Suggestions...<muSynth>

[Improviser]

... This will reflect the wishlist. (oops, almost the same typo) ...

I actually got kind of used to Jo's use of 'whishlist'.
You know - like a little endearing characteristic !

Ah well

Les J.

[Taron]

...follow me this way...

[pljones]

... This will reflect the wishlist. (oops, almost the same typo) ...

I actually got kind of used to Jo's use of 'whishlist'.
You know - like a little endearing characteristic !

Ah well

Les J.

+1

[Taron]

Back to my whiplist...

LFO input for frequency. I know it's a tender topic that LFO, but being able to control the frequency through an ADSR envelope would allow for very natural snarl and feather effects for some excellent instruments. Currently the LFO has for some reason an event input, which purpose I can't yet identify?!

[pljones]

Currently the LFO has for some reason an event input, which purpose I can't yet identify?!

I think it's a "gate" control. And maybe so that if you've mapped the controls to MIDI events, the MIDI events (CCs) can get in. (Although when I mapped Frequency to ModWheel and set a ModWheel CC sequence up, it didn't appear to have any effect. But let me try again with the latest version... )

[MuTools]

Currently the LFO has for some reason an event input, which purpose I can't yet identify?!

I think it's a "gate" control. And maybe so that if you've mapped the controls to MIDI events, the MIDI events (CCs) can get in.

Indeed.

(Although when I mapped Frequency to ModWheel and set a ModWheel CC sequence up, it didn't appear to have any effect. But let me try again with the latest version... )

MIDI CC mapping only works for MIDI input, not for sequences, unless it's about a VST plugin.

It has been discussed before. I know this is a bit a confusing situation. It was setup like this with the good intention to avoid certain complexities. But it's on the wishlist to change this so that a MIDI CC mapping always works. (besides the global/focussed mapping aspect)

[Taron]

There, now that I'm not put on the spot, this is a great example for what I've meant by saying that those limitations have their good side, but also limiting effects.(That's a straight up bushism, ain't it?!)

I want to be able to control amplitude and frequency of the LFO with an envelope and/or tracking, velocity or even another LFO.
(where's the crying baby smily "IWANTIWANNAWANNAWANTIT")

It would be nice.
(Yup, didn't even think about the gate, since it's been so limiting, hihi. At this point I'm just happy there is an LFO. OH MY GOD, I need my good morning cigarette that turns me into a nicer guy again!!!)

THERE, what a beautiful morning it is! ...and the coffee's kicking in, too!

Ring Modulation, by the way, is a great way to simulate some of the things I want to do with LFO's, too. Take a waveform at the lowest possible pitch or even carefully modulate the pitch with an envelope and you can create a kind of alternating tremelo effect: wababababaabaabaaaabaaaaaaabaaaaaaaaaa ...neat.

I'll make some examples.

[pljones]

It has been discussed before. I know this is a bit a confusing situation. It was setup like this with the good intention to avoid certain complexities

Yes, I couldn't remember the outcome of the previous discussion.

Of course... I'd like it if every control inside every plugin was exposed with a control input, so (like Taron says) you could route the control output of a LFO to any parameter of any plugin just by wiring it up... (e.g. why only "Frequency" control input for the multimode filter? I want an LFO on key tracking and another on Q factor... and a third on the filter type..! )

But yes, it does imply a large increase in complexity and no increase in ease of use, so has to be considered very carefully.

[liquidsound]

I am afraid the we are is going to have a built-in SynthEdit.
How about a larger view of "The DAW"?

[Taron]

Quick question, while we are talking about basics... how would you control the filter frequency by velocity?

[MuTools]

Not yet. But the necessary items are on the wishlist.

[Taron]

Thanks!

[pljones]

I am afraid the we are is going to have a built-in SynthEdit.

Quite! And why not?

How about a larger view of "The DAW"?

That too, of course! (Like multi-track recording, etc... plenty on that wishlist!)

[liquidsound]

I am afraid the we are is going to have a built-in SynthEdit.

Quite! And why not?

How about a larger view of "The DAW"?

That too, of course! (Like multi-track recording, etc... plenty on that wishlist!)

Just a thought of taking precious time away from the main vision which is the one that will give market share to MuLab.
After all most users are loaded with their own favored plug-ins that can do magic (Zebra, ACE etc.).

Definitely nothing wrong about your point, just thinking about businss = $$$

[pljones]

Definitely nothing wrong about your point, just thinking about businss = $$$

Heh, I let Jo worry about filtering the idea flood and deciding which ones are likely to help "sell product" . (Mmm, multi-core, 64-bit... just mentioning... as Jo's "just waking up"... )