Most Wanted Features

16 would probably get the job done. (I was thinking if changing to 16 is possible, 32 might future-proof it some more.)

For higher tempo piece, 8 bars often isn’t sufficient to contain the complete ‘loop’, forcing it to be created in two parts.

The issue mainly surfaces when attempting to review/audition the full ‘loop’ when it’s split across two scenes, which isn’t currently possible. (See previous post.)

1 Like

i dunno. sometimes i wanna make a remix of a track that has a midi file readily available so i’d like to import that into auxy as opposed to having to transcribe it manually. i suppose it’d work like how project links work?

then again I’m not a programmer so i wouldn’t know how difficult that would be

1 Like

I realise that. That’s why I thought that bar length might be a more achievable route to alt time signatures.
A functionally similar outcome by other means.

Of course, it would mean running multiple independent playheads, but…

After all, users might reasonably expect a bit more when the word “Pro” is in the app name.

1 Like

I’d use it to quickly strip away full instrumentation to review/audition two or more tracks together in isolation, both for compositional and mixing purposes. Instrument-level combinable mute/solo means this can be done without dirtying up the arrangement bar just to review how two or more work together.

It’s a common need in composition/production, but shouldn’t require creators to alter the arrangement.

As mentioned, I’d also use it to bounce out specific stems more quickly and efficiently — as part of a larger, multi-tool workflow.

Based on the fact that combinable mute/solo controls are a pretty standard feature of most DAWs, desktop or otherwise, I would have thought its popularity isn’t really in question.

1 Like

Post-processing kicks differently to snare, differently to hi-hats, etc…

The current alternative is to use a Kit slot/‘instrument’ for each individual sound — i.e. one kit instrument just for the kick(s), another kit slot for snares, etc… to get each sound exported separately.

The 20 instrument slots will run out very quickly if half are being used just to have separated drum exports.

Pretty standard stuff.

Oh yeah this may have been from a while ago, but I opened these up in Auxy to check and it still appears to work.

So this is an edited project with a 16-bar loop from ToxicCaves64 (note: it also appears to have a tempo of 1000BPM)
https://app.auxy.co/projects/pwLQvOEBP27tzbGwHtqSGQ==

And this project has 5-bar, 6-bar and 7-bar loops
https://app.auxy.co/projects/HdGsr6GuJKEVNy4ExJsZiA==

Probably not the most convenient way to deal with the problem (and definitely not a replacement for a proper solution, as this project has loops for melodic instruments and not drum kits), but it appears to still work when the instrument is copied into another project and the loops are moved into other instruments, if a temporary workaround is needed right now^^

Of the two, Decay has clearer utility, generally being a bit more easy to identify in sound details/design.
Automating Decay is a great way to get subtle and not-so-subtle evolutions out of a sound.

Q: Why wouldn’t pads benefit from ‘shape’ control/automation? Pad sounds can evolve too. Forgive me for saying, but why limit it based on what ‘makes sense’ to you — rather than what might be give users more control — while also giving Auxy access to a larger sound palette?

(I’m not a fan of the term “shape”,. It seems needlessly ambiguous — and subjective (to the devs) — when there’s a native, more objectively understood vernacular built right into music creation.
It definitely seems like a step in the ‘Pro’ direction to use ‘pro’ terms.

I appreciate it might be hard to replicate actual Decay behaviours, but if/when you do, please label it Decay. Again, it comes back to that ‘Pro’ thing. If a synth/groovebox tool supports ‘decay’, a Pro will expect it to be labelled ‘Decay’, especially when there’s ‘Attack’ and ‘Release’.

Some of this comes down to how Decay-like automations are built into many of the instruments. Very often I’ll use a sound that would be better, in this case, if only the built in decay was shorter/longer.

Gaining control over those characteristics breathes new life and utility into the existing library.

Intentionally detuning sounds to varying degrees is a popular effect in many genres.
It allows users to make any sound wonky (think lo-fi or Boards of Canada), fatter (think supersaw), custom vibrato depth and rate, microtonal, alt tunings, etc…

Straight, non-automated detuning would open up one level of options. Automation opens it all the way up.

If you were adding a vibrato tool, with control over rate and depth, then a static detune might get us 90% of the way there.

Still, having more control — i.e. instrument tuning with automation support — always open up more options.

I’m willing to believe that there are many in the ‘bunch of people’ (i.e. your user base) that can squeeze out sounds of sufficient quality to match the official packs. I’m also ready to believe that until you try it, you’ll never know if there’s a sizeable untapped Auxy sound pack creation resource staring you in the face.

Seems like a zero loss game for you.
If people can, then your app gets an extended shelf-life. If they can’t, well, that’s on them.

And of course, let’s not forget that every user will likely have their own, slightly different idea of what ‘higher quality sounds’ means to them.

But you can use the stems export for this, no?

Sure, but we’re trying to make something different than a full DAW. Drawing the line to get the right balance is the tricky part.

Could you elaborate on what your ideal workflow is? Do you want to make tracks in Auxy and mix them in a DAW? Why not use the DAW all the way if you feel like you need that feature set?

Again, it might be easier for you to get a DAW if full control over every parameter is what you’re looking for. :grimacing:

1 Like

Great! We’ll consider adding a tuning option, similar to how it works for samples.

We know that undo is a highly requested feature, but we would love to know a bit more about what is most annoying about not having it. I.e. what do you usually want to undo?

Yes, but being able to export just the stems we need would be quicker and more efficient.

When using Auxy within a larger workflow, it’s often optimal to go back and revise something in Auxy then re-export that stem. Processing and exporting 20 stems just to access one or two seems inefficient.

 
Besides, the primary benefit of a combinable instrument-level mute/solo feature is during composing, to quickly isolate two or more instruments to better judge how they’re working together, compositionally or in the mix.

If the Export process also recognised that some instruments are muted and ignored them during Export.
It’s a side benefit, but a useful one.

It would be easier to have a constructive discussion if you stop assuming that my arguments come from a lack of willingness to do things. I’m trying to give a more nuanced reply than “thanks for your input, we’re always working to improve our services”. In most cases, these arguments or ideas are not new, and usually we’ve had a chance to evaluate them further and even test them. E.g. I’m not just sitting here saying “a bunch of people won’t do any great sounds”. I know that from experience.

Would some people rather have their own synth engine and be able to make sounds however they want? Just like in a DAW… Certainly!

Of course, by all means solve the need a better way, if you feel it can be done — and it worth the additional effort of reinventing that particular wheel. YMMV.

Again, coming back to that ‘Pro’ label. At some point it should either suggest that it’s capable of supporting pro workflows or at least uses conventions that have stood the test of time, conventions which pros recognise, appreciate and use.

(And not supporting a feature that the industry recognises as valuable might not feel like a USP to users.)

Auxy is in a slightly unusual place. Too good to be just a toy, not good enough to be a standalone pro DAW/groovebox.

It allows serious, ambitious* music creators to develop tracks to a quite advanced level.

(* I’m avoiding saying "pro’ on purpose, at this point)

You recognise that there’s a strong role for Auxy within a larger workflow. Having the ability to separate out drum kit / sample kit stems makes the technical interplay even better.

Auxy excels because of the speed of ideation and development it supports. It’s rare that Auxy users will utilise Auxy to produce music w/o drums. So, improving the portability of drum tracks means that Auxy drums can continue to be directly usable even when switching over to (e.g.) Ableton.

More capable mixing and mastering controls is certainly at least one reason that I bounce Auxy to Ableton, though swapping out sounds for alts in VSTs or adjusting the ‘performance’ (e.g. adding more nuance than Auxy can currently support) are the main ones.

1 Like