roboctopus
Offline
Madison, Alabama
VCMG wrote:

He's probably talking about the volume settings in the Synth screen, which affect the amplitude of the waveforms drawn on the Wave screen for use in the wave channel.

This is correct.  The WAV *instrument* has three volume levels, but the *synth* itself has 16 steps of volume, controlled by the parameters of the synth screen.

waveboy stated that a volume of 5 at the start and end would not result in a change.  Not sure why you would expect volume to change when the start and end volumes are the same...

ChipsChallengeBand
Offline
Rochester, NY
4mat wrote:

surprised it's not in there, it's easy to code for the first two channels at least.  bit more brutal for the other two obv.

srs qstn

Would it not be just as easy for the noise channel as it was for the pulse channels?  Obviously I'm thinking that because the noise channel has an envelope setting like pulse instruments do, that it would be similar... is that not the case?  Just wondering.

herr_prof
Offline
Unsubscribe

I imagine the internal space left over to draw screens is a really premium at this point.. besides how many chip trackers have a mixer screen? If you cant balance only four degrees of volume youll probably never be able to ever.

danimal cannon
Offline
buffalo, NY

LOL at that whole manual exchange

Saskrotch
Offline
Chicago IL
waveboy wrote:
Aeros wrote:

oh god

please read the manual

PLEASE

That was a very arrogant and negative answer and very unusefull for me.

That was a very ignorant and false response.

an0va
Offline

I actually think this is a pretty cool and logical idea, though I don't see it being implemented anytime soon. For full effect for me it would have to have things like meter feedback and sends, hence why people like herr_prof said it's mostly for non-chip trackers. It could be cool for playing live with Solo/Mute, but would probably be annoying with the button layout and not being able to, you know, touch the faders. But still, it would be a nice overall setup for soundchecks!

Renoise has this exact thing: A master fader for all channels in a Mixer Screen. When that was introduced, people didn't all say "omg you have instrument volumes/volume commands/rtfm," they just...used it

Last edited by an0va (Aug 23, 2012 12:32 am)

Xuriik
Offline
Puerto Rico
The Silph Scope wrote:

So like... an MXX command for each channel, that you can adjust in real time?

This. I find the M command useless because if I'd want to adjust overall volume I'd just do it post-production and it'd be smoother...

But If I want a specific envelope like a slow climb that can peak at something like 9 or A instead of going on to the highest volume and killing my speakers/throwing off my mix; well, maybe someone in this thread could tell me how I could pull that off?

ant1
Offline
uhajdafdfdfa

don't necessarily need a mixer, but an effect command that sets volume for a channel and is PERSISTENT !

i suppose the hardware volume envelopes make it tricky but you just set them to start at the volume set by the effect,...

in IT this is "Mxx (Set channel volume to xx)"

Saskrotch
Offline
Chicago IL

an E command in the effects column overrides an instruments volume settings, if that means anything to you

spry
Offline
Cincinnati Ohio

this is a really cool idea.  get rid of that second sav screen and replace it with a 4 channel mixer with some sort of live mode capability.  pan (maybe 50% pan too?), solo, mute, and track volume for each column is really all you need.  master volume can just be the volume wheel smile  i wonder how hard it would be to code in a volume feedback meter for each channel on the mixer screen or for that matter to do a frequency spectrum meter for the master in the spot above the table screen..

Victory Road
Offline
Gosford, Australia

almost as hard as coding 50% pan tongue

ant1
Offline
uhajdafdfdfa

volume meter isnt that hard to do i think, but fairly pointless. a proper spectrograph is v. hard/next to impossible to do and fairly pointless

50% pan would be impossible, there isn't really "pan" as such, you can just send a channel to none, one, or both of 2 outputs which happen to be panned left and right. you would be able to fake panning using both pulse channels by sending one to left output and one to right and then changing the volume of each but this is more effort than it is worth to you i think

Jellica
Offline
England

it sounds like some of you should just start making music using modern PCs :P

Last edited by Jellica (Aug 23, 2012 8:09 am)

spry
Offline
Cincinnati Ohio
ant1 wrote:

volume meter isnt that hard to do i think, but fairly pointless. a proper spectrograph is v. hard/next to impossible to do and fairly pointless

50% pan would be impossible, there isn't really "pan" as such, you can just send a channel to none, one, or both of 2 outputs which happen to be panned left and right. you would be able to fake panning using both pulse channels by sending one to left output and one to right and then changing the volume of each but this is more effort than it is worth to you i think

ok so, totally pointless.  agree 100%.  just imagining a real time reactive visual audio interface with lsdj kinda gives me nerd chills though wink  it might not be IMPOSSIBLE to do 50% pan.  i dont know about coding for gb in particular, but it seems like it might be possible to double the number of assignments from each channel to the outputs so that each one had 2 for the max per output instead of just 1.  that way you could soft pan by assigning L2R1 etc.  it might tax the processor twice as hard if it were even possible.. totally pointless, but fun to think about what the full limitations of the gameboy are

9-Heart
Offline

I'm pretty sure - Wasn't there once a DMG sold on eBay which had a Mixer built into the battery slot?

ClairBear
Offline
Iowa
9-Heart wrote:

I'm pretty sure - Wasn't there once a DMG sold on eBay which had a Mixer built into the battery slot?

Just a filter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KDI3UbW … re=related