Page 5 of 10
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:45 am
by Grappadura
Thats it, pepe! The lfos should be an extension of the midi control, accessed by ctrl+m! That would be a handy place to implement them, not cluttering up the rest of the instruments and effects! Ok, interface-problem solved
. Lets go over to the tecnical part...
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:51 am
by forge
hoffman2k wrote:pepezabala wrote:I still don't get why it's so complicated - so i can assign a midi-controllerknob to any parameter in live and turn it up and down rhythmically - that's what a lfo would do in the end, isn't it?
Instead of doing it with my hand I can write a patch in max or pd or use a 3rd party midi-lfo-vst. Fine as well.
Wouldn't it be nice if we had a little device in live that does exactly this? twiddle the parameters in live? With some nice shapes, maybe generated by summing two lfos? It could just sit there in every instrument/effect rack, invisible until you click a little circle on the left. And then you would be able to assign each macro or each deviceparameter to the lfo by rightclicking on the knob/parameter-field ...
And I don't see what's so complicated for implementation - if I can modulate a parameter by hand , why shouldn't this little lfo be able do this for me automatically?
Because its a control layer on top of a control layer on top of another future control layer.
You start with a parameter that is assigned to a filter cutoff, thats one. Then you modulate the same parameter with an LFO, thats two.
On top of that you have modulation and automation, thats three and four.
And to top it all off, there is another factor on which we have no fudging clue whatsoever: How will this all play with session automation if we should have that too? Thats 5...
So there are 5 ways to control a single parameter in this scenario where we have LFO's and Session Automation Recording.
And thats not counting factors such as assigning multiple LFO's to 1 parameter.
I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to read the manual entry on that one.
still, at the moment even the automation isn't really in 2 layers - as soon as you take control then it is overridden
this is the bit I don't get as well - why is this such a problem when you never control it from 2 angles anyway?
if I trigger a clip in session with absolute automation then the BTA light would come on and the Arrange automation would be ignored
if you used an LFO to control a parameter then that could take priority in the same way
just like it would now if you used a 3rd party LFO
if you want to record it into arrange then you can do that and then switch the LFO off, otherwise the BTA button lights up
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:54 am
by forge
Grappadura wrote:Thats it, pepe! The lfos should be an extension of the midi control, accessed by ctrl+m! That would be a handy place to implement them, not cluttering up the rest of the instruments and effects! Ok, interface-problem solved
. Lets go over to the tecnical part...
yes and it is probably time to add another option to the prefs like tracnk>sync>remote
maybe a fourth one like 'device' or 'rack'
so as with my track rack suggestion earlier you could save MIDI assignments with the racks
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:12 am
by pepezabala
if this device would work analog to my hand-twiddling, then it would have the following effect in arrangement: When global recording is enabled, it would overwrite the absolute automation.
When global recording is off and this device still working, it would light up the back to arrangement button all the time.
Where it gets complicated is when additionally to the hand-twiddling-imitator-plug you start to twiddle the same parameter by hand simultaneously...
Anyone tried that with a 3rd party lfo? what happens then? midi-overflow?
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:18 am
by forge
pepezabala wrote:
Anyone tried that with a 3rd party lfo? what happens then? midi-overflow?
the weird thing about it all is you can do it now with VST instruments -- so I guess what would happen is the same as happens if you record automation into a clip and then start tweaking the same one - if overdub is on it overwrites, otherwise it kind of just fights with it - of course this needs to be more elegant anyway, but I don't really see why that would prevent it being added for Live's own devices if it can for VSTs - then BOTH would just need to be more elegant
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:20 am
by Grappadura
another handy place for lfos could be on the left side of the instrument/effect, accessible through a button like the the sidechain-compression ikons. The downside to having them in the midi-map-menu is that it would be difficult to manipulate them while playing.
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:26 am
by Grappadura
to me, the most annoying part of 3rd party lfos is the fact that the command "undo" is rendered useless, because every tiny step of the lfo gets into the chain of undos.
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:41 am
by forge
Grappadura wrote:to me, the most annoying part of 3rd party lfos is the fact that the command "undo" is rendered useless, because every tiny step of the lfo gets into the chain of undos.
good point!
well I guess if it was native then it maybe wouldn't be too hard to implement some kind of undo bypass for it - because it's unlikely you'd want to undo anything if you are assigning an LFO to it
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:18 pm
by hoffman2k
forge wrote:hoffman2k wrote:pepezabala wrote:I still don't get why it's so complicated - so i can assign a midi-controllerknob to any parameter in live and turn it up and down rhythmically - that's what a lfo would do in the end, isn't it?
Instead of doing it with my hand I can write a patch in max or pd or use a 3rd party midi-lfo-vst. Fine as well.
Wouldn't it be nice if we had a little device in live that does exactly this? twiddle the parameters in live? With some nice shapes, maybe generated by summing two lfos? It could just sit there in every instrument/effect rack, invisible until you click a little circle on the left. And then you would be able to assign each macro or each deviceparameter to the lfo by rightclicking on the knob/parameter-field ...
And I don't see what's so complicated for implementation - if I can modulate a parameter by hand , why shouldn't this little lfo be able do this for me automatically?
Because its a control layer on top of a control layer on top of another future control layer.
You start with a parameter that is assigned to a filter cutoff, thats one. Then you modulate the same parameter with an LFO, thats two.
On top of that you have modulation and automation, thats three and four.
And to top it all off, there is another factor on which we have no fudging clue whatsoever: How will this all play with session automation if we should have that too? Thats 5...
So there are 5 ways to control a single parameter in this scenario where we have LFO's and Session Automation Recording.
And thats not counting factors such as assigning multiple LFO's to 1 parameter.
I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to read the manual entry on that one.
still, at the moment even the automation isn't really in 2 layers - as soon as you take control then it is overridden
this is the bit I don't get as well - why is this such a problem when you never control it from 2 angles anyway?
if I trigger a clip in session with absolute automation then the BTA light would come on and the Arrange automation would be ignored
if you used an LFO to control a parameter then that could take priority in the same way
just like it would now if you used a 3rd party LFO
if you want to record it into arrange then you can do that and then switch the LFO off, otherwise the BTA button lights up
Have you tried 3rd party LFO's? Ever tried to make a retrigger mode for an LFO outside of the application that plays the notes?
One of the first 3rd party LFO's for Live was a bidule patch I wrote for Live 3.
Been having a go at it in max too and made the odd pluggo with LFO's.
You cant just compare an external LFO with an internal one. It'll have a different value range anyway. Or do you want an LFO that oscillates between 0 and 127?
That'll sound really smooth...
If only there was an open source protocol with higher ranges than MIDI..
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:33 pm
by forge
hoffman2k wrote:forge wrote:hoffman2k wrote:
Because its a control layer on top of a control layer on top of another future control layer.
You start with a parameter that is assigned to a filter cutoff, thats one. Then you modulate the same parameter with an LFO, thats two.
On top of that you have modulation and automation, thats three and four.
And to top it all off, there is another factor on which we have no fudging clue whatsoever: How will this all play with session automation if we should have that too? Thats 5...
So there are 5 ways to control a single parameter in this scenario where we have LFO's and Session Automation Recording.
And thats not counting factors such as assigning multiple LFO's to 1 parameter.
I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to read the manual entry on that one.
still, at the moment even the automation isn't really in 2 layers - as soon as you take control then it is overridden
this is the bit I don't get as well - why is this such a problem when you never control it from 2 angles anyway?
if I trigger a clip in session with absolute automation then the BTA light would come on and the Arrange automation would be ignored
if you used an LFO to control a parameter then that could take priority in the same way
just like it would now if you used a 3rd party LFO
if you want to record it into arrange then you can do that and then switch the LFO off, otherwise the BTA button lights up
Have you tried 3rd party LFO's? Ever tried to make a retrigger mode for an LFO outside of the application that plays the notes?
One of the first 3rd party LFO's for Live was a bidule patch I wrote for Live 3.
Been having a go at it in max too and made the odd pluggo with LFO's.
You cant just compare an external LFO with an internal one. It'll have a different value range anyway. Or do you want an LFO that oscillates between 0 and 127?
That'll sound really smooth...
If only there was an open source protocol with higher ranges than MIDI..
actually someone on here posted a really quite good one not so long ago - it really worked surprisingly well
still being 3rd party something didn't feel that comfortable about it because I never have really used it, but as they go it was the best contender I've tried
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:40 pm
by nebulae
forge wrote:
actually someone on here posted a really quite good one not so long ago - it really worked surprisingly well
linkage?
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:46 pm
by forge
nebulae wrote:forge wrote:
actually someone on here posted a really quite good one not so long ago - it really worked surprisingly well
linkage?
sorry I have to remember the name of it first
I have a feeling the geezer was french
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:50 pm
by nebulae
forge wrote:nebulae wrote:forge wrote:
actually someone on here posted a really quite good one not so long ago - it really worked surprisingly well
linkage?
sorry I have to remember the name of it first
I have a feeling the geezer was french
I didn't think the french had any geezers...I thought they went from suave, like this:
straight to crazy old man, like this:
There is no "geezer" stage...Amaury, can you confirm?
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:56 pm
by forge
what;'s a geezer in Texas?
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:00 pm
by nebulae
forge wrote:what;'s a geezer in Texas?
