Search options (Page 17 of 39)

Ah, OK. Yes, you'd kind of have that because each drum patch would need 5 switches to select which voices it uses. Could probably extend this to a kind of global switch that will mute each hardware voice. Nice idea, I'll think about it more.

Yes. Say you had a hi-hat sound (using noise) and also a snare (using noise and perhaps triangle), if you put a hi-hat and a snare on the same step, only one of them can use the noise channel. In this case, one of them would have to be deemed higher priority. I'd probably just do it on track order so the tracks at the bottom of the step sequencer grid would be highest priority. So depending on which track you have the hi-hat and snare, either you'd hear the noise+triangle components of the snare or you'd only hear the triangle part with the hi-hat taking over the noise channel.

Sounds more complicated than it actually will be

I was messing around with a pixel editor today to try to figure out a layout. Trying to keep it really minimal and pack everything on one screen. This is the kind of look I'm wanting to achieve:

AMP A = amplitude settings for Square 1. A = amplitude, E = envelope (two digits, one for Attack and one for Decay), then T = gate time

DT A = duty for Square 1. L = loop/one-shot. 1=first duty setting, 2=second duty setting. In one-shot mode, the two duty settings will play in order and end on the 2nd one. In Loop mode, the duty loops between

OSC A = pitch settings for Square 1. C = coarse (semitone), F = fine (detune), H = hard frequency effect (from Pulsar) on/off

Just sketching ideas at the moment. Back to finishing off Pulsar manual now

I'm thinking along the lines that a "drum" or "instrument" would actually be a multi-voice patch (like a multi-oscillator synth) then have, say, an 8 track step sequencer so that the tracks are not explicitly tied to a NES voice. Then have a priority system, top-to-bottom. Would be quite cool to have a 3-voice bass sound with 2 phasing square wave and triangle taking up the sub octave.

It took me a while to "shift my thinking" having grown up with Cubase (from it's Atari ST days). I would never go back now though. I always considered Live to be just that - for live work/manipulation - which it does like nothing else in existence. But it's also capable of doing so much more and I don't think I'd ever even more than glanced at the arrangement view until I worked through some of Tom Cosm's tutorials. I remember one pivotal point in my thinking when I went through his tutorial on how to create a 16-step sequencer by chaining the audio path of 16 tracks together and you end up with this crazy feedback machine. I think I lost about 5 hours of my life playing with that

As funny as it is, my wife is saying 'no' - she thinks it's a bit to silly.