Future of Massive X

The issue with Presets is that people who buy and use presets more than they design their own sounds don't care how good the underlying synth is as long as those presets sound good and usable to them.

Doesn't matter if it's Massive X is a better synth, if the Preset Expansions they find for AIR Hybrid 3 sound better to them than those for Massive X, they will buy and use those Hybrid 3 presets in Hybrid 3.

That example may seem hilariosu to some people, who may see Massive X as being THAT MUCH BETTER, but if you actually go to people's studios, you'll be surprised at what Synths and Plug-ins they are still using to this day,and for what reasons they continue to do so.

How good presets sound have more to do with the quality of the sound designer, at the end of the day, but having more people designing content means that there is more content of acceptable quality available to those users. It's why Arturia commissions so much content for Pigments.

Synths have been capable of creating amazing sounds since ever, and most synths released in the past Decade or more are more than capable of getting the job done. Massive is still capable of getting this done, so there is no point in developing and releasing a relatively redundant synth if you aren't going to actually address some of the most obvious asks from your users.

A lot of the stuff people bring up with Massive X are things that actually affect people who use it as a synth, and not simply a preset ROMpler. Preset consumers don't care about how many primary OSCs a WT Synth has, whether or not they can load their own WTs or how flexible the routing in the synth is. 90% of them won't even tweak the presets. They will use them directly, as-is. They only care that there is a decent enough ecosystem around the synth that services their needs for the type of music they want to produce.

The way music is produced these days differs heavily from how it was produced decades ago. Some genres have evolved based on what computers allowed people to do with sound.

You don't need to be able to play a musical instrument to produce good music. I think that is a vestigial aspect of how people think about music production. Do I think it helps? Yes. You're certainly going to be more productive if you can sit at a MIDI Controller and just play in everything quickly, because you're a better keyboard player.

However, part of the reason why this barrier to entry seems to no longer exist is because software has developed to the point where it can bridge those gaps for those users. Lots of producers do develop basic playing skills and basic music theory knowledge - as they go along. It's just not the prerequisite to producing that it used to be, because software has allowed them to utilize it as a means of filling in those knowledge/ability gaps when they exist.

I don't fundamentally see anything wrong with that, personally. If someone is good enough to produce great music without that knowledge, then them being able to do so without being gated by "ability prerequisites" is absolutely an improvement in the modern market.

This talk just comes across as gatekeeping, to me.

Music production and sound design aren't necessarily the same skill sets, the same way violin playing and violin building aren't the same skill set, just as violin playing and music composition aren't the same skill sets...

—————————————————————

Beyond that, lots of creative people are visually motivated, and Massive X's UI is a manifestation of Native Instruments failing to "read the room," resulting in them creating a user experience that would have been great in 2000 for a 2020 market. By the time Massive X was released, people were already used to synths like Serum, Hive 2, Codex, etc. and that type of user experience had already become a standard expectation.

I actually find OG Massive's UI to be far more intuitive (and easier to read and navigate) than Massive X's (UI size notwithstanding). I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this. Massive X is not good enough to justify the drop in usability just to use something "newer."

I honestly think it could benefit from a UI overhaul. It looks like a badly designed technical draft illustration of an application UI. Something you'd mock up in 30 minutes in Adobe Illustrator to preset as an "idea" at a design meeting.

Every time a thread about Massive X pops up somewhere, 75% of the complaints are about the user experience. Many people won't even bother to use it because they simply don't like using it. The sound or its feature set isn't even a major factor. It can't be, in that scenario.

A good UI/UX is a prerequisite to a product's success. People have to like using the features for the features to matter.

Very sad !

As much as I would like them to continue doing synths, it's not "short sighted" to focus on what sells, and offload which doesn't. Actually, it would be very short sighted to not do so, if they want to survive as a company in this business.

I know, many of us don't understand that, because they only view things from their own perspective. In the end, we also don't benefit from ramshackle businesses though. On the contrary.

Well, I don't know how the development of Massive X really went, but, the fact that it was delayed for 8 months, and then was still released unfinished, makes me think that it could well have been a massive mismanagement of the people involved in developing the synth. People always talk about "NI", as if the only people NI consisted of where managers. Mike Daliot and some others were developing this synth. I never heard anyone criticizing them for the development of the synth. If something is in development for years, then gets delayed for another 3/4 years, and then still seems unfinished, then you can imagine how messy development obviously went. I'm 100% sure that "NI" also weren't exactly pleased about that.

While it's important for a company to make ends meet at the end of the day, it's also important for the long term financial well being not loose those who made up the core constituency of the user base.
But of course private equity is more focused on quarterly results and they sometimes have no idea of what they're managing, Boeing being one scary example of that.

NI seemed to do just fine before private equity took over. I personally met many leading people at NI HQ, some of the founders, the CTO and heads of software design. But what do I know, you seem to have some better insights in their finances ? Ableton is cutting back on staff and I hope they're not going down that road.

What gives me hope though is that iZotope is now a partner in the new NI company and it would be great if a new synth could be developed that also makes use of their ML assistant technology while maintaining the superb audio quality of traditional NI synths.

Very true, however quite sad. Truth be said, we music producers are all dreamers. Music business is a ruthless environment, where profit is the most important measurement of success. Otherwise, companies go under or are being sold to the highest bidder.