Two Similar Feature Requests (Rather Desparate Ones at That)

[dmbaer]

In putting together a rather complex preset for MTurboDelay in MXXX, I came up against two near show-stoppers that severely limit my planned functionality. Both are limitations on values that cannot be altered from a multiparameter:

1. Modulator Parameters need Invert as target of MP

2. Modulator - Random tab - Mode (Steps, Smooth, MIDI) needs to be target of MP

I don't particularly care if they don't show up in the list window as long as they could be learned (I believe I've encountered at least one other MP target that could be learned but that was not in the list).

Is there any chance this could happen?

[dmbaer]

Please add to this request a third MP target:

Modulator - Envelope tab - Mode (MIDI, Audio)

[MeldaProduction]

I'm afraid these are unlikely to happen, technical reasons, long story. Btw. Invert can be simulated by changing the range instead.

[dmbaer]

I'm afraid these are unlikely to happen, technical reasons, long story. Btw. Invert can be simulated by changing the range instead.

Unfortunately, if you already are affecting the range with another MP, then that's not possible (this solution did cross my mind). I'm sure that if the limitation is for technical reasons it is indeed a long story (that few of us would be interested in hearing ). Unfortunately, this really cuts into the functionality of the MTruboDelay preset I've been working on.

[dmbaer]

If we cannot have access to the Invert switch in a parameter as target of an MP, then how about adding an Invert switch to the oscillator module and make that a target of an MP? We can already alter phase and a number of other things that affect the shape the waveform. With Invert, we're just telling the oscillator to turn the waveform upside down. The oscillator can do saw-down and rect-saw-down waveforms, but it currently cannot do saw-up or rect-saw-up.

[MeldaProduction]

Hmmm, dunno... This is a really really specific case. This is what you can do imho:

1) Attach the parameters to say multiparam 1.
2) Control the range of the parameters by multiparam 2.
3) Control the range of the ranges by multiparam 3.

I know, crazy complex, but should do the trick. You know, there's like million parameters one could add and these are all very complex. We'll see if I restructuralize the kernel, but I'm not sure if/when that will happen.

[dmbaer]

Hmmm, dunno... This is a really really specific case. This is what you can do imho:

1) Attach the parameters to say multiparam 1.
2) Control the range of the parameters by multiparam 2.
3) Control the range of the ranges by multiparam 3.

I know, crazy complex, but should do the trick. You know, there's like million parameters one could add and these are all very complex. We'll see if I restructuralize the kernel, but I'm not sure if/when that will happen.

This can work only if the range or value parameters are not already under the control of another MP. If I could do this, I wouldn't have asked. But unfortunately, this is not the case. In any event, since modulators are often used as conventional LFOs, I'd like to make the argument that a saw-up and a rect-saw-up would often be desirable and should not be "crazy complex" for the average user who hasn't mastered the full intricacies of MP trickery.

[MeldaProduction]

Couldn't you just control the custom shape? Anyways as I said, after the restructuralization who knows, but right now, not possible I'm afraid.

[dmbaer]

Couldn't you just control the custom shape? Anyways as I said, after the restructuralization who knows, but right now, not possible I'm afraid.

Yes, this is the exact solution I came up with. Original plan: have saw-up, rect-saw-up, saw-down and rect-saw-down (using Invert controlled by MP). The rect-saw waves would probably be of little interest, so new plan: we get rid of those. For saw-up we use custom shape. We can only use the trick with one of the LFO waveforms because we cannot change the shape itself via an MP, only the % of custom shape used.

Haven't actually done this yet, but it's on my list of improvements when I have time to get back to my delay preset. I have few doubts it will work just fine.

[dmbaer]

OK, one more similar request to add to the list of things that are probably too hard to deliver (but I'll ask anyway):

It would be most useful to be able to control the active/inactive state of a modulator parameter from a multiparameter. We can control the value, max value and one other (not at my DAW, so I don't recall the name) of the first four parameters, but we cannot check/uncheck the box that makes the parameter active.

Situation: I have a modulator used as an LFO controlling one of four destinations. I would like to be able to select the destination via a multiparameter. I have a workaround (ahem ... as yet untested ) but it uses up hidden MPs (two per destination) and it probably wastes a few cycles to boot.

[MeldaProduction]

Ok, so, now stage 1 our of 5 of the restructuralization finished . It's going slow... But this was probably the most complex one. So I can already say that we could theoretically add things like Invert etc. but I'm worried about the memory consumption and loading times. Each parameter requires about 1kB of memory. That may not seem much, but if you take 100 multiparameters & modulators, each of them 16 parameters available for modulation, that makes 200 * 16 kB = 3MB just for the parameters themselves. So I need to somehow find some optimum balance... So what's the current situation and potential FRs?

[dmbaer]

So what's the current situation and potential FRs?

I don't understand the question. Were you asking me, asking the any of the forumites who might be following this thread?

When I get time (next issue of SoundBytes Magazine goes live mid-January, so it will be after that), my TurboDelay preset is close enough to completion that I can send it to you in a near-final state (still subject to the modulator bug I recently posted). If you take a look, you might immediately understand what I've been trying to accomplish and why I have been asking for these extensions. I can live without any of these requested enhancements, but the preset would be more fully-featured if I could add some mojo to the LFO-like features I've set up.

P.S. Welcome back and Happy Holidays to you.

[MeldaProduction]

I was actually mainly asking you. But anyways, I believe it will be possible to add some parameters available for modulation, so we can work on that. But well, after the restructuralization .

[dmbaer]

I was actually mainly asking you. But anyways, I believe it will be possible to add some parameters available for modulation, so we can work on that. But well, after the restructuralization .

OK, thanks for the consideration. See my response in the Modest Proposal for Restructuralization thread. Maybe it will help you to prioritize. I *love* the solution you came up with, by the way.