[Mike]

Gabriel, that sounds like a good plan to me.

cheers
ripe

[Mike]

I think it was mentioned before, but I would rather see POS only rotate the active steps, leaving muted steps in place.

This would not bring the underlying notes of the muted steps back into view when changing POS, they would stay in place.

I am all for having options, if possible, to allow the user to choose the method they desire!

cheers
ripe

[Mike]

I think it was mentioned before, but I would rather see POS only rotate the active steps, leaving muted steps in place.

This would not bring the underlying notes of the muted steps back into view when changing POS, they would stay in place.

I am all for having options, if possible, to allow the user to choose the method they desire!

cheers
ripe

[Mike]

Ribert,

Sounds good so far. I would even like to see rechannelize available outside of recording, maybe it could be done by arming tracks for record (which triggers the rechannelizing) and then not being forced to actually record when hitting play, so have a second mode where the recording can be "punched-in" during playback?

So you would choose the type of record mode by clicking or double-clicking when grabbing a track for recording, one click would be normal record, indicated by a solid red LED, double-clicking would select punch-in recording by a blinking red LED. If you hit play while in punch-in recording, it doesn’t actually record until you hit the record button again, and then goes to a solid red LED. This would be more in line with how a DAW works.

It could even be more simplified, by using the RECORD+PLAY convention of a normal transport control. RECORD+PLAY immediately starts recording, while just PLAY (while recording is armed) starts playback, then you can hit record after playback has started to punch-in.

Anyways, good work, I hope Gabriel can give it a look and incorporate these changes in a future OS revision!

cheers
ripe

[Mike]

If you make the track 12 steps and play it at 1.5 multiplier it will play 18 steps while another track that is 16 steps and has multiplier of 1 plays once. So it would take three loops of the 12 step track to equal two loops of the 16 step track… not quite what we (I) wanted.

I was trying to get a 12 step track to play in the same amount of time as a 16 step track at multiplier of 1. This would require a multiplier of .75 on the 12 step track, or if the 12 step track was at multiplier 1, then the other 16 step tracks would need to be at 1.33 times speed.

cheers
ripe

[Mike]

16 * 1.5 = 24

16 * .75 = 12! Which is why I asked for a .75 multiplier which would allow the use of a 12 step track in 16 steps of time, and then your note triggers are at useful times.

cheers
ripe

Post edited by: ripe, at: 2008/07/22 01:32

Post edited by: ripe, at: 2008/07/22 01:35

Post edited by: ripe, at: 2008/07/22 05:47

[Mike]

I believe you can do this by selecting all tracks and reducing the STA factor to zero.

cheers
ripe

[Mike]

I tried recording the output directly from the Revo (running in 3/4) to the Octopus, but it doesn’t turn out right. I don’t think the STA offset can be set high or low enough to keep the timing.

Yes, .75 timing would work on my 16 step tracks to keep them in sync with a 12 step track running at normal speed. hmm. Most of my stuff is "boring" old 4/4 stuff anyways but I’d like to experiment.

Oh, and my "target" is always the octopus, I construct the entire track using the page clustering.

cheers
ripe

[Mike]

Yeah I’m not sure what I mean either

The futureretro revolution has 3/4 time signature, which makes it play 12 steps in the span of one measure.

from the revolution manual:
"SELECTING A TIME SIGNATURE
There are two time signatures to choose from when writing a pattern, which are 3/4 and 4/4.
Each time signature simply divides the measure of a pattern into 12 (3/4) or 16 (4/4) equal parts. "

I want to duplicate this on the octopus, but also have tracks that play 16 steps in the same period of time. It doesn’t seem possible.

cheers
ripe

[Mike]

The same reason you don’t use the PIT knob to set the pitch in this state, or the LEN, if you use the matrix.

It’s about the circle becoming a dedicated area for quickly changing the values of tracks and steps… You see the pitch on the inner ring, and the velocity on the outer ring, and (step) length in the matrix in EDIT mode.

At least from the use paradigm I see, if the "value" of the parameter is being displaying in the numeric section of the circle, the master knob should modify the parameter being represented by that number. Just like setting the tempo.

How does everybody else feel about it?

cheers
ripe

[Mike]

You don’t have a VM app? My dev guide was built using a linux VM running on Intel Mac.

This way you don’t contaminate your host OS

I hope you get it working!

cheers
ripe

[Mike]

I use legato notes a lot for 303 style sequences, I control the legato by using the EDIT mode and selecting a step (originally recorded in realtime and first doing rough length adjustment by choosing the length in the matrix, then doing fine adjustment by using the LEN encoder.

Could you just change the length of the offending notes easily with this method rather than a dedicated "non-legato" mode? How many notes are you having to change?
Maybe such a specific edit function would be too obscure? I would wish for the converse function then, "make legato"!

Also the handling of legato notes is usually determined by the sound module receiving the notes, whether it will retrigger the amplifier envelopes, or if the synth is monophonic or in mono mode, maybe you can avoid the whole issue?

cheers
ripe

[Mike]

But if you have green and red, you can do this!

cheers
ripe

[Mike]

I have a classic and the LED brightness is fine for me… I use a USB lamp as well to read the labels.

It *would* be cool to have an EL panel to illuminate the labels tho (like Moog Voyager RME).

I despise blue LEDs for equipment, very distracting, in any light.

cheers
ripe

[Mike]

I just picked one up before the US price increase, so I am still learning the ins and outs. So far I am really impressed by it, even with the effects turned off.

See my other post in the General section for a TI sample I just made.

I like the flexibility, the multitimbrality, and it has the new atomizer mode, which I have to try out some more. I like it better than the Nord G2 so far, the nord always gives me the impression of what it would sound like if you tried to make a synthesizer with lab equipment or Matlab, lol

cheers
ripe

[Author]

Posts