modulators should have their own slot, one global, one in containers/instruments

[u-u-u]

As this may have been missed, I have made a little picture of how the LFO could be folded to show the very important device it contains.

Yes like this and maybe it would be good if the mod source (the -> ) was still visible. (if I find some time I'll also create an image to show what I mean)...

[crazyfiltertweaker]

If someone can tell me ONLY ONE disadvantage I will delete this thread!

I have given you a disadvantage... it does not make any logical sense.

The logical sense for changing it is, that you dont have problems with much nesting if you use more than one modulator and because a modulator is no major device like a instrument or a effect, it makes no logical sense to have it on the top above instruments and FX.

It is everywhere else in every modular system below the instrument level, not above!

AND: Where is the logical error with modulator slots? I dont understand this, could someone explain it?

[goatgirl]

At the moment, if you wanted the LFO to modulate something deeper within the chain, but also separate from the instrument, this is easily achieved. If you could put the LFO MOD in the instrument then this is then no longer possible.

I do not have a problem with nesting. I also do not have a problem when I go shopping for food. I put the food in the bag, I do not try to put the bag in the food!

[crazyfiltertweaker]

If you could put the LFO MOD in the instrument then this is then no longer possible.

Sure it still is!
If you put it in the modulator slot of a container, you can use as many devices as you want, inclusive FX! And you can use many many modulators without any nesting for ONE container.

There also could be a global modulator slot for the whole track, which affects EVERY SINGLE DEVICE of the track! So... where is the problem now??

I do not have a problem with nesting. I also do not have a problem when I go shopping for food. I put the food in the bag, I do not try to put the bag in the food!

Good, because the instruments are the bag and the modulators are the food. Not vice versa!

[goatgirl]

Where do you put the global modulator?

Good, because the instruments are the bag and the modulators are the food. Not vice versa!

Try eating the bag !

[crazyfiltertweaker]

Where do you put the global modulator?

Good, because the instruments are the bag and the modulators are the food. Not vice versa!

Try eating the bag !

there is a REAL lack of logic because virtual instruments are not eatable!

So this is a poor comparison.

[goatgirl]

I am not the one swapping things around to suit their point of view.

A things stand, the MOD's work just fine as they are. Perhaps, when version 2.0 comes along with Integrated Modular System, you can add more LFO's to your device.

[goatgirl]

double post

[garyboozy]

i can't imaging they're going to change the setup at all now, but i wouldnt mind some tweaks to make things easier. the option to hide the modulator infront of the device, as goatgirl posted, could work. and an easier way of adding a synth etc device to a mod device, without all the click-dragging, would be welcome. maybe:

shift-dragging a modulator from the browser onto any existing device should auto-nest that device inside the modulator device, rather than creating an 'instrument layer' device, as it currently does.

and a menu option list when right-clicking a device: 'group to lfo mod/step mod' etc

[ThomasHelzle]

i can't imaging they're going to change the setup at all now, but i wouldnt mind some tweaks to make things easier. the option to hide the modulator infront of the device, as goatgirl posted, could work. and an easier way of adding a synth etc device to a mod device, without all the click-dragging, would be welcome. maybe:

shift-dragging a modulator from the browser onto any existing device should auto-nest that device inside the modulator device, rather than creating an 'instrument layer' device, as it currently does.

and a menu option list when right-clicking a device: 'group to lfo mod/step mod' etc

Now that starts to sound like a sensible Feature Request
Good ideas -> tech support please

Cheers,

Tom

[crazyfiltertweaker]

thanks for staying so "in all objectivity"!

I cant see any REAL arguments against my request!

Where is the error of my idea to have modulator slots, please tell me?

[goatgirl]

thanks for staying so "in all objectivity"!

I cant see any REAL arguments against my request!

Where is the error of my idea to have modulator slots, please tell me?

Which is your request? The current one or the one in the original title -
"Modulation should work the OTHER WAY around, INSIDE the target!the modulator nesting is the problem!" ?

Why change the subject of the thread... talk about moving the goal posts!

Having a modulation slot may seam like a sensible suggestion, however I think when the power of an integrated modular system comes into fruition, then that will be an even better solution.

INTEGRATED MODULAR SYSTEM
All 54 devices found in Bitwig Studio were designed using a modular device creation environment which is integrated in the application. Unlike other software, this feature is at the heart of the code running Bitwig Studio. In the next major release, anyone with Bitwig Studio will have access to the integrated Modular System, enabling the modification of existing devices, or the creation and design of entirely new ones.

Hopefully it will allow you to have the exact number of modulation sources/ lfo's as you require.

I do like garyboozy ideas of creating new MOD containers

[buhrmi]

I request that Bitwig should rename itself to woobledooble. It's more logical. I will remove my request if ANYONE has a valid reason why Woobledooble is worse than Bitwig. THERE IS NO DISADVANTAGE!

[crazyfiltertweaker]

thanks for staying so "in all objectivity"!

I cant see any REAL arguments against my request!

Where is the error of my idea to have modulator slots, please tell me?

Which is your request? The current one or the one in the original title -
"Modulation should work the OTHER WAY around, INSIDE the target!the modulator nesting is the problem!" ?

Why change the subject of the thread... talk about moving the goal posts!

Having a modulation slot may seam like a sensible suggestion, however I think when the power of an integrated modular system comes into fruition, then that will be an even better solution.

INTEGRATED MODULAR SYSTEM
All 54 devices found in Bitwig Studio were designed using a modular device creation environment which is integrated in the application. Unlike other software, this feature is at the heart of the code running Bitwig Studio. In the next major release, anyone with Bitwig Studio will have access to the integrated Modular System, enabling the modification of existing devices, or the creation and design of entirely new ones.

Hopefully it will allow you to have the exact number of modulation sources/ lfo's as you require.

I do like garyboozy ideas of creating new MOD containers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVvqI6l ... fg&index=9

I request that Bitwig should rename itself to woobledooble. It's more logical. I will remove my request if ANYONE has a valid reason why Woobledooble is worse than Bitwig. THERE IS NO DISADVANTAGE!

because it is a ridiculous naming and a bad piss-take of what I have written.

The disadvantage would be that the customers think that it is something wrong with the developers...

[goatgirl]

Well crazyfiltertweaker, that just about sums you up. You ignore any constructive comments and because you don't have anything sensible to say, you just post childish video's, nice... but please carry on ... I want to see how much of an idiot you really are.