Synchronous - Grid can't be changed? Really now?

[RobC]

Please, tell me that I just simply was unlucky when searching for info...
I mean, why would it be a problem to set the grid from 16th notes to triplets for example? Surely there must be some way... Because as-is, (it seems) there are some things that can't be achieved with it. Isn't it supposed to be like a sequencer for modulation?

[Pinkbox]

I don't think you can change the grid itself, but you can set the rate of the curve on 1/8T and 1/16T.
One thing you can do if you want to "see" the grid on triplets is to draw a 1/8T square curve with the first curve (let's say the yellow one), switch to the violet or the blue and play with the "dim" knob, so you'll see the /T (yellow) curve on top of everything.

[RobC]

Thank you for the idea!
Problem is, that the curves we draw, are snapped and fill up 1/16, no matter what. I mean, okay, modulation device, but still.
I even tried quantization with other CV devices, but sadly, I didn't find any shuffling option - but that wouldn't solve sequencing possibilities anyway.

Automation in Reason's sequencer isn't bad, but as I discussed on this forum earlier, the detail isn't smooth when using on-board modifiers - even a pitch bend goes to just 16384 values - what is that compared to true CV values that are supposed to be 32 bit... Hence I had hope for a bit more flexibility in Synchronous.

[WongoTheSane]

Automation in Reason's sequencer isn't bad, but as I discussed on this forum earlier, the detail isn't smooth when using on-board modifiers - even a pitch bend goes to just 16384 values - what is that compared to true CV values that are supposed to be 32 bit... Hence I had hope for a bit more flexibility in Synchronous.

Pitch Bend is determined by the MIDI protocol, so there's not much that can be done about that; and CV values aren't 32 bits, but floats (i.e. even better). You can check this by using CVA-7, a free Pongasoft device (set the switch to "Raw" to get the real values):

https://shop.propellerheads.se/rack-ext ... -analyzer/

You might want to take a look at Lectric Panda's Shape:

https://shop.propellerheads.se/rack-ext ... fo-editor/

It has Quantize and Shuffle options, and while you can't draw in quantized triplets directly, it has a "free hand" mode which allows to draw with a resolution of up to 1/640th of a cycle. Additionally, it has a "Smooth" option which makes full use of the float range. Plus it has hundreds of patches exploiting the mixing of various wave shapes at different rates, for instance a 3-cycle sine added to an 8-cycle square, or a 2-cycle sawtooth multiplied by a 4-cycle decay curve, etc, so it's really easy to find non-binary divisions.

And because it's Lectric Panda, it also has a Random feature

[RobC]

In another topic, I found out that in the sequencer, pitch bend is the only tool that can be automated with 16384 total values, and in Thor, used as a CV generator. Hopefully, my predictions will come true: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7506114 (linking, because I just wrote today what I'm looking for.)

I use that analyzer a lot. One of the best. Don't know how come that one is for free, not that I complain.

The device is not bad, getting closer to the solution, but let me tell you what I want to do:

See, I'd like to give synth sounds a bit more life, so I experimented with automating (for example filter) for every single note. In the sequencer, it's a lot faster, cause I see where the notes are, right above. Since I wanted more smoothness, though, I thought, CV would be much better. The Thor solution is better than 0-127 values, but Synchronous seemed like a solution, if already included in Reason. So, actually, I'd like a simpler solution. The new envelopes, such as in Grain, are getting even closer, but I don't get why it would hurt to let us change the grid and add snapping. It's an OCD nightmare. xD

[WongoTheSane]

See, I'd like to give synth sounds a bit more life, so I experimented with automating (for example filter) for every single note. In the sequencer, it's a lot faster, cause I see where the notes are, right above. Since I wanted more smoothness, though, I thought, CV would be much better. The Thor solution is better than 0-127 values, but Synchronous seemed like a solution, if already included in Reason. So, actually, I'd like a simpler solution. The new envelopes, such as in Grain, are getting even closer, but I don't get why it would hurt to let us change the grid and add snapping. It's an OCD nightmare. xD

I'm still not clear on what you're trying to achieve: is it that you would like to change (for instance) a filter every 1/8T, while avoiding the steps, i.e. sending values all over the 0.0 ... 1.0 range? If it is, do these values have to repeat from one bar to another, or do you want them random?

[RobC]

Neither, actually. xD Shuffling is usually used to create a swing effect, so nothing random.

Here, I'll rather show it with a picture (threw it together much faster than I possibly could in Synchronous - as if):

Example.png (19.79 KiB) Viewed 1471 times

I have some REs that can smoothen CV. What is the chance that they can smoothen such simple shapes perfectly? Cause then I'd just use the CV generator free RE and smoothen it.

Edit: Oh, just look at that ugly 0-127 integer value!

[WongoTheSane]

Neither, actually. xD Shuffling is usually used to create a swing effect, so nothing random.

Here, I'll rather show it with a picture (threw it together much faster than I possibly could in Synchronous - as if):

Example.png

I have some REs that can smoothen CV. What is the chance that they can smoothen such simple shapes perfectly? Cause then I'd just use the CV generator free RE and smoothen it.

Edit: Oh, just look at that ugly 0-127 integer value!

Oh right... But are you sure those steps are within human perception? I mean, it's pretty much like Retina screens: once you're below the resolution of the human eye, whether the pixels are square or not doesn't matter anymore. The only time I had a problem with this, IIRC, was when using CV (one in the 0...127 range) to change a pitch over a 2 octaves range: each step was too large to be smooth. I had to fall back on the mod wheel and the problem disappeared. But for filter openings, I never felt I could ear the stepping, even more in context with other instruments, mixing, etc. If it ever happens, I bet there would be an alternate solution to smoothen it, but it would depend on the particulars of the case.

Another argument would be that CV being 1/64th slower than the audio rate, even if you have a full range resolution, the changes themselves are going to be stepped no matter what, only on non-integer values... It can even be calculated:

- Say you're modulating something over 1/8th at 120 bpm (going from 0 to 127 like in your picture).
- That modulation will happen over a quarter of a second.
- Say your audio rate is 48kHz: your CV rate will be 720 frames per second.
- Your modulation will be represented by 180 discrete CV values.

It's very very close to 128 steps, I'm not sure you'd be able to tell the difference. If you go even tighter (1/16th), the 0...127 range is actually overkill!

But note that Synchronous is quantized horizontally but not vertically. To demonstrate, set the tempo of the sequencer to 1.0, draw a sawtooth in Synchronous and plug the output of Curve 1 to CVA-7 (on the Raw setting): you'll see that it sends real values, with a full resolution, and not 1/128th steps. In the end, it's way more precise than doing this in the sequencer (if the value is stepped in the sequencer, which isn't always the case: Europa isn't for instance, or rather, it's stepped by 0.1Hz as opposed to 1/128th of the full range).

[EdGrip]

Still trying to get my head around this. I'll list some factors - say a filter cutoff for the sake of discussion.

1. The device itself, whether Reason built-in, RE, or VST. - How many values/steps of cutoff frequency change are there in the device? I.e. what's its possible resolution?
- Can I access all of that resolution by rotating the on-screen knob? Or is it one rule for the knob and another for internal modulation?

2. Can I access the full resolution of the parameter using automation from the sequencer? If not, why?

3. CV. As discussed above, CV is quantised in time. On any given device, what is it quantised to in value? Is it quantised at the output, or the input? Will it sound steppy? (only really a problem down at the 128 MIDI values end, but still). If so, can it be smoothed so that 7 steps of CV create a smoother change of parameter?

It's not like any of this is an actual problem really - I just really want to understand the actual mechanics / what the fuck is going on.

[antic604]

Are you guys writing music, or splitting an atom with a hammer and a chisel?
Even if you could hear all that, I'll bet 99.99% of your audience won't.

[Loque]

Are you guys writing music, or splitting an atom with a hammer and a chisel?
Even if you could hear all that, I'll bet 99.99% of your audience won't.

Yea, they might think "wow, that is a cool effect. This is new. I like that. ...". And all other guys with there cool gear think, "damn, how did they do this? How can i do this?"...

[RobC]

Pitch is a good example where it matters. But if higher resolutions can't really be processed, then why the super detailed internal one?

I didn't mean Synchronous' resolution, just the horizontal grid. Like this, the sequencer is quicker for work-flow - and has more possibilities.