I think it’s fine the way it is.
Where have you been
This certainly would be interesting to see, but a lot of the leads are rather versatile in terms of categorization. I also have a feeling it would break compatibility with existing project files for sounds to suddenly exist as other categories, as the category helps identify them within the project. Certainly something in hindsight that should have been done though. And, after all, it would certainly be better to rip off the bandaid now than later for something like this.
I agree that most of the leads are versatile but it’d be nicer to cruise through certain pads when making chords instead of having to idkviudally find them through different packs by memorised names. It’s good to browse through sounds as a certain category, it’d speed up work flow and add interest when producing
Then I would also argue how far down the rabbit hole of categorization do you want to go? take the red pill
Do we cut off at simply pads? What about sounds that are meant for chords but don’t have any real attack/decay/release control? Do we categorize those as leads or another category as “chords”? Plucks would obviously have their own category but what about sounds that hybridize the two? Such as corn and bow, which sustain out with shape but pluck without it? And would you divide up basses too? Sub basses in one category, basses in another and hard basses in yet another (Serum’s present list does this and its mind boggling).
I do agree a better form of categorization of sounds would be nice, especially when considering speeding up the workflow. Perhaps getting to set lists and maybe even tag sounds in ways for better organization would be a potential solution. However, I do think that blanket categorization may not help out too much. It’s cettainly something that, if it is to be done, should be done now rather than later, but there’s possibly other ways to address this desire that would be better suited.
I was gonna mention the fact about plucks aswell but like u said some sounds double up
Maybe it’s just too much for a simple feature
That’s exactly the problem. However, perhaps having some way to self-categorize sounds into a list, like a tag, would be a potential compromise and overall be a better workflow enhancer?
There is no such thing as a simple feature. If it was, we would have time signatures and tempo automation by now ;3
In all seriousness though, I do think it’s important to address the root of the problem instead of addressing what would fix it. There may be a better solution, and optimizing solutions is a key goal in software development. I know this as a programmer myself, and it’s always digging down and problem solving until all other methods have been exhausted. Yes, some things like setting a different color may be simple, but there’s a lot more to it than that.
That isn’t to say I don’t think your idea isn’t a “simple” feature. However, there may be a better feature that may not be so simple but will work even better than what you could have imagined.
I meant the app is already simple, to modify a simple feature could be a bad option. Not my idea was simple
I want the original drum kits to be back on the list of drums
Why were they og drum kits removed in auxy 5?
Automation stacking or just having the ability to sustain them longer would be nice. Having delays that can be modified to not fade out so quickly or being able to stack them like running pedals in sequence together.
I do mainly use the automation to make every single thing I do, I’m a little biased here I think, so this may not be a thing anyone wants or cares about. Being able to use more than one reverb, delay, tone, shape, or pitch on a single instrument would be gold to me and being able to decide when fx fade out would be a game changer in my book.
Differing reasons have been given out. Initially, it was to encourage users to use the new drum kits and the higher quality of samples. It eventually turned into removing sounds from the freemium package to encourage users to purchase the subscription. Lenberg has considered reimplementing sample effects such as distortion or compression, but there is no known answer as to if this is going to happen, if it will be automatable or anything at all.
It is a shame that they were seen as unimportant to users to hide from access and usability. They really offered a lot of bang for the buck.
When will the ability to copy legacy kits (drums with dist, compress, etc) come
It’s not going to be returning. At the very least, I will be very surprised if it does. It would go against the point of moving in with the sample kits in Auxy 5 in the first place. It wouldn’t make sense to allow old legacy items to be placable, and I bet in the far future they will be unable to be used altogether.
tbh I would love the distortion and compression to return. I don’t care about the legacy drums but the effects are the real deal.
aw yeah i miss dist. dont remember what compression does tho
This video should help explain it. The effects weren’t always very pronounced, but audio compression especially on drums is a staple in the mixing process.
Not sure if it’s been said, but I would like to have the notes of the scale im in be displayed like how it is in Chromatic mode instead of just a 1, 3, 5. It would be more helpful in terms of learning scales and also connecting chords and scales between each other.
Additionally, these skills would be more transferrable to any other DAW out there since the Piano roll is standard and not Auxy’s roll.