Feature Requests

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #160 on: June 29, 2018, 11:41:49 PM »
I want a Layer A/B Mix setting in the Misc Params, that would default to 50, equal amounts of both, so that there is more control over the volume of Stacks and Splits, with 0 all Layer A, 99 all Layer B.

Oh, maybe you can just do that using the Amp Envelope Amount.

You can set their individual levels already. But like you idea better.

Djinn

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #161 on: June 29, 2018, 11:49:02 PM »
Sorry i Havnt read the thread in full so dont know if this has already been mention but i would like to see higher filter resolution to improve the stepping

LoboLives

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #162 on: June 30, 2018, 12:10:33 AM »
I know that a Beat Sync feature is set to be added to the REV2, OB6 And P6 But I wonder what the ETA would be for that. I also wonder if it will be a complete and final OS update with some simple features like transposing the sequencer without holding down Record or sequencer’s root note determined by the actual note you press not the key interval. Perhaps on the OB6 and P6 the ability to turn oscillator note quantization on and off in Global settings.

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #163 on: June 30, 2018, 09:29:30 AM »
I want a Layer A/B Mix setting in the Misc Params, that would default to 50, equal amounts of both, so that there is more control over the volume of Stacks and Splits, with 0 all Layer A, 99 all Layer B.

Oh, maybe you can just do that using the Amp Envelope Amount.

You can set their individual levels already. But like you idea better.
Yep each Layer has its own Program Level under Misc Param. Good enough for me.

Djinn

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #164 on: July 01, 2018, 05:47:25 AM »
Imdividual osc volumes would be great for reigning in those wild volume fluctuations and horrible clipping peaks

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #165 on: July 02, 2018, 10:00:13 AM »
Djinn-

Individual osc levels are not possible without redesigning the hardware. The IC responsible for the oscillators has osc mix only. It would either require a new IC design or to use twice as many ICs to achieve this feature, and then you'd be wasting an extra filter and VCA per voice. Not to mention using another 8 - 16 ICs would add quite a lot to the build cost for that one feature.

Regarding the filter stepping, it's implemented that way so you can tune the filter in semitones. If you want a smoother response you can turn the knob faster or assign the filter to a modulator that has much higher resolution, either an LFO or the mod wheel.
SEQUENTIAL | OBERHEIM

Djinn

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #166 on: July 02, 2018, 10:12:42 AM »
Hi robot heart
Thankyou for taking the time to explain those points so clearly.
I will definitely try the mod wheel for filter later on tonight
Thanks
« Last Edit: July 02, 2018, 10:14:58 AM by Djinn »

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2168
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #167 on: July 02, 2018, 11:59:06 AM »
This is a common thing with many synths... I bet it has to do with MIDI CCs (Modwheel in this case) being only 7 bits wide, allowing only 128 discrete steps... I know that the original MIDI specification had two CC's for many standard CCs so that you could do 14bit CC resolution, but for some reason most manufacturers obviously used only a single CC for sending out (and receiving) Modwheel data thru MIDI, sealing the "standard" as 7bit for the Modwheel using MIDI... if a keyboard would begin sending two CC's for Modwheel data to get a higher resolution, it would probably make other connected devices (via MIDI) behave strangely since the second CC might be used for other stuff in the attached device, ruining compatibility... it's just one of those signs that the MIDI specification is more than 40 years old.

It would be cool though, if manufacturers began making support for using CCs in 14bit ... it could simply be a global switch to turn on 14bit mode... the global switch could also simply let any movement of the Modwheel send out NRPNs instead which are also 14bit... that would fix the problem with the Modwheel resolution at least...
If you need me, follow the shadows...

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2168
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #168 on: July 02, 2018, 12:02:41 PM »
Djinn-

Individual osc levels are not possible without redesigning the hardware. The IC responsible for the oscillators has osc mix only. It would either require a new IC design or to use twice as many ICs to achieve this feature, and then you'd be wasting an extra filter and VCA per voice. Not to mention using another 8 - 16 ICs would add quite a lot to the build cost for that one feature.

Regarding the filter stepping, it's implemented that way so you can tune the filter in semitones. If you want a smoother response you can turn the knob faster or assign the filter to a modulator that has much higher resolution, either an LFO or the mod wheel.

Why would it help assigning it to the Modwheel, if you also want to record the Modwheel's movement via MIDI? ... MIDI would only truncate the higher resolution down to 7 bit, making MIDI playback step as usual...
If you need me, follow the shadows...

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #169 on: July 02, 2018, 02:56:05 PM »
The mod wheel runs through the mod matrix, which has higher resolution processing than the pot.
SEQUENTIAL | OBERHEIM

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2168
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #170 on: July 02, 2018, 03:32:46 PM »
The mod wheel runs through the mod matrix, which has higher resolution processing than the pot.

Sure... but still, how would you automate the modwheel's and mod matrix's high resolution from a DAW, when the REV2 is only sending 7bit CCs to the DAW when moving the modwheel? ... for people using the REV2 live, it'll work fine, but anyone wanting to record the movements via MIDI will suffer the 7bit quantization... this is not only DSI instruments that does this...
If you need me, follow the shadows...

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #171 on: July 02, 2018, 03:56:23 PM »
Through the mod matrix you have control of the curve, essentially. Since you can assign larger or smaller amounts of modulation, DC offset, and/or stack mod slots it's not a one-to-one comparison when using the mod matrix to control a parameter vs the parameter's dedicated pot.
SEQUENTIAL | OBERHEIM

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2168
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #172 on: July 02, 2018, 04:03:54 PM »
Through the mod matrix you have control of the curve, essentially. Since you can assign larger or smaller amounts of modulation, DC offset, and/or stack mod slots it's not a one-to-one comparison when using the mod matrix to control a parameter vs the parameter's dedicated pot.

Lets say that in the Modmatrix you assign Modwheel to Filter cutoff directly... when you move the modwheel, I understand that the wheel has a greater than 127 steps (higher resolution) that makes the movement smooth without steps... but the MIDi CC (CC#1) sent out of the REV2 is 7bit... when the DAW is then sending this recorded movement back to the REV2, how will the playback then have more than 128 steps? ... do you use some kind of interpolation of the incoming CC values to sort of "reconstruct" the missing resolution?
If you need me, follow the shadows...

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #173 on: July 02, 2018, 04:39:41 PM »
Correct, there are only 128 steps via MIDI CC; we don't interpolate the incoming CC values to reconstruct the missing resolution. But if you've manipulated the target parameter in the mod matrix using the ideas I previously mentioned you'd still be able to get a different result than the standard 0 - 127 values from controlling it directly.
SEQUENTIAL | OBERHEIM

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2168
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #174 on: July 03, 2018, 12:26:21 AM »
Correct, there are only 128 steps via MIDI CC; we don't interpolate the incoming CC values to reconstruct the missing resolution. But if you've manipulated the target parameter in the mod matrix using the ideas I previously mentioned you'd still be able to get a different result than the standard 0 - 127 values from controlling it directly.

As far as I know, the MIDI specification was made with 14bit CCs in mind, but no manufacturers seem to implement it... I have only seen MOOG include the option to switch 14bit CCs on... MIDI specification has 14bit for modwheel using CCS 1 and 33... Many CCs in the first 32 range has an msb if you add the value 32 to it... It could also be done if the modwheel would send NRPNs instead...


If you need me, follow the shadows...

Djinn

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #175 on: July 03, 2018, 03:47:11 AM »
Im not that technically minded but im pretty sure novation uses two cc s
To provide higher resolution i honestly would prefer it on the actual filter pot itself.
Just saying

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2168
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #176 on: July 03, 2018, 04:26:33 AM »
Im not that technically minded but im pretty sure novation uses two cc s
To provide higher resolution i honestly would prefer it on the actual filter pot itself.
Just saying

The question is then, how big a resolution the pots have... that depend on the DAC which is probably some internal ADCs on either a microcontroller or the CPU... DSI have been using Microchip PICs earlier on, and I know that many of these are max 10bit resolution, so even if it's better than the 128 steps, 10bit "only" allow for 1024 discrete steps.

I'm not so sure though, that I'd want a greater resolution on the Cutoff knob because it's actually rather convenient that it's set in semitone steps... i use the self resonating filter for A LOT of presets, where the playability of the filter chromatically is important... it would take too long time to set the cutoff right if the resolution is bigger...

and also, the greater the resolution, the less movement it takes to change the values... you'd practically end up with a knob that might change values on it's own because the miniscule steps may change with small vibrations, where it will stand switching between two adjacent values constantly... setting precise values will become a nightmare with a 1024 resolution.

Besides, the MIDI SysEx dump is already set up for a value from 0 to 164 for the cutoff... it uses a single byte for this value, if you were to change the knobs resolution, you'd have to change the SysEx dump format as well, and make additional code to figure out which version of the dump it's receiving, otherwise it would not be backwards compatible with earlier formats.

So maybe if it is not obvious, it would require quite a few changes to create this feature... so I would not put my hopes up for it :)
« Last Edit: July 03, 2018, 04:34:07 AM by Razmo »
If you need me, follow the shadows...

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2168
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #177 on: July 03, 2018, 05:05:09 AM »
I have a few feature requests that I've come up with during my latest sound design adventure:

1. Bit Reduction FX (parameter1: bit depth, parameter2: sample rate)
2. Band Pass Filter FX (parameter1: frequency, parameter2: resonance)
3. Some sort of porting of the Prophet X's longer reverbs if possible
4. Static versions of the Phaser & Flanger, where the rate parameter and integrated LFO is replaced with a static value you can modulate from the modmatrix instead.
5. A slew parameter for the LFOs.
6. Bipolar versions of the sawtooth and square LFO waveforms.
7. at least two configurable MIDI CC#s added to the modmatrix sources for external MIDI control (CC#s set in global menu).
8. Formant filter FXs

...and basically any other added FX would be welcome, as the FX section is one of the things that really sets the REV2 apart from the Prophet 8... any FX that would mangle the sound would be welcome.
If you need me, follow the shadows...

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #178 on: July 03, 2018, 10:28:51 AM »
We don't have enough DSP horsepower remaining to add additional FX to the Prophet Rev2.
SEQUENTIAL

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2168
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #179 on: July 03, 2018, 12:31:47 PM »
We don't have enough DSP horsepower remaining to add additional FX to the Prophet Rev2.

I thought that it was a matter of codespace... how can it be a matter of horsepower when you simply change the algorithm!? ... it's not like all FX are running at the same time ?
If you need me, follow the shadows...