Nord Lead 4 - NO KNOB VALUE PICKUP...

[Mr_-G-]

I hope I am wrong, but it may be that this modification is not possible or too complicated within the OS current state. The issue, though, goes beyond that. No matter how much I like all these instruments, the only way I see making the UI fully usable is the way the NL3 did it, where you see all the dials settings as you change programmes.
I bet that in the long term most synths would use that kind of approach. I am surprised that lots of manufacturers are getting away with these UIs where by looking at the panel you get minimal feedback on the state of the settings. Presumably it is all cost driven (encoders with leds must be way more expensive than pots) but let's hope that eventually it will change.
Is it only synths or are there any other types of equipment where the dials end up having no relation to the current setting? I can't think of any other.

[RedLeo]

Well, the same situation will apply with anything that has memories and physical controls - programmable effects units and mixing desks with automation for example. I agree that rotary encoders are functionally the way to go, but I'm sure you're right and it's a cost issue. In the case of automated mixers, moving faders are another solution, but at a price premium. Increment/decrement buttons will also do the job, but they're not much fun and not very practical for filter sweeps, for example. It's not usually seen as an issue in other devices because there is not the same need for realtime manipulation of the controls.

And in the good old days (he said, puffing his pipe), before memories we had perfect value pickup - because the knob or slider position was the actual value. Unless you had patch cords. Then you were in trouble...

[chvad]

"I hope I am wrong, but it may be that this modification is not possible or too complicated within the OS current state."
if my novation k-station can do it this should.

[ricard]

I'm 110% convinced that it's possible, it doesn't require a lot of processing power or memory to implement, I just think that Clavia don't feel it fits in with the Nord Lead concept. Otherwise the could have added it any one of their earlier machines too.

[Auronaut]

The best way Clavia should do that is to implement BOTH functions and give the user an option to choose the preferred way of behaviour from the settings menu.
1. A knob's value snaps to the knob's position on movement (as it is now).
2. A knob pickups value when passing through it.
That's the way it should be implemented in a synthesizer for $2K and a synthesizer made in Sweden. As an electronics engineer I understand it's really easy to implement and could be possible with a small firmware update. I could understand this wouldn't be implemented in a budget synth like A1, but not in the flagship professional synth. But right now it looks like Clavia doesn't give a sh*t on their users' opinions and expectations, thinking they are the king of the hill and they can dictate their conditions on the market. Wrong, Clavia, that is the way to memories.
For example AFAIK Virus synths have even three (!) or more options of knob behaviour. So can you explain me, why should I spend $2k for a synth which has only 4 parts and 20 voices and lacks configurability, putting me in some kind of a stoneage period, when I can get another synth for approx. $2.5k having 16 parts multitimbrality, a bunch of outputs, including digital out and 128 voices of polyphony and operating as a f*cking spaceship of the future?? WHY?? What am I paying for? Just for the red colour??? Bad, bad, Clavia.
You should examine the market carefully and listen to your customers carefully in order to make more profit, instead of trying to cut off every option, which YOU think is not usable in your products.
Another comparison I want to tell about is the old Nord Lead 3. I still own one, and when I got the NL4 I was surprised. I expected it to be MUCH more advanced that NL3, but it's not like that at all. Let me show you a short list of differences:
1. NL3 has 4 morph sources, NL4 has only two (which frustrates me so hard, I can't even tell you).
2. NL3 has aftertouch, NL4 doesn't (meaning cheaper keyboard).
3. NL3 has 6 quite different osc modulation options, NL4 has only two, FM and osc-sync.
4. NL3 has 24 voices instead of 20 in NL4 (moreover NL3's unison is not eating voices, compared to NL4)
5. NL3 has 2 LFOs AND an arpeggiator, compared to NL4, where you lose one LFO, if you use the arpeggiator function.
6. NL3 has supercool and convenient endless led-encoders instead of stoneage knobs of NL4, which are even not capable of value pickup - a big, BIG disadvantage after the NL3.
7. NL3 has convenient LCD display, where you can observe everything going on and program the arp.
8. NL4 has FX section with 2 almost identical talk filters (I wonder what is this for? Better option would be chorus for example).
9. NL4 has Reverb/Delay section.
10. NL4 has impulse morphs. (which, again, is very simple to implement, costing the developers almost nothing, but it's positioned as a superawesome and superadvanced function).
11. NL4 has USB, but you can use it only to transfer patches and MIDI operation, not for integration with your DAW, like Virus TI for example (then what is it needed for in general? I can use MIDI ports for exactly the same purposes. The only thing that comes to mind is connecting NL4 via USB directly to a computer, which means I don't have even to have a proper audiointerface, which consequently means I am a newbie musician, but NL4 is obviously positioned for professionals, not for newbies!!!)
Alright, there are several more little differences, but what I want to say: NL4 costs MORE than NL3, but it looks like a step back in Clavia's progress. Again, I don't understand why Clavia made NL4 and then A1, just in several months. Obviously, A1 is just a short version of NL4, but it's stupid to make a flagship synth for $2k and then it's short version for $1.7k, sounding almost exactly. Better they should make a fully functional proper flagship synth for $2.5k, with all functions and features implemented and it's short version for $1.2k for newbies.
Facepalm, Clavia.

[neolithic]

Yep, the best approach is to have a configure option, maybe Clavia will do so in future? FWIW my Prophet 08 has pots (originally they had encoders, but had some issues), and there is a system preference for how they respond : jump to current setting, relative to current setting or pass through. You mess around and choose your favourite. Relative mode is probably best for live use, as you avoid any nasty surprises, but jump/snap mode is what I use atm I think. It's not seen much use lately as most of my spare time has been spent Nordward!

[ricard]

The best way Clavia should do that is to implement BOTH functions and give the user an option to choose the preferred way of behaviour from the settings menu.
1. A knob's value snaps to the knob's position on movement (as it is now).
2. A knob pickups value when passing through it.
That's the way it should be implemented in a synthesizer for $2K and a synthesizer made in Sweden. As an electronics engineer I understand it's really easy to implement and could be possible with a small firmware update. I could understand this wouldn't be implemented in a budget synth like A1, but not in the flagship professional synth. But right now it looks like Clavia doesn't give a sh*t on their users' opinions and expectations, thinking they are the king of the hill and they can dictate their conditions on the market. Wrong, Clavia, that is the way to memories.

The function itself is just software and wouldn't be hard to implement if that is what they wanted to do, on the NL4 as well as the A1. I'm not affiliated with Clavia, but my guess would be that they want to as far as possible give there machines a consistent behavior, dependent on as few configuration options as possible.

Ok, one configurable feature won't make a difference, but after ten users have requested ten different configuration options, it starts to become awkward to set up.

I can see a reason for not having knob pickup, because it means that after grabbing a knob and starting to turn it, you still don't know if the underlying parameter value has changed or not. Personally I'm not convinced that's the way I'd like it, although I agree with you that it should be something that is up to the customer to decide, as we are not a homogenous bunch.

For example AFAIK Virus synths have even three (!) or more options of knob behaviour.

They are also not as user friendly as the Nords. I remember trying out a Virus KB many years ago, compared to my NL2 which basically just says "PLAY ME" I couldn't even figure out how to set up the filters properly, half the features of the synth were buried in menus.

So can you explain me, why should I spend $2k for a synth which has only 4 parts and 20 voices and lacks configurability, putting me in some kind of a stoneage period, when I can get another synth for approx. $2.5k having 16 parts multitimbrality, a bunch of outputs, including digital out and 128 voices of polyphony and operating as a f*cking spaceship of the future?? WHY?? What am I paying for? Just for the red colour??? Bad, bad, Clavia.

You don't even have to go for $2.5. $1k will get you a Waldorf Blofeld, which also has 16 parts multitimbrality, a weighted keyboard, with aftertouch, graphic display of envelope shapes, lots more features (3 oscs, 4 envs, 3 lfo, plus wavetable and sample playback capability).

But there are three reasons to go for the Nords in my opinion.

The first is the sound. The NL4 has got that 'Nord sound' which will cut through anything. The A1 has the best analog emulation I've heard.

The second is their directness. What you see is what you get, (virtually) no hidden parameters, just twiddle and play. No guessing. It'll take you half a day to learn all the ins and outs of the Blfofeld menu system. And that's still a pretty easy animal to fathom out.

And the third is the quality. There are no clicks and pops when the machine runs out of voices, or you switch patches. They don't crash. I've had my NL2 since it was new and I can't remember when or even if it crashed last time. Again comparing the Blofeld (because I happen to have one), still after 7 years of development it still crashes or hangs from time to time, certain parameters behave erratically, and when you run out of voices it cuts off old voices with ugly clicks, and changing patches in one slot in multi mode causes clicks in the audio for all other slots. Not too mention the encoders on the Blofeld which have a legendarily budget quality, whereas after 18 years of knob twiddling my NL2 shows no signs of fatigue.

I don't have any experience with Access machines so can't comment on them. But I can surely see where the Nord shines. The question is more how much you value that. Personally my NL2 is currently standing in the cupboard and the Blofeld is getting all the attention.

You should examine the market carefully and listen to your customers carefully in order to make more profit, instead of trying to cut off every option, which YOU think is not usable in your products.
Another comparison I want to tell about is the old Nord Lead 3. I still own one, and when I got the NL4 I was surprised. I expected it to be MUCH more advanced that NL3, but it's not like that at all.
[...]
Alright, there are several more little differences, but what I want to say: NL4 costs MORE than NL3, but it looks like a step back in Clavia's progress.

I'm not sure if it costs more, at least when looking at plain dollar figures, the NL4 cost about twice as much back then as the A1 costs now, but of course that's not taking inflation into consideration.

The main problem with the NL3 was that it never sold well. I think they topped up at just over 4700 units over its six year production run. Hard to speculate why, but I think with all the features (especially the LED dials) it was too expensive for what it was. So to me its obvious that they tried to learn from their mistakes and with the NL4 again present a machine with more character.

Quite frankly, Clavia have been in business since 1983 without going under, which is truly impressive for such a small company in the synth business. Waldorf flopped in the meantime (but got up again). Where did Quasimidi go? Alesis had a stunt at synths with the Andromeda, Ion and Micron but then gave it up. There are numerous other examples. Apparently, Clavia know what they are doing. I think part of that equation is not to take too large risks. I've been led to believe that the Nord Modular G2 and Nord Lead 3 almost sunk the company. Too expensive and/or too few customers, but brilliant and forward looking products. It's a tricky business.

That said, I too feel that the NL4 is not the jump forward that I was expecting. The NL was truly amazing for its time, it was one of the few synths that made me forget two hours in a music store before I dazedly walked out trying to figure out how to raise the money to buy one (and it only had 4 voices at the time). When the NL2 arrived a couple of years later, with four times the polyphony, split and keyboard tracking in thirds it was a no-brainer. The limitations of those machines I chalked up to a) treading carefully into a new market and b) limitations of the DSPs of the time. But 16 years later, the NL4 feels like it's just a minor upgrade rather than the result of 18 years of development in the synth industry. Also, to my ears the NL4 harsher sounding, but I think that is the intention; for me it makes it less interesting though.

Again, I don't understand why Clavia made NL4 and then A1, just in several months. Obviously, A1 is just a short version of NL4, but it's stupid to make a flagship synth for $2k and then it's short version for $1.7k, sounding almost exactly. Better they should make a fully functional proper flagship synth for $2.5k, with all functions and features implemented and it's short version for $1.2k for newbies.

The A1 is not just a short version of the NL4, as far as I can tell they've redesigned the oscillator section, which is the main reason I believe that the A1 sounds so analog. As for the reasons, well there are surely valid ones, but they're locked up with the management in Stockholm... I think the problem is that to build synthesizers the way Clavia do, i.e. having local production with skilled workers, means that there's a huge basic cost for each machine. They could never make a synth for $1.2k in Sweden. But they still want to build them that way as it gives them the quality the want to offer and also the 'handmade in Sweden' property which I think they figure is an important selling point. So they have to strip down as much as possible and see what can they do to give value to a customer without breaking the budget. And going to $2.5 might be what they figure is more than someone would want to pay for that type of machine. As I said, they've been in business for over 30 years, I think they know their market fairly well, even if I'm not the average customer.

But in principle I agree with you regarding the NL4 vs. the A1. I don't want all the features of the NL4, but I would like dual oscillators and envelopes with a sustain parameter on my $1.7k synth, please. Personally I end up not really wanting any one of them for that reason, but have gone for the Blofeld instead. However, I've spent an inordinate amount of time a) finding a Blofeld that actually works, b) trying to make editing easier (including writing a software editor from scratch and purchasing a couple of controllers) and c) being annoyed at bugs. Had I got an A1 (which might still happen...) I could have spent the time twiddling knobs (albeit not that many of them ) and making music.

[neolithic]

Thank you Ricard, for taking the time to write such a well considered and objective response to the OP. Hats off to you sir.

[Marlowes]

Hej Neo!

Yeah ... Ricard is a great guy and a hell of an engineer! Soon I'll play in his band ...

/Amicalement
Michael

[neolithic]

Soon I'll play in his band ...

Hehe - well, you keep asking!