My idea comes from being able to create layers of plugin synths in FL Studio, where a note can be randomly assigned to one of the layers, hence the potential to play chords on a mono synth.
This would allow musicians to play chords on Triangle I, for example.
The mono-to-poly (MTP) plugin should be able to do the following:
1. Allow the user to choose an instrument plugin and patch
2. Load n instances of the chosen instrument and its patch, eg 6-12 or more instances - one for each note of a chord. (The user could specify the number of instances in MTP's Options)
3. The user should then be able to play a chord on the mono-to-poly plugin, which assigns each note played to one of the n instances, thus allowing chords to be played
4. MTP would need to load more instances of the plugin than the number of notes being played, in order to allow the tail of notes to complete when changing chords - melody lines would be okay so long as at LEAST two instances of the instrument are running.
Idea for a new plugin - make mono synths poly
-
- KVRist
- 102 posts since 12 May, 2003 from New Zealand
-
- KVRian
- 1335 posts since 23 Sep, 2003 from ocation: cation: ation: tion: ion: on: n: :
This would be great. I was thinking about it as a host feature, but a plugin that could do that would be even better!
the the impotence of proofreading
-
- KVRAF
- 2460 posts since 3 Oct, 2002 from SF CA USA NA Earth
Bah.
Don't do it my way.
-
- KVRer
- 21 posts since 1 Nov, 2002 from land of the dead
A good idea but it does not make much sense in my opinion. A monophonic synth is meant to be monophonic. If i want to play chords, i simply use a polyphonic synth 
It is surely possible to make such a plugin. Maybe it would also be possible to reach this result in a modular host like bidule. But think of the CPU usage... At least for me with my stone age Computer this is not an option. To load several instances of one monosynth just to be able to play chords with it would use too much ressources.
But for all those with high end machines this may perhaps be some interesting stuff. But still not really necessary imo.
Ex
It is surely possible to make such a plugin. Maybe it would also be possible to reach this result in a modular host like bidule. But think of the CPU usage... At least for me with my stone age Computer this is not an option. To load several instances of one monosynth just to be able to play chords with it would use too much ressources.
But for all those with high end machines this may perhaps be some interesting stuff. But still not really necessary imo.
Ex
-
- KVRist
- 430 posts since 21 Feb, 2005 from Berlin/Germany
As I am very deep into the host in host technology I had allready planned to do this. But I am not sure if this will have potential buyers. So its stopped and on hold. The arguments against the development are:
Many synths are allready poly and the ones which are mono are not that good to make this thing a must. IMO the only two exceptions are oddity and ms-20.
Try to convince me and I may reconsider.
Many synths are allready poly and the ones which are mono are not that good to make this thing a must. IMO the only two exceptions are oddity and ms-20.
Try to convince me and I may reconsider.
-
- KVRAF
- 2460 posts since 3 Oct, 2002 from SF CA USA NA Earth
My synths are free for the mono versions and pay for the poly versions, so I wouldn't be thrilled to see this come about. That said, my philosophy is "anything you can get my software to do, you may do", so...
Don't do it my way.
-
- KVRist
- 430 posts since 21 Feb, 2005 from Berlin/Germany
Hey voilla we found another corner. Do you think this is for overriding copy protection? Another argument against development! But whatever: Don't worry. For protecting purposes you can always check for multiple running instances in your plugs and react on that. I assume you hack c++: just introduce a static counter and increment in constructor. check if > 1 -> yes -> quit or format harddisk or ignite nuke whatever or nevermind.Borogove wrote:My synths are free for the mono versions and pay for the poly versions, so I wouldn't be thrilled to see this come about. That said, my philosophy is "anything you can get my software to do, you may do", so...
Last edited by Galleoneer on Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRist
- 430 posts since 21 Feb, 2005 from Berlin/Germany
not as much overhead as you thinkfunkadil wrote:dont worry tinygod, people will still buy when they realize that one polysynth has a lot less cpu usage than a whole bunch of monosynths.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 111292 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
ext?
chainer?
chainer?
-
- KVRAF
- 2460 posts since 3 Oct, 2002 from SF CA USA NA Earth
I doubt it's the primary reason for people wanting it. Like I said - I wouldn't be thrilled to see it but I don't think it's my place to stop anyone from trying.Galleoneer wrote:Hey voilla we found another corner. Do you think this is for overriding copy protection? Another argument against development!
Bad idea - people use multiple copies of the synth with different patches in each copy all the time. Hopefully anyone who develops a wrapper like this will have it identify itself clearly to the synths it hosts, so if the synth chooses to not work in that context, it can do so.But whatever: Don't worry. For protecting purposes you can always check for multiple running instances in your plugs and react on that.
Don't do it my way.
-
- KVRAF
- 2460 posts since 3 Oct, 2002 from SF CA USA NA Earth
Those bastards.mike.o wrote:Plogue Bidule actually has this feature.
Don't do it my way.
-
- KVRAF
- 7315 posts since 7 Mar, 2003
-
- KVRist
- 300 posts since 11 Feb, 2003