FR_ Speed of Preset changes
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 10310 posts since 2 Sep, 2003 from Surrey, UK
At the moment we can load another preset by using various MIDI messages. The preset change is immediate.
How about being able to morph between the current preset and the selected one by setting the speed of the change? 100% would be immediate, 0% would be slow (5 seconds?)
As in this mock-up:
The preset change engine would need to interpolate the values suitably (yes, adding to the CPU load momentarily). And you could get some interesting transitions. The Speed paramters could be automable too, perhaps.
How about being able to morph between the current preset and the selected one by setting the speed of the change? 100% would be immediate, 0% would be slow (5 seconds?)
As in this mock-up:
The preset change engine would need to interpolate the values suitably (yes, adding to the CPU load momentarily). And you could get some interesting transitions. The Speed paramters could be automable too, perhaps.
-
Chandlerhimself Chandlerhimself https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=318799
- KVRAF
- 1702 posts since 19 Dec, 2013 from Japan
Can't we already morph presets using the ABCD slots and the XY pad?
My Youtube page https://www.youtube.com/user/GuitarChandler
- KVRian
- 1070 posts since 23 Sep, 2006
The XY pad wasn't really designed for performance, it was a way to create new static presets by morphing between four different settings. This explains why it's not automatable (i believe). The goal is that you can make, say, an 'E' slot by crossfading between the settings of A-D slots. I think what DS is asking for is a way to make more of a performance tool to be used during a track, rather than a way to make a static snapshot.
-
MeldaProduction MeldaProduction https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=176122
- KVRAF
- 14019 posts since 15 Mar, 2008 from Czech republic
Hehe DarkStar nice poll, but that's just impossible , sorry.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 10310 posts since 2 Sep, 2003 from Surrey, UK
On reflection it probably is - having to morph potentially hundreds of parameters may need quite a bit of CPU. But, I can dream.