Hi Synapse Audio Team,
I would like to give some feedback and suggestions to improve your Dune 3 VST.
I am referring to the current demo version that is available on your website (Version 3.20) and the available manual.
First of all thank you for this great synth. What I really like, as a summary, is:
Clean user interface, most is sorted well and well readable. The option to change the size of the GUI is a very handy tool. I use the large skin on a 24” LCD, as I like to have everything bigger and well readable.
The sound is very nice, as well as the choice of the factory patches that reveal lots of the synth.
(Mostly) clear structured layout that is oriented based on classical synths.
The differential unison engine is a fantastic concept, enables the programmer to do lots of work with only one instance of the VST, as the individual voices can be modified extensively.
The display in the top center is well designed so that important functions can be found quickly.
The set of effects is very good, as I don’t like to have a synth without any standard FX and do everything in the daw after getting the “raw” signal from the synth, only -> Far better workflow. I am also happy with the quality of the FX, however sometimes I would go and use a certain VST FX, but this method is rather usual.
Now I would also like to give some suggestions to make Dune even better:
Put two buttons for undo/redo above or beneath the “display” to use it quickly. Now, when I like to undo a change, depending in which tab of the menu of the display I am, I need several clicks to reach the undo/redo function -> massive workflow interruption.
I would prefer to change the order of the Filter Envelope section with the Amp Envelop section, as Amp Env has higher priority (Filter Env is usually dependent on the Amp Env settings). This would be more intuitive. In many cases I encountered that I accidently changed the Filter Env instead of the Amp Env, because I confused them subconsciously. Maybe other users would also prefer this change in ergonomics/intuition.
I rather would prefer vertical sliders instead of knobs for the envelopes (this is personal preference), but I do also think that the envelopes are better recognizable at first sight, when you look at the pattern of the positions of faders for envelopes.
I would also suggest to place three little “fields” above the “Master” section that display numerical values for the BPM, CPU-usage and level peak in dB. With that little addition the workflow would be increased, as you would not have to put away your eyes from the synth to look these things up in your daw all the time. On the other hand it enables the user very quickly to take measures to optimize the performance, when using lots of unison voices, etc., by seeing the CPU-usage immediately and the impact of measures taken (reduction of voices, turning off OSCs, etc.), as well as setting the volumes properly regarding the dB reference values (also better for using the brickwall limiter to know where you are).
Then there is confusion with the values of the faders and knobs. To have everything in percentage is annoying. Percentage means “relative value”, but to what reference? And for the different groups of faders and knobs it does not mean the same always. Examples:
For the OSC MIXER percentage is ok to have the levels with respect to each other (OSC1, OSC2, etc.), although with the same percentage value, volume will almost always be different among the sources OSC1, OSC2, etc. depending on actual settings, i.e. density, amount, etc., that’s clear.
For the envelopes, percentage is not so nice. I would rather prefer time in ms, if possible, regarding audio technical characteristics. Also depending on, if the envelopes follow a “time approach” or a “slope approach” in your synth. But maybe it would be interesting to program a function that would then calculate the resulting times depending on the actual amplitudes and fader/knob positions and display the times in ms.
One very annoying thing I absolutely do not like regarding the position of Faders/knobs is,
that the values do not correspond to the values in the modulation matrix. So, especially for modulation.Cf. page 89 in manual “[…) will have a cutoff setting corresponding to 100% (50% + 50%).” That is absolutely not intuitive in my opinion. And I think your explanation is also wrong. The value in the mod matrix will not “[…] adjust the parameters relative to the knob settings […]” , that would usually mean for the giving example “50% of 50% = 25%”. What you are trying to explain is, that the relative values are added up, right?
For filters FILTER1/FILTER2 the cutoff frequency could be displayed instead of percentage.
A further suggestion for the DELAY 1/DELAY 2 effect, would be to have an option to link “L-RATE” and “R-RATE”.
A further suggestion for the ARPs, would be great to get the “---” of the “NOTE” in a step by just clicking right mouse button.
This is what I would like to say for the moment. The above-mentioned aspects are improvements of the current functions and not major wishes. Some of them will be quick to program, but would still be a major improvement, especially regarding workflow. I hope you appreciate to get feedback. If yes, maybe I would post further experiences and findings in later comments.
For the users who read this posting, if you agree on some recommendations of my post or have alternative solutions for the aspects I presented, please feel free to support by writing a comment!
Best regards
Kaydon