More analog: Spectralis or Q+ ?

[JoergSchaaf]

 

Originally posted by droolmaster0 (sigh of relief)....yeah, I was confused initially about how those components worked together, but then I got it. It's pretty slick. Perhaps I mean 'sick'. Hey - Joerg - don't know if you're coming back here - but (I forget) - when do you plan to add midi controllers to the midi output? That's the one thing currently that currently inclines me away from using the Spectralis to control other gear. Controllers with envelopes....now that would be cool...

 

The sequence lines are already capable of sending MIDI controllers - but sending envelopes as well via MIDI controllers is not really usable. Just imagine one sending 10 of these lines - all with envelopes. The results would not be so good. The MIDI interface is not the perfect interface for something like that. That is the main reason, why a step sequencer should be part of the synth engine. Internally we can update the parameters with full sampling rate. Then, step sequencer envelope macros make really sense.

 

Also - do you plan to add probabilities to other events?

 

I thought, the normal random function should be good enough for parameter lines. With the current parameterset for note and parameter sequencer lines, we have a dataformat with the same number of parameters for both kind of lines. Probability=Envelope type, Gate-time=envelope length and velocity=envelope depth. If we would add probability to parameter lines, we would have to add one parameter for every parameterline. That sounds not so much but in real this are a maximum of 192x32 additional Bytes (192 Steps x 32 Lines). I don't want to add more and more with every update because I always here

 

Well, I'll get to asking this on the Spectralis forum. Oh - if the original question was at all oriented towards 'which should I buy', I think that Joerg provided the perfect solution - get the Spectralis and the Q minus (unless you can afford the Q+). My Q32 (in the ultra acoustically efficient blue) should be arriving in the next few days. I'm thinking that the Q into the speckie's filters will be fun.

 

 

;-)

[syncretism]

The trig groups sound great - I'm well into the Monomachine's implementation of that idea, and I'm stoked to see it in use elsewhere.

[droolmaster0]

Originally posted by JoergSchaaf I thought, the normal random function should be good enough for parameter lines. With the current parameterset for note and parameter sequencer lines, we have a dataformat with the same number of parameters for both kind of lines. Probability=Envelope type, Gate-time=envelope length and velocity=envelope depth. If we would add probability to parameter lines, we would have to add one parameter for every parameterline. That sounds not so much but in real this are a maximum of 192x32 additional Bytes (192 Steps x 32 Lines). I don't want to add more and more with every update because I always here

 

hmmm - i'm not sure how the random function gets you there - that just changes the whole sequence, rather than setting probability per event.

 

Sounds like the solution is to create a probability event type, with the destination being another track this way you'd devote a track to setting probabilities for another track. Other kinds of meta control would be, of course, very nice also.