Proton Granular Synth!
I was mostly thinking of this as a discussion, and a thought experiment, and clarification. It seems like we are on the same wavelength give or take.
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 1851
- Joined: 14 Sep 2015
- Location: Paris, France
Oh, but you mean when working on normal vocals, right? I was only talking about the cases where you need to remove dynamics as much as possible (and not really care whether it's realistic or not as the sound is going to be mangled anyway). In this context, wouldn't setting Wet to 100% and using Curve to determine how much of the lower sounds will be lifted (acting more or less like a threshold: everything above is maxed out, everything below is silent) make sense?selig wrote:I typically set Curve after Target, choosing how 'far' into the dynamic range I want to lift. Blend is the #1 control for me, the one I use to set the final amount of the effect. In other words, the depth of the effect. I'm constantly fine tuning Blend and to a lesser degree, Recovery. I typically set and forget Target/Curve, since they are set according to the dynamics of the source (and wouldn't change unless the source changed).WongoTheSane wrote:Weird, I would have said: remove Recovery (set to fast by preset), remove Blend (set to wet), keep Curve (it's how I use it usually, except Recovery: default position for normal sound processing, and fast for effect samples, wavetables, etc). Obviously only in the context of Proton, I'm not suggesting that for the device itselfselig wrote:A single knob (two, max) would be easy to do a quick "leveling" effect, two knobs would cover everything. If you assume peaks of 0 dBFS, then you don't need a Target knob. If you assume you want to level the entire dynamic range of most samples, you don't need the Curve knob. That leaves the Recovery (which could also be preset), and primarily the Blend knob. Easy to do something very workable IMO.WongoTheSane wrote:I think you skipped one step. I was answering this:etyrnal wrote:Very often though, samples are already normalized. In other words they've been adjusted so that the peak sample in the wave file is at 0 dB. So leveling is not exactly what we're talking about here. We're talking about adding gain to the entire sample while at the same time limiting.
...I'm talking leveling and you're describing automatic gain control. Those are two different processes. What you describe is certainly easy to implement, but it's not leveling and probably won't give the results you expect. My argument was that implementing a Leveler (with just one knob) in Proton would be probably more difficult than a gain control (it would either require normalizing the sample first or scanning it for the peak, which isn't necessary for compression or gain control), and that using a proper Leveler provides more control at the cost of a few seconds, which I don't consider as "the long long way around".buddard wrote:I like the idea of being able to squash the signal by boosting the quiet parts of the sample, like an extreme one-knob version of Selig Leveler! It turns the sample source into more of a "texture" to work with, basically ignoring the original dynamics.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Blend controls how much you increase the low level signals, from no change to 100% leveling - isn't that what we're talking about here?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I'm just thinking of how to adapt the concept of the Leveler to become a dynamics eliminator. In that case I'd want a depth control to determine how much to bring up the low level signals. The Curve control only determines the RANGE that you lift - it's the Blend that determines how FAR you lift that range. Small Curve settings would not make sense in this application even though they DO make sense with vocals. This is because with vocals you do NOT want to lift the LOWEST signals; the breaths, the background signals, etc.WongoTheSane wrote:Oh, but you mean when working on normal vocals, right? I was only talking about the cases where you need to remove dynamics as much as possible (and not really care whether it's realistic or not as the sound is going to be mangled anyway). In this context, wouldn't setting Wet to 100% and using Curve to determine how much of the lower sounds will be lifted (acting more or less like a threshold: everything above is maxed out, everything below is silent) make sense?selig wrote:I typically set Curve after Target, choosing how 'far' into the dynamic range I want to lift. Blend is the #1 control for me, the one I use to set the final amount of the effect. In other words, the depth of the effect. I'm constantly fine tuning Blend and to a lesser degree, Recovery. I typically set and forget Target/Curve, since they are set according to the dynamics of the source (and wouldn't change unless the source changed).WongoTheSane wrote:Weird, I would have said: remove Recovery (set to fast by preset), remove Blend (set to wet), keep Curve (it's how I use it usually, except Recovery: default position for normal sound processing, and fast for effect samples, wavetables, etc). Obviously only in the context of Proton, I'm not suggesting that for the device itselfselig wrote:A single knob (two, max) would be easy to do a quick "leveling" effect, two knobs would cover everything. If you assume peaks of 0 dBFS, then you don't need a Target knob. If you assume you want to level the entire dynamic range of most samples, you don't need the Curve knob. That leaves the Recovery (which could also be preset), and primarily the Blend knob. Easy to do something very workable IMO.WongoTheSane wrote:I think you skipped one step. I was answering this:etyrnal wrote:Very often though, samples are already normalized. In other words they've been adjusted so that the peak sample in the wave file is at 0 dB. So leveling is not exactly what we're talking about here. We're talking about adding gain to the entire sample while at the same time limiting.
...I'm talking leveling and you're describing automatic gain control. Those are two different processes. What you describe is certainly easy to implement, but it's not leveling and probably won't give the results you expect. My argument was that implementing a Leveler (with just one knob) in Proton would be probably more difficult than a gain control (it would either require normalizing the sample first or scanning it for the peak, which isn't necessary for compression or gain control), and that using a proper Leveler provides more control at the cost of a few seconds, which I don't consider as "the long long way around".buddard wrote:I like the idea of being able to squash the signal by boosting the quiet parts of the sample, like an extreme one-knob version of Selig Leveler! It turns the sample source into more of a "texture" to work with, basically ignoring the original dynamics.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Blend controls how much you increase the low level signals, from no change to 100% leveling - isn't that what we're talking about here?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
But with a sample, you basically want to lift the entire signal - the only question is how much lift? Think of a piano decaying to silence - you want to make the piano basically not decay at all, right? That requires a large Curve setting so that the entire decay can be lifted if desired. From there it's up to the Blend control to determine how MUCH you lift the signals. Hopefully I'm making sense here…
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
That's exactly what I'm saying, not sure where the confusion is coming from here.etyrnal wrote:right, but in Dynamic processors sometimes the producer or the musician wants to achieve certain musical effect based on playing back the sample as is. But we're talking about granular synthesis where we are potentially going to be throwing away those beautiful Dynamics, because we are trying to create something entirely different than what we started with. And if a person doesn't like how much Dynamics it's losing then don't twist the knob up for that particular patch.selig wrote:That's not how any dynamics devices work that I'm aware of, FWIW.etyrnal wrote:Why would recovery time be needed? The calc is based on an individual sample point. For every individual sample point you are basically calculating the difference between the samples current level and 0db. This calculation I'm talking about his pure math. Visually picture a sample waveform in your mind. Now take that image as a JPEG and move it into an image editor in your mind. Now tell the image editor that you want to resize the Image Grab the bottom of the image and move it up towards the top. Eventually if you keep raising it you will get a flatline. All other values in the middle will be calculated as ratio of distance from the top. Of course eventually everything will be a flatline if you keep moving it upwards. Obviously some of the calculations would have to be done using natural functions, but again it's still just a simple mathematical calculation. In the example of resizing a JPEG image of a waveform, which would basically be the same thing for making calculations on an audio waveform except now you have to make a calculations in the negative and positive. So for example if you wanted to raise the lowest level in the sample by 50% of the distance between that samples current level and 0 decibels, then you calculate how much gain is required to increase that samples level by 50% of the distance between itself and 0db. For samples that are louder you do the exact same thing you calculate the difference between that current sample level and zero DB in decibels, and then you raise bye the percentage of that many decibels. Once again if using a natural function makes more sense then of course we would have to do that. But the concept Still Remains. It is literally a simple mathematical calculation. It's a ratio. Call it a fraction if you want.selig wrote:Not following…If so, then what ratio or percent is 200 ms Recovery Time?etyrnal wrote:Musical qualities are ratios... Treating things like percents and ratios gives musical results...selig wrote:Recovery is a "time" constant, so percent make no sense to me in that regard. Saturation doesn't make sense either, at least not while leveling.etyrnal wrote:Recovery would be everything above 50% or like 75%. It can all be intelligently done with a single knob. If you want to do you could even have the last couple of percent be going into slight saturation.selig wrote:A single knob (two, max) would be easy to do a quick "leveling" effect, two knobs would cover everything. If you assume peaks of 0 dBFS, then you don't need a Target knob. If you assume you want to level the entire dynamic range of most samples, you don't need the Curve knob. That leaves the Recovery (which could also be preset), and primarily the Blend knob. Easy to do something very workable IMO.etyrnal wrote:I think you skipped one step. I was answering this:selig wrote:[quote="WongoTheSane"][quote="etyrnal"]Very often though, samples are already normalized. In other words they've been adjusted so that the peak sample in the wave file is at 0 dB. So leveling is not exactly what we're talking about here. We're talking about adding gain to the entire sample while at the same time limiting.
...I'm talking leveling and you're describing automatic gain control. Those are two different processes. What you describe is certainly easy to implement, but it's not leveling and probably won't give the results you expect. My argument was that implementing a Leveler (with just one knob) in Proton would be probably more difficult than a gain control (it would either require normalizing the sample first or scanning it for the peak, which isn't necessary for compression or gain control), and that using a proper Leveler provides more control at the cost of a few seconds, which I don't consider as "the long long way around".buddard wrote:I like the idea of being able to squash the signal by boosting the quiet parts of the sample, like an extreme one-knob version of Selig Leveler! It turns the sample source into more of a "texture" to work with, basically ignoring the original dynamics.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
Again, the idea was to remove the dynamics from the original audio if desired, not to compress/limit/saturate it.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/quote]
And for example let's say that a person has a drum Loop loaded into a granular synthesizer, and they have the length and emitter frequency set so that you're actually hearing full drum hits, then just run the output of the granular synth through a leveler or a compressor limiter or whatever it is that you're trying to do. But anytime you're down dealing with grains it would make no sense to me to go to all the trouble of putting some high class high-precision compression between the sample and the emitter.
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk[/quote]
OK then, this feature is not something you would use. But I bet if it sounds really cool to do this, you would change your mind on this…
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 1851
- Joined: 14 Sep 2015
- Location: Paris, France
Right, I understand. My method does indeed leave silent parts when the signal is below a certain threshold (on purpose when preparing vocals for a vocoder for instance), which isn't desirable if the *whole* sample has to be maxed out. I hope you're prototyping already, because that would be a great addition to Proton (and granulars/wavetablers in general)...selig wrote:I'm just thinking of how to adapt the concept of the Leveler to become a dynamics eliminator. In that case I'd want a depth control to determine how much to bring up the low level signals. The Curve control only determines the RANGE that you lift - it's the Blend that determines how FAR you lift that range. Small Curve settings would not make sense in this application even though they DO make sense with vocals. This is because with vocals you do NOT want to lift the LOWEST signals; the breaths, the background signals, etc.WongoTheSane wrote:Oh, but you mean when working on normal vocals, right? I was only talking about the cases where you need to remove dynamics as much as possible (and not really care whether it's realistic or not as the sound is going to be mangled anyway). In this context, wouldn't setting Wet to 100% and using Curve to determine how much of the lower sounds will be lifted (acting more or less like a threshold: everything above is maxed out, everything below is silent) make sense?selig wrote:I typically set Curve after Target, choosing how 'far' into the dynamic range I want to lift. Blend is the #1 control for me, the one I use to set the final amount of the effect. In other words, the depth of the effect. I'm constantly fine tuning Blend and to a lesser degree, Recovery. I typically set and forget Target/Curve, since they are set according to the dynamics of the source (and wouldn't change unless the source changed).WongoTheSane wrote:Weird, I would have said: remove Recovery (set to fast by preset), remove Blend (set to wet), keep Curve (it's how I use it usually, except Recovery: default position for normal sound processing, and fast for effect samples, wavetables, etc). Obviously only in the context of Proton, I'm not suggesting that for the device itselfselig wrote:A single knob (two, max) would be easy to do a quick "leveling" effect, two knobs would cover everything. If you assume peaks of 0 dBFS, then you don't need a Target knob. If you assume you want to level the entire dynamic range of most samples, you don't need the Curve knob. That leaves the Recovery (which could also be preset), and primarily the Blend knob. Easy to do something very workable IMO.WongoTheSane wrote:I think you skipped one step. I was answering this:etyrnal wrote:Very often though, samples are already normalized. In other words they've been adjusted so that the peak sample in the wave file is at 0 dB. So leveling is not exactly what we're talking about here. We're talking about adding gain to the entire sample while at the same time limiting.
...I'm talking leveling and you're describing automatic gain control. Those are two different processes. What you describe is certainly easy to implement, but it's not leveling and probably won't give the results you expect. My argument was that implementing a Leveler (with just one knob) in Proton would be probably more difficult than a gain control (it would either require normalizing the sample first or scanning it for the peak, which isn't necessary for compression or gain control), and that using a proper Leveler provides more control at the cost of a few seconds, which I don't consider as "the long long way around".buddard wrote:I like the idea of being able to squash the signal by boosting the quiet parts of the sample, like an extreme one-knob version of Selig Leveler! It turns the sample source into more of a "texture" to work with, basically ignoring the original dynamics.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Blend controls how much you increase the low level signals, from no change to 100% leveling - isn't that what we're talking about here?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
But with a sample, you basically want to lift the entire signal - the only question is how much lift? Think of a piano decaying to silence - you want to make the piano basically not decay at all, right? That requires a large Curve setting so that the entire decay can be lifted if desired. From there it's up to the Blend control to determine how MUCH you lift the signals. Hopefully I'm making sense here…
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That's exactly what I'm saying, not sure where the confusion is coming from here.selig wrote:right, but in Dynamic processors sometimes the producer or the musician wants to achieve certain musical effect based on playing back the sample as is. But we're talking about granular synthesis where we are potentially going to be throwing away those beautiful Dynamics, because we are trying to create something entirely different than what we started with. And if a person doesn't like how much Dynamics it's losing then don't twist the knob up for that particular patch.etyrnal wrote:That's not how any dynamics devices work that I'm aware of, FWIW.selig wrote:Why would recovery time be needed? The calc is based on an individual sample point. For every individual sample point you are basically calculating the difference between the samples current level and 0db. This calculation I'm talking about his pure math. Visually picture a sample waveform in your mind. Now take that image as a JPEG and move it into an image editor in your mind. Now tell the image editor that you want to resize the Image Grab the bottom of the image and move it up towards the top. Eventually if you keep raising it you will get a flatline. All other values in the middle will be calculated as ratio of distance from the top. Of course eventually everything will be a flatline if you keep moving it upwards. Obviously some of the calculations would have to be done using natural functions, but again it's still just a simple mathematical calculation. In the example of resizing a JPEG image of a waveform, which would basically be the same thing for making calculations on an audio waveform except now you have to make a calculations in the negative and positive. So for example if you wanted to raise the lowest level in the sample by 50% of the distance between that samples current level and 0 decibels, then you calculate how much gain is required to increase that samples level by 50% of the distance between itself and 0db. For samples that are louder you do the exact same thing you calculate the difference between that current sample level and zero DB in decibels, and then you raise bye the percentage of that many decibels. Once again if using a natural function makes more sense then of course we would have to do that. But the concept Still Remains. It is literally a simple mathematical calculation. It's a ratio. Call it a fraction if you want.etyrnal wrote:Not following…If so, then what ratio or percent is 200 ms Recovery Time?selig wrote:Musical qualities are ratios... Treating things like percents and ratios gives musical results...etyrnal wrote:Recovery is a "time" constant, so percent make no sense to me in that regard. Saturation doesn't make sense either, at least not while leveling.selig wrote:Recovery would be everything above 50% or like 75%. It can all be intelligently done with a single knob. If you want to do you could even have the last couple of percent be going into slight saturation.etyrnal wrote:A single knob (two, max) would be easy to do a quick "leveling" effect, two knobs would cover everything. If you assume peaks of 0 dBFS, then you don't need a Target knob. If you assume you want to level the entire dynamic range of most samples, you don't need the Curve knob. That leaves the Recovery (which could also be preset), and primarily the Blend knob. Easy to do something very workable IMO.selig wrote:I think you skipped one step. I was answering this:etyrnal wrote:[quote="selig"][quote="WongoTheSane"][quote="etyrnal"]Very often though, samples are already normalized. In other words they've been adjusted so that the peak sample in the wave file is at 0 dB. So leveling is not exactly what we're talking about here. We're talking about adding gain to the entire sample while at the same time limiting.
...I'm talking leveling and you're describing automatic gain control. Those are two different processes. What you describe is certainly easy to implement, but it's not leveling and probably won't give the results you expect. My argument was that implementing a Leveler (with just one knob) in Proton would be probably more difficult than a gain control (it would either require normalizing the sample first or scanning it for the peak, which isn't necessary for compression or gain control), and that using a proper Leveler provides more control at the cost of a few seconds, which I don't consider as "the long long way around".buddard wrote:I like the idea of being able to squash the signal by boosting the quiet parts of the sample, like an extreme one-knob version of Selig Leveler! It turns the sample source into more of a "texture" to work with, basically ignoring the original dynamics.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
Again, the idea was to remove the dynamics from the original audio if desired, not to compress/limit/saturate it.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/quote]
And for example let's say that a person has a drum Loop loaded into a granular synthesizer, and they have the length and emitter frequency set so that you're actually hearing full drum hits, then just run the output of the granular synth through a leveler or a compressor limiter or whatever it is that you're trying to do. But anytime you're down dealing with grains it would make no sense to me to go to all the trouble of putting some high class high-precision compression between the sample and the emitter.
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk[/quote]
OK then, this feature is not something you would use. But I bet if it sounds really cool to do this, you would change your mind on this…
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/quote]
Of course i would! LOL! The boost knob, which I'm now thinking should be called "Acceleration", as I've described it, would solve it perfectly fine -- and it wouldn't make the CPU cry.
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
my creative genius always seeks the most miraculous developments... LolWongoTheSane wrote:Right, I understand. My method does indeed leave silent parts when the signal is below a certain threshold (on purpose when preparing vocals for a vocoder for instance), which isn't desirable if the *whole* sample has to be maxed out. I hope you're prototyping already, because that would be a great addition to Proton (and granulars/wavetablers in general)... [emoji38]selig wrote:I'm just thinking of how to adapt the concept of the Leveler to become a dynamics eliminator. In that case I'd want a depth control to determine how much to bring up the low level signals. The Curve control only determines the RANGE that you lift - it's the Blend that determines how FAR you lift that range. Small Curve settings would not make sense in this application even though they DO make sense with vocals. This is because with vocals you do NOT want to lift the LOWEST signals; the breaths, the background signals, etc.WongoTheSane wrote:Oh, but you mean when working on normal vocals, right? I was only talking about the cases where you need to remove dynamics as much as possible (and not really care whether it's realistic or not as the sound is going to be mangled anyway). In this context, wouldn't setting Wet to 100% and using Curve to determine how much of the lower sounds will be lifted (acting more or less like a threshold: everything above is maxed out, everything below is silent) make sense?selig wrote:I typically set Curve after Target, choosing how 'far' into the dynamic range I want to lift. Blend is the #1 control for me, the one I use to set the final amount of the effect. In other words, the depth of the effect. I'm constantly fine tuning Blend and to a lesser degree, Recovery. I typically set and forget Target/Curve, since they are set according to the dynamics of the source (and wouldn't change unless the source changed).WongoTheSane wrote:Weird, I would have said: remove Recovery (set to fast by preset), remove Blend (set to wet), keep Curve (it's how I use it usually, except Recovery: default position for normal sound processing, and fast for effect samples, wavetables, etc). Obviously only in the context of Proton, I'm not suggesting that for the device itselfselig wrote:A single knob (two, max) would be easy to do a quick "leveling" effect, two knobs would cover everything. If you assume peaks of 0 dBFS, then you don't need a Target knob. If you assume you want to level the entire dynamic range of most samples, you don't need the Curve knob. That leaves the Recovery (which could also be preset), and primarily the Blend knob. Easy to do something very workable IMO.WongoTheSane wrote:I think you skipped one step. I was answering this:etyrnal wrote:Very often though, samples are already normalized. In other words they've been adjusted so that the peak sample in the wave file is at 0 dB. So leveling is not exactly what we're talking about here. We're talking about adding gain to the entire sample while at the same time limiting.
...I'm talking leveling and you're describing automatic gain control. Those are two different processes. What you describe is certainly easy to implement, but it's not leveling and probably won't give the results you expect. My argument was that implementing a Leveler (with just one knob) in Proton would be probably more difficult than a gain control (it would either require normalizing the sample first or scanning it for the peak, which isn't necessary for compression or gain control), and that using a proper Leveler provides more control at the cost of a few seconds, which I don't consider as "the long long way around".buddard wrote:I like the idea of being able to squash the signal by boosting the quiet parts of the sample, like an extreme one-knob version of Selig Leveler! It turns the sample source into more of a "texture" to work with, basically ignoring the original dynamics.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Blend controls how much you increase the low level signals, from no change to 100% leveling - isn't that what we're talking about here?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
But with a sample, you basically want to lift the entire signal - the only question is how much lift? Think of a piano decaying to silence - you want to make the piano basically not decay at all, right? That requires a large Curve setting so that the entire decay can be lifted if desired. From there it's up to the Blend control to determine how MUCH you lift the signals. Hopefully I'm making sense here…
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
To everybody moaning that i'm complaining about the cpu usage, when you don't need extra.. well, that track i wrote with 3 instances required each to be bounced, its a top of the line macbook pro 2015 i7 quad core 16Gb ram.. Its not exactly a sloucher. Each of the channels is hardly doing very much.etyrnal2 wrote:the thing is... when you're writing, a patch all by itself, and there's no other sounds going on, and you're making it super lush and smooth, you're not considering how much of that will even be perceptible when the rest of the music is playing with it...dana wrote:Its a bit of a cpu killer when using playing multiple long release notes (or rapid-fire retriggering)
Apart from that, its really amazing!
meaning, you might be wasting all the extra super high density, because once the rest of the music is going with it, some of that is going to be a huge waste... so, when the rest of the music is playing, you can reduce the "Life" until you get a satisfying result that still gives the listener the 'feel' or the 'impression' of the effect... i.e. you might have something cranked up so 'amazing' that 30% of the extra "quality" isn't even going to be detected when the rest of the reverb tails are washing all over the place etc...
perception is king in the end
When will reason people stop trying to justify deficiences in software? If we didn't mention these things, reason wouldn't be where it is today.
I think there is a definite room for improvement in the cpu usage.
You for got step 0... BUY a new "Leveler" ReWongoTheSane wrote:1) Drag the sample from the FSB to the sequencer.etyrnal wrote:You're kidding, right?
So, how do you You do this with samples in the factory sound bank etc.
2) Drop a Leveler in the Insert FX slot.
3) Press P to play the sample in a loop.
4) Set Target on Leveler to whatever the Peak Hold is.
5) Push Curve to +24db or whatever you like. 100% wet gives best results.
6) Bounce in place.
6a) (optional) Normalize.
7) Bounce result to New Samples.
Takes about 10 seconds + duration of the sample.
Calm down, I was just describing a workaround that I use everyday (with Expanse these days).etyrnal wrote:Were all smart enough to realize that we could take the long long way around. But why?
It's like saying, "why make Proton, when you could just NN-19 mumble mumble Sample Start mumble mumble automate mumble mumble patch mumble mumble lfo adsr hack patch?"
Why is it that when you suggest a new feature that would offer quite useful Improvement, there's always somebody who's got a suggest that you could do it all from scratch and manually? It's like an argument against Improvement and evolution. I just don't get that.
So, Your solution is to buy another Rack Extension?
But why even buy a Leveler, when you could build one out of a long chain of cleverly combined/patched Reason 2.5 built-in devices?
"if You fight for your limitations, you get to keep them." ~ author unknown
Last edited by etyrnal on 03 Feb 2017, edited 1 time in total.
I don't think that's what was being said at all. Someone was trying to be helpful by suggesting another way to get the desired results, that's all.etyrnal wrote:You for got setp 0... BUY a new "Leveler" ReWongoTheSane wrote:1) Drag the sample from the FSB to the sequencer.etyrnal wrote:You're kidding, right?
So, how do you You do this with samples in the factory sound bank etc.
2) Drop a Leveler in the Insert FX slot.
3) Press P to play the sample in a loop.
4) Set Target on Leveler to whatever the Peak Hold is.
5) Push Curve to +24db or whatever you like. 100% wet gives best results.
6) Bounce in place.
6a) (optional) Normalize.
7) Bounce result to New Samples.
Takes about 10 seconds + duration of the sample.
Calm down, I was just describing a workaround that I use everyday (with Expanse these days).etyrnal wrote:Were all smart enough to realize that we could take the long long way around. But why?
It's like saying, "why make Proton, when you could just NN-19 mumble mumble Sample Start mumble mumble automate mumble mumble patch mumble mumble lfo adsr hack patch?"
Why is it that when you suggest a new feature that would offer quite useful Improvement, there's always somebody who's got a suggest that you could do it all from scratch and manually? It's like an argument against Improvement and evolution. I just don't get that.
So, Your solution is to buy another Rack Extension?
But why even buy a Leveler, when you could build one out of a long chain of cleverly combined/patched Reason 2.5 built-in devices?
"if You fight for your limitations, you get to keep them." ~ author unknown
If this thread is to be helpful to anyone, I think it best to stay on topic…how 'bout that Proton?!?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
I dunno about y'all but I'm about to be using Proton in every project. I'm learning to appreciate Mode 1 more - instant techno atmosphere! Run something through Mode 1, add the kHs Resonator to find a sweet note to accentuate according to the composition and modulate wetness with something like Ammo. There's my tip of the day.selig wrote:If this thread is to be helpful to anyone, I think it best to stay on topic…how 'bout that Proton?!?
Q: Hey Peter what do you use to make music?
A: Proton.
Another tip - use the Comb (resonating) filter (with keyboard tracking) in Proton to add a pitch element to non-pitched samples in Mode 1. Tune the filter to 261.6 Hz (or an octave relative to that) to track accurately.Peter wrote:I dunno about y'all but I'm about to be using Proton in every project. I'm learning to appreciate Mode 1 more - instant techno atmosphere! Run something through Mode 1, add the kHs Resonator to find a sweet note to accentuate according to the composition and modulate wetness with something like Ammo. There's my tip of the day.selig wrote:If this thread is to be helpful to anyone, I think it best to stay on topic…how 'bout that Proton?!?
Q: Hey Peter what do you use to make music?
A: Proton.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
- KirkMarkarian
- Posts: 292
- Joined: 13 Dec 2015
- Location: Tucson, AZ
- Contact:
Can Proton/Fritz make stuff like this:
Yes.KirkMarkarian wrote:Can Proton/Fritz make stuff like this:
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
I made some house with proton
- Exowildebeest
- Posts: 1553
- Joined: 16 Jan 2015
IkedaKirkMarkarian wrote:Can Proton/Fritz make stuff like this:
- KirkMarkarian
- Posts: 292
- Joined: 13 Dec 2015
- Location: Tucson, AZ
- Contact:
Well, I delved in deeper to Proton - it can aid in creating the sound I am looking for - but for making those types of click/pop patterns, I had to get the Propulsion sequencer. I can design the synth sounds by hand, but the means of using Proton or Fritz to actually create those types of click/pop patterns doesn't seem to exist, either in option 1 or 2. I am unable to slow down the pulses to just make repeatable clicks or pops.
- KirkMarkarian
- Posts: 292
- Joined: 13 Dec 2015
- Location: Tucson, AZ
- Contact:
This is beautiful music!nooomy wrote:I made some house with proton
One thing I think is alittle wierd that on the lfo's I turn clockwise to change speed up and on mod env len I turn counter clockwise.
I tend to turn the wong way on them
Maybe alearnign thing but...
I tend to turn the wong way on them
Maybe alearnign thing but...
LFO is "rate" (in Hertz), going from low to high. Envelope is "length" (in seconds), going from short to long.Marc64 wrote:One thing I think is alittle wierd that on the lfo's I turn clockwise to change speed up and on mod env len I turn counter clockwise.
I tend to turn the wong way on them
Maybe alearnign thing but...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
yeah I understand that but I get confused alittle when they turn the oposite way for the same rateselig wrote:LFO is "rate" (in Hertz), going from low to high. Envelope is "length" (in seconds), going from short to long.Marc64 wrote:One thing I think is alittle wierd that on the lfo's I turn clockwise to change speed up and on mod env len I turn counter clockwise.
I tend to turn the wong way on them
Maybe alearnign thing but...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Skickat från min SM-G935F via Tapatalk
When both are in Sync mode, this is true - probably not the best decision but I believe we are not stuck with it as it would break backwards compatibility. Still, thinking of the LFO as a rate, and the Env as a length helps. Remember, the Env isn't always in "loop" mode, so making a one shot envelope "length scale" control a "rate" control didn't make sense. Sorry for the confusion - would probably do it differently now if I had the chance!Marc64 wrote:yeah I understand that but I get confused alittle when they turn the oposite way for the same rateselig wrote:LFO is "rate" (in Hertz), going from low to high. Envelope is "length" (in seconds), going from short to long.Marc64 wrote:One thing I think is alittle wierd that on the lfo's I turn clockwise to change speed up and on mod env len I turn counter clockwise.
I tend to turn the wong way on them
Maybe alearnign thing but...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Skickat från min SM-G935F via Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
Thank u! I really like the proton re!!KirkMarkarian wrote:This is beautiful music!nooomy wrote:I made some house with proton
That's funny, I saw his data.tron installation about a month ago. On one hand it was impressive, but I wouldn't call it something I'd want to sonicly emulate. But to each their own. You can probably get this sort of sound from Proton. You can get a lot better ones, too.KirkMarkarian wrote:Can Proton/Fritz make stuff like this:
If you ain't hip to the rare Housequake, shut up already.
Damn.
Damn.
Personally I really like the way the devices look. The grey enamel / Hammerite finish complete with the computer style logo are perfectly suited for such weird and wonderful instruments. These Rack Extensions could have been brewed up in the subterranean laboratory operated by a B-movie-star-style mad scientist called Dr Selig, a genius now in thrall to the sinister 'LoveOne Consulting' corporation whose aim is world domination through mind-control using audio waves: instruments liberated by the forces-of-good in the form of the mighty Propellerheads swooping down from their secret Scandinavian mountain-top base on behalf of liberty, justice and Reason.Ottostrom wrote:Kind of a shame they kept the style of their other REs around the screen part. I know the functionality is the important part, but I also want to feel inspired by the look!
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests