Modulation block Wish

Keg8605

Keg8605

Power User
What if we had a modulation block instead or in addition? Would help with xy switching and save some blocks/cpu. I for one pretty much never use flanger, phaser and chorus together...
 
Anybody?? Saves footswitch realestate too. I mean so long as its actually possible to do of course.
 
Keg8605 said:
What if we had a modulation block instead or in addition? Would help with xy switching and save some blocks/cpu. I for one pretty much never use flanger, phaser and chorus together...
Click to expand...

The way to accomplish this is to set Flanger, Phaser and Chorus all to the same MIDI CC.
Then assign (i.e.) a switch to Chorus, and it'll switch all 3 of them.
 
yek said:
The way to accomplish this is to set Flanger, Phaser and Chorus all to the same MIDI CC.
Then assign (i.e.) a switch to Chorus, and it'll switch all 3 of them.
Click to expand...
I know that but then you have to have all three blocks in your preset taking up cpu.
 
That theory only works if a modulation blk actually would take up less cpu. I would think if it had to combine all three of these it would be just as cpu intensive if not more
 
The question is: do inactive blocks eat up CPU? If not, then there is no need for the modulation block. If yes, then the modulation block makes sense, and you could just switch between different types of modulation from the single block. I could be wrong, but that's the way I'm interpreting the OP's point.
 
scook said:
The question is: do inactive blocks eat up CPU? If not, then there is no need for the modulation block. If yes, then the modulation block makes sense, and you could just switch between different types of modulation from the single block. I could be wrong, but that's the way I'm interpreting the OP's point.
Click to expand...
Yes it eats up CPU when inactive. As I said in my original post we are assume a modulation block would be the same CPU as a chorus or a flanger or phaser but that might not be right. The block might require more CPU because it is a more powerful block
 
Can X/Y be 2 different effects

for instance X=Flange Y= Chorus

or does it have to be 2 instances of the same effect
 
Thanks for the replies. I think you all are starting to get what I'm after. XY switching and less CPU for multiple modulation choices in a preset. And yes the big question is does creating a modulation block actually eat less cpu than have 3 blocks (flanger, Phaser, Chorus) in a preset. No expert here, just an idea.
 
Keg8605 said:
Thanks for the replies. I think you all are starting to get what I'm after. XY switching and less CPU for multiple modulation choices in a preset. And yes the big question is does creating a modulation block actually eat less cpu than have 3 blocks (flanger, Phaser, Chorus) in a preset. No expert here, just an idea.
Click to expand...
Def not a bad idea if it can actually be less CPU
 
with 512 preset slots and 8 scenes each, I really don't see the need. just make some different presets for different situations. Not many songs call for flange, phaser and chorus let alone several variations. Just get an Axe II if you need more cpu :)
 
NeoSound said:
with 512 preset slots and 8 scenes each, I really don't see the need. just make some different presets for different situations. Not many songs call for flange, phaser and chorus let alone several variations. Just get an Axe II if you need more cpu :)
Click to expand...
I bet the OP prob uses a preset template
 
I've got an Axe II, probably going to sell it now that I have the AX8. Its only an idea/wish if it actually would take up less cpu. If not then there's really no point. I'll certainly be fine without it of course. I do tend to use chorus and phaser sometimes in the same preset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom