- This topic is empty.
January 26, 2012 at 1:41 am #108360brockParticipant
Not really 'feature requests" here, but more along the lines of "it'd-be-nice-to-have". I didn't include any of the topics currently being discussed here about version 3.0.0. Just some thoughts from one avid user. Feel free to add to or tweak this (as I'm certain that I will).
Diatonic / Quadravox
With all of the complex processing going on here, I can understand the 1480 ms. Delay limits. Still, it'd be nice to see that expanded to the full 2000 ms./ whole note (like the recent update to MicroPitch).
Added scales are always going to be a hot topic. I'd guess that pentatonic minor would be the most requested. Occasionally, I return to Chromatic as a possible way to create "user-defined" scales. But without some serious reprogramming, and a Quantize or "capture window" variable, it wouldn't be much different from the current parallel / static harmony algorithms.
I'd like to see some values between +/- 30 cents and m2. in Depth; even if it were only 50 cents, and perhaps 75 cents. I think that we're missing out on some nice "vibrato to deep vibrato" modulations that could be covered with a relatively simple change.
The envelope source. I seem to fluctuate between enjoying the "threshold-type" triggering of the EG (especially at lower Sensitivities), and looking for some kind of decay value. Can't complain with the PitchFlex algorithm available with a twist of the encoder.
Some way to latch the Flex at the doubled pitch shift values. However, this is something that can be easily accomplished using a "non-standard" aux switch. I don't use the filter much myself, but others might, so no sense in messing with that.
Again, latching or reversing polarity on REPEAT is a creative performance technique, and also something that can be accomplished painlessly with external switching.
As for the length of the REPEAT buffer … I do get the whole 949 emulation idea. To me, it sounds more like 200 ms. than the reported 400 ms. buffer in the 949. (I really should just measure that myself in SoundForge.)Show More...Show Less...
I believe it'd be useful to adapt that feature when TEMPO=ON. Perhaps it could shift to the nearest tempo division increment that's still 200 ms. or under. That way, REPEAT could still be played 200 ms. against X ms.(TEMPO=OFF), or sync'ed at some fraction of the current BPM.
Why not take that UNUSED Flex footswitch and put it to work? Say, halving or doubling the current Depth or Sens of the filter sweep. Sure, that can be set up via aux switch, but why not "ITB"?
The available pitch/cents values arbitraily jump from point to point, but I get what the programming intent was there. Some values filled in greater than the +/- 10 ms. variation around perfect intervals might be useful. The minimum buffer size could be smaller for some useful effects.
I'd be happy with completely understanding the routing as the Pitch Mix is moved from Pitch A to Pitch B. The far extremes of the knob are predictable. The intermediate settings have some weidness going on (in a good way). I get the impression that I'm hearing different segments of what's currently residing in memory.
I've mentioned some problems and anomalies I've had with this algorithm elsewhere. No need to repeat them here. I guess the "biggie" is always going to be programmable "user" patterns. I don't see any way to implement that easily.
The only practical way could be to implement that as a FactorLib feature, and only "programmable" externally. Then, it gets loaded along with the preset in an available USER slot. Not unlike the AdrenaLinn III implementation, where a "user" pattern serves multiple destinations. For the PitchFactor, it'd have to be Pattern A and Pattern B, with each side covering pitch patterns, "grooves", and the effects with a single pattern.
I'd like to see START/CONTINUE supported (received, and transmitted by the FLEX/RESTART switch).
It does what it's designed to do. More waveform variables are always welcome. While I don't use the PF much for its Reverb features, you really can't argue with a ten-second decay time and the potential for special effects.
There really should be a Soft-Thru option among the OUTPUT selections. It really doesn't matter in my own system, but I've read plenty about the problems that omission can cause. I guess it's a balancing act between "user-proofing" and maximum versatility in routing schemes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.