Why you cant use instr. macro device inside the instrument?

Why you cant use instr. macros inside the instruments?
It would be handy if i wanna create instrument where velocity control attack of volume envelope for example.

Do you mean, by using effect commands within a phrase?
Because, otherwise controlling a volume envelope would simply be a question of adding a velocity-tracker in the modulation chain. No need for a macro to make that happen :slight_smile:

If macros were able to be controlled by effect commands, it would raise several questions:
1: What would happen when multiple phrases were trying to control the same macro
2: What would happen when automating the macro’s value (essentially, same issue as above)

Taking this idea a bit further, some of the FX values are relative in nature and can be “stacked” (just by adding more effect commands, side by side), while others are absolute - and being absolute, they can only accept one “final” value.

you can as long as you keep it all in a doofer, if you manage to somehow get it out, renoise will crash, but don’t tell anyone ;)/>

you may find it quite handy for complex meta device based automation (try it on midi and plugin automation)
you can also build your own song position dependant automations using the formula device
very handy because it’s all neatly organised without filling up your mixer tracks which is quite an issue on small laptop screens

Danoise: No, it is much simpler problem.
I want velocity to be able to control lets say attack or sustain or even lfo rate in the modulation sequence.
If i use velocity tracker it influences level (sustain) not attack.
So in my scenario i would assign attack to the macro and then in the fx section i would create instr. macro and meta velocity device and assign it to attack macro.

Gova: Yeah, i ve figure it out yeasterday. Doofers are the workaround for now :-)). Great!

Oh, I should have read your question more thoroughly.

Having the note velocity control the attack phase of a (modulation) ADHSR device - shouldn’t that be dealt with entirely inside the modulation chain? At least, for me it was the mention of macros that threw me off track :slight_smile:

Check out this topic (“modulating modulation”), an idea that get a big +1 from as well.

Yeah, that topic is about same thing. You cant deal with it inside the modulation chain. If velocity tracking device inside the envelopes would work like that fx device (you could select almost anything to be modulated - not just volume, pan or filter but also attack of volume, frequency of pan lfo etc.) it would be solved.

Maybe create two type of modulation devices - one for envelopes (we have them but they cant target individual parameters…) and one for FXs like now?
Or just make these vel. tr. devices inside the FX channels capable of target also parameters inside the envelopes?
(dunno how to solve situation when (lets say) attack is modulated by some mod. device and also assigned to macro…)

Or less elegant and limited by macros but much easier to make it happen:
If inst. macro device could be inserted into fx channel and then vel.tr. device would modulate macro that is assigned to attack or anything else… Then there would be any conflict with macro and modulated parameter like in first example, cause you modulate macro itself.

[i](dunno why you cant insert inst. macro device inside the fx tracks --> so for now i will do it by the way Gova showed me --> Create Doofer with inst. macro device outside the instrument and then insert it into the instrument fx track. It works, it didnt cause me crash so i think that the limitation is maybe a bug? —>
(or you shouldnt be able to use inst. macro. device inside the instruments because then second inst. macro device would behave weird? We should be able to predict it, two signal send device to one target dont work well also…)

But i am happy that it works somehow! Even if it is hack or workaround…

Why i´ve needed it: I wanna to simulate brass instrument, so i have two waves, one is transient and second is body. In case of transient, velocity should influence just lenght and maybe shape of attack (it would be amazing if you could influence position of point inside the envelope device but it is not so important for now…), not sustain.[/i]

Btw. maybe my language is the problem, not your reading ;)

you would be able to macro a macro so you would freeze while you freeze
no, that’s not how it goes, but you get the idea

Yeah, i get you. I will use your workaround till someone comes with a better solution ;).
But thank you!

While this workaround surprisingly works, it is, however, not per note! This unfortunately means that if you play multiple notes of the same instruments, then the change in ADSR triggered by the velocity of some note will affect the already playing notes as well. This is probably not what you want to achieve.

it’s per note, but monophonic ;), i’m sure akiz is aware

Btw. my imagination is not the best so (and i am in work and cant try renoise right now)… doesnt polyphonic solution needs some bigger changes in Renoise?

If i am right…
key tracking device inside the modulation also influences all notes.
So if i press c2-e2-g2 and then c3 (lets say keytracker is set to react to c3) it would still change envelope for that playing chord not just for that c3. Is that right?

So that Gova workaround isnt different how other modulation work right now (monophonic)?