What a wonderful word!
Airmann, I’m sorry about the curt response. I was tired. First of all, you did a complete thread hijack with a topic that has no bearing on what we’re discussing. Much like dBlue did. But i know him so he’s more easily forgiven
The signal follower lets you base nearly any parameter change in any vst (instrument or effect) on a treated set of amplitudes. This is infinitely more powerful than dedicated sidechain compression. I’d like to know which sidechaining vsts you are using that don’t use it for compression or vocoding alone. As for the latter, if a vocoder doesn’t have the foresight to support left carrier right modulator setups, it’s not worth your time anyway.
But ARGH with this digression!
i like this idea- well done
i come from devon too, but i call it a dibber…
No Problem, was tired, too :-). Didn’t actually want to Hijack. But you’re right, if we’d go deeper into the topic this thread would be poluted.
So I open a new topic on that:
Just re-reading this thread, I see it goes along with this one:
This is Suva`s mod of my mock-up,
You get the modularity, extracting relevant parameters [e.g. depth from the chorus here], saving set-ups as presets (amoungst other things such as VSTi loading in tracks, MIDI VSTs etc.)
it comes to the point to have an modular system like AlsaModularSynth (AMS) in linux and if you have test this beast you know how great it sounds ;o)
I dream of the possibility to have such a powerful routing with such massive modules like in AMS and this an all OS for swapping tracks.
See what comes …
Cowbell? Radness? Awesome!!! Somehow I missed this beautiful exercise in simplicity from dblue.
This beautiful exercise in simplicity from dblue is full of cowbell, radness and awesome!
- one billion trillion
Yay! Great post. I’m your henchman on this.
Been thinking of this solution before some. So this would be like Hydra that contains bind effects and routes the audio inside modular? And also allows meta devices control multiple parameters? Would be great if the devices could really be broken up for this. For example, if I could break up the delay effects feedback loop I could actually make modulated and EQ’d delay that builds effect on top of previous cycle. And such. Wasn’t this the original idea?
Think of it at least.
+1 seems i never did…
Just giving this thread a bump/addendum.
In addition to the original idea, hidden send tracks could be confined to a DSP sub-chain, or ‘Black Box’:
dblue’s idea is a lot like what Reason’s Combinator does (although the Combinator is a bit more powerful, having its own keyzones etc), and i really loved that device in Reason to clean up your chain and organize things into one single device.
- 1 + + + +
i kinda feel this thread should be pinned. anyone agree?
bump for this thread. this idea would put renoise to fantastic professional quality
i have an idea to implement it without rewriting everything (but perhaps i’m wrong don’t know what is under the hood)
in the vst revalver you have an fx chain that is vertical and work like the one in renoise( but the one of renoise is horizontal)
you have a fx called the splitter which work this way. you put the A fx that start the the First signal chain than you put the B fx that stop A chain and start the second chain than when you went to end the Second chain and merge both you put the merger. you could have pan each chain
we could think about a more powerfull kind of splitter with 4 chains and pan/vol for each chain. one nice feature would to have as many splitter as you want (yes : splitter in spliter like rack in rack in ableton live)
what do you think of this ?