option to consider..
 
OP
Pier

Pier

Senior Member
Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #24
Yeah, definitely my computer. I have the dual 6 core 2.4GHz Xeon processors. Never hit any issues with the DAW because of the abundant cores but even a Zebra patch that use the Diva filters takes me to the limit sometimes. Need to live with this for a bit. Maybe when the new Mac Mini with M1 pro max comes around, I’ll upgrade.
Do you really need the M1 Pro or Max or more than 16GB of RAM?

If you're only doing audio, the CPU improvements will not be very significant. The big performance kick comes from more GPU cores.
 

R. Naroth

Member
Do you really need the M1 Pro or Max or more than 16GB of RAM?

If you're only doing audio, the CPU improvements will not be very significant. The big performance kick comes from more GPU cores.
I also dabble a bit in short films 🤪and it would be great to have one that can run Davinci Resolve smoothly for a few years to come.
 
OP
Pier

Pier

Senior Member
Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #26
I also dabble a bit in short films 🤪and it would be great to have one that can run Davinci Resolve smoothly for a few years to come.
Yeah the M1 Mini definitely can run Resolve.

I saw a video of a Final Cut Youtuber who switched from a 2019 Tower Mac Pro to the M1 iMac. Says the editing is more fluid in the M1 and he doesn't mind the longer render times as he isn't constantly rendering. I can look it up for you if you'd like.
 

R. Naroth

Member
Yeah the M1 Mini definitely can run Resolve.

I saw a video of a Final Cut Youtuber who switched from a 2019 Tower Mac Pro to the M1 iMac. Says the editing is more fluid in the M1 and he doesn't mind the longer render times as he isn't constantly rendering. I can look it up for you if you'd like.
@Pier Will definitely do. I am at a point now where CPU usage is affecting my productivity. Thanks for the pointers.
I always say, spend as much on CPU/RAM as you can afford each time you refresh a computer, as they are usually expensive / un-upgradable. Storage can be expanded internally or externally almost infinitely, and GPU's can be replaced over time if required (most audio/video apps don't really use the GPU much). But try to buy a CPU/RAM/MOBO combo that will last for six to eight years - a good trick is to leave half the RAM slots unfilled, so you can double RAM about 4 years into the hardware cycle. In todays world, I think that means buying 8 cores, 32Gb RAM as a bare minimum for any new desktop (and frankly given how affordable AMD processors and Motherboards are, 12 to 16 core isn't unaffordable), for general purpose creator work (video, audio, 3D). And if you know you need more (huge sample libraries) then factor that in (128GB RAM for instance).
That is real sound advice @liquidlino.
 

Wes Mayhall

New Member
why doesn't the analog oscillator have a semitones setting?
It does. It's the 'Coarse Tune' knob, unless I'm missing what you're saying. The control bar for 'Oscillators' is far from intuitive. I looked everywhere for a mixer - turns out you turn off the "chain" icon, and control the Gain of each oscillator individually, but to 'mix' them you have to click each osc's tab and adjust its Gain. Coming from Pigments and Vital, I was tripping all over that interface. I'm hoping it gets better with use.
 
OP
Pier

Pier

Senior Member
Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #30
I think pier meant the solo oscillator. I always go straight to stack too, as then you get all the controls, panning, volume, phase, etc. Wish there was even more controls per oscillator, wavefolding, FM, etc.
Exactly. I meant the solo one with voice controls.
 

Wes Mayhall

New Member
I think pier meant the solo oscillator. I always go straight to stack too, as then you get all the controls, panning, volume, phase, etc. Wish there was even more controls per oscillator, wavefolding, FM, etc.
I'm not referring to the Stack. The bar above the individual oscillator tabs has a chain icon on the left end. Turn that off and you have all the controls in that bar individually for each oscillator: Pitch, Coarse Tune, Fine Tune, Gain, etc. "Coarse Tune" is the semitone control, and it can be set differently for each oscillator. Yeah, very non-intuitive.
 
OP
Pier

Pier

Senior Member
Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #32
I'm not referring to the Stack. The bar above the individual oscillator tabs has a chain icon on the left end. Turn that off and you have all the controls in that bar individually for each oscillator: Pitch, Coarse Tune, Fine Tune, Gain, etc. "Coarse Tune" is the semitone control, and it can be set differently for each oscillator. Yeah, very non-intuitive.
Wouldn't that affect all the oscillators in that "oscillator layer"?
 

Wes Mayhall

New Member
Wouldn't that affect all the oscillators in that "oscillator layer"?
No. When the 'chain' (actually just two links of a chain) is blue, all the oscillators are linked. Click the chain icon and it turns grey, then all the oscillators are un-linked.

How have you guys been mixing oscillator levels without this feature? I ask because I was going nuts trying to find a mixer function when I stumbled upon this little icon. Un-linking the oscillators is the only way I've found to be able to adjust their levels ("Gain") individually. And yeah, it's a very clunky operation; once you have them un-linked you have to click on each oscillator's tab to adjust its level.
 

Wes Mayhall

New Member
I've been editing the valume level in the tree parameter editor, underneath the tree. Shamefully slow way of doing it!
Wow, I didn't even know that was possible! You're a patient person!

PS: I'm now demoing Phase Plant lol. Not giving up on Falcon, just uh, taking a break.:emoji_grin:
 
Last edited:
OP
Pier

Pier

Senior Member
Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #35
No. When the 'chain' (actually just two links of a chain) is blue, all the oscillators are linked. Click the chain icon and it turns grey, then all the oscillators are un-linked.

How have you guys been mixing oscillator levels without this feature? I ask because I was going nuts trying to find a mixer function when I stumbled upon this little icon. Un-linking the oscillators is the only way I've found to be able to adjust their levels ("Gain") individually. And yeah, it's a very clunky operation; once you have them un-linked you have to click on each oscillator's tab to adjust its level.
Just tried that and it works. Thanks for sharing the tip!

Very weird that this isn't the default option.

I also learned that you can enable the OpenGL rendering which solves all the UI performance issues I had. It's also weird this isn't the default setting IMO, at least on Windows.
 
Wouldn't that affect all the oscillators in that "oscillator layer"?
Oh really?! I will have to check that out. Sometimes I wonder about our good friends at uvi, what were they smoking some days...
That is one (and not the single one) feature of Falcon that's really not "intuitive" (that is, you can't "guess" it), but it results in a fast and easy workflow once you learn it.

Speaking of which, this and a lot of other things that one might see presented as great "tips" on forums are actually very clearly explained in the manual ( https://s3.amazonaws.com/uvi/UVIFC/falcon_manual.pdf ) ...
Reading it is an effective way to actually learn to use the software, most of the stuff is clearly explained and there are also a bunch of tutorials included.
Falcon_OSCs.png
I also learned that you can enable the OpenGL rendering which solves all the UI performance issues I had. It's also weird this isn't the default setting IMO, at least on Windows.
Falcon_Prefs.png
 
OP
Pier

Pier

Senior Member
Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #37
That is one (and not the single one) feature of Falcon that's really not "intuitive" (that is, you can't "guess" it), but it results in a fast and easy workflow once you learn it.

Speaking of which, this and a lot of other things that one might see presented as great "tips" on forums are actually very clearly explained in the manual ( https://s3.amazonaws.com/uvi/UVIFC/falcon_manual.pdf ) ...
Reading it is an effective way to actually learn to use the software, most of the stuff is clearly explained and there are also a bunch of tutorials included.
View attachment 63972

View attachment 63973
In the UI industry we have saying:

"UI is like a joke. If you have to explain it, it doesn't work"

If reading the manual is necessary to operate a UI, then the UI has failed as an interface between the human user and the software.

I used Zebra for years before consulting the manual and it wasn't to understand how the UI works, but rather obscure stuff like the oscillator effects. I don't think I've ever read (back to back) the manual of any software.
 
"UI is like a joke. If you have to explain it, it doesn't work"
I doubt you do. I don't think this "saying" applies to anything more than the UI for a webstore.
There are lots of UI conventions across various fields, and quite a bit of them require doc reading to be understood.
Users can be left confused even by basic windowing controls when they switch from Windows to Mac for example.
If reading the manual is necessary to operate a UI, then the UI has failed as an interface between the human user and the software.
Not sure where you pull these "sayings" from, but there is no truth in them at all.
I haven't yet met a piece of specialized software -- from Photoshop to Houdini, Maya, Blender, Unreal Engine, DaVinci Resolve, Scratch, Lightworks (in the CG world) to Nuendo, Falcon, Reaktor, Architect, MODX (in the audio/music world) and even stuff like VS Code or Excel -- that didn't have particular gizmos, GUI conventions, order of steps to do things and so on.
Any user of any of those would benefit greatly from reading the docs, because none of those GUI specifics are "intuitive" in any way, but make for very fast and easy operation once they are learned.
 
OP
Pier

Pier

Senior Member
Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #39
I doubt you do. I don't think this "saying" applies to anything more than the UI for a webstore.
There are lots of UI conventions across various fields, and quite a bit of them require doc reading to be understood.
Users can be left confused even by basic windowing controls when they switch from Windows to Mac for example.

Not sure where you pull these "sayings" from, but there is no truth in them at all.
I haven't yet met a piece of specialized software -- from Photoshop to Houdini, Maya, Blender, Unreal Engine, DaVinci Resolve, Scratch, Lightworks (in the CG world) to Nuendo, Falcon, Reaktor, Architect, MODX (in the audio/music world) and even stuff like VS Code or Excel -- that didn't have particular gizmos, GUI conventions, order of steps to do things and so on.
Any user of any of those would benefit greatly from reading the docs, because none of those GUI specifics are "intuitive" in any way, but make for very fast and easy operation once they are learned.
This is a very in depth discussion and we could spend weeks going over all its nuances, but I will say this:

1) Obviously there are conventions. Not sure what you're arguing there but that's completely unrelated to how good an interface is at communicating with the user. Seems like a strawman fallacy.

2) My personal anecdotal experience is I've used most of the software you listed (some of it like PS for decades) and I've never needed to read a manual. In rare occasions I've consulted manuals to understand more in depth functionality but never to understand the UI. The exception is Blender which I did find really obtuse, and I agree going through a basic tutorial is very worthwhile.

3) Photoshop or Falcon are nowhere near the complexity of Blender or Maya. Arguing that because someone will probably need to spend time studying Blender does not mean the same is valid for Falcon. I'd dare say this is actually another logical fallacy.

4) Again, just because software like Blender can be very efficient once you learn it, doesn't mean it's true for any other software. This is definitely not the case with Falcon.

5) I think you might be confusing knowledge about one area (eg: photo retouching) versus UI usability and general user experience. Eg: Reaktor or The Grid (in Bitwig) are fairly simple to use. I don't think anyone with knowledge of modular synthesis and digital audio would have a hard time with any of those regarding the UI.

BTW this is a video showcasing the interactive help feature in Bitwig which is available for all Bitwig devices:



You haven't seen anything like that in Falcon, huh? :)
 
2) My personal anecdotal experience is I've used most of the software you listed (some of it like PS for decades) and I've never needed to read a manual.
I have to say that I simply don't believe you.

For the other points, the bottom line is pretty simple: all the elaborate theories in the world and links to fallacy theories (you're missing the point, and I'm pretty sure it's on purpose) are not an excuse for not reading the manual (even truer if the software feels "particular" or even "obtuse").

You could spend time on multiple web forums complaining that Falcon doesn't do this or that and militating against the reading of manuals, or you can read the manual and actually use it.
That is, if using it is the actual purpose.

As I said, I totally agree that the chainlink icon for multiple oscillators is not intuitive. I did get caught by it just like you and others in this thread. I read the manual and moved on, and now that I'm familiar with it I think it's a nice, compact UI gizmo that offers quite a bit of functionality in a compact space.

Would I like it if they find a UI that does the same while being more intuitive? Certainly!
Would I like it if they find a UI that's more intuitive but requires more space and scrolling, just to be sure it's useable for people who are against reading manuals? Certainly not!
 
Top Bottom