I think that others midi module are also important: for example: a set of module that permits to interact with the midi flux.
Something like working in Logic.
Maybe we need some modules that generate the midi messages, some that compare two of them, some that makes a midi delay, a real time transposition etc...
So we can go into algoritmic composition, auto chord or stuff like this.
Modular IV - ideas
oops, I should have made it more clear that I consider sequencers and midi under SFP as absolutely identical, regarding performance.On 2006-10-14 06:09, Shroomz wrote:
erm, I was talking about larger (easier to use) & more advanced sequencers within the modular enviroment (for modular patch builders)
Possibly by overhead or that 'java-like scripting language', one can never succeed in comparison to the same effort under the CPU (imho).
But I agree an improved GUI design for the existing ones would be much appreciated, now that you found a new passion in graphics
cheers, Tom
Lima, most of that stuff exists with Wolf's and SpaceF's midi modules.
The performance penalty doesn't matter on a 15DSP card (and above), but if you're tight on resources it's not very pleasing.
And it's plain ridiculuous considering WHAT is programmed - a 1 MHZ 6502 CPU does it faster
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-10-14 12:19 ]</font>
Well, we've always had a passion for graphics Tom, but the important fact is that my brother & I have only recently realised that our most productive contribution to supporting the Scope platform is by doing what we do best. It may be a bit of an A-team approach, but sod it, just like many others here, we get our kicks out of being creativeOn 2006-10-14 12:12, astroman wrote:
But I agree an improved GUI design for the existing ones would be much appreciated, now that you found a new passion in graphics
-
hubird
Congrats with that, and I noticed it, it's obvious too of courseOn 2006-10-14 14:53, Shroomz wrote:
but the important fact is that my brother & I have only recently realised that our most productive contribution to supporting the Scope platform is by doing what we do best...we get our kicks out of being creative
All was not for nothing, after all...
no offend
making a bigger sequencer module for modular is not a problem, just boringI'd like more user-friendly & capable sequencers (even just 1 or 2 definative ones) with very logical, yet advanced features. I'd also like those to be larger (2U module width at least) instead of pokey little things that you can barely see never mind use effectively.
It wouldn't even use a lot of ressources, if you wanna live with the bugs, the standard sequencer module is equipped with.
Tom, shurely you mean the MultiControl module. I'll have a look into it.
But why do you need to load four instances ?
Lima, as Tom said, you get two kinds of auto-chord devices with my MidiToolBox. One, which just transposes the incoming notes and another one, which does enharmonic harmonizing (means you set a key and any chord, which is produced, uses only notes from that key).
I might even use more than 4...
the hardware sequencer sends 4 channels on 4 tracks, 1 lead and 3 rythms, with notes spread over a wide range.
With program change the note of the respective instrument changes too (of course).
I found the patterns quite useful when mapped off their original instruments, most is drum sounds anyway, so pitch doesn't matter.
With one Changer module per channel it's very convenient to catch the channel's content and simply dial the destination (drum)instrument until a good variant shows up - works perfectly.
Since the 3 drum tracks often have more than 1 instrument per channel, I've doubled the filter to catch upper and lower half of the tones separately...
The box is a Yamaha DX200, which would be a nice midi controller with better pads, better dials, avoidance of the 'shift' key and individual outs instead of one stereo...
your midi changer really pimps it up - btw I ripped it's synth heart (PLG 150DX) more or less immidiately from it, as muting the synth also kills the midi track... and connected an original TX7 instead - sounds beefier, too
But it will of course also drive happily any Scope synth ...
thanks for your concern, but I don't think there's something wrong with your devices - imho it's the overhead of the environment.
cheers, Tom
the hardware sequencer sends 4 channels on 4 tracks, 1 lead and 3 rythms, with notes spread over a wide range.
With program change the note of the respective instrument changes too (of course).
I found the patterns quite useful when mapped off their original instruments, most is drum sounds anyway, so pitch doesn't matter.
With one Changer module per channel it's very convenient to catch the channel's content and simply dial the destination (drum)instrument until a good variant shows up - works perfectly.
Since the 3 drum tracks often have more than 1 instrument per channel, I've doubled the filter to catch upper and lower half of the tones separately...
The box is a Yamaha DX200, which would be a nice midi controller with better pads, better dials, avoidance of the 'shift' key and individual outs instead of one stereo...
your midi changer really pimps it up - btw I ripped it's synth heart (PLG 150DX) more or less immidiately from it, as muting the synth also kills the midi track... and connected an original TX7 instead - sounds beefier, too
But it will of course also drive happily any Scope synth ...
thanks for your concern, but I don't think there's something wrong with your devices - imho it's the overhead of the environment.
cheers, Tom
I'm about to try that.
Mod III should come with a warning:
DO NOT USE THIS SHELL, USE PREVIOUS SHELL INSTEAD AND BY THE WAY WE WILL NEVER FIX THIS SO DON'T BOTHER ASKING.
I can't wait to buy the MOD IV shell and use the modules in the Mod II shell. That makes total sense to me. Thanks.
Mod III should come with a warning:
DO NOT USE THIS SHELL, USE PREVIOUS SHELL INSTEAD AND BY THE WAY WE WILL NEVER FIX THIS SO DON'T BOTHER ASKING.
I can't wait to buy the MOD IV shell and use the modules in the Mod II shell. That makes total sense to me. Thanks.
On 2006-10-15 11:34, Shroomz wrote:
Go for it with the bigger & better modular sequencer then Wolf
Braincell, I can do just that already without a hitch using the ModII shell. I haven't actually used the ModIII shell much, so I can't talk about that.
