MOTUnation.com

3over3 wrote:I was referring to the filters in the specific Filters/DSP section - not the effects. In v1, the manual made no attempt to explain the difference between LPFs 1, 2 and 3. Using my ears, I guess that one's a 4-pole (LPF2?), one's a 2-pole and the other could either be a 3- or 1-pole. They're not the most musical filters, so it's hard to be sure and everything's a bit relative.

The version 2 manual tells us (but only in the effects section) that of the new filters available in the Filters/DSP section the "Rez" filters are modelled after "a very popular Japanese synth" whereas the "Analog" filters are modelled after "a very popular American synth". Korg? Yamaha? Arp? Moog? Ethno? MX4?!

My ears say they sound better... but a bit of info as to the character (and slope) would be useful, if not standard practice.

I agree. I hadn't gotten through the manual yet, and just assumed that they would have some diagrams of these somewhere. Not a huge problem, but like you I'd like to see the slope or something. I guess my eyes are spoiled to all the graphic plugins out there, and I'll just have to use my ears!

It's hard enough to figure out when a control is affecting what. I'm not sure of an easier way to do it yet, because I don't fully have a grasp of all the controls in MachFive2, but I'm gaining on it. A bit more every day. I wish there were a page somewhere that showed a summary of all effects, algorithms, and settings for every keygroup or batch, giving a graphic representation of the total effect upon the sound. Would that be too much to include? Maybe it's a bigger job than I would realize, but sometimes it's hard to tell what is in the sample, and what is in the effects. Then you have to track down which effects, and what LFO is driving what parameter in which effect. I'm not sure it's an issue, yet, but at this point in my education of MachFive2, I'd like to see all that information laid out somewhere.

Typos I can deal with. The idea that other companies and eras have been free of typos is mostly myth. I'm always surprised to find typos in even the greatest novels that have been around for generations. No typesetter is free of mistakes. No human is perfect. And this being a first manual for this version, I think we can forgive a few typos, though I'd really rather see none.

It's complex software. I've written complex software manuals before; I can sympathize with the poor guy who was trying to collect the data and understand it all himself before committing it to print for everyone else. I just hope they decide to correct it over time, and that future manuals from MachFive2 will be better.

Shooshie

Shooshie wrote:Typos always disappoint me. But in this internet age, there are no typo-free manuals, or for that matter, books or magazines. We've lost that ability for a generation or so.

I understand your point, and I do agree that generally speaking attention to detail in our written language has relaxed over the years, but there have always been and will always be errors even with the best writers, editors, and proofreaders. If you read any later edition of Lord of the Rings, a note at the beginning outlines how each edition over the years has been plagued by its own set of misprints, typos, and errors. Obviously a 200 page software manual and a three-volume epic with invented languages are different beasts, but my point is that misprints and errors are not exclusive to the internet age.

The annoying thing is thinking "well I spotted it, why didn't they?". Even a basic read through would have noticed "List Ed]itor".

However, we do know what they mean and anyone can easily understand that as a simple mistake. The important issue is that the ideas are communicated correctly. If you read too many errors or contradictions and lose faith in what's being told to you, you might as well have not wasted your time reading it in the first place.

3over3 wrote:The annoying thing is thinking "well I spotted it, why didn't they?". Even a basic read through would have noticed "List Ed]itor".

However, we do know what they mean and anyone can easily understand that as a simple mistake. The important issue is that the ideas are communicated correctly. If you read too many errors or contradictions and lose faith in what's being told to you, you might as well have not wasted your time reading it in the first place.

I've never gotten that feeling from any MOTU manual, and I've read them cover to cover. They're better than the industry average by far. Maybe Digi can afford proofreaders, but they're the biggest company in the business other than Apple.


Shooshie

3over3 wrote:The annoying thing is thinking "well I spotted it, why didn't they?". Even a basic read through would have noticed "List Ed]itor".

Guess I'm no better than the proofreaders – I've read the manual cover-to-cover and I never saw that. Out of curiousity, where is "List Ed]itor"?

Page 87 - and there are loads of references to it, obviously made automatically in their manual writing software.