Ultra smooth cc changes? Etc.

[atomota]

Just some random feedback here. I'm demoing sequencers because I dislike how my current sequencer Cubase SX manages automation. So I'm looking at energyXT. The hype says "ultra smooth cc changes". That's all well and good, but there are two problems with this:

• No matter how smooth the CC changes may be, automating using CCs gives only 128 discrete levels that a parameter may be automated to, whereas VST parameters actually allow a continuous spectrum.
  
  By using continuous VST parameter values (ala, say, Cubase) instead of discrete CCs, it would be possible to update the VST parameters more often which will result in smoother automation and decreased possibility of zippering.

The first point might not seem like a big deal, but this is the way Logic's automation worked back when I used Logic, and among other things this resulted in a discrete set of volume levels in the mixer, which was painful at times. On energyXT the situation with the mixer volume is a bit strange -- eXT maps the volume CCs linearly instead of more exponentially, so -6dB is at half the fader travel which results in kind of an odd response curve to the faders, and gives a very fine-grained choice of settings above -6dB, but a rather coarser choice below. This could be compensated for by using a volume or trim insert with a more comfortable fader/dB curve, but it would be hard to access because it doesn't seem possible to show insert parameters in the sequencer mixer (which would be handy).

Another thing that would be nice is if outputs could be renamed. "Master Output 01" or whatever is not very informative, it would be nice to be able to rename them according to what audio was being sent or where it was being sent to, and hover or click on an output to see what it was instead of having to count through the outputs. Maybe it's already there and I've just missed it.

I want to like eXT, I usually like modular things although in this case I'm not sure how much value I'd get out of the modular environment, but I've got a few more sequencers to try so maybe I'll become a user and maybe I won't. It's definitely something to keep in mind should I need it as a VST or VSTi down the road.

[Mikael Adle]

All good points.

[McLilith]

On energyXT the situation with the mixer volume is a bit strange -- eXT maps the volume CCs linearly instead of more exponentially, so -6dB is at half the fader travel which results in kind of an odd response curve to the faders, and gives a very fine-grained choice of settings above -6dB, but a rather coarser choice below.

This is one of those things that seems to come from software designers trying to simulate hardware with software, when they have no training for designing real hardware. Any decent electonics engineer or technician would know to use a properly tapered control for a volume control, and a linear control taper isn't the proper taper. I see this happening in software designs all the time, even with some of the relatively expensive software, and it really makes me sad. If they can't get a simple volume control right, what else are they not doing right?


take care,
McLilith
--
(For what it's worth, I am a musical electronics hardware tech.)

[bmanic]

McLilith, that's a bit harsh but I agree. There are a ton of these "small" weird things in energyXT that simply make it feel/operate quite unprofessional still but I'm sure jorgen is working on all of these things at some point, just give him some time. Heck, it's only at v 1.4 and look where it started!

Anyways, I totally agree with everything said in this topic.

- bManic

[greendoor]

I love Cubase SX3 automation. Silly question, but why aren't you using channel fader automation for volume changes? Just because midi features are implemented in a VSTi, doesn't mean that is the best way to get the job done ...

For example - if you draw a fader automation ramp with two nodes, the transition between them is totally smooth and zipperless. I don't use midi CC to enter automation movements, but i'm sure they would be totally smooth and zipper-free too, because more nodes simply defines the shape of the curve.

If you used CC with 127 steps to control a VST level parameter, then yes it would zipper. Unless the developer has included so anti-zippering code, for example Nubi can be used with an expression pedal with no zippering. But that's probably an exception.

[Sascha Franck]

Very good points.
I think, something like a scaleable "transformer" (borrowing the term from Logic) might do good.

[McLilith]

McLilith, that's a bit harsh but I agree. There are a ton of these "small" weird things in energyXT that simply make it feel/operate quite unprofessional still but I'm sure jorgen is working on all of these things at some point, just give him some time. Heck, it's only at v 1.4 and look where it started!

I hope everyone understands, I'm not trying to pick on the developer of energyXT in particular. I'm sure that energyXT has lots of good points, and that the developer is a really nice and talented person.

It's just that I see lots of software products with this flaw. What makes it so very annoying is the fact that it is so common. I've just gotten to the point where I can't take it any more. Someone should be telling all the current and wanna-be audio software designers this very basic information, because apparently many of them have never been told.


take care,
McLilith

[jorgen]

The envelope clips in the sequencer is NOT using 7-bit (128 values) to automate VST params, but 32-bit, the same resolution as the vst param.

eXT automatically detects if the destination is a VST param, a mixer fader of just plain simpe midi mapping (then it uses 7-bit of course). Its always using highest possible resolution.

cheers
jorgen

[jorgen]

Actually, there may be a limitation. eXT doesnt send out enough param changes to make it smooth for VST (this is not a problem with MIDI only).

But dont panic, I'll just make a HQ option on each envelope track. Coming in next beta. Then you will get ultra smooth-er automation

cheers
jorgen

[plastique]

Jorgen , is there a possibility for paramter smoothing if one plugin sends CC to another (or a eXT comp)?
Apart from that , +1 for the HQ option .

EDIT: oh yeah , and if it's true that the mixer volume is linear , i'd second a change to a more exp/log mapping .
maybe this gets finally rid of the zippering when automated .

[kippertoffee]

+1 to the exponential taper of controls. I have noticed that other paramaters could have done with this as weel; Such as the LFO speed in the sampler comp. It doesn't need to be done to emulate hardware, but because it analogises the workings of the human ear. More control in the low ranges, less in the high.

Cheers, pete.

[bmanic]

exp/log controllers where appropriate should be a high priority IMO. Controls that come to mind are: lfo speed, volume, panning (yes, this too! to make it more sensitive around the center and a custom selectable panlaw would be very nice too, I usually prefere -4.5dB) envelopes sliders in the sampler (especially attack, decay and release). I'm sure there are more but these are just few.

linear is bad.. bad.. bad..

- bManic

[silicon/silicium]

hhhmmmm, if ext autodetec what is on the other side of the line, could we have straight vst parameters assignation instead of "tricking" with "fake" cc. with a menu like

Code: Select all

track1
track2
track3>myvsti
      >vstinsert1
      >vstinsert2>CC>01
                    >02
                    >.....
                 >Cutoff
                 >Reso
                 >....
       >output>1volume
              >1pan
              >2Volume
              >.....

should be super easy to assign note, and keep a real visual feedabck.

[adds2one]

+1 to the exponential taper of controls (because it analogises the workings of the human ear. More control in the low ranges, less in the high.)

this would be grand!!

[atomota]

I love Cubase SX3 automation. Silly question, but why aren't you using channel fader automation for volume changes?

I'm using SX1. It actually handles automation quite smoothly, especially volume automation. It's the handling of automation from the UI I can't stand. I don't know if things are any better in SX3, but I paid a lot of money for SX1, and dammit, if Steinberg hadn't gotten things right by SX1 then I'm not going to give them even more money.

One of the appeals of eXT and similar products is having forums like this where the developer(s) participate. It's what I'm used to as a software developer using a lot of open source software.