Expressive E Osmose

The Lounge Other Gear
#1521

I dont think so, most of these settings are about how to map the Osmose hardware to the Eagan Matrix and/or Osmose hardware.

So separate from the EM routing.

Basically, iirc, the EM has one midi input , but Osmose has 3 ( 2 usb , 1 din) , so the Osmose firmware has to decide what is being mapped to what.

So C3 but you mention , is then within the EM, and so if to route in/out via midi/dsp.

It’s a bit confusing as there are really two independent os/firmware.
( and also I think some of EE labeling is a bit confusing too, trying to avoid Haken terms)

#1522

Yeah two different layers with some idiosyncrasies in how things are labelled and linked together.

#1523

All jolly complicated for my old brain, will stick to just playing it. :wink:
Today I calibrated a Korg expression pedal to use in input 2 and that worked nicely. Seem to recall there was a worthwhile second sustain mode to try (damper?) as an alternative so will have to experiment with that too.

1 Like
#1524

Argh! It just so happens that connecting the Osmose DC to the same power strip than my 1010 Blackbox is a source of noise for the latter.

It is a distinct kind of hiss (a precise frequency band, not a low hum), even though no direct USB connection is involved, both devices going straight to the power strip with their respective original wall-plugs. It’s there even when the Osmose is powered off, only slightly less present in that case. I absolutely despise USB for musical applications, including for wall power for power hungry devices (e.g 1010 blackbox, haken mini), what a rubbish standard.

Ground loop noise isolator on BB’s Audio In TRS does not work, I will try with a ferrite core instead. Doubtful whether a USB isolator would work with blackbox’s USB power plug. Or maybe I should try the ferrite core with Osmose’s DC cable, but I’ll better ask support first.

1 Like
#1525

Anyone tried recording something and playing it back with the squarp hapax? Does it work? Also, does the cirklon record or playback MPE?

I’ve never even tried to record or edit MPE in my daw, but MPE is about to get real now that there is a good semi-affordable controller for it :-).

#1526

Hapax not tried yet , should be no issue, as I’ve used other mpe controllers with hapax.
( don’t foresee any issues as I’ve had mpe going in/out the Osmose with other things)

The reason I’ve not done yet , is there is no proper note editing of mpe on hapax at the moment.

I guess I could test it tommorow and report back :slight_smile:

I’ve have done a bit of recording of Osmose (mpe) in both Live and Bitwig, no issues - though only small sketches… and was more playing with various mpe vsts.

But my latest jam is feeding Osmose into Octatrack for multitrack looping - should be a fun way of layering different Osmose sounds.

but rest of this evening is , likely, more fun in the Eagan Matrix … really enjoying experimenting with the Biqbank

1 Like
#1527

so what’s your verdict on the interface?

#1529

1920×1440

Anyone up for dual Osmoses? :rofl: :exploding_head: :innocent:

6 Likes
#1530

giphy-268707190

#1531

ok… tl;dr;
yes it works - testing both in/out and recording/playback.
din directly, usb you will need a ‘router’ (see below)

but its of course not quite as simple as just plug it in :laughing:

using midi din

k, this works as expect…
you need to have osmose din mode = dsp in

usb connection

this does NOT work … kind of…
the issue is what appears to be a bug in Osmose firmware…
from what I can see Osmose is NOT accepting midi input on Osmose Port 1!
(even with usb haken mode 1/play)
this is problematic for hapax, as you cannot select virtual ports, it always uses port 1.

however, with my iConnectivity mioXM , I can setup custom routing, so I can get it to work as follows:

Osmose Port 1 -> mioXM -> Hapax (usb device)
Hapax (usb device) -> mioXM -> Osmose Port 2 (!)

you will also need to set the pitch bend range to 1/48
(edit: Ive noticed that actually 1/48 is the default)

why is this the case… as I say I think a bug… it seems logical Osmose Port 1 should accept midi.
the reason Port 2 works is although its MPE+, this is a superset of MPE.

why not use Port 2 for input to hapax, as I said above you cannot select it… but also the MPE mode on the hapax has no idea about MPE+ , so may or may not work… also using MPE has a bit less data.

1 Like
#1532

Osmose UI (panel) ? or Eagan Matrix?

Osmose is pretty good,
generally, there are a few ‘UI refresh’ bugs… nothing major.
the Ext Midi/global settings needs some love from the developers, but its functional.
(it will catch many out though)
but theres nothing that can’t be resolved in later firmware.

Eagan Matrix,
Its absolutely fine, easy to use, and works really well.sure its quirky and a bit complex to start with
but thats more by workflow/approach than anything really else - its what it needs to be.

frankly, It’s been like this for years, Haken are not going to change it massively to make it more user friendly - nor should they, is not designed for this usage.

now before the masses grab their pitchforks…
“It should be accessible to all, Elitist attitude…, we need to be able to create our own sounds”
Id say YES and NO… :slight_smile:

sometimes complex problems , need complex interfaces… dumbing down to the lowest common denominator is not an acceptable solution. the Eagan Matrix is mature and loved.
… and frankly, really the Eagan Matrix is not that bad, you just need to invest time with it, like any complex software.

however I agree, potentially locking out a large part of the user base, who don’t want to invest the time, is problematic for something trying to be mass market friendly.

note: one could argue expressive-e response to this is use osmose as an mpe controller, and use other mpe synths (hardware or software)

Ive a feeling this might be solved in two ways, without having to expose the Eagan Matrix to users.

a) Sound Packs
I could see the Osmose Updater being extended to allow for new presets ‘banks’ to be uploaded.
this I think could be huge… and follows a little with what Expressive E has done in the past.

b) Simplified editor (native?)
The DSP is not (very likely) to change, theres too much investment in the current technology, and it is loved ! ( * )
however, I could imagine creating an editor that was more like a ‘traditional synth UI’ that creates an Eagan Matrix in the background.
for sure, it would not be as flexible as the Eagan Matrix editor BUT it would be much more approachable.

the great thing about this approach is, you could take a preset created in the ‘simple editor’, and then import it directly into the Eagan Matrix editor… so could add things that are beyond this simple editor.

I do think this is a very real possibility, as Expressive E are no strangers to writing VSTs/Applications, so they certainly have the skills in house.

of course, this is pure speculation …
and I suspect heavily depends on feedback from users, the desire for more presets, programming outside the matrix etc…

one thing that might be ‘problematic’ is commercial realities…
creating this editor is no small dev effort = cost… and frankly, users are going to be ‘miffed’ if they are asked to pay for it as an extra - so its going to cost expressive-e both development time, and lost revenue - so they are really going to have think this will help Osmose sales significantly.

( * ) this means any new editor, could not functionally do more than the Eagan Matrix can, it can merely present it in a different way,.

1 Like
#1533

I agree, except that for some it wont just be a question of investing time, it will be a question of whether they can ever get their heads around some of the more complicated EaganMatrix concepts to the extent that they can get useful results. This will vary per person and is similar to other existing phenomenon such as how comfortable individuals ever become with maths beyond a certain point, how compatible their brains seem to be with getting into programming, scripting etc and thriving rather than floundering in those domains.

But I think you’ve already covered the implications and solutions for this in what you said subsequently. It is perfectly possible to imagine building much simpler GUIs that hide those deep concepts, with simple controls that are less intimidating controlling key parameters in a hidden EaganMatrix template. A whole series of these could be built, resembling completely different instruments with different GUIs.

Whether that is actually worth doing is going to come down to things like the extent to which this actually unlocks a range of results that go beyond whats already available in existing or future factory presets. And whether in practice it really ends up adding very much more beyond the 6 macro controls that are already exposed to users in an unintimidating fashion.

1 Like
#1534

the more I play with the Eagan Matrix, the less, I think the ‘concepts’ are complicated/complex, and so the issue.

the ‘wiring concept’ is pretty much like plugging wires in modular, say with attenuators/scale/offset… and the basic formula I think are easy enough to grasp.
I think the bigger issue, for many are the more complex ‘bank’ modules (biqbank/kinetic/harman) as these are just not that common, and without ‘graphics’ perhaps difficult to visualise what they are about.
so its more the sound design parts that are challenging, rather than the mechanics of wiring it up.

so the question is, will a ‘nice ui’ help with the usage of these modules, or will these need abstracting up a level, to make them feel usable.

of course, thats a very personal take… Im familiar with dsp, and modular, so perhaps thats why the wiring/formulae are really a non-issue… but just like modular, getting to know more complex (bank) modules takes time to find musical application.
(of course, having a ton of presets to look at does help this process!)

3 Likes
#1535

Actually, the Osmose is giving back control to the musicians rather than locking them out. Given both the expressive presets and the expressive controller, musicians will have more influence on their sound than they might have used on other more accessible synths before. That’s not to say that the EM’s sound design interface would be perfect. It is rather that, with the Osmose, sound design does not seem to matter as much anymore.

3 Likes
#1536

Yes. To keep us on the same page with these thoughts, and maintain our ability to address all of this with simple language about conceptual issues, I would simply include the methods of synthesis, the nature of the modules etc as being concepts, not just the matrix wiring & formulas.

I suppose there are parallels with peoples struggles with FM synthesis in the history of electronic music too. Superficially people were tempted to blame it all on the programming UI, and there is no doubt that better UIs, better presentation, removal of unnecessary jargon can help. But with all of those things improved, people may still face issues in understanding how the core synthesis concepts enable particular sounds to be sculpted.

It will be fun finding out to what extent these challenges may be overcome with the stuff EaganMatrix has to offer, given time and people experimenting. I think I will dedicate some time to this, and I could imagine some of us collaborating once we are all a bit more familiar with the building blocks on offer.

2 Likes
#1537

Yes and no. What you are describing there actually increases the impetus for more people to be able to craft patches which place control at the players fingertips. In this respect sound design matters perhaps even more than before, but not everyone needs to operate at that level in order to get results. We can view Osmose as a platform for instrument building, and not everyone needs to be a builder, the players get to enjoy the end results, but all the same the more builders the merrier.

2 Likes
#1538

(sub Osmose for Eagan Matrix and ) this is very much my view.

I’ve been likening this to Native Instrument’s Reaktor
Reaktor was created by NI for them to (in-house) create instruments,
they released it, as they thought it would be a useful/interesting framework for others to use.

(of course, the introduction of “Blocks” has changed that a little… but perhaps thats similar to what Im describing with a ‘simple editor’)

I do think the term ‘preset’ is part of the problem, due to some peoples negative connotations. ( * )
perhaps if presets were called instruments (or engines?) it’d be less contentious.

its also why I think having an easy way to distribute new ‘sound banks’ to the Osmose (without using the Haken Editor) could really open things up… so everyone can get something new.

that said, we have over 500 instruments already… so think most will be satisfied for a while :slight_smile:

( * ) perhaps this is because electronic musicians are used to doing a bit of everything.
sound design, performance, mixing, mastering etc etc.

4 Likes
#1539

Yes I was being sloppy by saying Osmose instead of EaganMatrix, partly because this thread is Osmose-centric, and partly because I suppose Osmose will bring EaganMatrix to a larger audience. Plus when thinking about ‘instruments’ as a cohesive thing, I usually want to do expressive sound design with one particular playing surface in mind. So I’ll probably be inclined to speak of sound design for the Osmose rather than sound design for EaganMatrix, though there is obviously a large overlap and I should not ignore all the existing world of EaganMatrix stuff. I’ll be much the same if I’m using other MPE synths, eg if I make expressive presets for the Waldorf Quantum/Iridium then I’ll be doing it very much with playing them with an Osmose in mind rather than trying to make the exact same patches work equally well with all the other MPE controllers.

#1540

I do like the 500 factory instruments of which you speak. In recent days I did an experiment where I went through them all to see which ones were instant hits for me that I could imagine wanting to learn how to play real well on the Osmose. It was trivial to select at least 64 of them that fitted this criteria immediately and didnt overlap too excessively. Could probably spend a lifetime with those and never get bored or run out of room to improve on getting the most out of them via improved playing technique. macro tewaeking and patch tweaking. For now I only got as far as copying those to the user slots to compensate for lack of favourites tagging in current firmware.

One thing that makes me unsure of how much time to dedicate to proper EaganMatrix learning is the uncertainty of how many more completely different sounds/sonic territory (compared to factory presets) are lurking in there with the engine features already available. Looking around for the most obvious future potential for different sounds that wouldnt require any brand new modules or forms of synthesis to be added to that engine, the Additive stuff shows up quite obviously. Mostly because they have a plan to make available the tool that lets people upload their own additive bank, offering us the ability to load our own flavour of source material into the Osmose that can then be exploited via other engine features. I think someone asked for a progress update on this tool in the Haken Continuum Users group on Facebook in the last week or so, probably in a comment in the post Christophe Duquesne made about the prototype back in May 2022. Are you following that stuff?

#1541

That’s absolutely the issue.