Oh how I still miss instrument definitions.. Or maybe we should be able to give a custom name to midi channels?


#1

Yesterday I had a rather intensive session with the Pyramid, still loving it, but one thing that has bothered me since day one is the lack of instrument definitions…

Let me explain: I have a fairly large set of gear using up all 32 midi channels (A&B).
I do not only need to memorise the channel of each device, also which port it is on (A or B). Of course I have cheat sheets for this, but it’s not fun to work like this, especially not knowing that this is something the Pyramid could perfectly handle (in theory).

I just want to be able to alternate midi channel selection with an instrument selection menu. Additionaly such a definition could also include presets for controller asignments and other specfics…
Maybe even an alternate display (non-piano roll) for drum tracks, showing only the rows (notes) that actually have sounds assigned, like can be done in Cubase.

But if such a thing is too much work/hassle, an alternative solution would work pretty well for me:
Allow a global custom name for midi channels
That way, when selecting your midi channel, the same menu could display the name of the midi channel. E.g; Channel 1A: Alpha Juno


Idea for future update - (device) names for outputs
#2

Names/Templates would be game changing.


#3

Yes, please! Squarp team, this truly would make the workflow so much smoother. My setup is less complex than rv0’s, but I still find myself getting confused navigating different projects and end up organizing my banks in such a way that I don’t get confused, but I’d rather have the visual feedback so I don’t get lost if I’m setting up a project differently from the last. I don’t like to work from rigid templates as to keep things fresh and being able to custom label things would greatly help to keep things easy and organized.


#4

Yes, I really need this. And I’d hoped it would have been implemented. Not being sure about what device I’m working with wastes my time. And is one of the most confusing aspects when using the Pyramid. Professionally this would be information saved with each channel, and saved with each Song. Rather than the current potential for confusion, and the need for writing notes outside of the Pyramid workflow.


#5

Also its a lot of work, i spent hours assaingin CC controllers for my Prophet in Ni Maschine.


#6

Oh boy would I ever like this.

Instrument definitions would save a ton of time. I dream of being able to choose all my needed CC’s and give them names. That way I could simply assign an Instrument to a track and use the filter mode (2nd + step) to flip through my pre-organized automation channels. It takes an incredible amount of time to scroll through all of the unwanted MIDI CC"s each time I want to make a new automation lane.

On a related manner: Is there a way I can wiggle the parameter on my synth and have the Pyramid recognize that I want to automate it? There’s something about “learning” in the manual but it’s very unclear exactly what they’re talking about.

I think the work required to make a new track may be a deal breaker for me. We’ll see.


#7

+1
project name visible in every mode
custom drummaps via a userscale function
custom CC / CV assign names
indeed this would be great and save time

kind of workaround:
for my fixed setup i saved an empty “project preset”, eg.
BankA 1-8 named MicroBr_1-8, all Midi Ch 1
BankA 9-16 named Ju06_1-8, all Midi Ch 2
BankB 1-8 named Beats 1-8, all Midi Ch. 10


#8

yes!
and it was the case before…
(before the v2.0 I believe)

there was already an entire thread to request the implementation of instrument definitions, custom CC names etc. on the old forum
I think that the Squarp Team is already aware of.
Patience, guys,
There is hope that it is already part of the roadmap , being one of the most requested feature (and which, indeed, would be a real game changer …)


#9

I have been asking for a template or an instrument definition from day one, it is crucial.


#10

Absolutely. I think that this feature is totally necessary to make this sequencer comfortable and easier to work with. Would love to hear news from Squarp about their plans about future updates.


#11

And on a side note, I would like the Squarp team to say if they want to implement the feature. It was on the roadmap forever, has it been dumped?


#12

Unfortunately I believe this feature has never been officially commented by Squarp
and therefore even less in an official roadmap …

the last official roadmap included: negative offset, independent five encoders per track, consolidate MIDI FX, and more styles for the Arpeggiator

Given that we have a very limited RAM on the Pyramid, I’m a bit worried about the implementation of the instrument definitions …
unless they find a solution via streaming (from txt files for example) directly from the SD card…

I really hope so.
Because it would be really helpful.


#13

I do believe that the Cirklon is operating on a similar processor, or even a weaker one. But it still manages this feature. Correct me if im wrong :slight_smile:


#14

yes I thought the exact same thing! The Cirklon is way older than the Pyramid
but with this RAM issue…I don’t know… :frowning:
The Cirklon is also able to chain songs (projects)
it has a tons of midi FX (included those which change the playback position - Ping-pong, reverse, random etc.)
a lot of assignable encoders etc. etc.
and, indeed, instrument definitions !
so…I don’t know what to think… : (


#15

It’s also incredibly had to get one.


#16

yes I agree but rarity should not make the quality, and it isn’t really a criterion to choose a sequencer
because it is the most important part of a setup !
so it worth the price and the waiting anyway…

BUT I would prefer that the Pyramid really be the best hardware sequencer of the market :wink: the most complete, and I think it has the potential for that
the UI is more modern than the one on the Cirklon, and I think the workflow is a bit more effective

that being said, features like instrument defs, project chaining etc. seem to be quite essential for a professional hardware midi sequencer…

these devices have to be thought to be the central nerve of a full setup of machines
they are quite pricy for machines which don’t make sound, but on the other hand they have to be very complete in terms of MIDI functionnalities imo


#17

The 5 encoders per track - could lend itself to be a pseudo instrument definition.


#18

No, not at all. Be careful of pointing at alternatives that might take you a year to get a hold is what I was getting at.

I’ve pretty much given up on a new century hardware sequencing control centre, they just aren’t being made and it’s a shame. I had an idea the Pyramid might be it, but no. I’ve mentioned before my philosophy of sequencers being musicians in a band, but a good band needs a top notch leader. Unfortunately in my realm it’s still a sequencer from the 1990/s…


#19

yes but I know several people around me who bought a Pyramid while they are on the Cirklon waiting list… :confused: so it is not really a “waiting” for an alternative, because when their Cirklon will be there (and if the Pyramid has still not evolved as they want) they will get the Cirklon
but I find it is a big pity… because, since the beginning, I also hope that the Pyramid can be a real competitor (or even a successor) of the Cirklon (which had a complete monopoly in this category since a few years from now)

as I said, I personally prefer the Pyramid workflow
so, the Cirklon is not really an alternative for me,
but in terms of features, there are still some points of frustration on PyraOS…