EXS 24 Logic Sampler Users Group

Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote:
> I agree that this would be nice,
> but 1) I guess such a change would involve some major coding on the
> part of the EXS programmers,

No. It's allready working in case you're using the EXSP in Cubase. So the
code is allready there.
The Logic code is there as well as it's working with thrid party
instruments.
I don't know why they don't implement such a thing into their own
instruments, but as this was heavily asked for since years I can only
imagine: Pure ignorance. Sorry to say so, but it just seems to be that.

> and 2) imagine having to hand-assemble
> your 10000 EXS instruments in 100 banks...

Well, that's all up to you. I'd gladly put together some banks, just for the
benefits of not having to either scroll through them with the mouse or load
them incrementally by amounts of +/- 1.
I would like to just sit at my MIDI keyboard and select program changes,

> As for 1: one can wonder if you really want to do
> that with a sampler.  What happens if you load a 500 MB piano while
> 20 other virtual instruments are playing and your CPU load is near
> the max?  Right...  I think it's far better and wiser and safer to
> just load up a second EXS instance and thus avoid the need for a
> program change mid-song.

Yes and no. I agree with you on complexed patches, but very often I would
just like to change one instrument a bit, maybe even using the same
samples - a good example might be a string patch that I want to change from
slow attack with vibrato to one with attack and no vibrato - fooling around
automating these IMO is more of an effort than just inserting an appropriate
program change).

> As for 2: since the whole setup is saved with the song there simply
> is no need to send the instruments a program change at song-start...

Well, have you ever tried to playback some MIDI file using all 16 channels
through the EXS?
With some EXS GM patch which you could have loaded in 16 instances (well...
actually it'd be even better if the EXS supported multitimbrality - another
thing the EXSP allready does) it'd be no deal at all. As it is, it's a royal
pain in the ass and the only reason I still have some cheesy QY70 in my
setup.

> The drop down hierarchical menus are
> a navigational nightmare, and program changes would be just _one_ of
> many possible ways to overcome that problem somewhat -- but it
> wouldn't be the best possible way imo.

Sure, there might be better ways in addition. But why not give us program
changeability as a start?
For me it'd be a true time saviour very often.
The simple fact that you could then load smaller patches of up to 128 sounds
would be a great thing (with third party instruments those patches show up
in the "program" pulldown). That way we could reorganize our patches in
smaller portions without losing anything.
But hey, that would mean that for now one should be able to save as FXB -
the competitors format... now take a wild guess why it isn't implemented
yet.
The funny thing here is, that Steinbergs format does the job fine, even in
Logic (apart from the fact that the displayed program number doesn't get
updated).

I really wouldn't complain if things were that hard to implement - but as
they defenitely aren't, this sort of sheer ignorance is really driving me
mad sometimes.

Regards,
Sascha