Peak/Summit Mod Matrix: Why the hate, and how would you improve it?

I see it get so much grief around here, but I can’t understand why. Help me understand! Maybe if we get some good suggestions, we can send them to Novation as feature requests. They massively improved it with the last update, no reason to think they couldn’t tweak it again if we think of something smart. I’ll be happy to send the feature requests, and we can hit up Calc here if we really think of something good!

It couldn’t be simpler to use in my opinion; choose a source, choose a destination, choose the depth of modulation. It’s all on the same page! What would you improve about it?

Let’s hear it!

I don’t keep up with griefs, but I think it’s because it’s very intentional. It’s not a happy accident matrix. The method of selection, only seeing a single mod at a time, etc. The display almost provides a disconnect between the front panel and what’s happening to a sound.

It’s just like the sound of Peak/Summit. It has to be very intentional, it can do almost anything and do it well, but it takes work.

This is me thinking as someone else, I love it.

1 Like

Yes I agree with this, it is very simple to use the matrix but it has be done with intention, I agree about the Peak/Summit programming too, it has to be totally intentional and a good patch really takes step-by-step action and concentration because of how many options there are for sound design. I’m really curious what people think could be improved about the matrix. When I’m creating a connection in the matrix, it’s usually once I’ve created a good core tone and then I play notes live as I dial in the depth so that I can hear the effect very clearly; I think if someone has notes sequenced from a separate machine and they are trying to dial in a mod that way, it could be hard to tell exactly what’s happening / how much depth should be applied especially with notes that are short/different lengths and in different octaves.

I’m definitely in the camp that doesn’t like the Peak mod matrix, despite using it on nearly every patch I create. I find using scroll wheels to select source, destination, and depth really cerebral, not tactile or intuitive- at that point I’d still take abletons wavetable matrix with a mouse over the peak’s!

I guess you could call me someone who likes the intuitive ideal of modular while also loving patch memory. I look to the paradigms of synths like DSI Pro / P12 / T5, or Hydrasynth, or Super 6, where you physically touch source and destination controls to connect the two, as good examples of what “way more intuitive and hands on than the peak/summit” can be.

2 Likes

display almost provides a disconnect between the front panel and what’s happening to a sound.

Yeah that’s exactly what doesn’t do it for me. I buy hardware exactly so I can have a connection with relatively minimal depth or obfuscation between what I’m seeing/doing with my hands and what I’m hearing. To each their own, I can understand liking a different experience :slight_smile:

How is modulation depth selected in this type of matrix? Also once the modulation is assigned, how do you later view what is modulating what, and the depth of that modulation? Also how do you disconnect that modulation and change the depth?

Oh and also, since the Peak/Summit allow two modulation sources, how would you allow for that in a touch-touch type matrix assignment?

Being able to copy a mod slot to another slot would help a little, i forgot to mention this in their survey unfortunatly.

don’t know, take what I say with a grain of salt because I’ve only tried DSI and Hydra in stores. I think on DSI synths once the connection is created the experience is similar to on the peak or summit - another knob to select depth and a list of mod slots you scroll through. I think the Hydra shoes four per page or something like that.

But literally the fact that you create the first connection between the source and destination physically rather than via scrolling makes a huge difference to me when I tried out these synths. On the Hydra you simultaneously press the two “modules” you want to connect, then fine tune what it is you’re connecting and how deep. I’m just saying in my personal experience when I sit down at the peak I feel like the mod matrix is a chore even if I know I’ll love what I get out of it. When I’ve tried other synths UX approach it felt less so:)

Love that last question. Let me think about it, it’s a fun UX challenge!

1 Like

Ok, another question about DSI for anyone who has experience; if you have to move both controls to make the connection, then the parameters of both knobs would change slightly (I assume). In this case, thinking of a common mod use for Peak/Summit, I like to dial in the oscillator “Shape” parameter exactly where it sounds super perfect, often this value is totally exact and a slight movement left or right takes it out of that sweet spot when interacting with another oscillator. Then I set the mod destination to LFO 4+ (keeping in mind that you could also choose LFO 4+/- to sweep above and below the knob position) to Shape, which will sweep the shape knob only up (or only down, depending on whether depth value is set positive or negative) away from the knob position and not above AND below, then I use the depth control to dial that sweet exactly up or down to another sweet spot in the interaction. Then my LFO will sweep me exactly to and from my two sweet spots. In this case, I feel that the mod matrix of the Peak/Summit is extremely elegant and very very fast, but it does need to be approached with total intention.

In a synth where you move the controls to select the modulation, first of all it would move the knob out of the sweet spot position selected, and you would then have to move it back to the sweet spot. Second, how would you be able to choose between positive only vs. positive and negative LFO behavior without using a menu to select the desired behavior? In a case like this, using two UX paradigms (selecting modulation connections by touching knobs, combined with using a menu system to adjust those modulations/differentiate between positive only/positive & negative) would seem to be inferior to the Peak/Summit method.

1 Like

Totally get your point, but yeah, i think it just comes down to personal preference. I truly would prefer initiating the connection physically, then fine tuning via the menu - which as you point out is likely the only way to select source/dest that dont have dedicated front panel controls, e.g. aftertouch, extra LFOs or envelopes. Or stacking modulators in the case of the Peak/Summit.

Regarding moving controls after dialing them in, the Peak/Summit anyway have ‘saved value’ indication on screen for saved patches, which works well enough for me. I could see that being implemented in such a workflow - press select source, nudge control to select source, nudge it back and screen tells you when it’s back in place. Press select destination, move control to select destination, move it back, then dial in depth via value knob next to screen. Or if we wanna get fancy, the amount you move destination determines mod depth in case of a knob/fader.

Agree, love the Peak/Summits ability to do +/-, plus stacking modulators!

I’m not looking for a 100% physical mod matrix (if i were, I’d get into modular!) There are some things that menus do best, like viewing a list or overview of all modulations (thats super helpful for reminding me of the patch architecture I created), scrolling through, deleting or modifying them etc. My preference for initiating the mod physically, then fine tuning, is just that, a personal preference. It’s hard to judge UX paradigms as objectively ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than one another after a certain point.

Anyway - I absolutely love this topic! As a UX designer x musician, it’d be my dream to design synth UIs and solve some of these problems, if only for picky people like me;)

1 Like

Dude thanks for the reply and the consideration!!! I’m very unconvinced by this workflow idea though, it sounds pretty clunky especially with the need to nudge parameters back to the original value, and also requires significantly more steps than the mod matrix does currently. I think in practice this would feel pretty confusing versus the current workflow, especially with plus only / plus-minus modulation sources.

I’m open though, I wish there were a way I could try this out to see how I feel about it… but really, since I always decide on the modulation connection I want to make before pressing the mod button, it takes me about 2 or 3 seconds in total to select the modulation source and destination, then the bulk of the time is spent fine tuning the depth, which would be the same on any synth. Since the encoder spins the depth freely between positive and negative (switching over at the zero point) it’s very quick to obtain the desired result, especially with a plus-only LFO modulation like described. I use two hands on the menu system, left pointer for the three buttons and right hand for the encoder, it’s lightning fast that way.

Also, what about a situation where dual modulators would be selected for a single destination? The current matrix allows for two sources with the same depth in one slot assigned from a single menu page, or two mod slots pointed at the same destination but with different depths using two mod pages. Wouldn’t a “touch” style assignment of two sources naturally place the sources in two separate mod slots in that type of paradigm, with the additional need for menu use to assign the same value in each slot if the “2 modulators, 1 source, same depth value” behavior is desired? The manual has a good visual example of why the the dual mod sources on in a single mod slot is desirable in addition to the ability to use two separate mod slots to send those same two mod sources to the same destination, and how the behavior will differ. Do the DSI synths offer anything like this?

The other benefit of the current mod matrix, which is pretty important I think, is that all modulation sources are available to select from the same menu whether they have a panel control or not; this includes expression pedals, velocity, CV input, “Direct”, aftertouch, and the two additional LFOs. Maybe a few others I’m missing too. I like the cohesiveness, since assigning a modulation connection is always done with the identical operation. Muscle memory babyyyy.

I’m going to keep thinking about this, let me know if you have any other ideas!

I love the matrix. a few source / destination ommisions frustrate me tho - not being able to modulate every lfo’s with every lfo, no arp destinations, and a few others. bit of a shame.

1 Like

Yes I completely agree! LFO 1 & 2 rate can be modulated by all 4 LFOs, but it would be cool if they were all available. Can’t say I’ve really missed it much in practice but if it was available, I’ll bet I could find interesting uses. Anything else you’d like added to the destinations?

pretty much just the arp, same request for the digitone. modulatable arp = life :heart::slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

For the sake of the discussion, I just read through the Rev2 manual to understand how the modulation matrix works. It seems to be fairly simplistic compared to the Peak/Summit, and reading the instructions on using mod wheel or aftertouch as a modulation source, it’s actually a more complicated procedure than the Peak/Summit and is essentially menu based. I’ve never used one, so maybe someone can correct me? I’m including those instructions below. The part I don’t understand is why it’s necessary to hold down a note on the keyboard, and then press harder; isn’t that what selecting “pressure” is for in the mod source location?
Screen Shot 2021-09-29 at 1.01.23 PM

1 Like

The mod matrix is the primary thing keeping me from getting the Summit as I consider a new polysynth. I liked my Peak when I had it, but it felt like a chore to program. I am extremely anti menu diving so maybe it’s just not the synth for me, but the Summit seems to add controls for the things I wanted access to from the Peak but had to menu dive to get (Envelope Hold feels like a big one).

If Novation were to add the ability to hold down the mod matrix button, wiggle the source, and then wiggle the desitination, and then use the main encoder to change the amount, I would pick up a Summit. I hadn’t really considered the notion that it would move your values, but in my mind that’s as simple as wiggling it back.

I had a Hydrasynth for a moment and thought it was definitely a breakthrough in how modern synth mod matrixes should work. The Sequential Pro 3 & Take 5 seem to have the most straightforward implementations I’ve seen (haven’t experienced in person, only watched countless youtubes which of course I can’t find a focused one of at the moment).

I don’t think they should take away the current menu system of the mod matrix, I just think there should be a combination of holding the mod matrix button and wiggling some stuff that should automatically connect source and destination.

2 Likes

Ok let’s consider that; by holding down the mod button, then wiggling two knobs, how would it distinguish between the two knobs wiggled being source & destination, versus two sources?

In addition, there are many mod slots, so in this way you would first have to enter the mod menu, choose the mod slot, then hold down the mod button while you wiggle two knobs to connect them, assuming that there is some interface method of letting the synth know that the knobs you wiggle are only source and then destination, and not the first two sources (unless you would want this operation to be only applicable to the first source).

Also, the previous value shown on the screen only applies to the saved patch, not whatever arbitrary value the knob was set to before it was wiggled, so if it was wiggled, and then you wanted to set it back to a very specific value, how would you do that easily without going through the process of listening carefully while you find the specific spot in the knob turn all over again?

Basically I think the knob wiggling to connect only would have to only apply to a very specific operation, like it would only connect the first source to a destination, and not choose two sources instead. Since you would still need to use the menu to choose the mod slot, and select the depth of modulation, and select a second source (which I do very very often) how is this dual-UX paradigm more elegant or intuitive than simply selecting the sources and the destination with a quick spin of the encoder? It takes no time at all to do, certainly less time than holding a button, wiggling two knobs, then taking the time to move them back to their original position (and then potentially going into the menu to select a second source with the encoder anyway if that’s desired). Very unconvinced by this. That’s not surprising though because I think the mod matrix operation is essentially perfect, it’s going to take a really good idea with a usage example to convince me.

You’re right that the Summit adds super useful controls for many things, it makes it way more fun to use versus the Peak and the dual filter is soooo good. I think a lot of the menu complaints of the Peak/Summit are due to infrequent use though, the menus are only a single layer deep and after frequent use I can jump into one and change the parameter I want almost instantly. I think people get one of these, do a lot of preset surfing, go to program a patch once in a while, try to find stuff in the menu, hunt for a bit, get frustrated, and post about how annoying it is to use. Just my guess, because I know from experience that it’s excellent and very quick. The old mod matrix though in the earlier firmwares? It was horrible for sure.

I want to @ calc (but I don’t want to bug him) to see what he thinks about some sort of touch connection for the matrix like you’re suggesting, maybe it has some merit if done right, like maybe when the mod button is held, the encoders that are moved won’t change their values internally at all, but just make the connection?

The other thing that leaves me unconvinced is that on the Summit, so many of the things you would use a mod matrix to connect are already hardwired as knobs and buttons to the front panel in a sensible way. Mod envelope 2 to pitch and LFO 2 to pitch both have a dedicated knob per oscillator, oscillator shape has a dedicated button to switch between modulation by Mod Env 1 or LFO 1 per oscillator, oscillator FM has a dedicated button to switch between modulation by Mod Env 2 or LFO 2 per oscillator as well as a dedicated knob per oscillator to control FM amount, the filter has a dedicated Osc 3 mod knob, a button to switch between Amp Env or Mod Env 1 and a dedicated to knob to select the depth of that modulation both positive and negative. So, yeah I use other modulations for sure, but a LOT of the most used bread and butter ones are on the panel ready to go.

1 Like