Polyphony - how to?

#1

Hi you all,

Please do not take the title of this post wrong the wrong way. I love my Axoloti! Untill now it is everything I dreamed of :grin: ..... right up to the moment when I try to go polyphonic! :confounded:

That one aspect bugs me so much that I decided to not put this post under the long running thread for patcher / GUI improvements since it would then probably just boil under.

For let's be honest: Polyphony is implemented in a very cumbersome way. One would normally want to program directly in the instrument screen, so that one can still tweak parameters that will not receive a dedicated hardware or MIDI controller directly, using the computer as a live in-depth controller besides the available board inputs an / or a MIDI controller, so to speak.

In stead one must create a polyphonic subpatch containing a list of all the parameters one still wants to tweak. That is much like doing the same work all over again while still being forced to leave the logic of the visual structure of your design behind. As a reward you then end up with a stupid “written” parameter list that also eats up extra processing power (allthough probably not very much).

ANAGRAIL 22% with RM screenshot.jpg1280x800 496 KB

My first attempt to go polyphonic today was a thud anyway because the above instrument, which works perfectly as a monophonic, does not compile propperly into a polyphonic instrument. And I do not have any idea at all what I did wrong.

Which brings me to another big disadvantage. Some of the finer programming specifics, including this one, even stay sketchy after days of wading through the community. It’s like calling that Japanese 80ties synth user-guide writer long distance yourself every time you need to do something vaguely sophisticated. “Excluse me Sil but I do not undelstand. I wolk at shiplment.”

Ah well. At least that is something that will pass.

Anyway. My main pleas are:

  • Plaese, please, please cure this problem. At least make it possible to tweak more then one monophonic Axoloti from one and the same base screen. I would even be prepared to buy one Axoloti per voice and just drive them on different MIDI channels. Such a setup would eat mixer inputs like there is no tomorrow but at least one could set up the sort of direct access system I describe above. At the same time it would also solve any processing power issues

  • Please, please, please, somebody at least produce a good guide about using polyphony as it is.

  • And also please write one about implementing MIDI expression. How for instance to do a sort of standard MPE module hookup with the instrument reacting to the MIDI essentials (pitchbend, modulation wheel, velocity, aftertouch).

Did I already say PLEASE?! :sob:

Marc

#2

and I have no idea..despite a long post, you actually haven't said what is wrong... all you say is

and yet you don't show the compilation error?

Ive no idea what this even means...

anyway...

Did you look at the demos, Library->Demo->Synth ->MPE -> bounce for example

the concept of polyphony is very simple in axoloti (and MPE)...
for polyphony you need 'copies' of each object for each voice, so... rather than putting in the main patch (which means only one voice) , you copy your entire voice patch into a subpatch (patcher/patch, so its embedded)
(copy n paste is supported , so this is trivial)

then for the subpatch you just need to edit the patch setting to mark it as polyphonic, this lets the Axoloti also know how to route voices , so if you want MPE you select Polyphonic expression (note: this is only useful for MPE controllers, if you want normal polyphony i.e. one channel, choose polyphony)
then close the subpatch, and make sure you hit update .. then you can select the number of voices

the other reason for this patch + subpatch structure , is some things you dont want per voice e.g. FX, so you use the parent (main) patch to add these to the per voice output.

its a pretty simple system, and also not much different to say how Max does it (with poly~) and also PD 0.47+ (with clone)

as for Midi Expression (MPE), you can read up about that... its basically Note+PB , Y = CC74 Z = channel pressure.... mod wheel plays no role.

not sure if anyone has time to write a guide, if not, I hope this will help.

#3

Dear Technobear,

Please do not take this personal.

I'll send you an extra message tomorrow going into my points in more detail.

First oft all this was meant as a bit of a general critisizm. It must not be very difficult to understand that my main point is that it should be enough to specify polyphony without the need for building everything into a subpatch first. I do of course see the reasoning behind subpatching to safe resources but that should be a power users option and not a prerequisite for polyphony.

So even if I haven't understood the polyphony approach at all yet (in that case mea culpa) some of my points are still valid.

I am sure I'll / we'll get there in the end though.

Marc

#4

P.S.

I do understand the reasoning behind the subpatch system but in spite of stepwise going through 3 Youtube vidoe's describing te process I cannot get a polyphonic version to work. So either I am overlooking something or I am simply stupid (gargggllle, drool),

One specific question already though. I did all my work today offline. Could it be that the patcher needs full community library access via the internet to recompile certain stuff for a subpatch layout?

Marc

#5

@thetechnobear

One final remark for today: Changing the title of my post and it's catagory in my eyes just boils down to plain censorship. That alone seems to prove you know very well what I am talking about.

That does however not mean I do not apreciate your willingness to help me anyway.

#6

I changed the title to reflect what i thought you wanted help on...and that's why I provided some info to help you.
but, change it back, if its not reflecting what you wanted to discuss.
(or raise another topic, I frankly don't care)

yes, but it does mean I am unwilling to provide any further advice/info/help.

good luck with your projects

#7

Well, at least you cannot fire me for speaking the truth. People have done that in past, you know.

I was actually about to propose that I'd help with writing some of these missing links.

But if it's your turf, it's your turf, I gues. Lacking professionality or not.

Bye.

#8

In spite of us falling out a bit: Thanks for this pointer. It's just what I need to take the next step. I'll dive into it right now! :slight_smile: