What about the super combinator?

[Pinkbox]

Hi,

I was wondering... Why nobody came up with the "super-combinator-with-more-than-4-knobs-and-4-buttons-everybody-is-asking-for-since-ages" rack extension yet? =)
Is it because of the SDK? Because Propellerhead is about to release one?
It would be a best seller for sure..!

Cheers!

[JoshuaPhilgarlic]

I'm sure this can't be done with the SDK.

[hamu]

Hi,

I was wondering... Why nobody came up with the "super-combinator-with-more-than-4-knobs-and-4-buttons-everybody-is-asking-for-since-ages" rack extension yet? =)
Is it because of the SDK? Because Propellerhead is about to release one?
It would be a best seller for sure..!

Cheers!

I'm sure this can't be done with the SDK.

Mr Garlic is absolutely right.
Many people have proposed this to PH, and I finally did what some users asked me, created the ModPanel/Newtrol control boards, which are as close I believe an RE can come to replacing (or complementing) the combinator.
https://shop.propellerheads.se/product/ ... rol-board/

But I'm still hoping - and waiting - for a super combinator. And preferably one which can host standard combinators on it's inside. Two levels so to speak!
:t2018:

[Pinkbox]

Yep I like this kind of CV controller. But there's so much more parameters you can control with the combinator's programmer

[JoshuaPhilgarlic]

I could imagine something like this :

• 8 Audio inputs
• 8 Audio outputs
• 16 knobs
• 16 switches
• 8 Faders
• 8 CV inputs
• 8 CV outputs
• 8 Note outputs
• 8 Gate outputs

[K1TTENM1TTEN]

To me, I would just like to be able to put combinators inside of combinators. It is absolutely mind blowing to me that this hasn't been doable ever in Reason.  :m0358:

[hamu]

I could emagine something like this :

• 8 Audio inputs
• 8 Audio outputs
• 16 knobs
• 16 switches
• 8 Faders
• 8 CV inputs
• 8 CV outputs
• 8 Note ouputs
• 8 Gate outputs

And 128 parameters to control, rather than the 10 we have today!

[selig]

To me, I would just like to be able to put combinators inside of combinators. It is absolutely mind blowing to me that this hasn't been doable ever in Reason.  :m0358:

I'd be happy if we could put Combinators inside of all Inserts, Mastering section (new idea) and in the Meta Channel itself (another new idea).

With multiple Combinators in an insert you could then switch from Combi to Combi to select/control them individually from the mixer/programmer. 

Combinators inside of Combinators also presents a basic graphic issue - as the size shrinks inside each Combi as you nest them, going two or more deep would require a different approach to prevent the sides from shrinking inwards and hiding more and more of the enclosed devices. Probably isn't going to happen any time soon that I can see…but never say never!

[Marco Raaphorst]

would be amazing if an update for the Combinator can support switches for like 3 or 4 settings instead of using the rotary which doesn't make sense.

in my opinion a Combinator update could simply kill the need to do any IDT kind of stuff. maybe even adding a lock-option for those who don't their Combinator to be tweaked (which is kinda silly right?).

[selig]

would be amazing if an update for the Combinator can support switches for like 3 or 4 settings instead of using the rotary which doesn't make sense.

in my opinion a Combinator update could simply kill the need to do any IDT kind of stuff. maybe even adding a lock-option for those who don't their Combinator to be tweaked (which is kinda silly right?).

Yes - IF it included a full GUI designer, included all the same effects/routing like convolution etc, and included full scripting capabilities. And support for Kontakt import. And support for RE copy protection. And included a full featured sampler. And support for the RE store. And could compile to run efficiently, etc.

[eusti]

Combinators inside of Combinators also presents a basic graphic issue - as the size shrinks inside each Combi as you nest them, going two or more deep would require a different approach to prevent the sides from shrinking inwards and hiding more and more of the enclosed devices. Probably isn't going to happen any time soon that I can see…but never say never!

Couldn't you just get around that by not shrinking the width any further?

D.

[selig]

Combinators inside of Combinators also presents a basic graphic issue - as the size shrinks inside each Combi as you nest them, going two or more deep would require a different approach to prevent the sides from shrinking inwards and hiding more and more of the enclosed devices. Probably isn't going to happen any time soon that I can see…but never say never!

Couldn't you just get around that by not shrinking the width any further?

D.

How do you put something "inside" of something inside of something without shrinking them? It's more the width I'm talking about here - you'd have to come up with some way to still see the nesting when you exceed one deep.

But I've also suggested that two deep is really all most folks are asking for when you get down to brass tacks, so maybe it wouldn't be an issue if there was a limit of two deep?

I still want multiple combinators inside of Inserts…

[EnochLight]

The Combinator still remains - to this day - one of Reason's most powerful features, IMHO.  That said, it's also its greatest thorn as it hasn't changed hardly since its release 10 years ago.  Its interface feels long in the tooth, to say the least.  Just 4 knobs and 4 buttons?  Really?

I'd say a Combinator 2.0 is long overdue.  But... I'd rather see the RE SDK add long overdue features before that's even thought of (sample import, panel changing with dynamic content, etc).  But I digress...

[jfrichards]

...I'd say a Combinator 2.0 is long overdue...

Sure is, and it would be relatively easy to expand it, with a little rearrangement, so it could fit inside Combinator 1.0



This quick mockup includes three horizontal faders for grouping any combinations of controls.  Adding Giles' adjustable linearity for the faders, and a momentary option for the buttons would be fabulous.  Regular Combinator control buttons would be above or below the 8 banks for more real estate.  Decibel numbers would be 0-127 instead (or just a number display), although an option for audio would be cool.

Still rainin', still dreamin'.

[eusti]

Combinators inside of Combinators also presents a basic graphic issue - as the size shrinks inside each Combi as you nest them, going two or more deep would require a different approach to prevent the sides from shrinking inwards and hiding more and more of the enclosed devices. Probably isn't going to happen any time soon that I can see…but never say never!

Couldn't you just get around that by not shrinking the width any further?

D.

How do you put something "inside" of something inside of something without shrinking them? It's more the width I'm talking about here - you'd have to come up with some way to still see the nesting when you exceed one deep.

But I've also suggested that two deep is really all most folks are asking for when you get down to brass tacks, so maybe it wouldn't be an issue if there was a limit of two deep?

I still want multiple combinators inside of Inserts…

I was thinking like this:

 

To show what is in which combinator I'd tone them slightly in color / give them a different color outline.

D.

[TheFilterMob]

Wow, I thought I was the only one dreaming of this "super combinator", this would intensely increase propellerhead version 9(if included) into an even bigger giant in the production software market!!!!!   If they sold it in the re department, I would buy it for 500$ easily!!!!!!!!

[frog974new]

a feature i want ^^ : no cap line for the programmer
its always a bit boring to see we can't add an other line for the combinator routing

[jfrichards]

How about a half-rack device?  Like a CMB-4.  Add as many as you want into a Combinator.  Have a few varieties, like one with stepped knobs, one with adjustable linearity, one with momentary buttons...

 

[jfrichards]

How about a half-rack device?  Like a CMB-4.  Add as many as you want into a Combinator.  Have a few varieties, like one with stepped knobs, one with adjustable linearity, one with momentary buttons...

 

This would be really good for a ReasonTalk Rack Extension.  Can we all pay Giles to make one?  And add a Faceplate Color right click option with all the track colors?  I'll donate $25 for development through the ReasonTalk PayPal account.  If it's designed like other Rack Extensions, all the programming hookups will show up in the Combinator.  And an Expand button would open up the devices inside it.

[selig]

Combinators inside of Combinators also presents a basic graphic issue - as the size shrinks inside each Combi as you nest them, going two or more deep would require a different approach to prevent the sides from shrinking inwards and hiding more and more of the enclosed devices. Probably isn't going to happen any time soon that I can see…but never say never!

Couldn't you just get around that by not shrinking the width any further?

D.

How do you put something "inside" of something inside of something without shrinking them? It's more the width I'm talking about here - you'd have to come up with some way to still see the nesting when you exceed one deep.

But I've also suggested that two deep is really all most folks are asking for when you get down to brass tacks, so maybe it wouldn't be an issue if there was a limit of two deep?

I still want multiple combinators inside of Inserts…

I was thinking like this:

 

To show what is in which combinator I'd tone them slightly in color / give them a different color outline.

D.

This is exactly what I'm talking about doing with inserts - however, with nesting Combinators my question concerns going one level deeper (sorry I didn't make that more clear). It's when you put something inside of something that's already inside of something that the shrinking issues occur.

Again, simply going one level in for Combis and Inserts (which are basically Combis) would solve 90% of the issues most mention for wanting this feature. Infinite nesting is not required IMO.

[selig]

How about a half-rack device?  Like a CMB-4.  Add as many as you want into a Combinator.  Have a few varieties, like one with stepped knobs, one with adjustable linearity, one with momentary buttons...

 

This would be really good for a ReasonTalk Rack Extension.  Can we all pay Giles to make one?  And add a Faceplate Color right click option with all the track colors?  I'll donate $25 for development through the ReasonTalk PayPal account.  If it's designed like other Rack Extensions, all the programming hookups will show up in the Combinator.  And an Expand button would open up the devices inside it.

Sorry, with the current SDK you can't have half rack devices, or have an "expand" button, or put other devices inside etc. You also can't control other devices "combinator style", you only have CV as an option.and you STILL have to open the combinator to access them… ;(

I currently use Gain as a CV source for things like controlling mod depth for CV paths (since the little knob on the back of devices can't be automated and for generating control signals for other parameters.

[joeyluck]

People actually want to put combinators inside of combinators? That would be messy.
And as Selig points out—sizing issue. What happens when you want to open a Combinator that's inside of another Combinator?

And can you put a Combinator in that Combinator? You can say no, but then what happens if you save a Combinator that contains a Combinator and then load it in another Combinator?




I'm all about more knobs and buttons. But as far as Combinators inside Combinators, I think this is a benefit the way things are now...
Allow the limitations to direct you to route more efficiently

[eusti]

This is exactly what I'm talking about doing with inserts - however, with nesting Combinators my question concerns going one level deeper (sorry I didn't make that more clear). It's when you put something inside of something that's already inside of something that the shrinking issues occur.

Again, simply going one level in for Combis and Inserts (which are basically Combis) would solve 90% of the issues most mention for wanting this feature. Infinite nesting is not required IMO.

I would do the same, just either highlighting or outlining the next lower level in a different shade.
That's why I wouldn't shrink it any further...

D.

[jfrichards]

...with the current SDK you can't have half rack devices, or have an "expand" button, or put other devices inside etc. You also can't control other devices "combinator style", you only have CV as an option.and you STILL have to open the combinator to access them… 

OK, back to begging Prop staff for Combinator II.

[lowpryo]

I support this only because everyone else seems so passionate about it, but I have no idea how people need more than 4 knobs to modulate a sound. Have you guys tried lumping parameters together? I can't imagine separately automating 4+ knobs that each do something different. At that point I'd rather just make separate devices!