2 posts were split to a new topic: Off topic
NUDGE question.
When NUDGE is set to 23/-23, does that fully nudge it into the next step? Or is it slightly off?
I’ve been using NUDGE with the FILL condition. I’m probably imagining it, but it sounds like the step is slightly off.
If it doesn’t fully move it to the next step, it should. That would let you have some interesting possibilities with trig conditions. And if there’s a conflict, and two or three steps evaluate to true, it should be the left-most step that triggers.
Sorry if that turned into a feature request.
Nope
With TRCs this could be powerful for a few use cases, but it’s probably restricted to avoid the confusion of overlapping neighbouring quantized trigs and a few other conceptual headaches. Would be nice if doable
2 Likes
That microtiming picture definitely clears it up, thanks.
Yeah, that’s fine for most uses, but at slower tempos, it sounds very slightly off. There are tricks to get around this, but it’d be nice to have at the same exact step.
But yeah, it would be tricky to handle the midi for that. On the unit itself though, you just do a priority selection with the left-most or right-most step getting the most priority. Doesn’t have to be more complicated than that.
5 Likes
How about envelope macros? First half of values are instant attack with progressively longer decay, second half are introducing attack with both progressively longer attack and decay. 127 types of “preset” envelopes might be a good compromise?
5 Likes
interesting approach - but if you ctrl all your decays and suddenly get attack happening it would be potentially undesired - i think having variations of machine types could be an option with no backwards compatibility issues - so add a ToneAttack m/c or a ChordA m/c with sensible ‘presets’ as discussed above, so that you have the option to keep attack(or lack of) where it is desired
4 Likes
The dual LP/HP filter on the M:S potentially has the same issue but I think it’s just part of the experimental nature of control all. I could live with it!
3 Likes
Yeah maybe but as @tallrobphilp says experimental could be fun, plus if it gets too out of hand hit reload.
Another idea might be to limit on a per pattern basis which track/params ignore ctrl-all.
2 Likes
A “slow” switch in the TRK menu maybe? Switching it on makes the envelope symmetrical, with equal time for attack and decay.
I replied in the same thread, to me just 2 or 3 settings DFAM like via menu (FAST/MEDIUM/SLOW, which could be shared with the LFO Menu) would be the easiest and maybe less DSP resource intensive. Could also be p-locked like all other LFO parameters.
In DFAM there is just two settings and that already makes a big difference sound design wise…
1 Like
For some reason the attack conversation has been brought over into this thread, when all I was doing was linking the post with the workshop recording link for @Anfim
Use THAT thread for that conversation.
Let’s all collectively get back to the intent of this thread, Q&A for Ess, and limit our own break off conversations.
The forum software hasn’t been cooperative lately with regard to moving posts into other more appropriate threads, so us mods need the help of everyone in this thread to keep it tidy.
Thanks!
5 Likes
Hope I didn’t miss this question… @Ess, Considering that via the side port you can power the M:C with 5v USB, why can’t it be powered via the actual USB port? Would save cables when plugged into say an iPad that’s using the CCK with power charging.
As it is now, there’s like 3 mutually explusive ports… Main power, side battery power, and a USB port… Seems odd.
Probably due to ground loop noise, see OP-Z/OP-1 sharing data and power over USB. Keeping them isolated from each other means no background whine when plugged in.
4 Likes
@Ess I have a question regarding how lfos are implemented inside M:C, are they part of the machines or part of the track/sequencer?
I ask this to see if (at least theoretically, not as a feature request which I already made 
) LFOs from one track could be sent to other tracks; maybe very difficult to implement if they are part of the machines but maybe not so difficult if LFOs are part of the sequencer/tracks. I have no idea about coding so I am just asking.
In the studio I am using it as a two part monophonic synth with individual outputs (dry, no reverb or delay), that way is easier to multitrack from it, at least for me.
Right now I am using a tone machine as a drone machine with lfos sent from ableton (great fun) and I wonder if something like that could be accomplished within M:C, two part/2 outs drone machine with 3 lfos each.
As I said I can easily accomplish this in the studio but for live performances it could be a nice feature to have…
Thanks
Excellent point! I returned the Uno because of the horrible usb buzz/hum.