New method for muting steps – track length

OS_CE Forums Octopus General New method for muting steps – track length

This topic contains 27 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  gseher 10 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 13 posts - 16 through 28 (of 28 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2101

    Mike
    Participant

    I’m with zinoff on this, why do you need to quickly change a track’s length very often? In a musical sense, is it more likely that you would want to change the step length factor quickly or the track length?

    For me changing the step length factor has more musical value, creating an effect similar to tweaking the envelope on a synthesizer.

    cheers
    ripe

    #2102

    Jordi
    Participant

    For me, I’d like to have both. I do you the track length multiplier frequently, but for weird polyrhythmic things being able to quickly dial in (and modify) different track lengths is a lot of fun.

    #2103

    gseher
    Keymaster

    For polyrhythms we’d really need the track speed multiplier to be modulatable and then we would have great fun, let me tell you…

    I find it hard to believe that modulation of step length would disappear just like that, it’s essential to funkify synth lines and play with "gated" chords. Let’s hear from Gabriel what he has in mind….

    Cheers,
    /R

    #2083

    gseher
    Keymaster

    Ok I have this idea (it’s not mine but it doesn’t matter)

    Muting by range.

    To mute/unmute step 1 2 3 4 press step 1 and 4 and then press mute

    To mute/unmute steps other than 1 2 3 4 press step 4 and 1 and then press mute or press step 5 and 16 then press mute.

    For any single step mute press the step and then mute (as per current implementation).

    The question is whether the functionality should mute or toggle mutes (probably it should mute).

    It’s not "modulatable" but it makes it pretty fast to mute a range of steps.

    Ideas?

    Post edited by: zinoff, at: 2008/11/21 20:44

    #2104

    gseher
    Keymaster

    Since you asked to hear from me.. :-)

    It does seem that what you are really after is not modifying the track length as in the number of steps it is playing, but the duration that a track is taking to play. That is very different from changing the number of steps you are actually playing.
    But my assumption may be wrong, so do let me know.

    I think that the current solution of determining the number of steps in a track works quite well for most users, and the LEN factor mapped to the LEN encoder is also one of my personal favorites, ever since it appeared there :-) I subscribe to Ripe’s comment on that one.

    Cheers,
    Gabriel

    #2107

    Jordi
    Participant

    I want to be able to easily modify the number of steps playing without losing the current track length factor functionality. If I had to choose one or the other, I’d definitely agree that the track length factor is more important.

    #2108

    gseher
    Keymaster

    Are you talking to me? ;) if so…

    You are right it’s no secret… I’m after a manipulating track tempo multipliers with step events or the effector, but I have asked that even in a separate thread some time ago, I think it would create some exciting rhythmic possibilities (I don’t know if and how it’s doable and whether anyone else could be interested in it) .

    The fact that mutes determine the length of a track it’s totally understood, then in another thread I said it was bit of a pain the new mute mechanism, that’s why I proposed that convoluted alternate way here in this thread.

    But I got worried :dry: when I misunderstood(?) the intention to replace the length modifier for a shorten a track facility. Having understood the misunderstanding I’m cool B) now.

    #2110

    gseher
    Keymaster

    Just to clarify here – we are talking about ‘skipping’ steps right? i.e. the sequencer ignores the step altogether as if it doesn’t exist… muting afaik is the same as ‘toggling’ i.e. turning the step off – but it is still counted as a step (just one that doesn’t trigger anything) – i think some people may be a little confused because of the terminology and thread title.

    The old len encoder stuff was a little bit handy to have for quickly changing the track length, but i think it’s much better as it is now changing the LEN factor – mostly because the track length stuff can be done pretty easily/quickly anyway by selecting x steps and skipping them whereas the increasing the LEN factor of a track would be very tedious (i assume you would have to go through step by step and increase the LEN)

    #2111

    gseher
    Keymaster

    OK, let me try to bring it all together in a bundle..

    Here is what we have:
    a) Modify LEN factor using the LEN encoder in a direct way, or modulate via step events.
    b) Modify the number of steps in a track using step skips. Not a modulation target.
    c) Modify the time a track takes to play using tempo multipliers. Not a modulation target.

    Here is what we (realistically want):
    – For a): leave it alone – it’s useful!
    – For b): enable the old operating way along with the new way. It conflicts with the track MUT functionanlity, but gives significant speed and as long as the new way works along, it’s not a tragedy.
    – For c): make it a modulation target and easy to operate.

    So the work is in c). I have some ideas that I need to try out. As always, no guarantees at this point

    #2105

    gseher
    Keymaster

    zinoff wrote:

    Quote:
    Ok I have this idea (it’s not mine but it doesn’t matter)

    Muting by range.

    To mute/unmute step 1 2 3 4 press step 1 and 4 and then press mute

    To mute/unmute steps other than 1 2 3 4 press step 4 and 1 and then press mute or press step 5 and 16 then press mute.

    For any single step mute press the step and then mute (as per current implementation).

    The question is whether the functionality should mute or toggle mutes (probably it should mute).

    It’s not "modulatable" but it makes it pretty fast to mute a range of steps.

    Ideas?<br /><br />Post edited by: zinoff, at: 2008/11/21 20:44

    Hi, I´m back! :-)

    Nobody commented on the above idea, but I think it sounds great. I am not sure that it should matter if you press (example) 1 before 4 or 4 before 1. Perhaps both should toggle the skip of 1 to 4 when followed by MUT.
    Then if you have 1 to 8 playing and 9 to 16 skipped you could hold 1 and 16 and hit MUT. This would inverse the state and now you have 9 to 16 playing. Nice.

    #2151

    Mike
    Participant

    I like it, as long as it doesn’t interfere with setting note length in page EDIT mode (pressing one step then another to set length).

    cheers
    ripe

    #2152

    gseher
    Keymaster

    For sure it doesn’t play nice with edit mode….

    Unless we ask users of edit mode to press a button to set the length and press another button to set the mute… Anyway the present mute is half broken in edit mode (you cannot unmute).

    The idea of the Step 4 – Step 1 order was an idea to quickly get repeating patterns in the middle of a track using a single gesture.

    (and it’s linked somehow with the original request of the tenori-on tricks a few months back of rotating the mutes or the data underlying the mute so that you can have a moving window on the track as seen in this thread:

    http://genoqs.net/index.php?option=com_joomlaboard&Itemid=50&func=view&id=924&catid=3#msg924

    ).

    #2153

    gseher
    Keymaster
    Quote:
    (pressing one step then another to set length).

    Haha, I had no idea you could do this :whistle: .

Viewing 13 posts - 16 through 28 (of 28 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.