Short description :
If absolute, a scaler should have the parameters like “Effect”, “Parameter”, “Min. Value”, “Max. Value” and “Live Value” or if relative the values “Effect”, “Parameter”, “Offset”, “Intensity” and “Live Value” to control any of the other effect parameters in the DSP chain.
Why I see need for :
- Some sliders have a larger range than 0-256 and there is no fine tune possible, a “scaler” whould be an ultimate solution for this problem
- Possibility of controlling the effect sliders in a relative (not absolute) way
- Much more complex automations possible
Use cases :
More often I had a straight pad, let’s say some looped string chord and made a very fine tuned and specific automation pattern for the cutoff of a filter on that sound. Yeah, sounds nice, but there is no comfortable way to shift this automation pattern (the whole points of the curve) more up or down or nearer together or farther away.
Now with a “Scaler device” I could control the “Live Value” with the mentioned automation pattern which itself controls the cutoff of a filter. Additionally I could virtually move the whole curve up down, I could amplify or soften it.
Another use case would be :
Like the theory of audio design rules us some minimal delays occure in context with the ability of spacial hearing. For the delay effect I can manually enter values from 0 to 1000 ms but have no possibility to draw an automation for the range from 0 to 255 ms using the whole vertical automation range. With a scaler I would be able to simulate “flying sounds” mor easily because I would have the whole control over the delay and could handle it absolute precicely.
Just think of the profit of this idea : Very simple to implement but very great advantage.
The scaler, as described, is understandable as LFO with input from the automation curve.
But I have some imaginable advancements :
- The scaler should control 2 or more sliders so that it is cascadable.
- The scaling should be able to be positive or negative so that if I increase the control slider (live value) the target value will be decreased. Use case: You filter a sound and it gets louder the more you open/close the filter. If both advancements were fulfilled you could countersteer the volume with the scaler.
- The perfectly accomplished scaler would additionally give the possibility to draw curves for nonlinear scalings so that you’re able to “morph” the whole sound of the DSP chain with the move of just one slider.
You can move a whole automation curve up/down.
I think you can also soften an automation curve.
If you create the curve in a lfo, you can move the lfo created curve to be smaller (increase the speed) or further apart (decrease). You can also move the position of the whole lfo generated curve.
But ofcourse the lfo is limited to different shapes.
The LFO still can not substitute that function for more complex automation envelopes. I just compared the scaler with the LFO to make myself more understandable. And yes, I know that I can move the curve in “editing mode” but it’s not really fun if it could be so much easier.
Well, I already tried to cascade two filters where the first is controlled by automation and the second is used to virtually raise or lower the envelope but that sounds different (and worse in my special case). Also if I draw a simple “short decay” filter envelope for an instrument it sounds much better when I move the first point up and down as if I lead it through another filter in the DSP chain.
And in fact there is also no kind of ADSR-control for the instrument envelopes and those envelope points also cannot be changed at runtime of the module by effect commands or automation (which would also be a great enhancement) I see this lack as another need for the “scaler”. Even with no nonlinear scaling support just with two targets it would be possible to morph between two different DSP chain settings (imagine what that means to your sound!)
The scaler would make all that things more easy and give a lot of more “synthesizer-like” intuitive control and feeling over the whole sound. This would not only be a profit as making the tracking itself easier but especially raise the flexibility when using Renoise for live acts.
Well, of course that feature could rape some virtual samplers and simple subtractive synths the reasons of using 'em anymore : Why should I load samples into a virtual VST sampler or use a synth if I can load any sample (also simple waveforms) as instrument and control its envelopes live and directly with Renoise ? But hey - since when does Renoise need to hide ? As there is no API for the meta devices only the Renoise Team makes the magic - and even if the scaler is never implemented I hope it at least gives (or remembers to) some really good basic ideas
i’m not entirely convinced of the implimentation of this idea but, it seems like a good step towards expanding the algorhythmic DSP chain mangling possibilities offered by the lfo.
for me, i think that this feature could be accomplished by creating a ‘song variable’ meta
this device would take an input value, from an LFO for example (or peak volume level, etc.) and assign it to a variable within the song called ‘n’. you could then go to another effect in the same dsp chain or another, click on the ‘type in’ field next to a slider and type ‘n’ (or ‘2n’ for double, ‘n/2’ for half, n^2, etc.) to automatically link the value of the slider to the variable and coefficient.
of course this would be a total music/mathgeek feature but it would be awesome to play with, even if the input value for the variable device were limited to lfos it would be alot of fun to play with.
for that “velocity device” in Renoise 1.9 - I just love you !!
That’s EXACTLY what I’ve dreamt about. Well, you decided to use the instrument velocity as input. That’s fine, especially because an empty “fake”-instrument (with no sound) can also be used and as much as wanted devices can be cascaded.
I’ve tested through all mentioned use cases - and - this neaty, sweety new meta device solves them all !
Yeah, this offers real sound engeneering power!
Again, thanks a lot for that, guys.