Author |
Message |
Tim Kleinert
Joined: Mar 12, 2004 Posts: 1148 Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Audio files: 7
G2 patch files: 236
|
Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:26 am Post subject:
Polyphonic Unison Subject description: driving a patch of choice with dynamic polyphonic unison |
|
|
At request of a fellow G2 user and forum member, here is my shot at the polyphonic unison problem.
...and problem it is! DIY voice allocation is a tough bugger. I have a hunch how it could be done the DIY way, but it's a very brainy and klutzy affair as usual. It would boil down to creating dynamic RAM memory lookup-tables with read and write options. Can be done by lockstepping a counter circuit to a clocked delay module and stuff. But it would reach a high level of fiddlyness, and I don't want to go there right now.
So here's a simpler solution based on interslot MIDI. One slot contains the MIDI driver and you can create a polyphonic patch of choice in another. There are a few drawbacks though. If you want to change the slot to be driven, you have to change the slot settings accordingly in 8 MIDI note-send modules, which is a bit tiresome, but not that much of a big deal.
Also, you unfortunately can't use any MIDI velocity control in the poly-patch, as this is used to transmit the unison-spread information. If you don't need this (eg. using voice-randomising instead), you can free up velocity control again. In the driver, just patch the keyboard velocity output into all the note-send velocity inputs, and you're done.
This is presented as a performance, with the MIDI driver in slot A and a stupid demo poly patch (sorry...) in slot B. You can stack up to 8 voices. Also, notice the colored modules in the poly patch, which are needed to provide the detune- and pan-spread functionality. Hope it is clear.
cheers,
tim
Description: |
driving a patch of choice with dynamic polyphonic unison |
|
Download |
Filename: |
PolyUnison TK.prf2 |
Filesize: |
8.31 KB |
Downloaded: |
1565 Time(s) |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Chrono
Joined: May 18, 2008 Posts: 229 Location: NL
Audio files: 37
G2 patch files: 38
|
Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 9:19 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Wonderfull!! ill go test it right away |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Tim Kleinert
Joined: Mar 12, 2004 Posts: 1148 Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Audio files: 7
G2 patch files: 236
|
Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 12:08 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Cool.
BTW, I couldn't resist after all and tried different tricky solutions involving DIY voice allocation schemes and multiplexing stuff. It was a goddamn pain in the ass , and they didn't work in the end after all. It's impossible, due to the architecture of the G2.
And even if they would work, they would use such copious amounts of circuitry and DSP that they would not be practical anymore anyway. For what use is it to have poly unison if you don't have enough voices to pull it off?
I conclude that there is absolutely no other way of patching this on the G2. So the velocity drawback remains, except if one can do without the spread functionality (eg. with voice randomising schemes).
cheers,
tim |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Chrono
Joined: May 18, 2008 Posts: 229 Location: NL
Audio files: 37
G2 patch files: 38
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Chrono
Joined: May 18, 2008 Posts: 229 Location: NL
Audio files: 37
G2 patch files: 38
|
Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 12:31 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I think this scheme works just fine. The amount of modules for DIY would indeed cut all polyfony.
This patch will do great! Fantastic, many thanks!
tim wrote: | Cool.
BTW, I couldn't resist after all and tried different tricky solutions involving DIY voice allocation schemes and multiplexing stuff. It was a goddamn pain in the ass , and they didn't work in the end after all. It's impossible, due to the architecture of the G2.
And even if they would work, they would use such copious amounts of circuitry and DSP that they would not be practical anymore anyway. For what use is it to have poly unison if you don't have enough voices to pull it off?
I conclude that there is absolutely no other way of patching this on the G2. So the velocity drawback remains, except if one can do without the spread functionality (eg. with voice randomising schemes).
cheers,
tim |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|