FR:Sampler automation parameters

[pljones]

Presumably to make it clear they don't work the same way as the loop points in the sample player, where playback starts at the start ("0" here), passes through a loop point, then loops between loop points based on loop mode and triggers. It's much simpler in the grain player - you only get "from" and "to" offsets from start and nothing else forms the grain's waveform. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granular_synthesis The idea is you layer grains and then subtly alter their properties to get interesting interactions. With a multi-layered sample you're not expected to adjust the properties of the sample layer once it's created, generally, except in as much as its preset responses to triggers affect gross playback features (like layer selection, volume or pitch). With granular synthesis, you've usually got far more responsive control of pretty much anything about what gets emitted by the grain cloud.

Like I say, I've not really played with the MuLab grain player - this is just based on the theory reading I've done.

[sl23]

With a multi-layered sample you're not expected to adjust the properties of the sample layer once it's created,

But... why not? Just cos it's the norm, doesn't mean everything has to abide by it.
Personally, I would prefer the simplicity of being able to automate the Start, Loop, End points of the sample player. Grain player makes no sense to me. I get your explanation, but the experience I get from it is nothing like what you are saying. I often get zero change in sound when adjusting those parameters!!

I'll just have to find a vst that works that way instead. I'm sure there must be one that can automate the markers on a sample.

[4u610h346]

I'm not sure "why not?". But I have tons of theories.

I do know I hear effects in professional audio, that can only be done that way. I do it all the time. You can use a music based language (maybe csound or cmajor) and design the effect.

Most "all" available granular/glitch/scratch/scrub/etc plugins or tools are flawed in some heart breaking way. Not enough (or too much) sensitivity, bad algorithms, small sample size, lack of options, or a predetermined style designed in. But! Many people don't want to deal with all the pickiness it takes to make it sound nice. So.... is seems things are designed to present a fabulous effect, with less effort.

I'd really rather have a Transport module that itself can be completely automated, from the main transport (or a parent transport module). You could set your base BPM, then sinc playrate to that (option does not already exist). Then you could automate BPM for playrate changes and below 0 BPM reverses playrate (a reverse toggle might be better, instead of below 0 BPM). You would need high min/max BPM or a multiply by factor option. Then you would have the audio sample sequencer track at your disposal, with control of the track loop points (also enable/disable and ping-pong). Ideally, you could jump the playback position to any point you wanted, at any time. Having the individual sample pitch/stretch as automation options would also be a plus.

It would almost be like automating out the controls of an audio editor.

I'd probably even make use of the midi tracks, with an option like that (even reverse BPM or toggle). It could be a different way of controlling sequencer patterns.

But something like that is riddled with "bumps in the road". You would have to rework freezing/bouncing, as just one "small" example. It would also confuse the heck out of some people.

Mulab is close, as it already has multiple composer capacity and each can has their own tempo track.

I would settle for a good sampler, that could do good with some of the simple stuff. The rest can be managed manually. Knowing "myself" how to code, I can see some headaches; but I'm not a very experience programmer. I like C/ASM/Pascal. LOL, I don't cut it in the real would. OOP makes me sad