Scaling Control Values

Does anyone know of a way to "scale" control values. I want to split the constant modules output into operating on the frequency inputs of four filters.

So at a full turn of the constant modules knob I would sweep through the full range of four filters, in succession. For this I would need to scale 32 into representing 128, is that possible?

In the most extreme case one could perhaps drive 64 inputs from min to max in succession with one knob.

I've done something similar.

Try this: Connect a Knob/Constant to a Control mixer with a 2nd Constant module to shift the knob range up by +32, then run the output through an amplifier so that full counter clockwise equals -64 again, but zero will now be at about 10 O'clock. Now run this signal through a diode so the signal does not go above zero. Now another Control mixer with a Constant set to +32 to shift the range, and another amplifier to create a full -64 - +64 range with knob sweep from off to 10 O'Clock. Connect the Knob/Constant to another chain of modules in parallel and invert this process for the top end of the sweep.

For the sweeps in the middle of the knob travel, a clipper module causes the knob to have a narrow sweep area in the middle of it's travel, with zero output for the bottom portion and full output for the top portion of the travel. Add more Constants with Control Mixers to shift the travel range up & down, and amplifiers to get full -64 - +64 range.

To make it easier to verify you are really getting the sweep range & center correct, set up a normal full range Constant/knob, and use a 4-1 switch to compare the behavior of a full knob travel to the modified knob travel.

BTW, you can also use waveshapers, wavewrappers, Kybd/Vel Scalers, & other modules to modify the behavior of Constants/Knobs.

Here is an example using the clipper for this purpose. This gives four outputs between -16 and 16 after which its is easy to boost these values. The control mixers boost the signals by a factor two which seems enough to get a reasonable range. One vague statement in your description is 'unaffected', does this mean they hang on to their max or min values when the initial constant value crosses a boundary? That is possible, otherwise you have to invent some new math.

In the patch peakfilters in reverse phase are used, so they cancel each other out when the filters hang on the min or max values. (So one hears only two filters in the sweeps as two others hang on their mins or maxs.) Plus some of the usual messing about with delays and stuff.

I mean that the control value for each individual output hangs on to the max when passed clockwise and hangs to min when passed CCW, it shouldn't jump back when passed. Does it make it more clear?

I wish there was some patch debugging tools in the editor, just something where one could monitor control values and other levels.

Sorry this is a bit late. I did work up a solution to your little problem almost as soon as you sent it in, but since I don't have my Modular with me to test it, I had been reluctant to send. However, I've been through the logic of it several times and as far as I can see from those dry runs, it SHOULD work. Sorry if it doesn't. Should be easy to fix, nevertheless.

You should be able to rotate the constant knob marked "4x sweeper" and sweep one at a time through the four oscillators located at the bottom of each column. The amplifiers in each column are presently set at unity. This is just for testing purposes, however, for otherwise most of the oscillator range would be inaudible. When you want to use this for some more useful purpose, you can crank each amplifier up to do a multiplication by 4 and you will then have the full 127 step range, I think. A smooth module might be a good idea in such a case, also.

Sorry, but at present all I can do to test this system is rotate the knob ... but when I do, I do see the 4 ASDR's light up and do their gating stuff ... so I think it's working OK!!!

Some of those logic controllers aren't actually needed. It will indeed be possible to simplify this whole thing a bit once you're sure it's working, but I left it as it is in case there's an error It's easier to see what's happening this way, I think.

If you want to control something else just rip out the four oscillators and put what you want in their place ... filters or whatever.

Is this what you were looking for? Judging by this ...

So at a full turn of the constant modules knob i would sweep through the full range of four filters, in succession.

... I think so. Also, as I think you wanted, none of the other 3 oscillators are affected in any way, nor do they affect anything else, while a fourth one is in focus and operational.

Hmmm. I meant ... "I do see the 4 ASDR's light up and do their gating stuff" ... IN MY IMAGINATION ... of course.

There aren't really any lights lighting up in the editor when the NM is unattached!

Well ... there can be lots of lights lighting up when I am patching ... but not within the editor ... and also not the kind that the NM is responsible for!!!!

Let's put it this way ...

And ... this is something I have come to use the lights on the envelopes and sequencers for!

By rigging up a couple of logic compares, I can often direct the output of something I am interested in to those logic modules, do a compare, and then feed the result as a gate or control signal into a control mixer, an envelope, a sequencer, a note detector or something useful like that and then count the pretty lights or else check a value by using an associated compare module etc. Be a lot easier if Clavia had given us some debugging tools, but I guess one can't have everything.

Really ... you must mean all them other guys!!

Perhaps this is one for the "interesting threads"? Just a thought.

I'm coming over feeling all "thread-y" and "interesting-y" and "just-a-thought-y". Weird sensation, that!!!

I tried out all the patches and ideas that were sent on this thread yesterday (i havn't tried Friday's Childs idea yet). I'll do that. None of the patches were exactly what i had in mind, but nevertheless they were all very interesting and had quite different approaches to the problem. They all come close in different ways, i learned a lot from trying to tweak them and i am confident that i will be able to achieve what i want with a little more tweaking. I must say that that i am impressed by Dave Peck's solution, due to the fact that he seems to have thought out the complex pattern without consulting the NM, and it actually came quite close. I will dive further into this and see what i can come up with. In the meantime i send some other patches, see next mail.