FR: macro automation for all parameters
Being able to draw automation events for insert effects on mixer channels is great, but I would like to have the option of routing one automation lane to multiple parameters, preferably across multiple devices. Each routing should have a definable scale distinct from the other routings. This would allow for example cross-fading of effects by inverting the scales, or having the automation events affect different parameters to a greater or lesser extent. For an implementation of this in practice, have a look at Combinator programming in Reason.
Comments
+1
Just a thought about implementation of this. Currently, automation lanes for insert effects are associated with the sequencer track for the instrument into which the effect is inserted. Routing this to parameters of effects on other instruments would be confusing this way, as data from one sequencer track would be affecting instruments on different tracks, so you would have to remember which instrument was “hosting” the automation and sending to others.
I therefore propose a new device, completely separate from Slate and Obsidian. It would resemble the top controls on Reason’s Combinator device - just a handful of assignable knobs and buttons. The device would have a routing matrix to send the value of any of its controls to any parameter of any other device. Then you record or draw automation events into that device and it atomically routes the values to their destination parameters.
This would be a killer feature. The Combinator in Reason is absolutely incredible, but this would kill it.
Combinator is superb, I’m all for this suggestion 👍
That sounds a good idea
I'm willing to pay for such IAP feature 30$ without any single hesitation ... Like "shut up and take my money"
Agreed. Combinator-like functionality would far outweigh the £28 price tag on this DAW and I would very happily pay for an IAP for a macro automation device.
+next level
I like this kind of idea a lot. “Containers” in Bitwig are another example of a similar approach. Going down that path, tons of options open up. Nice!
I do wonder how straightforward implementing this would be, though, especially if the module has to host things like auv3 and allow swapping them. (It might require making lots of changes to how auv3 hosting currently works in NS2. Not sure...)
Also, IMO it doesn’t have to be as complex as a whole new type of track to do lots of heavy lifting. As a start, even just a ‘container’ type track effect to allow modulation of auv3 fx would be great. (And for auv3 synths, I’m still rooting for a modulation matrix page and tab that looks just like obsidian’s.)
For AUfx automation, different implementation idea along those lines
I wonder if a more simple solution along those lines for auv3 track effect automation would be: a device that loads as a track effect, and contains knobs + a modulation matrix that allows mapping its knobs (like the obsidian matrix) to any auv3 effect parameters in the same track.
What might make it more simple is this: the module would only send/receive control data. So it would hopefully not change anything to the way NS2 currently loads and hosts auv3 effects. (Unlike “container” type devices, it wouldn’t itself host the effects.)
One nice bonus of this idea over eg implementing auv3 fx macros on each track by default: the track effects UI wouldn’t need any extra macros page. And users would use as few or as many of these control modules as they need depending on the track.
Finally, the module’s UI would literally look like any of the other NS2 track effects with the one difference that it would have a button/tab to access a modulation matrix menu that looks just like obsidian’s.
Tl; dr: what about a track effect insert module that only sends/receives control data, and with knobs that can be mapped to the auv3fx parameters in the same track?