Wish More scene controllers would be nice

[Rex]

If there is some kind of delay in loading all the parameters, that would be less than ideal. I would think that updating the state of each parameter would take a fraction of the time that a preset takes to load.

Everything you do on a computer takes time. If you had to load every parameter when you change scenes, it would go like this:

Look up desired value for Level.
Load desired value in Level
Look up desired value for Pan.
Load desired value for Pan.
Look up desired value for Threshold.
Load desired value for threshold.
...
...
...and so on, for every parameter in the block.
Then repeat the above for every block in the preset. That’s hundreds of operations, just to change to a new scene.


With the current method, it’s just one command:
Jump to Channel B.

Anyway you slice it, more scene (namable) controllers is needed.

More scene controllers would be nice.

 

[Bode]

Correct. It’s similar to loading a different spreadsheet or document from disk, or a website from the server, versus switching to a different window containing the preloaded information.

I don't know how exactly the HX and Helix line of processors work, but Line 6 was able to work out how to use "Snapshots" to update every parameter with no perceivable delay.

Fractal products have perhaps 10x more parameters per block compared to the Helix units. But even if a scene parameter limit was imposed such that only 500 parameters could be modified per scene, how much delay would there really be? I would guess on the order of 150-250ms, which is about how long it takes to blink your eyes.

My experience with Helix and HX products and my limited coding experience for microprocessors like Arduino, Teensy, and ESP8266 makes me feel like scene-to-scene parameter updating can be done with minimal delay.

 

[Bode]

Everything you do on a computer takes time. If you had to load every parameter when you change scenes, it would go like this:

Look up desired value for Level.
Load desired value in Level
Look up desired value for Pan.
Load desired value for Pan.
Look up desired value for Threshold.
Load desired value for threshold.
...
...
...and so on, for every parameter in the block.
Then repeat the above for every block in the preset. That’s hundreds of operations, just to change to a new scene.


With the current method, it’s just one command:
Jump to Channel B.


More scene controllers would be nice.

I don't think it works that way. All the data for every parameter can be stored in an array or several arrays. On a scene change, the code just references the next array index. The processors run at millions of cycles per second and the data being read is very small (maybe around 1kb for 500 parameters).

Here is an example: On the back of my TV I have an ambient LED light made up of 266 individually controllable RGB LEDs. The controller, an Arduino Nano, updates each led (266 x 3 color channels = 798) with an 8-bit value (0-255) more than 30 times a second. And the Arduino Nano runs at 16 MHz. With a different code, I can get the LEDs to update at 400-600/sec.

I know that this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, but the data in question is small and the processors in the Fractal products are fast. Helix products can do this. I don't understand why you are describing something as simple as indexing data from an array is landing a man on the moon.

I appreciate the dialog though! The Fractal community has been great so far!

 

[Moke]

I don't know how exactly the HX and Helix line of processors work, but Line 6 was able to work out how to use "Snapshots" to update every parameter with no perceivable delay.

When changing Snapshots, it only updates the parameters that are linked to a Snapshot Controller. Not every parameter. And there is a hard limit to how many parameters can be attached to a Snapshot Controller in a preset. I can't remember off hand.

And there are no Damping parameters, adjustable curves, etc..

I really like Line 6's implementation of adding and editing Snapshots. But really miss those other tools in the Fractal Edit Modifier window.

 

[Rex]

I

I know that this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, but the data in question is small and the processors in the Fractal products are fast. Helix products can do this.

Helix scenes are essentially equivalent to Fractal’s scenes and channels, but with more restrictions. In other words, we already have that.

I don't understand why you are describing something as simple as indexing data from an array is landing a man on the moon.

Straw men are so fun to play with.

On-chip memory is limited, and largely already in use. Indexing an array still involves an external memory access requiring multiple cycles, and it would stil have to be done hundreds of times per scene change.

 

[sdkee]

Comment from current Helix user considering switch to Axe FX. Helix can change up to 64 parameters across all blocks in a "snapshot" (similar to a scene in FAS terminology). It is NOT possible to change the effect subtype in this way. So for instance if you want your Marshall to turn into a Fender or your Rat to turn into a Screamer then no dice. But you can keep a Marshall in your grid and change up to 64 parameters in it up to 8 snapshots. Block bypass state is "free" and doesn't count towards this 64, and blocks can be optionally made to ignore snapshot for bypass so you can stomp them. I have never run out of this 64. And the change between snapshots is imperceptible. The fractal "channels" concept allows changing of block subtype, which is amazing and a big part of my reason to want to change to FAS, with the slight disadvantage of a little audio cutout when changing subtypes. But the Helix system of just having a lot of parameters which you can nominate to change according to snapshot (scene) is really nice/intuitive to use. You just load a scene, fiddle with the parameters of the various blocks to be how you like them and save the snapshot. In the editor, you are not changing a controller value, but the block parameter itself. So no having to think "oh snapshot controller 1 is doing A and B and C". It just works. To get to Helix quality on THIS issue, you would need to have EITHER (1) 64 scene controllers and some way for the editor to abstract the numbering away from the user or (2) 8 channels on each effect and no audio cut out for changing between channels with the same subtype. But it is a different way of doing things and I don't know that this is necessary. I have been going through my patches and have not yet found one where this is an issue. But it is a concern for me, so +1.

 

[Bode]

I have had my FM9T for 2 weeks and have programmed 36 presets. 27 for my wedding band (we do 45 songs, but I haven't programmed all of them yet), 6 for worship music, and the rest are experiments. For a lot of pop tunes we do in the wedding band, the four scene controllers are plenty, although remembering what I set them to is really annoying. I have to go to the modifiers list and look whenever I make tweaks. However, anytime I am using dual amps and multiple scenes, I set controllers 1 and 2 to the gain on the amps, and 3 and 4 for the level of the amps. Anything else I need to modify between scenes has to be done with control switches, which is not ideal. First, because there are only 6 of them, and second because they are binary.

And I get that you can assign multiple parameters to a single control switch or scene controller and get different values with the range and other options in the modifier window. But because it's binary it's really limiting.

One potential solution would be to use the MIDI block and run the MIDI out of the pedal to the MIDI in. This would potentially allow for 8+ additional ways to control parameters via MIDI. Only 8 MIDI messages can be sent at a time, but you can change what CC channels are on each scene. So if that works, it would open up a lot more control. But again, that is a super clunky way of doing it. And it only works if you are not already using MIDI for something! I also don't know if MIDI is sent and received instantly on the FM9. I have read other posts about folks using MIDI from a DAW and that there was a bit of delay from when the message was sent from the DAW to when the board updated. I also don't know if there is any danger in running the MIDI out to the MIDI in. I don't see why there would be, but I'd like it confirmed to be safe before I mess with it.

More nameable scene controllers would be really helpful.

 

[Adrian Pereyra]

+1