The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
The Korg Logue User Oscillator Programming Thread
Old 19 hours ago
  #271
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyWriter View Post
Yes. I copied what I considered de-facto nomenclature to describe the implied behavior of it all in logue's context. If you used Roll-log's Scan, Fume, or Syng, then you would recognized their 'cheat sheet' style. It's a common multiplexor scheme for logic designers.
I''m not familiar with any of those. I've found the manual, but I'm still not clear what I'd do to change any of those parameters:

https://rolllogsounds.com/manual/

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyWriter View Post
Who's got the assembly code effort? :0)
To do what, sorry? Do you mean STM32 assembly code for the digital oscillator instead of using C/C++?

None of this is making much sense to me, at the moment. I should probably just go to bed Eventually, I'll catch up on reading and maybe I'll understand the conversation a bit better.
Old 18 hours ago
  #272
Lives for gear
 
SkyWriter's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyHornBlower View Post
I''m not familiar with any of those. I've found the manual, but I'm still not clear what I'd do to change any of those parameters:

https://rolllogsounds.com/manual/

To do what, sorry? Do you mean STM32 assembly code for the digital oscillator instead of using C/C++?

None of this is making much sense to me, at the moment. I should probably just go to bed Eventually, I'll catch up on reading and maybe I'll understand the conversation a bit better.
Sorry Andy, it works basically like this:
- set ME1 - index - to the menu configuration you want
- now, the remaining input controls are then defined to have different meanings depending on how they're defined inside the code (for that index value selected in ME1).
- each value of index will reconfigure them differently. (The rows of the doc)
- for each configuration, only the selected modulators will be available to modulate specific targets.
- the remaining control are then defined to control those modulators.
- it's like each index value describes an entire matrix modulation configuration.
- you just plug in the values
- unfortunately, the labels on the LCD screen can only have one value
- so, by convention we say "ME1, ME2, ... ME5, ME6" as generic labels (or columns in the docs)
- it's an enumerated system.
This specific set is for 120 different (permutations) of a modulation matrix containing those modulators I mentioned above, targeting three inputs to the oscillator model.

Yes, someone mentioned ASM code. I'm either bumping into a resource problem implementing log/exp envelopes, or I'm showing my naiveté in DSP mechanics - it's always something new.
Old 7 hours ago
  #273
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyWriter View Post
Yeah, been thinking about that, it is, and it isn't. It's a usability* thing to experiment with. I kept going back and forth on it. But here's the rational; The Attack goes from input bias (whatever you have the static control for that input set to) to +/- intensity, then to bias again. Decay, goes from +/- intensity to bias. If I add a hook to hang the attack at the top, then they're both technically Ramp's I guess, but still opposite start and end points.
I think you should hang the attack at the top, it will be weird that when you release the note the envelope go to 0 abruptly...
And I understand the difference of the start point, it will be more intuitive to have both (attack EG and decay EG), but if having just only one simplifies things or left space for other modulation is not a big problem to have to set it having in account the starting point of the envelope.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyWriter View Post
But the real difference was when attack was log and decay was exp. So, at this point, it's kind of vague. Work in progress :-)
Actually log is the same as inverted exp, so a log attack is the same as an inverted exp decay...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyWriter View Post
I could make them both attacks with the hang? Call them RTZ Ramp's.
I think it will be more intuitive to do both Decay (as is most common) and just let imply that the inverted will hang the value...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyWriter View Post
I've been playing a lot with the EG * LFO options, really cool sounds when you use a Ramp of Sqr LFO with an EG, even FAST is somewhat useful in the low-mid range with a long attack to give it a delay growl. I keep spending hours playing and voicing instead of coding - and that's the danger of functional prototypes - they become 'good enough' to distract you quickly. I've been really working mM3_add lately. You can get those plucky mid-resonance tones without chopping the entire top end off, going either into, or in parallel with the analog side with an opposite, or longer filter contour, to get two dynamic filters active per voice. It's just so much difference to play with now. Can't wait to get KT's in there with LFO and EG.
I didn't have the time this week to play much with my Prologue, but in the very little time I spent using M3, I do a some fantastic sounds.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyWriter View Post
I love KT's, they can make sound into an instrument.

*-I like to think of center points and offsets. Although, they may map into the same space equally, one starts and ends in order, the other you do backwards. The other thing is thinking always in terms of programming left to right. If you always have to set the second one first then adjust with the first one, you're going to bang the button a lot. However, if you can program in the same order, it goes faster.

For instance:
Rate then Intensity. That's backwards. It should be Intensity, then Rate. You want every button push to bring you closer to not pushing the button again. If I have Rate then Intensity, I'm always going to do this;
1. blindly crank a rate up from zero,
2. set an expected Intensity, and discover what the Rate is
3. Bang on around back to Rate.
4. Set the Rate to what I really wanted.
5. Now set the Intensity where I expect it to be.
Instead it should be:
1. Set the Intensity to where I want the limits to be. Done.
2. Set the Rate appropriate for the Rate. Done
3. On to next setting
So, plenty of things to think about still.
Yeah, I agree about the workflow, the problem is that it will mix all the parameters a lot...
Old 4 hours ago
  #274
Lives for gear
 
SkyWriter's Avatar
Ok, Sebo, I get your logic, when I have to start pruning I'll know where to go :-)

But you don't want a sound that goes wwwWWWHHOOOOP!? :-) I love it!

Here's the way I'm looking at it:
- what is the fewest number of parameters necessary to implement KT, LFO, and EG's.
- how many unique ways can maximally pack available command space.
- for each set of maximally packed modulations, what combinations of modulators with each other are possible.
- for each possible combination, what set of operators are available to combine with.
- for each resulting modulator combinations, how can they mapped onto model inputs.
- finally, for each mapping of modulators onto target, permute all available model inputs.
All fit into less than 127 unique instances.
Once I get all that, I look to see if I missed something, or duplicated something. If not, then it's good to go. If I built these models from the ground up to have a specific look and sound, it would be different. But these models are built to explore literally a 3D sonic space (4D if you consider aux output of the 4OP models), and the modulation generators are meant to guide the user through it an an interesting way satisfy their needs.

I've been plugging away on M3 sounds too. They make amazing sounds all by themselves, the EG's really make them pop*. And when I bolster the sound with the analog VCO's, sculpting, and effects, It's altogether beautiful. I haven't felt the need to use a layer since I start playing with M3. There would be so much going on with two of these models, my head would explode if I did!

*-mM3_add is the real winner here. As a static model it's pretty flat. But once you start pushing those bumps and shaping around really surprising stuff happens. Up until now, having a polyphonic version of this stuff was very rare, and only a couple of notes. 16 voices? WOW.

Quote:
Yeah, I agree about the workflow, the problem is that it will mix all the parameters a lot...
If the controls are still grouped together per modulator, it shouldn't matter too much. I'll whip up a demo sheet, take a look tomorrow and see. :-)
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump