-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Group/Zone/Wave proposal #107
Comments
I very much like the idea of having the hierarchy support round robin waves on a single key. Having an multi-wave 'zone' which was otherwise treated as a single thing for other routing seems smart. But I'm not a sampler expert. I agree that most folks seem to think the SC1 model was better than the SC2 one though! |
This is similar to UVI Falcon, in that one zone can contain multiple oscillators/samples. However, they share all the zone processing (envelopes/LFOs/FX...), for obvious reasons of efficiency. I suggest we follow that method too. Let zone be the lowest level at which processors are added. Then waves would just be alternated as per triggering rules. SC2 actually never really implemented groups properly. There are layers A-H, but they are introduced with a different purpose (to do velocity crossfades and also have two trigger conditions). I think anything we do should support both SC1 and SC2 ways of things, if we want to ensure patch compatibility. If not, I guess blow it to smithereens then. But do we really want to piss off old users who likely have a bunch of SC files laying around? I think not. The main problem here is, I can't see how we could merge SC1 groups with SC2 layers. They're quite different in their intention. |
I think this could work. Just would need to establish the "upgrade pathway" for existing patches to map to the proposed hierarchy. |
Let's consider this: in SC2, you can overlap zones within a single layer. You can also do velocity splits/crossfades. And then you have layers A-H which can do exactly the same thing, except it's between multiple sets of zones. And there are two additional rules for triggering those layers (Layer Ranges on Part tab). This just seems completely redundant (apart from the layer ranges thing)... So let me try to put some sense into this all. Maybe this is what we could do:
To elaborate... Vel Split/Xfade gives you these options to split/xfade between nothing, or between A-B up to A-H (takes all the in-between layers into account, so you can have an 8-way xfade, say). Instead of this, in SCXT we would "create a new pool", then pick which groups we want to have as a part of that pool, and then we get these options for splitting/xfading, equal gain or equal power, and distribution skew. This to me seems like the only legit way to ensure support for both SC1 and SC2. Obviously, we will have to reinstate SC1's group editing: This allows us to either completely override, or offset the parameters for all zones in a particular group (offset works no matter which effect is loaded into whichever zone, IIRC, which can create some really weird results!). Group LFO is also important, this is our "one thing for all the voices" thing. We should also definitely increase the number of LFOs, and filter/FX slots, too. |
We know that SC1 was popular. How popular was SC2? To me it seemed hardly usable (in that it seemed to have some serious bugs, not from a usability standpoint). I'm only asking because I am wondering how critical it is to support upgrading SC2 patches to SCXT. |
My read - albeit somewhat uninformed - is there’s some sc1 devotees out there but if SC2 is harder to move or remaps incompletely that would be ok - it’s not like surge 15 with thousands of patches |
I think it would be nice to support SC2 patches too. It's pretty obvious Claes was evolving it into something bigger, but it's incomplete. We can make it complete, while retaining all the great things about SC1, I think. |
Yeah, but the point is, will there really be SC2 patches out in the wild, given that there were never really any SC2 users. I get that we should support features that are in (or were destined to be in) SC2, but if we have to jump through hoops to support a patch file format that was never really used (or maybe used by a small handful of people), then I think our time is better spent on making sure the SC1 patch format can load (as there are arguably a lot more sc1 users). |
Are you sure there never really were any SC2 users? I'd still not want to dismiss them. From what I noticed there was actually a solid number of people who combined SC1 and SC2 based on what they wanted to do... |
My take is:
Supporting upgrade pathways for both can easily be segmented as required, whichever applies. |
SC2 always remained on Beta stage. Last one was a 0.6.x, wasn't that? _
_ |
We have honed in on this (multi > part > group > zone > sample and variations) , so closing. |
I'd like to offer a proposal for how we organize the hierarchy of objects. Hopefully this will start a discussion, as I know there are many good ideas that other people have. This does not have to do with how we map effects or do audio routing across these levels. This is more just for how things could hypothetically be organized and triggered. In SC1, there were groups and zones. Each zone could contain a wave (sample). In addition, each wave could be chopped so that different parts of it play depending on key.
In SC2, it seems like this was altered a bit. Anyway I think we can agree that the SC1 layout was preferable.
I'd like to propose that we have not 2 but 3 levels: group, zone and wave.
So triggering for waves in a zone is where it could get interesting. We could have the following modes:
Anyway, just an idea
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: