[done] Velocity Device And Ghost Notes (again)

1) velocity device does not work with ghost instruments

Not In Vol  
C-4 01 40 => works  
C-4 -- 40 => doesn't work  

it does not even work if you set source instrument to “any”.

2) velocity devices cannot be added to master and send tracks

if you try to paste the device to those tracks, a dialog appears saying: “can not create a second track device”.

so it seems to be impossible to control DSP’s which are on master or send tracks thorugh velocity devices

The master and sendtracks don’t have any volume columns so there is no way to control the Velocity device which is then logical.

never used the velocity device, but doesn’t it also take input from pattern \ volume’ commands?

yes, you are right, I actually got this by myself and was going to reply to myself, but you were faster :)

the second is actually a concept flaw, not really a bug.

however, my idea of new XRNI structure should address such kind of problems, since the velocity of the instrument should be bound to the parameters in a tighter way; for example, the VelocidyDevice does not respond to volume slides:

Not In Vo  
C-4 01 AF  

does not produce a descending signal output in the Velociy Device.

anyway, the dialog which says “can not create a second track device” does not explain the problem, so it should be more clear about the inability to add VelocityDevice to master and send tracks


So should it now or not?

Second thing is fixed. Changed the error text.

quoting the other topic:

02 | C-4 -- 40 => sends 40 to the device, correct  
03 | C-4 -- -- => sends 80 to the device, wrong (should send 40 or nothing)  

what happens in B3:

02 | C-4 -- 40 => does not send 40 to the device, wrong; should send 40  
03 | C-4 -- -- => does not send anything, correct  

I don’t care, as soon as this is fine for others as well…

on a side note, is there any chance to also support volume slides into Velocity Device?

Not In Vo  
C-4 01 A1 <= sends descending velocity values to device for each tick  
C-4 -- A1 <= as above  
--- 01 A1 <= as above  
--- -- A1 <= as above  

Why should it? The Velocity device was meant to trigger values on notes, using the notes velocity. On plain volume changes it currently also does nothing.

But as said above: Simply agree on something with the others: I don’t really care as soon as the behavior is somehow consistent.

Ok, then I’m moving the discussion on the 2.0 suggestions thread.

I’ve never seriously used the VelocityDevice (from now on: VD), although I was the first one to propose it :)

Yesterday I have tried bounding an instrument to a filter, using two VD: one for cutoff and another for resonance.
I have found the ghost instrument problem, but also noticed that, for purposes like the one I wanted to use the VD for,
it is not suitable as it is now, since you need to always trigger a note when you want to send an event to VD.

I have tried with this workaround:

## | Not In Vo Comm  
00 | C-4 01 80 0000  
01 | C-4 01 70 05FF  
02 | C-4 01 60 0500  

but this method sucks for two reasons:

  1. it’s annoying and awkward
  2. does not serve all purposes since you still have an instant 80=>70 change with no ramping

if the above code could be achieved with this:

## | Not In Vo Comm  
00 | C-4 01 80 0000  
01 | --- -- A1 0000  
02 | --- -- A0 0000  

it would be great, allowing both:

immediate changes with no ramping, by setting precise values:

## | Not In Vo Comm  
00 | C-4 01 80 0000  
01 | --- -- 70 0000  
02 | --- -- 60 0000  

gradual changes through ramping:

## | Not In Vo Comm  
00 | C-4 01 80 0000  
01 | --- -- A1 0000  
02 | --- -- A0 0000  

so the user can choose how to use the VD to fulfill his needs.

about the inability of adding VD to send/master: I of course understand the reason for it, but would be great
if, when adding a VD to a send device, Renoise intercepted all the events into the connected tracks/all tracks.

what do you all think?

Yeah, I’ve thinking about that as well.

To rephrase, I’m hoping to see the VD implemented like this:

  • When placed on an instrument track, normal (unchanged) behavior.
  • When placed on a send/master track, captures the chosen instrument on any track

woudn’t this be better?

on master:
any track

on sends:
related tracks only

that sounds more logical to me too. +1

IT: You got it nailed!

BTW: I’ve had some really good use for VD with external hardware (a drummachine) that doesn’t have built-in support for note velocity. It’s really useful to be able to control a CC, say filter/eq level, to ‘mimic’ volume levels.

I don’t mind if the velocity device responds to any volume related value put in the volume column
A bit of expansion won’t hurt. A device can still be circumvented by turning it off using the effect command which is imho the best solution to let this device do nothing at all when the user decides the moment it should do nothing.

vV: this is exactly my point of view.

VD as it is now is like supporting velocity and not supporting aftertouch