Propellerhead Software
  #1  
Old 2008-07-17, 17:05
Reason1O1's Avatar
Reason1O1 Reason1O1 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,096
Convert CV Connections to automation

I know you might be scratching your head, but hopefully this makes sense.

Let's say you connect a subtractor LFO 1 to the panning of channel 1 on a mixer. How about a way to convert that connection to the channel 1 pan automation lane in the sequencer (just as you can convert notes from a matrix to a note lane in the sequencer). The software would analyze the cv connection, as well as the trim knob, and come up with automation which replicates this connection.

So basically, you connect the CV routing, click "convert to automation lane" and the CV is converted to automation data in the sequencer. Then you can delete the routing, as it's not needed anymore.

The automation lane would take over for the CV routing and operate just as it did as if it were routed, except that it's now controlled by the automation lane, and you can in essence "See" your CV routing on-screen, edit the automation, fine tune it, etc.

It may not work for every circumstance, but it seems like it would make sense. I would think this would be a huge improvement and get around a lot of CV issues, such as not being able to automate the trim knobs, and being able to edit the automation afterwards.

Any thoughts?

Rob
  #2  
Old 2008-07-17, 17:35
marc64's Avatar
marc64 marc64 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 995
Yes, It would be nice to be able to convert an lfo curve, matrix curv etc. to automation lane

Or even be able to drag points in the stright line to make a beizer curves in the automation lanes, not just straight lines...

Like this http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/gfx/bezier.html
  #3  
Old 2008-07-18, 00:28
dioxide's Avatar
dioxide dioxide is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,290
Funnily enough I was thinking about this the other day and nearly posted it up here. I came to the conclusion that it's not going to happen until Reason supports higher resolution automation. The CV source has a resolution of 0-127 and so does the target parameter. So to be able to bounce that into the sequencer as automation you would need a resolution that's much higher than the current automation resolution. Or alternatively you would have to bring in a parameter smoothing feature in, the automation equivalent of portamento glide, so as to smooth out the steps.

Could be quite cool though as you could output envelopes and LFOs to the sequencer and edit them.
  #4  
Old 2008-07-18, 15:37
Reason1O1's Avatar
Reason1O1 Reason1O1 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,096
Even if the automation does not support a high enough resolution, I would imagine it wouldn't be that difficult to come as close as you could to reproducing the CV connection in an automation lane. Sure it might not be perfect, but at least it would open you up to editing, and automating trim knobs. I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives (low resolution). And if you really needed the higher resolution, you could still keep the routing and not bounce it to an automation track.

Definitely would be cool to work with envelopes and LFOs in this manner.

It would solve one of the biggest problems I always encounter, which is setting an LFO source to modulate the level in the mixer. If you do this, you end up with very little control over the level. I mean, you can mute it, but you're pretty much stuck with the LFO during the entire length of the song. With this approach, you can then go in and edit the LFO by reducing it in some parts, raising, lowering, etc. It's fully editable.

Rob
  #5  
Old 2008-07-30, 12:45
SiKo's Avatar
SiKo SiKo is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by dioxide View Post
Funnily enough I was thinking about this the other day and nearly posted it up here. I came to the conclusion that it's not going to happen until Reason supports higher resolution automation. The CV source has a resolution of 0-127 and so does the target parameter. So to be able to bounce that into the sequencer as automation you would need a resolution that's much higher than the current automation resolution. Or alternatively you would have to bring in a parameter smoothing feature in, the automation equivalent of portamento glide, so as to smooth out the steps.

Could be quite cool though as you could output envelopes and LFOs to the sequencer and edit them.
I don't understand your reasoning...
besides that, we have now vector automation which smoothens the resolution ... right?

maybe it's just your wording and you're totally right, but then please explain me again.

thanks!
__________________
SiKo
-= Reaper is not for everyone, but it seriously rocks =-
  #6  
Old 2008-07-20, 04:00
facher83's Avatar
facher83 facher83 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 752
I'm still in favor of a full fledged 'new' cable connector for all Reason 5 components, a digital connector, complete with a new spider component to split and combine, with the ability to transfer raw source 'values' to new targets... such as a piano synth sending digital link data stream to a strings synth. You then tell the Strings synth to suck out the notelane from the piano and apply it to the strings synth. Thus, your string synth plays exactly what the piano synth is.

Same goes for velocities. Apply it.

Mainly, I'm sure the more techno/hiphop/whatever have a use for a universal transmitter the way I have use for one that allows me to connect components in supreme ways.

I want to be able to send sequencer data from ONE main note lane source, split dozens of times to individual string instruments, and modify each individually... timing different, EQ different, reverb different.... but the same source, so once I program the linkage, the source is all I need to change.

I really want to program my Orchestra top notch instead of programming it each time I make a project and a single note. I want to automate it on my own terms.
  #7  
Old 2008-07-28, 22:57
Reason1O1's Avatar
Reason1O1 Reason1O1 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,096
That's actually one of my big pet peeves about Reason. It takes a lot of time to create combinators, matrices, etc. But the nice thing is that once you route everything up the way you want it, you can combine and create a patch, or save the song as a template. Couldn't you do the same? For instance, create one note lane, then duplicate it and/or move it to all the instruments you want to play the exact same notes, then tweak it the way you want, and save the song and you then have a template that can be used endlessly. All you then need to change is your note lane.

I guess what I'm saying is that you can create your orchestra exactly the way you want, with all your instruments you want, and then save this as a template song. You could even make it the default starting song, so that when you open reason, all the instruments and everything is right there ready to go.

I'm not sure why you need this new "digital connector"?

Rob
  #8  
Old 2008-07-30, 04:58
pparish pparish is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 51
Thumbs up

Absolutely - I would really like to see extended automation in a future version of Reason that can control cable connections. Why not apply the routing flexibility that was introduced with the combinator to the rest of the program?

Good idea.
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
i was getting frustrated yesteray about automation... lofi1990 Phead User Forum (read only) 3 2006-05-15 14:15
Automation!?!? Not ReWired, you don't! ascher General Forum (read only) 6 2003-12-10 10:51
Automation suggestions for Reason 3.0 davelowndes General Forum (read only) 5 2003-12-09 23:56
Copy data between automation subtracks wikholm General Forum (read only) 8 2003-07-16 20:23


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 23:44.