Bitwig

crazyfiltertweaker · Post by **crazyfiltertweaker** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:48 am

Using modulation in Bitwig is a pleasure BUT the hierarchy is wrong!

UPDATED IDEA:

There are thre kind of modulator slots:
1. a global modulator slot for every device of track!
2.a container modulator slot for every device which is inside a container
3.a modulator slot for single devices, which is not so necessary

it could be possible to have an own modulator slot for modulators in the instrument, container and FX devices!! In this way modulators are not on the top level anymore and no more huge nesting chains are necessary if I use many modulators!

But also my previous idea could be useful, but if many people dont like it, this above could be a way.

Yes the nesting is the problem if you use many modulators for one instrument and/or effect! Also to see the modulator instead seeing instruments and effects in folded condition is the wrong way!

I really dont understand the 5 (or even more) people, who dont understand that this way has JUST ADVANTAGES!

There is not even one disadvantage!

-no infinite nesting with more than one modulator!
-no modulators on top level, what is absolutely wrong in this way!
-you can fold your modulator slot like every other slot!

If someone tell me just one bigger disadvantage, I would retrack it!

garyboozy · Post by **garyboozy** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 1:42 pm

agreed! i love the modulation options in BWS but it does seem 'backwards'.
i don't think an lfo should ever be the top-level device in a chain, really. once you've set an lfo's knobs as you want, you should be able to hide it and concentrate on the synth or whatever the 'main' sound source is.

u-u-u · Post by **u-u-u** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 2:51 pm

garyboozy wrote:i don't think an lfo should ever be the top-level device in a chain, really. once you've set an lfo's knobs as you want, you should be able to hide it and concentrate on the synth or whatever the 'main' sound source is.

No, the LFO is only as top level as you put all devices into it

But you are partly right: If you want to modulate e.g. only the first and the last device of a long device chain it can get a little bit messy.

Now, i thought a little bit about how to improve the workflow for the nested device concept and had an IDEA:
Imagine that you have a long device chain inside an FX slot of an LFO when you scroll to the right in the device panel you can't see the LFO anymore. It isn't visibly available anymore for quick access! -> Problem!

So imagine you scroll to the right and on the left side of the device panel the LFO gets folded so that you can only see the modulation source + name ('LFO'). This would be an elegant solution, I think.
And when you scrolled to the right so that you can't see the chain anymore, the modulation source at the left would dissappear. (wouldn't make sense anymore to see it.)

u-u-u · Post by **u-u-u** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 3:01 pm

And all in all i really like it as it is.
But again yes, it is more complicate to modulate parameters of one device with many modulators. (speaking: 'add' modulation sources to a device). By contrast, modulating parameters of many devices from one mod source is really easy and intuitive! That's why I personally like it that much.

To solve the 'add-modulation-source-to-a-specific-device-problem' it would be really cool if it would be possible to drag the MOD device onto a device!
(Or the same quick way as grouping works for the Layer devices - CTRL+G and bam! - all selected device are in a layer). There's much room for improvements

crazyfiltertweaker · Post by **crazyfiltertweaker** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 3:08 pm

People who say NO havent understood me.

I dont want a new way of Modulation!

JUST THE ORDER the other way round!
it is an absolute mess to modulate a tiny little parameter and see the modulator as big as it were the main device! In this way using more than one modulators is not usable anymore!

BUT having the modulator INSIDE a device it would solve this!

so please tell me WHERE is the problem with this obvious improvement???

@u-u-u
long device chains in FX slots have nothing to do with modulators which STAY at the same position at the left as stripes which you can click to edit them. With this way you can have as many modulators as you want without a big big mess!

garyboozy · Post by **garyboozy** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 3:27 pm

u-u-u wrote:
garyboozy wrote:i don't think an lfo should ever be the top-level device in a chain, really. once you've set an lfo's knobs as you want, you should be able to hide it and concentrate on the synth or whatever the 'main' sound source is.
No, the LFO is only as top level as you put all devices into it

u-u-u wrote:But you are partly right...

condescending AND wrong. kudos!

u-u-u · Post by **u-u-u** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 4:09 pm

Yes, I do understand you. You are right with in the point of using many modulators for the same device. But you CAN do it even if it's a little bit messy.
Putting the modulators inside the device would disable you to modulate one of the other devices in the chain. So there would be something that you CANNOT do anymore. It would simply change the signal flow. I think the logic of the nested devices is pretty cool so I would leave it like it is.
Your problem is more a visual one, not one of the signal flow. I tried to address this problem with the modulator-folding idea.

The nested device approach is really good to visualize the signal flow: The audio and note signal goes from left to right. The problem of the modulation data is, that it is in some way a 'parallel system' to the audio and note signal flow. Logically I would position the MOD devices on top of the device chain. But that isn't really viable

garyboozy wrote:
u-u-u wrote:
garyboozy wrote:i don't think an lfo should ever be the top-level device in a chain, really. once you've set an lfo's knobs as you want, you should be able to hide it and concentrate on the synth or whatever the 'main' sound source is.
No, the LFO is only as top level as you put all devices into it

Sry for my inappropriate discussion style!

garyboozy wrote:
u-u-u wrote:But you are partly right...
condescending AND wrong. kudos!

Sry, again. You got me wrong

I meant it as a simple discussion phrase that you're free to contradict. Didn't want to affect your personality!

I just love it to discuss about these (workflow/technical/music) topics 'cause they are not definite.
And it really is not that easy: E.g. what to do with the devices that are instruments themselves AND have modulation sources in it?
Or maybe: You said that you don't see the MOD device 'on top' of the actual audio and note devices. I see them not on top as well but I also don't see them 'under' the other devices. They are rather equal (at least for me).
So again, feel free to disagree

garyboozy · Post by **garyboozy** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 4:58 pm

no worries!

my main beef with this workflow: the lfo becomes the master device, rather than the slave.
there is no other way around it; you can't add a modulator to the right of the device you want to modulate - it has to be nested inside the modulator, which has always seemed a bit iffy to me. also there's no quick way to 'group to lfo/step mod' etc option so you must go through the chore of adding the lfo, then dragging the device into it, then opening the chain view... it can get become tedious.
when they added the 'note fx' point on the polysynth etc, i thought that would be a neat way around it, but modulators don't work in the 'note fx' slots either.

Ogopogo · Post by **Ogopogo** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 5:07 pm

I will say it did feel "wrong" to me from the start to have the put the synth or whatever inside the mod device, just from an organizational perspective. The synth is the main thing, it is weird to have it buried within the mod.

u-u-u · Post by **u-u-u** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:06 pm

garyboozy wrote:no worries!

Great to hear

Hm, I think this nesting with the modulation devices is mainly to prevent feedback routing:
You cannot modulate the rate of LFO A by LFO B and at the same time modulate the rate of LFO B by LFO A.
Dragging LFO B into LFO A prevents that. I think it's good, because feedback routing (as it's at audio rate!) would require a really complex engine which would bring other restrictions and high CPU consuption with it. (I'm not a math or programming pro - so it's just something I've read or heard somewhere.)

Don't know if you looked at the Ableton solution with Max4Live devices:
The modulation and the regular devices live side by side. It seems more logical. But I don't own it so I can't see whether they somehow prevent you from FB routings.
(And they have other restrictions: e.g. you need an extra M4L device to route more than one mod source to one knob, AFAIK.)

u-u-u · Post by **u-u-u** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:23 pm

Ogopogo wrote:I will say it did feel "wrong" to me from the start to have the put the synth or whatever inside the mod device, just from an organizational perspective. The synth is the main thing, it is weird to have it buried within the mod.

Yes, it really feels a little bit strange.
My main point is that you need too much clicks to simply 'add' an LFO to the synth: - synth is already set up, you just need another LFO
- you create the LFO to the left of the synth,
- you drag the synth into it
- you set up the modulation
But at the moment I don't know a quicker solution. (Maybe right click on a param: an 'Add Modulation Source' option with selectable Mod devices. But that wouldn't cover every situation.)

crazyfiltertweaker · Post by **crazyfiltertweaker** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:33 pm

Thanks that Im not the only one who think about this that way!

TristanMendoza · Post by **TristanMendoza** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 7:42 pm

at first it did feel weird but now I'm used to it

powermat · Post by **powermat** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 8:02 pm

Remember, you can put FX Chains within FX Chains, then fold THOSE up to get to the device that you are looking to modulate close to the knobs.

One other solution would be to put a horizontal scroll bar INSIDE of containers. One that actually remembers the scroll location that you last left it on.

goatgirl · Post by **goatgirl** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 8:05 pm

It makes perfect sense the way it is now, from a logic/programming point of view. The LFO Mod is a source (trigger), you add a target device that you want to modulate to the source to create your effect (action).

Doing it the other way, to me requires Dr Who's TARDIS, as it would require time travel, as you get an action before trigger.

However, if I understand correct, the real reason you want this is because the device you're modulating become buried within the device chain. This I can see is a pain. Perhaps it would be better have the ability to partially collapse the MOD's but still be able to see the contents of its containers. This sounds more achievable than trying to defy physics. Perhaps the POLL should reflect this with a third option.

Bitwig

KVR Audio

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

Is a modulator slot the better way to manage modulators?