Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
So betas are distributed by genoQs?
Anyway, I see what you mean, and I’ve been thinking about something like that as well. Would be nice! Maybe one more press on the note button could cycle to yet another state indicating a musical rest (silence), for instance with a blinking LED?
So that would mean a note press in the circle would do this:
1. On, octave #1.
2. On, octave #2.
3. On, octave #3.
4. On, musical rest (mute). (blinking LED).
5. Off. (LED off).I have no info about the new beta octave range feature, so I don’t know what LED colors are used.
Yes, the multi-track record mode needs a different approach. That’s why I (IIRC) suggested to use the current approach for multi-track record (every track only accepts data with matching MIDI channel number), and the suggested re-channel record mode when only a single track is involved, which for me would be in 99.999% of the cases.
Post edited by: robert, at: 2008/05/05 21:34
I don’t think the page length property and track retrigger mode should be linked this way, because the result would be that pages with a page length less than 16 steps can no longer have tracks larger than that same amount of steps.
Let me explain. Image a page with two tracks, one 8-step track with drums, and a 24-step track with some ambient space stuff on it. The drum track is what I call the ‘dominant’ track, I don’t want the page to be cut off in the middle of that track. To guarantee this, I set page lenght to 8 steps, so I know the page will always run full 8-step cycles before the page is switched.
Suppose my page is put in a cluster, and I want it to repeat 3 times. That’s 3 x 8 = 24 steps before the next page in the cluster is selected. During those 24 steps I want my 21-step track of course to run it’s full cycle.
However, this proposal cuts off all tracks to 8 steps (in this example), because when page length is set to a value less than 16, all tracks will be automatically retriggered when the page cycles, which is at 8 steps in this example. My beautiful 21-step track is butchered down to the first 8 steps. Arrrrggghhh!
That is, I *think* this would happen.
Post edited by: robert, at: 2008/05/05 20:05
Hi Carl, this is more of a Cubase question I think. The answer is multi-track record, a feature available on all the major DAWs. I’m not a Cubase user, but I’m sure it’s there as well. The trick is to record-enabled multiple midi tracks in Cubase, each assigned a different MIDI channel. The incoming MIDI data generated by Octopus will then be split automatically over the different MIDI tracks in Cubase, sorted by MIDI channel. Check the help files in Cubase and look for things like ‘multi’ and ‘record’.
Cheers,
RobertI suddenly realise what this feature can do from drum tracks. For instance, have slightly different hihat sounds randomly triggered, or different snare sounds. Very cool…
dadek wrote:
Quote:I would use this all the time. I currently don’t use ‘chord’ very often at all.Glad to hear you like this new feature, Derek.
The fact that the Octopus can do chords was one of the things that pulled me in, knowing I wouldn’t be on a dead end, feature wise. I think it’s pretty impressively implemented (whith the circle and all), and I’m sure I’ll be using it quite a bit.
gseher wrote:
Quote:As far as space goes, UI and data are equally important – without a good UI it’s better not to build anythingWell I guess all of us here couldn’t agree more.
Quote:… and data on step level is "scarce" in the sense of its high multiplier. But it looks like we have a plan now.Okay! Looking forward to it!
Thanks again,
Robertgseher wrote:
Quote:The cost here is one variation of the multi-trigger mode, namely at the place where you specify whether one or all note-offs are sent for a multi-triggered step. I wonder what your thoughts are on this.Do you mean the choice of Off, Orange and Red as described in the Step repeats section, page 80?
If that’s the one, I guess you opted to sacrifice the Red option? I don’t see how it differs from the Off setting, but if it only has an experimental value, I guess the random-from-pool feature has a higher interest.
That would also mean you only have a single bit available for this option, no way to ever increase the polyphony to more than one voice. Of course I’d be *very* happy with this feature for monophonic notes, I also think the chord variations that would be produced with the higher polyohony settings will be very interesting.
Is it UI space you’re looking for, or data space, Gabriel?
If only you’d be able to allocate 7 free bits in the Step data. We’d need 3 bits for the polyphony (1-6 notes really), and the remaining 4 bits could be used for a 32-step random factor.
Or else maybe the Track data has these free bits? That would mean though that all chords in a track would be treated equally. The Step level approach would be the preferred one, obviously.
I’m reading the Strumming Chords section right now, btw.
Post edited by: robert, at: 2008/05/02 18:37
gseher wrote:
Quote:I like this one too, so I took a look at how to build it in.
The basic version can be done pretty easily: build a chord, set the step to polyphony of 1 and have the pitch be selected at random from the chord.Exactly!
Thanks for concidering this, Gabriel!So you went for step level polyphony. That’s even nicer, since you now can have full, normal chords at one step, and do the random pitch from pool trick in another step, in the same track. Drool… If I hadn’t ordered my Octo already I’d do it right now, lol.
I really like the simplicity of this feature, btw.
Quote:The cost here is one variation of the multi-trigger mode, namely at the place where you specify whether one or all note-offs are sent for a multi-triggered step. I wonder what your thoughts are on this.Darn, I have NO idea what you’re talking about.
I’m still very much a newbie. Can you tell me where I can find this in the manual?I expected to pay a UI price for this of course. Let me put it this way: will your approach allow us to implement the other features, eventually? That is, a polyphony of up to N notes, and the randomnes factor?
Post edited by: robert, at: 2008/05/02 18:20
gseher wrote:
Quote:The channel match requirement is still in place.Ouch.
Gee, how do you guys cope with a setup with several pieces of gear. For example, a drum machine on channel 15. Do all of you have a master keyboard and actually change channel on the keyboard before you can access the drum machine via the Octo? That sounds like work!
Quote:I actually like what you are suggesting indeed. The channel can automatically fit the channel of the incoming MIIDI data.I was actually thinking the other way around, as found on DAWs: when selecting a midi track for record in Live or Logic, the DAW will accept incoming MIDI data from whatever channel, and ‘re-channel’ the data to the channel number assigned to the DAW’s selected track. (In reality, the DAW may even remember the original MIDI channel number, and when the track’s channel is set to All’ it will output on that original channel number.)
So when I select an Octo track for record, and the Octo track is set to channel #5, and it records MIDI data emitted by a keyboard over MIDI channel #3, the data will end up on the track having MIDI channel #5, as defined for that track.
Quote:However, it may require a bit more discipline on the user end as well. Let’s say you want to overdub a track and you send it data cross the worng channel you will mistakingly change its MIDI channel.Yes, that’s why I think my suggestion (have the incoming data changed to the Octo setting) is the preferred one. Don’t you agree?
Post edited by: robert, at: 2008/05/02 17:52
Post edited by: robert, at: 2008/05/02 17:53
