Implemented Non-shared modifiers per channel

AlbertA

AlbertA

Fractal Fanatic
There's been occasions where I would like the modifiers to not be shared across channels.

Could there possible be a toggle we could enable to switch between shared and non-shared modes?

Or what about having an option of selecting the modifier number in per channel? Right now the modifier number is auto-assigned when you attach one. It would be great if I could select the modifier number manually - therefore getting independent modifiers per channel (up to the 32 modifier limit).

The simple case for independent modifiers per channel. Say you have a Wah block, with a modifier attached to Wah Control, for which its source is External 1. But you'd like to have different modifier curves per channel.
 
Last edited:
This would be great... But I wouldn't hold out hope. It was a frequent wish for X/Y on Axe Fx II.

Maybe whatever technical limitation prevented it there has been removed from the Axe Fx III?

I'd love to be able to switch channels between an auto engaged wah and an envelope controlled wah :)
 
unix-guy said:
This would be great... But I wouldn't hold out hope. It was a frequent wish for X/Y on Axe Fx II.

Maybe whatever technical limitation prevented it there has been removed from the Axe Fx III?
Click to expand...
Unix-Guy:
Yeah, I've wondered about that, myself.

Is it a technical limitation? (What kind? Architectural or CPU-Load?)

Or is it an uncertainty about how best to implement it?

Or is it just an estimation that not enough users would care to make use of such a feature? (Not enough, that is, to warrant the effort involved to implement it?)

Whatever it is, I think the relevant Fractal developers could freely discuss it here on the forums and get a reasonably sympathetic hearing from those of us with a technology background.

I strongly suspect this feature (different modifier links per channel) will be desired more and more, now that we have Channels. (I really never used X/Y; the fact that there were only two options and the switching-gap made it pretty useless in my view. But Channels? Different story. EVERYONE'S gonna have a use for THAT.)

With widespread use of Channels will come the observation that, "Gee, there are parameters on Amp A or Effect C that it makes sense to control with an Expression Pedal or Sequencer...but that same parameter on Amp B or Effect D makes no sense to modify at all."

This will happen over and over, to more and more users.

And the clamor for Channel-distinct modifiers will increase.

Might as well start the conversation now.
 
Dr. Dipwad said:
Unix-Guy:
Yeah, I've wondered about that, myself.

Is it a technical limitation? (What kind? Architectural or CPU-Load?)

Or is it an uncertainty about how best to implement it?

Or is it just an estimation that not enough users would care to make use of such a feature? (Not enough, that is, to warrant the effort involved to implement it?)

Whatever it is, I think the relevant Fractal developers could freely discuss it here on the forums and get a reasonably sympathetic hearing from those of us with a technology background.

I strongly suspect this feature (different modifier links per channel) will be desired more and more, now that we have Channels. (I really never used X/Y; the fact that there were only two options and the switching-gap made it pretty useless in my view. But Channels? Different story. EVERYONE'S gonna have a use for THAT.)

With widespread use of Channels will come the observation that, "Gee, there are parameters on Amp A or Effect C that it makes sense to control with an Expression Pedal or Sequencer...but that same parameter on Amp B or Effect D makes no sense to modify at all."

This will happen over and over, to more and more users.

And the clamor for Channel-distinct modifiers will increase.

Might as well start the conversation now.
Click to expand...
Yeah... I don't recall ever hearing why, only that it won't happen.

Just FYI, there is NO audio gap using X/Y except on the amp block.
 
+111111111

This would be huge. Being able to have say the Drive on Amp Channel A go from 5-9 but on B go from 3.5-8 would open up SO many more possibilities.

In fact, even if you only wanted to control one channel, being able to set the other channels to a different value would be a boon in itself. Currently, if you had that same Amp A controlled from 5-9, then the other channels would have to be at 5.
 
jefferski said:
+111111111

This would be huge. Being able to have say the Drive on Amp Channel A go from 5-9 but on B go from 3.5-8 would open up SO many more possibilities.
Click to expand...
Yep. Exactly.

In fact, even if you only wanted to control one channel, being able to set the other channels to a different value would be a boon in itself. Currently, if you had that same Amp A controlled from 5-9, then the other channels would have to be at 5.
Click to expand...
Yep, again...unless we're misunderstanding how it works.

(You folks who're in possession of an Axe III can please chime in and inform us, if we're misunderstanding something.)

The "Independent Modifiers Per Channel" feature seems very obviously desirable.

In fact, the lack of it actually makes Channels less desirable. Or if you prefer: The presence of Channels makes Modifiers less desirable. On any given block, you will want to choose one, or the other. But you probably won't like the results if you try to use both on the same block, at the same time.

Consider a Drive block, where you plan to alter the Drive parameter or the Mix parameter. For such parameters, chances are high that the range of values that sound good differ tremendously between, say, a Clean Boost or Treble Boost to a Rat or Fuzz. The only times when your modifier ranges will sound good on 2 different channels are when the models on each channel are, basically, the same model. But in that case, why'd you put that model on 2 different channels in the first place? And the same is likely true for Pitch, Chorus, and other block-types, too. (Amp goes without saying.)

No, no, no. This is an important feature to add.

If there is some overwhelming technical obstacle, then please explain it to us, Fractal.
 
Just thought of another example:

Using a Synth block, you setup a modifier to go from one frequency to another, using the min/max values. So pedaling from Chord X to Chord Y.
I'd like to specify different min/max values in the modifier, per each channel of the synth block, so that in each scene I can change the "from" and "to" chords
Scene 1: Chord X1 -> Chord Y2,
Scene 2: Chord X2 -> Chord Y2,
Scene 3: Chord X3 -> Chord Y3
...etc

Dr. Dipwad said:
But you probably won't like the results if you try to use both on the same block, at the same time.
Click to expand...

It seemed logical and intuitive at first to me, that the channels just stored all data including modifiers since everything else was. I had to dig into the manual to find that modifiers where shared across channels.
 
I would totally love if they added this feature. I like using an expression pedal to control gain on amps. Being able to change through all 4 channels and control each differently with an expression pedal would make my day!
 
AlbertA said:
There's been occasions where I would like the modifiers to not be shared across channels.

Could there possible be a toggle we could enable to switch between shared and non-shared modes?

Or what about having an option of selecting the modifier number in per channel? Right now the modifier number is auto-assigned when you attach one. It would be great if I could select the modifier number manually - therefore getting independent modifiers per channel (up to the 32 modifier limit).

The simple case for independent modifiers per channel. Say you have a Wah block, with a modifier attached to Wah Control, for which its source is External 1. But you'd like to have different modifier curves per channel.
Click to expand...
+1
 
I would settle for even being able to turn the modifier off or disable it per channel (or X/Y in the case of the II)
 
54321pj said:
I would settle for even being able to turn the modifier off or disable it per channel (or X/Y in the case of the II)
Click to expand...
Yeah, that does seem like the next-best-thing, if you can't have the original WISH.

On the other hand...,
IF you're going to enable/disable for each modifier in each channel of a block,
THEN you're already making modifiers behave in a channel-specific way, aren't ya'?

If you're gonna do that, why not go the whole way, and just have the modifiers apply to the Channels instead of to the Blocks?

I don't think Fractal has said "No, Never" to this idea. Not in any firm, public way.

(Maybe they plan to implement this idea eventually, but just haven't gotten 'round to it, yet.)

So, rather than clutter Cliff & Co.'s "Suggestion Box" with too many slightly-varying requests, I think we should just ask for the WISH, straightforwardly.

Like this...

* ahem *

Hey, Fractal!

Because the precise modifier settings (Min, Max, Damping, Curve, etc.) that make sense for one Channel often don't make sense for another Channel in the same block, we, the users, would like to have our modifier settings apply to the Channel, not the Block.

Is there some reason that can't/won't be done?

If so, can ya' let us know what the reason is, so that we can be on the same page with you guys?

Thanks!
 
I do these variations with my midi controller. I can attach a modifier, and then vary the value I'm sending to achieve the desired results.

I think the point of channels is to circumvent the limitation to which you refer. For instance, rather than attaching a modifier to gain, you duplicate the same amp on all 4 channels, and you set the drive to whatever you want it to go from clean to mean, etc.

I use a Liquid Foot controller, but RJM is also a top notch pedal. If Fractal made a pedal with the same amount of flexibility, and better dynamic and high capacity memory, they too, could handle this from the controller's end.
 
rodzimguitar68 said:
I do these variations with my midi controller. I can attach a modifier, and then vary the value I'm sending to achieve the desired results.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I don't think you're correctly understanding the issue. (Or at least, you seem to be solving a totally different problem.)

I can't think of any MIDI Controller (including LF and RJM) capable of addressing the particular issue that this WISH addresses.

Here's an example:
Your Preset has 4 Scenes, each set to use a different Channel on Amp Block 1:
Channel A: Clean (Fender Vibroverb),
Channel B: Grit (Fender Tweed),
Channel C: Crunch (Marshall Silver Jubilee), and,
Channel D: Metal Distortion (a Soldano, perhaps).

It also has an Expression Pedal which you want to roll back (heel-down) for Rhythm, and forward (toe-down) for Lead.
On your Clean sound, the difference between Rhythm and Lead involves changing the Gain from about 4 to about 7.
On your Grit sound, the difference between Rhythm and Lead involves changing the Gain from 5 to 8.
On your Crunch, it needs to go from a Min of 6 to a Min of 9.
On your Metal Distortion, Gain needs to go from 4 to 6, and the Mid control needs to go from 0 to 5.

Now, your footcontroller is going to be sending the same values regardless, from 0 to 127. The 0 is heel-down; the 127 is toe-down. And they'll always be on the same CC#, as well.

Inside the Axe FX III (or II) an Expression Link is established with Min and Max values, plus other things (damping, curve, etc.).

The WISH is to have these links have separate Min and Max values for different Channels. We want Channel A to go from 4 to 7; but Channel C shouldn't have the same Min and Max values.

And, we don't want to hear the Mids changing for all 4 channels; just for Channel D.

I can't imagine how you'd accomplish this, unless Fractal implements this WISH.

rodzimguitar68 said:
I think the point of channels is to circumvent the limitation to which you refer. For instance, rather than attaching a modifier to gain, you duplicate the same amp on all 4 channels, and you set the drive to whatever you want it to go from clean to mean, etc.
Click to expand...
That's a very different use-case, and I don't think it's what most people want to use Channels for.

Channels aren't so much for different Gains on the same Amp; that's been do-able with an expression pedal on all Fractal products for years. And, if you use Channels for that purpose it isn't a smooth change. That would be a step backwards.

No, I think Channels are Fractal's answer to the age-old Mr. Potato-Head dream: "I want an Amp with the clean channel of a Fender Blackface Deluxe, the dirty channel of a Marshall, and the lead channel of a Legacy!"

But that's precisely why we want different Expression Control settings on a per-channel basis.

(Nobody thinks that the "sweet range" of a Fender Blackface Deluxe -- for any of its controls! -- will be the same as the range for a Carvin Legacy, for the same control.)
 
This would be great. I just ran into a scenario where this would come in useful. I have a filter block with a modifier on the Level on Channel A. In a different scene, I would like to use Channel B, and manually set the level instead of having to use another filter block.
 
Dr. Dipwad said:
Respectfully, I don't think you're correctly understanding the issue. (Or at least, you seem to be solving a totally different problem.)

I can't think of any MIDI Controller (including LF and RJM) capable of addressing the particular issue that this WISH addresses.

Here's an example:
Your Preset has 4 Scenes, each set to use a different Channel on Amp Block 1:
Channel A: Clean (Fender Vibroverb),
Channel B: Grit (Fender Tweed),
Channel C: Crunch (Marshall Silver Jubilee), and,
Channel D: Metal Distortion (a Soldano, perhaps).

It also has an Expression Pedal which you want to roll back (heel-down) for Rhythm, and forward (toe-down) for Lead.
On your Clean sound, the difference between Rhythm and Lead involves changing the Gain from about 4 to about 7.
On your Grit sound, the difference between Rhythm and Lead involves changing the Gain from 5 to 8.
On your Crunch, it needs to go from a Min of 6 to a Min of 9.
On your Metal Distortion, Gain needs to go from 4 to 6, and the Mid control needs to go from 0 to 5.

Now, your footcontroller is going to be sending the same values regardless, from 0 to 127. The 0 is heel-down; the 127 is toe-down. And they'll always be on the same CC#, as well.

Inside the Axe FX III (or II) an Expression Link is established with Min and Max values, plus other things (damping, curve, etc.).

The WISH is to have these links have separate Min and Max values for different Channels. We want Channel A to go from 4 to 7; but Channel C shouldn't have the same Min and Max values.

And, we don't want to hear the Mids changing for all 4 channels; just for Channel D.

I can't imagine how you'd accomplish this, unless Fractal implements this WISH.


That's a very different use-case, and I don't think it's what most people want to use Channels for.

Channels aren't so much for different Gains on the same Amp; that's been do-able with an expression pedal on all Fractal products for years. And, if you use Channels for that purpose it isn't a smooth change. That would be a step backwards.

No, I think Channels are Fractal's answer to the age-old Mr. Potato-Head dream: "I want an Amp with the clean channel of a Fender Blackface Deluxe, the dirty channel of a Marshall, and the lead channel of a Legacy!"

But that's precisely why we want different Expression Control settings on a per-channel basis.

(Nobody thinks that the "sweet range" of a Fender Blackface Deluxe -- for any of its controls! -- will be the same as the range for a Carvin Legacy, for the same control.)
Click to expand...
+1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom