Another Gapless Switching Thread... Solved! (Post #136)

State of Epicicity said:
I disagree about morphing being the only artistically acceptable way to do this. One switches pickups for drastically different but complementary texture, and that is gapless, and you can go beyond that idea to tone switching inside a modeler. Two different amps can go through the same cab, set to a similar frequency response, but have a drastically different, but complementary feel to them, with a different texture, and that doesn’t require morphing.

Crossfading is great, but it is not the only artistically acceptable way to do it.
Click to expand...

Well, but consider that the one option includes the other option implicitly, as a subset.

What I mean is: If your modeling platform contains within itself, as an intrinsic and default feature, the power to crossfade from one channel to another over a time-interval of your choosing (maybe 1500ms, or maybe the duration of a quarter-note), then you could choose an interval of 0 milliseconds, if you like.

But if your platform only enables you to drop one signal in favor of another, then 0 milliseconds (or worse, a detectable gap) is your only option.

So it's a Venn Diagram in which crossfading over time contains instantaneous-changing as a subset, but the reverse is not true.

And, BTW, I would extrapolate that desire to pickups, if the tech existed to allow it. (But the Level-of-Effort to add such a feature to an amp/effects modeling platform is much lower than the LOE for widespread usage of "modeling, crossfading pickups!")

P.S. I'm not sure how to respond to your mentioning of two amps into one cab. Are you describing a blended sound, or are you describing using first one amp, and then switching to the other? If it's the former, then I agree it's nice and I use it all the time, but it doesn't conflict with what I'm saying. If it's the latter, then what I'm saying applies to that example every bit as much as it would apply to a single amp being channel-switched. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point?
 
Dr. Dipwad said:
Well, but consider that the one option includes the other option implicitly, as a subset.

What I mean is: If your modeling platform contains within itself, as an intrinsic and default feature, the power to crossfade from one channel to another over a time-interval of your choosing (maybe 1500ms, or maybe the duration of a quarter-note), then you could choose an interval of 0 milliseconds, if you like.

But if your platform only enables you to drop one signal in favor of another, then 0 milliseconds (or worse, a detectable gap) is your only option.

So it's a Venn Diagram in which crossfading over time contains instantaneous-changing as a subset, but the reverse is not true.

And, BTW, I would extrapolate that desire to pickups, if the tech existed to allow it. (But the Level-of-Effort to add such a feature to an amp/effects modeling platform is much lower than the LOE for widespread usage of "modeling, crossfading pickups!")

P.S. I'm not sure how to respond to your mentioning of two amps into one cab. Are you describing a blended sound, or are you describing using first one amp, and then switching to the other? If it's the former, then I agree it's nice and I use it all the time, but it doesn't conflict with what I'm saying. If it's the latter, then what I'm saying applies to that example every bit as much as it would apply to a single amp being channel-switched. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point?
Click to expand...

I gotcha. I’m talking about playing one amp first, then switching to the other gaplessly, not mixing the two.

You have a good point that it would be cool to set a crossfade time, and I didn’t at all think you were including a 0 ms option, because that seems to me not be a crossfade at all! Whatever the multiplexer does right now going from one row to the other sounds great to me, and I always think of it as an extension of the natural feeling of a pickup selector.

But I understand also the desire to use a crossfade, as Joe used to great effect in his cool presets. I’m just saying that, for me and those who would use it in my style, an instantaneous changing of tones never has to sound jarring or abrupt. I think it’s really about being careful about the relationship between the two tones, to ensure they’re copacetic. My two cents.
 
State of Epicicity said:
I gotcha. I’m talking about playing one amp first, then switching to the other gaplessly, not mixing the two.

You have a good point that it would be cool to set a crossfade time, and I didn’t at all think you were including a 0 ms option, because that seems to me not be a crossfade at all! Whatever the multiplexer does right now going from one row to the other sounds great to me, and I always think of it as an extension of the natural feeling of a pickup selector.

But I understand also the desire to use a crossfade, as Joe used to great effect in his cool presets. I’m just saying that, for me and those who would use it in my style, an instantaneous changing of tones never has to sound jarring or abrupt. I think it’s really about being careful about the relationship between the two tones, to ensure they’re copacetic. My two cents.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, the preset I posted uses a mixer, not a multiplexer. One of the advantages of using a mixer is you can dial in a precise cross-fade time (including zero if you prefer) by setting the attack and release times on the mixer parameter modifiers. Sometimes getting a pleasing transition between amp channels requires more than just eliminating the gap. Sometimes a brief crossfade is also required.
 
Joe Bfstplk said:
Works if you figure out how to share the FCs....
Click to expand...
Use MIDI to control one modeler from another and also control a mixer that cross fades… and the problem dives further down the rabbit hole.

When we had pedal boards without any sort of controlling interface our worry was hum and noise, bad connections and dead batteries, hauling stupidly big rigs, and trying to find enough time between “scenes” to step on multiple buttons before the next downbeat. I can live with every “problem” we see with the current modeler technology because, even at its worst, it’s still a major improvement from what we used to deal with.
 
Last edited:
GlennO said:
Just to be clear, the preset I posted uses a mixer, not a multiplexer. One of the advantages of using a mixer is you can dial in a precise cross-fade time (including zero if you prefer) by setting the attack and release times on the mixer parameter modifiers. Sometimes getting a pleasing transition between amp channels requires more than just eliminating the gap. Sometimes a brief crossfade is also required.
Click to expand...

Yes, I remember that you use the mixer block in your method, and I understand wanting a brief crossfade too. I do think that’s fine if that fits what you’re playing, but I’m really just saying that’s not the only desirable way to do it, that any instantaneous jump to a new tone is not necessarily jarring.
 
State of Epicicity said:
Yes, I remember that you use the mixer block in your method, and I understand wanting a brief crossfade too. I do think that’s fine if that fits what you’re playing, but I’m really just saying that’s not the only desirable way to do it, that any instantaneous jump to a new tone is not necessarily jarring.
Click to expand...
I use a pair of VolPan blocks per the Cooper Carter suggestion a while back. Much more organic transition. Just gotta get the tapers right if one amp is clean(-ish) and the other isn't to get an even, surge-free transition.

Wish we had De-Mux and De-Mix blocks....
 
State of Epicicity said:
How would those work?
Click to expand...
Split the signal rather than mix/mux it. Signal routing, essentially.

The De-mix would hopefully be kind-of a bundle of 6 (4 for FM3) VolPan blocks, with tapers and panning for each control, which would control audio flow into the subsequent column of each of the 6 (4 for FM3) rows.

The De-Mux (De-Multiplexer) would just switch the output to one of the 6 (4 for FM3) rows, and would be a 6 (4 for FM3) channel block.
 
State of Epicicity said:
Yes, I remember that you use the mixer block in your method, and I understand wanting a brief crossfade too. I do think that’s fine if that fits what you’re playing, but I’m really just saying that’s not the only desirable way to do it, that any instantaneous jump to a new tone is not necessarily jarring.
Click to expand...
That's true. I'm just pointing out that using a mixer has advantages over using a multiplexer. You can always turn the attack down to zero with the mixer if you don't want cross fading, but you can't turn the attack up with the multiplexer if you do, so you might as well use the mixer technique.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom