What is Scaler 3 "native" workflow?

Deep-diving into Scaler 3, coming from Scaler 2 it is a massive change of UI and workflow, which means re-learning the whole thing… and facing some frustrations!
Aside from key features missing like the sync between instances, I’m really wondering what’s the expected workflow for Scaler 3…
The new “DAW-style” approach seems kinda crippled for the moment, and the more “single-use” approach is also crippled, whereas it was a bliss in Scaler 2.
I just don’t get it.
What’s the base-case intended use?

In my former use of Scaler 2, I was building a chord progression to find a bed for the track, exporting the MIDI to my DAW and then modifying the articulations to find leads and arpeggios for example, and dragging that MIDI to my DAW. One of the key feature with this approach was the possibility to build very complex structures using different articulations for each bar and program all that in Scaler before export. Downside is that it was a bit destructive (every time I was editing my articulations for a new track, the previous one was gone). Only work-around was saving multiple iterations via presets. No perfect but it worked and I had a lot of flexibility in building complex phrases, testing them on the fly with keyboard binding or synced to DAW.

Scaler 3 offering “multi-track”, I thought it would allow for more flexibility with the same approach and allow me to keep all my articulations for all my track in a single instance and pick & choose to re-use them, re-combine them etc, whilst having freedom to route tracks to external MIDI gear (VST or hardware) if I want to.
But not quite! Reason is that if we consider the main track as a “flat” chord progression without articulation and use the additional tracks to build up variations to send to multiple external tracks via MIDI (no I don’t want to use internal mixer and VST hosting, it’s less convenient for processing and I also use hardware), then we cannot play these articulations using a keyboard with binded chords. It plays the main track only.
We HAVE to press play and play everything to get the additional tracks to send the MIDI, and when we mute other tracks it doesn’t mute MIDI… which means when working on a specific track in solo, we need to mute externally all the others.
It ends up being quite tedious, so much for the multi-track ! It feels like it’s intended to be used like Scaler is the master and plays everything like a DAW, but I don’t necessarily want to build everything in scaler… I might want to sketch ideas, build some articulations combinations, play them on the fly with keyboard binding and from there send it in MIDI to my DAW.
basically all that the edit mode was doing in scaler 2, in a very flexible way. Edit mode is gone (or say made much less user-friendly).

Trying to stick to my former process of focusing on 1 track, then I need to work only with the main track especially because of keyboard binding feature and also prevents me from muting tracks I don’t work on, but here again we’re limited because we cannot build easily complex articulations in the main track and swap between different versions. We are limited to 1 articulation (the one available at the bottom left of the browse page). We cannot mix & match various articulations for each bar like we do for additional track.
Even the sketch menu doesn’t help much because it’s mixed with the main articulation so when we “send to sketch” the main track with its articulation, the articulation isn’t brought into the sketch. Instead, it plays the articulation selected for that line in the sketch AND the main one if it’s still activated… quite a mess, so need to deactivate the main articulation. And sketch cannot be edited anyway, we can just pick one articulation and that’s it (ok it’s a sketch but hey..).
So sketch cannot provide me with the flexibility to test different versions of articulations combinations on various bars neither :frowning:

So if I want to build some fancy combinations of articulations, the only way is using the additional motion tracks, which loops back to the issues mentioned above.
I don’t know if it’s me being picky but my use case seems simple and was covered in V2.

And if I push the thing to an extreme stupid use of Scaler 3 and decide to ditch completely all the multi-tracking options and decide to go for 1 instance of Scaler for each of my MIDI tracks using presets to pass-on my chords progression from one instance to the other (until sync instances comes back…?) to fit my need, then the main track and the additionnal articulated tracks play together. We need to isolate them using different MIDI channels because the mute doesn’t mute MIDI. Selecting “none” MIDI channel for the main track kills my keyboard from reaching the VST so not an option, so I need to set a MIDI channel for my VST and select the corresponding channel in Scaler 3 different than the main track, then the VST plays the articulated track OK, but it plays the main track when i use the keyboard… Even using host feature doesn’t solve that workflow issue.

So after spending hours testing this new version, reading the manual and trying to figure out how I should use Scaler 3, I end up with no decent workflow and just feel pretty frustrated.
And cherry on the cake, the plugin crashed (once).

So what am I missing here? I must have missed something, I can’t believe scaler 3 would not offer at least as much as V2 did, right?

4 Likes

My understanding is that Scaler 3 is a complete re-write, so it is common in those cases for software to not come with all old features or not all old features right away.

For example, it looks like sync between instances will return in 3.1 which is supposed to come out in 2-3 weeks.

1 Like

Yeah I read that sync might come back which is good but doens’t really solve my issue here.
I know my post sounds a bit like a rant but it’s not really, I’d really like to take advantage of the new good features but I’d also like to be able to reproduce my former workflow and leverage it up with new functions.
I hope the devs will improve that as the main track doesn’t have as much options as the additional tracks do and I assume it’s in their radar.
Perhaps i’ll list that and a few other features requests I’d like to see come live in the dedicated section.

1 Like

I completely agree with your opinion.
You’re not saying anything wrong.
Thank you for writing this long comment which I have the same feel.

I hope the programmers at Scaler team do a good job.

2 Likes

Reading this thread in conjunction with others, I believe many of the frustrations expressed by users of Scaler can be characterised using the classic Kano model of customer satisfaction. Absolutely fatal to customer satisfaction is the DAW crash. In the space of two months I have collected three crash reports from Ableton Live caused by Scaler 3. Thankfully, there is a reasonably stable recovery available from the DAW but the perception of having lost work in a creative production process is devastating to workflow.

Functionality that users expect to see in the upgrade from Scaler 2 to Scaler 3 to enable their creative workflows to progress seamlessly is also, according to Kano, a must-have.

On performance criteria, as an end-user it is difficult to judge what resources Scaler Music have made available for software development. For a thirty dollar upgrade, it is also difficult to position the product in the market compared to other plug-ins. With the support of a few other musicians and underwhelming programming, this clearly cannot be enough to satisfy the demands of thousands of producers, students and teachers eager to use Scaler as an accelerator in their musical production processes.

The “wow” factor of Scaler 3 in the context of Kano is certainly the integration of the instrument plug-ins into the Scaler interface. That has significantly speeded up auditioning for me and dragging the midi notes of a selected progression straight into the DAW is brilliant.

The other sequencing stuff on the third tab, however, would fall either into the category “indifferent” - these features do not impact customer satisfaction, or “reverse” - less functionality makes customers happier, while more functionality leads to dissatisfaction.

Personally, I would be prepared to pay $150 for a version of Scaler which is stable, intuitive for users and properly positioned in the market as a professional tool. For that there needs to be more investment.

2 Likes

I can understand that it’s probably not a large team working on this, the price is very reasonable and the product has been fully revamped so yeah… difficult to think about everything.
Yet, they know what they changed / took away / added and must have had a vision about the softwareand it’s use so that’s more what I’m asking here, trying to figure out to what extent we should shift our approach, at least for the time being :slight_smile:
I’m sure the team will work hard to improve and make users happy :slight_smile:

Agreed. Thank you for sharing, as I feel the same way. There is nothing wrong with sharing opinions so developers can make it better. I do feel with Scaler 3, it’s not as geared towards composers as much. It reminds me of Landr composer and actually if I am making pop style arrangements, I get frustrated with S3 and just end up using Landr composer anyways. When it comes to my orchestration type pieces, I understand my frustration is because I’m expecting S2 functionality in S3 and that’s on me. But I understand now their intentions with S3 is to go a different direction. Thankfully we can still download S2!