Wish More control over modifier curve

it would be really helpful if there were more data points available then just start, mid, and end. Also an option to straight line interpolate between points instead of a curve would be nice.

+1 (Image below is from an RC controller for stick position to throttle mapping. If we had linear connection option of a user defined number of points, I could use this)

upload_2018-6-22_11-41-32.jpeg
 
it would be really helpful if there were more data points available then just start, mid, and end. Also an option to straight line interpolate between points instead of a curve would be nice.

Yeah! I've been asking for this since the Axe-Fx I.

Ideally up to 128 points, spline interpolated. Totally fine if this could only be accessed through Axe-Edit BTW.
 
Ideally up to 128 points, spline interpolated. Totally fine if this could only be accessed through Axe-Edit BTW.
128 points?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're proposing something like this:

In theory, one could thereby map the values as follows:
0 -> 0% (a point set by the user)
1 -> spline-interpolated between the value for 0 and the value for 2
2 -> 100% (a point set by the user)
3 -> spline-interpolated between the value for 2 and the value for 4
4 -> 0% (a point set by the user)
5 -> spline-interpolated between the value for 4 and the value for 6
6 -> 100% (a point set by the user)
7 ->
...etc., etc., et alia, ...,
251 -> spline-interpolated between the value for 250 and the value for 252
252 -> 100% (a point set by the user)
253 -> spline-interpolated between the value for 252 and the value for 254
254 -> 0% (a point set by the user)
255 -> spline-interpolated between the value for 254 and the value for 256, but there isn't any 256, so it'll need to match the value for 254 (in this case 0%)

...is that right?

If so...well, I don't see the point. I can imagine wanting a complex curve involving EIGHT points, maybe. But 128?

What am I missing here, AlbertA?
 
I've been +1'ing this request for years but I'll be honest: I don't know what I'd use it for. What are some scenarios where you need a curve you can't get with the start/mid/end settings we have available to us now?
 
iaresee:

I've been +1'ing this request for years but I'll be honest: I don't know what I'd use it for. What are some scenarios where you need a curve you can't get with the start/mid/end settings we have available to us now?

Re: AlbertA's 128 points: Unless I misunderstood what Albert was asking for, I think 128 points is excessive.

BUT,
there was one occasion when I needed the modifier curve to follow pedal-position in a peculiar way, and found I wasn't able to get the curve right no matter how I tried to futz about with the parameters.

If I recall correctly, it had to do with the "SLOPE" parameter. As I increased it, it produced the usual "S" curve, but the curve was unfortunately, the opposite of what I wanted to achieve. It was like a mirror-image of the shape I wanted, except I can't remember whether it was flipped horizontally (like things you see in a mirror) or vertically (like mountains reflected on a lake).

Anyhow, no matter how I messed with the parameters I couldn't get that shape; apparently the params weren't designed to allow that kind of curve as an option. I kept wanting to tap my Axe-FX II on the top and say, "McFly? McFly? Like this, only flipped around!" ...but fortunately my Axe-FX was racked at the time, and thus was not subjected to such indignities. ;)

So, to make a long story short...,

(too late!)

...every time I see a WISH asking for "More control over modifier curve," I remember that occasion, and push "Like" on the post.
 
@Moke had a bunch of scenarios he mentioned in his wish post for the axe2. For me it’s just a matter of being able to fine tune my mod curves
 
128 points?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're proposing something like this:

In theory, one could thereby map the values as follows:
0 -> 0% (a point set by the user)
1 -> spline-interpolated between the value for 0 and the value for 2
2 -> 100% (a point set by the user)
3 -> spline-interpolated between the value for 2 and the value for 4
4 -> 0% (a point set by the user)
5 -> spline-interpolated between the value for 4 and the value for 6
6 -> 100% (a point set by the user)
7 ->
...etc., etc., et alia, ...,
251 -> spline-interpolated between the value for 250 and the value for 252
252 -> 100% (a point set by the user)
253 -> spline-interpolated between the value for 252 and the value for 254
254 -> 0% (a point set by the user)
255 -> spline-interpolated between the value for 254 and the value for 256, but there isn't any 256, so it'll need to match the value for 254 (in this case 0%)

...is that right?

If so...well, I don't see the point. I can imagine wanting a complex curve involving EIGHT points, maybe. But 128?

What am I missing here, AlbertA?

OK, maybe 128 is excessive but if you don't ask you'll never get :)
I'd be ok with 16, linearly interpolated :)

The best explanation is via a demo:

https://www.pianoteq.com/try

If you run that PianoTeq demo, try adjusting the velocity curve. You can add as many points as you want and shape the curve however you want.
 
@Dr. Dipwad its not the shape, it’s the application. What were you doing that demanded that particular shape?
Oh, I was doing my usual thing: Crossfading tones. Basically I was trying to use an Expression Pedal to go from a clean tone, to a nice semi-gritty tone, to a fully distorted tone, as I rolled my foot forward.

But, it didn't sound like a smooth morphing from one tone to another at first, because the clean sound was very clean and the distorted sound was very dirty. I found that it worked better if the clean amp, itself, started increasing its Drive (or maybe Trim? I don't recall) while it was fading out, so that by the time it reached its endpoint it was a semi-distorted sound that was fading away. In the meantime, I started out with less distortion on the dirty amp when it was at the lowest level; and as it faded in, it got more and more drive.

But it still wasn't perfectly smooth, and I found that the reason was because the increasing drive on the first amp was changing the volume level as well, causing it to increase in overall volume faster than desired.

So the funky curve I was trying to modify was intended originally to be a logarithmic curve to ramp one amp up, and another down, in a way that kept the overall balance of volumes even. But it ended up having odd dips in it because of how I was increasing/decreasing the volume in one place while modifying drive/trim (which affected volume) in another place.
 
OK, maybe 128 is excessive but if you don't ask you'll never get :)
I'd be ok with 16, linearly interpolated :)

The best explanation is via a demo:

https://www.pianoteq.com/try

If you run that PianoTeq demo, try adjusting the velocity curve. You can add as many points as you want and shape the curve however you want.
Gotcha. Yeah, 16 seems about the max from my perspective. I was just curious whether there was something I was missing.
 
Oh, I was doing my usual thing: Crossfading tones. Basically I was trying to use an Expression Pedal to go from a clean tone, to a nice semi-gritty tone, to a fully distorted tone, as I rolled my foot forward.

But, it didn't sound like a smooth morphing from one tone to another at first, because the clean sound was very clean and the distorted sound was very dirty. I found that it worked better if the clean amp, itself, started increasing its Drive (or maybe Trim? I don't recall) while it was fading out, so that by the time it reached its endpoint it was a semi-distorted sound that was fading away. In the meantime, I started out with less distortion on the dirty amp when it was at the lowest level; and as it faded in, it got more and more drive.

But it still wasn't perfectly smooth, and I found that the reason was because the increasing drive on the first amp was changing the volume level as well, causing it to increase in overall volume faster than desired.

So the funky curve I was trying to modify was intended originally to be a logarithmic curve to ramp one amp up, and another down, in a way that kept the overall balance of volumes even. But it ended up having odd dips in it because of how I was increasing/decreasing the volume in one place while modifying drive/trim (which affected volume) in another place.
If you're trying to crossfade between a clean tone and a dirty tone, it's almost impossible to do that smoothly. The point at which the dirty tone kicks in is audible and crass.

Instead, morph the gain with your pedal. You'll get better results, and you won't be searching for a nonexistent modifier curve.
 
If you're trying to crossfade between a clean tone and a dirty tone, it's almost impossible to do that smoothly. The point at which the dirty tone kicks in is audible and crass.

Instead, morph the gain with your pedal. You'll get better results, and you won't be searching for a nonexistent modifier curve.
Well...actually, I ultimately did achieve this, and in a way that I was pleased with the outcome. So, it's not that it can't be done.

To achieve it, I had to use other approaches, involving extra curves on other parameters *, rather than simply having a curve on a single parameter which nicely matched my needs.

But that's beside-the-point, on this thread. I only mentioned my struggles with that Modifier curve in order to demonstrate that the current modifier parameters don't necessarily allow for all the curves a player might want to make.

-- D.D.

* = I ended up using the Amp drive level, the Cab output level, and some judicious Multi-Band Compression, if anybody's interested.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rex
* = I ended up using the Amp drive level, the Cab output level, and some judicious Multi-Band Compression, if anybody's interested.
Ah, that’s pretty much the magic combo for gain morphing: Drive and Level parameters. :) I hadn’t thought of throwing MBC into the mix.
 
+1

A good example of how I'd want to use this is to create a "stairstep" curve to be able to use an expression pedal to cycle between X "notched" settings with no in between settings.
 
Perhaps a quantize option could be added to the modifier curve options. You could then define the number of steps the curve would be divided into like you can in the LFO controller options.
 
Back
Top Bottom