ReasonTalk.com

Complex-1, the semi-modular synthesizer released by Reason Studios, only has two CV inputs and two CV outputs. You would think that the flagship semi-modular synthesizer on a platform whose defining strength is advanced CV circuitry would take better advantage of Reason's strengths in CV modulation. They've created a perfect synthesizer to showcase Reason's strengths, and then they've hamstrung its most crucial function.

This means that we can't do intricate CV work to interweave two Complex-1s together, or a Complex-1 and an Ammo (by JPS) together, for example.

Is there a workaround to this? Do we need to petition Reason Studios to add more CV ports to Complex-1?

That has been one of the main critique points when complex-1 came out and nothing has changed in all those years, since. So I guess some more bug reports/requests to RS might be needed.

DoctoralHermit wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2024

Complex-1, the semi-modular synthesizer released by Reason Studios, only has two CV inputs and two CV outputs. You would think that the flagship semi-modular synthesizer on a platform whose defining strength is advanced CV circuitry would take better advantage of Reason's strengths in CV modulation. They've created a perfect synthesizer to showcase Reason's strengths, and then they've hamstrung its most crucial function.

This means that we can't do intricate CV work to interweave two Complex-1s together, or a Complex-1 and an Ammo (by JPS) together, for example.

Is there a workaround to this? Do we need to petition Reason Studios to add more CV ports to Complex-1?

CV is 1/64th of audio rate anyway, so it's useless for "intricate CV work" anyway

It's absolutely ridiculous and should be embarrassing for RS. They need to fix that.

Just put it in a Combinator. You'll have CV access to pretty well every parameter.

There was definitely a time when the back panel seemed like an afterthought on a lot of devices. I think a couple just have a gradient colour and that's pretty much it.

While PH thought multiple inputs or outputs are a good idea, RS is uncertain if they want to follow this route...

Hey guys, put it in a combinator and stfu

It depends on what you want, but assigning CV via a Combinator is different and works more like automation of a control and is limited to the range of that control.

joeyluck wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024

It depends on what you want, but assigning CV via a Combinator is different and works more like automation of a control and is limited to the range of that control.

Huh?

1. Works more like automation of a control? Not sure what you mean. A CV input is a CV input.
2. Limited to the range of that control? Well, obviously. You can't open a filter any further than wide open, no matter how large your CV values are.

dvdrtldg wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024

Hey guys, put it in a combinator and stfu

Yeah, but, you know, scary cables and shit.

huggermugger wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024

joeyluck wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024

It depends on what you want, but assigning CV via a Combinator is different and works more like automation of a control and is limited to the range of that control.

Huh?

1. Works more like automation of a control? Not sure what you mean. A CV input is a CV input.
2. Limited to the range of that control? Well, obviously. You can't open a filter any further than wide open, no matter how large your CV values are.

CV in the Combinator targets the control and acts more like automation of a control. This is why you see the control move and that is restricted to the range and quantization of the control. CV on a device targets the parameter directly (this is why you don't see the controls move). Depending, when you use CV on a device, you can get values outside of the control range, non-quantized values, and works better when sending modulation from multiple sources to the same parameter.

Steedus wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2024

There was definitely a time when the back panel seemed like an afterthought on a lot of devices. I think a couple just have a gradient colour and that's pretty much it.

I think that back panel neglect started with the first generation of Reason Players.

dvdrtldg wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024

Hey guys, put it in a combinator and stfu

Stop to feed unicorns? Good idea, but I'm not sure what that has to do with a Combi.

joeyluck wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024

CV in the Combinator targets the control and acts more like automation of a control. This is why you see the control move and that is restricted to the range and quantization of the control. CV on a device targets the parameter directly (this is why you don't see the controls move). Depending, when you use CV on a device, you can get values outside of the control range, non-quantized values, and works better when sending modulation from multiple sources to the same parameter.

Note that the device has to allow the extended CV values to actually do something, or clamp them at the end of the front panel range. I love slowing down LFOs as one example of this idea, Pulsar responds well to this (but will stall out if pushed too far!). I made sure to included it on all Selig Audio devices as a fan of the concept.

Also note that many DAWs prioritize audio over automation if the CPU is stressed. I’m not sure what Reason does but I’ve noted some cases where using CV into the Combinator had a slightly different effect than CV directly into a device. So using CV to “automate” a control via a Combinator MAY not be as reliable a way to do anything faster than typical vibrato LFO rates (less than 10Hz). Further testing is required to find the conditions where this potentially becomes an issue.

selig wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024

joeyluck wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024

CV in the Combinator targets the control and acts more like automation of a control. This is why you see the control move and that is restricted to the range and quantization of the control. CV on a device targets the parameter directly (this is why you don't see the controls move). Depending, when you use CV on a device, you can get values outside of the control range, non-quantized values, and works better when sending modulation from multiple sources to the same parameter.

Note that the device has to allow the extended CV values to actually do something, or clamp them at the end of the front panel range. I love slowing down LFOs as one example of this idea, Pulsar responds well to this (but will stall out if pushed too far!). I made sure to included it on all Selig Audio devices as a fan of the concept.

Also note that many DAWs prioritize audio over automation if the CPU is stressed. I’m not sure what Reason does but I’ve noted some cases where using CV into the Combinator had a slightly different effect than CV directly into a device. So using CV to “automate” a control via a Combinator MAY not be as reliable a way to do anything faster than typical vibrato LFO rates (less than 10Hz). Further testing is required to find the conditions where this potentially becomes an issue.

A knob via a Combinator has 127 steps, while it can have more without. Controlling a knob via Combinator CV could have the same limitations, while controlling via Combinator CV may have not. Never tried tbh...

selig wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024

. I’m not sure what Reason does but I’ve noted some cases where using CV into the Combinator had a slightly different effect than CV directly into a device. So using CV to “automate” a control via a Combinator MAY not be as reliable a way to do anything faster than typical vibrato LFO rates (less than 10Hz).

I actually noticed this the other day and it's been a roadblock for me in the creation of a combinator - so I actually raised a ticket, hoping to get some insight into the matter.

As a quick example, if you have a Thor Rotary set to control the pitch of the Thor's Osc;
Sending Thor's Step CV Out to that Thor Rotary CV In will sound different than sending the same CV to a Combi Rotary CV In (which directly controls the Thor Rotary). In the second case, there is a very noticeable "portamento" effect. I've assumed there is some kind of delay when routing CV through Combi, but I don't think I am 100% correct on this.

huggermugger wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024

2. Limited to the range of that control? Well, obviously. You can't open a filter any further than wide open, no matter how large your CV values are.

Sort of true - in Europa / Sweeper you can get the filter to open/close further with CV (either externally or via the mod matrix, MSEG)

Loque wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024

A knob via a Combinator has 127 steps, while it can have more without. Controlling a knob via Combinator CV could have the same limitations, while controlling via Combinator CV may have not. Never tried tbh...

This I am still quite confused by all this in the RS environment - so I've just assumed that older devices (e.g Subtractor filter) only has 128 discrete positions.

At then at some point, devices like the MClass "High Definition" EQ has little mico steps in between for Freq, but then I guess you lose the HD nature if you assign a Combi rotary to that Freq parameter?

I don't believe there is anything in the manual that clears all this up?

deeplink wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024

Loque wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024

A knob via a Combinator has 127 steps, while it can have more without. Controlling a knob via Combinator CV could have the same limitations, while controlling via Combinator CV may have not. Never tried tbh...

This I am still quite confused by all this in the RS environment - so I've just assumed that older devices (e.g Subtractor filter) only has 128 discrete positions.

At then at some point, devices like the MClass "High Definition" EQ has little mico steps in between for Freq, but then I guess you lose the HD nature if you assign a Combi rotary to that Freq parameter?

I don't believe there is anything in the manual that clears all this up?

The Combinator is limited to MIDI (127 steps) and the device knob may not have the limitations. CV and automation is limited to whatever the dev has it limited to (more or less...).

deeplink wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024

I actually noticed this the other day and it's been a roadblock for me in the creation of a combinator - so I actually raised a ticket, hoping to get some insight into the matter.

As a quick example, if you have a Thor Rotary set to control the pitch of the Thor's Osc;
Sending Thor's Step CV Out to that Thor Rotary CV In will sound different than sending the same CV to a Combi Rotary CV In (which directly controls the Thor Rotary). In the second case, there is a very noticeable "portamento" effect. I've assumed there is some kind of delay when routing CV through Combi, but I don't think I am 100% correct on this.

Can confirm there is slew/lag (aka "smoothing") going on for sure with both Control and Source CV inputs in a Combinator compared to going directly into the CV input of a device. I tested with Thor using a square wave from Pulsar as the source. You can see the Combinator CV below the direct CV, taking around 5ms longer to get started and also adding smoothing lasting around 20ms more.
Top signal, Pulsar square wave to CV in of Thor, controlling Amp Gain.
Bottom signal, Pulsar square wave to Combinator inputs, then controlling Amp Gain knob.

Loque wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024

deeplink wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024

This I am still quite confused by all this in the RS environment - so I've just assumed that older devices (e.g Subtractor filter) only has 128 discrete positions.

At then at some point, devices like the MClass "High Definition" EQ has little mico steps in between for Freq, but then I guess you lose the HD nature if you assign a Combi rotary to that Freq parameter?

I don't believe there is anything in the manual that clears all this up?

The Combinator is limited to MIDI (127 steps) and the device knob may not have the limitations. CV and automation is limited to whatever the dev has it limited to (more or less...).

If you don't limit it you're using floating point resolution as I understand it. For example, Selig Gain has "high resolution" faders. You can only accurately access it by typing in values to an automation lane in the sequencer. But you can see a change when making a gain change pretty small. I've measured changes typing in 0.0000001dB using Selig Gain. The setup: Start with a steady sound like a pure tone from a synth, create a parallel channel and a Selig Gain, invert the polarity of the Selig Gain and you get silence. Then create an automation lane for the Trim Fader and go into Edit Mode and set the static value to 0.01 and you should see a signal at around 65dB BELOW the value you would see if Selig Gain was not inverted. Keep adding zeros and you'll see the level fall (I use Selig Infuser to see levels below -100dBFS, all the way down to -154dBFS). The levels max out at 7 places past the decimal point, or at least I'm not seeing any change when typing in smaller values. But man, that's a pretty stupid amount of resolution you'd never use!

If my math is correct, that means you can have gain resolution to one hundred-thousandth of a decibel!

But if you automate a Combinator knob, ya got 127 steps, mapped however you choose (fwiw).

huggermugger wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2024

Just put it in a Combinator. You'll have CV access to pretty well every parameter.

I was thinking the same thing. Preach.

mimidancer wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2024

huggermugger wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2024

Just put it in a Combinator. You'll have CV access to pretty well every parameter.

I was thinking the same thing. Preach.

I was just thinking there is one big advantage to doing this, which is you get control over stepped controls such as the octave switch on oscillators, which is otherwise impossible to control via CV. You can do things like route an LFO to the octave switching, etc.
But as it CAN sound different when routing this way and is limited in range, it’s not quite the perfect solution for every situation IMO.

Personally I think if Thor has the CV outputs it does then Complex 1 should have at least the same amount and possibly audio CV outs seeing as it is RS’s take on modular. Of course you can it in a Combinator but that’s the equivalent of wiring it up to a CV to MIDI converter with the associated loss in resolution. Complex 1 really should really have better CV connectivity with other Rack devices. I mean this kind of connectivity is one of Reason’s main advantages in comparison to other DAWs.

selig wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024

deeplink wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024

I actually noticed this the other day and it's been a roadblock for me in the creation of a combinator - so I actually raised a ticket, hoping to get some insight into the matter.

As a quick example, if you have a Thor Rotary set to control the pitch of the Thor's Osc;
Sending Thor's Step CV Out to that Thor Rotary CV In will sound different than sending the same CV to a Combi Rotary CV In (which directly controls the Thor Rotary). In the second case, there is a very noticeable "portamento" effect. I've assumed there is some kind of delay when routing CV through Combi, but I don't think I am 100% correct on this.

Can confirm there is slew/lag (aka "smoothing") going on for sure with both Control and Source CV inputs in a Combinator compared to going directly into the CV input of a device. I tested with Thor using a square wave from Pulsar as the source. You can see the Combinator CV below the direct CV, taking around 5ms longer to get started and also adding smoothing lasting around 20ms more.
Top signal, Pulsar square wave to CV in of Thor, controlling Amp Gain.
Bottom signal, Pulsar square wave to Combinator inputs, then controlling Amp Gain knob.
Screen Shot 2024-02-16 at 10.40.22 AM.png

Now I have to test this. thanks for hurting my OCD