MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

How often is parallel cv processing significant?
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Modular Synth General Discussion  
Author How often is parallel cv processing significant?
vqlk
someone said
Quote:
Running the same CV to different modules is normally so they have some 'relationship', say Filter (VCF) to pitch of a VCO.

but i think
Quote:
about using the same cv to control e.g. two wildly different effects.

so you're running e.g. 12378s46s9 to both a distortion unit and a frequency shifter. is that parallel cv control -- that they are identical -- itself a "thing" rather than what cv you feed each?

take another example. you are feeding 12378s46s9 to effect A and 45346768ss5 to effect B, and press the *2-5 button to both as it loops... there's just no way that's significant: even if you're great at maths and know EXACTLY how each effect is going to behave, it's just masturbation -- no-one else is going to be able to -- you may as well have chosen any other arbitrary series or transformation.

in eurorack esp noise eurorack everything is so idiosyncratic and one off that even if your listeners knew your gear inside out the mathematics behind cv control, rather than actual results, are redundant to everyone but you
is my reply ignorant bunk?

i.e. in these instances can you expect anyone to know and care how its done?
vqlk
while some may be able to tell how you've done anything -- people do make successful careers from music tech -- i don't think you can expect anyone to care how you've modulated cv, rather than which effects you've used and modulated... not when we're talking about changing several different effect units at the same time and with no conventional relation between them

??
cptnal
Absolutely significant. The listener might not know or care, but the ear is cleverer. We'll subconsciously pick up relationships between changes in timbre, timing, whatever, and perceive it as a more unified whole than if everything was independent.
R.U.Nuts
Of course it's significant. Simple example: Control the decay time of the VCA envelope with your VCO's pitch sequence: Higher pitches will have a shorter decay, lower pitches will have a longer decay. Just like a string Instrument. Everybody will recognize that. And you can go further. Now for example take your VCA envelope and mult it to the FM input of an LFO. Use this LFO to FM your VCO and you get a vibrato effect that gets slower as the sound gets quieter. Everybody will easily recognize that. And these are only simple examples.
Furthermore this is an elegant way of efficiently using a limited amount of modulation sources with great effect. You don't need tons of modulation sources if you are smart and have some utility modules.
ranix
what if I have an FM patch and I want to have two carriers running at different frequencies, the first and fifth, and I want to frequency modulate them both by the third
vqlk
cptnal wrote:
Absolutely significant. The listener might not know or care, but the ear is cleverer. We'll subconsciously pick up relationships between changes in timbre, timing, whatever, and perceive it as a more unified whole than if everything was independent.
i'm unconvinced.

i suppose that over the length of a recording -- many different transformations -- you might be able to build up an awareness of the relation between timbres and how they change together, but each individual transformation on its own is meaningful only relative to the patch and general set up. so will be missed by the ear / listener.
vqlk
R.U.Nuts wrote:
Of course it's significant. Simple example: Control the decay time of the VCA envelope with your VCO's pitch sequence: Higher pitches will have a shorter decay, lower pitches will have a longer decay. Just like a string Instrument. Everybody will recognize that. And you can go further. Now for example take your VCA envelope and mult it to the FM input of an LFO. Use this LFO to FM your VCO and you get a vibrato effect that gets slower as the sound gets quieter. Everybody will easily recognize that. And these are only simple examples.
Furthermore this is an elegant way of efficiently using a limited amount of modulation sources with great effect. You don't need tons of modulation sources if you are smart and have some utility modules.
what is true with simple musical examples like yours [and in the OP] may not hold at all with noisy effects units -- if their response to cv seems chaotic.
R.U.Nuts
vqlk wrote:
R.U.Nuts wrote:
Of course it's significant. Simple example: Control the decay time of the VCA envelope with your VCO's pitch sequence: Higher pitches will have a shorter decay, lower pitches will have a longer decay. Just like a string Instrument. Everybody will recognize that. And you can go further. Now for example take your VCA envelope and mult it to the FM input of an LFO. Use this LFO to FM your VCO and you get a vibrato effect that gets slower as the sound gets quieter. Everybody will easily recognize that. And these are only simple examples.
Furthermore this is an elegant way of efficiently using a limited amount of modulation sources with great effect. You don't need tons of modulation sources if you are smart and have some utility modules.
what is true with simple musical examples like yours [and in the OP] may not hold at all with noisy effects units -- if their response to cv seems chaotic.


It's also a matter of interaction and efficiency. Like I said a few modulation sources accompanied by some utilities like mixers, multiples attenuvertors and such can produce interesting interactions with little use of ressources. The whole generative music thing is based around that concept. But it can also be useful in a more performative context. For example patching some kind of macro controller that can introduce a dramatic change with only a knob turn.
Of course you can patch a different modulation source in every CV input but that seems not very clever to me, isn't efficient (cost and HP wise) and it will likely result in a mess of unrelated parameter sweeps without any expression or meaning.
naturligfunktion
R.U.Nuts wrote:
Of course it's significant. Simple example: Control the decay time of the VCA envelope with your VCO's pitch sequence: Higher pitches will have a shorter decay, lower pitches will have a longer decay. Just like a string Instrument. Everybody will recognize that. And you can go further. Now for example take your VCA envelope and mult it to the FM input of an LFO. Use this LFO to FM your VCO and you get a vibrato effect that gets slower as the sound gets quieter. Everybody will easily recognize that. And these are only simple examples.
Furthermore this is an elegant way of efficiently using a limited amount of modulation sources with great effect. You don't need tons of modulation sources if you are smart and have some utility modules.

I had no idea of this, so my mind is blown right now. Going to try as soon as I come home from work, thanks for sharing!
BTByrd
Generally one does not apply CV "in parallel" just for the hell of it, but rather to achieve a particular effect. It's not showing off, it's not the sort of thing you'd do to impress anyone, and it's not "just masturbation." Sometimes it's just useful to use the same CV to modulate multiple parameters, like having the pitch CV also modulate filter cutoff to add key tracking so that higher notes aren't overly dark. And sometimes one just doesn't have a bunch of CV generators available and using the same source multiple times is the economical/only solution to your modulation needs. The point isn't to make the end listener think "Oh, these two things are being modulated by the same CV," which is apparently the only reason the OP can think of using CV in parallel. But that's a very strange view. Even if one is modulating two different effects with seemingly chaotic responses to modulation, there can still be plenty of reasons to use the same modulation source. Nobody cares if the same modulator gets used. Except maybe the OP.
Dcramer
I’ve been doing these types of patches for years, I call them ‘Correletrons’ based on Prof Allen Strange’s reference to correlating modulations in his much sought after book on the subject





w00t w00t w00t
ricko
I dont get it.

Unless it is a specrapularly boring and simple patch, no-one can possibly know what non-audio rate modulations are done by hand or by patch. And they wont know much unless they are familiar with the same modules you use. But that does not mean it is unnecessary.

A good guide for whether tricky modulation is good is to consider what people do to make physical instruments interesting: lots of different tricks.

Take vibrato. Everyone thinks they understand it, but no-one does. Real players (on a wide range of instruments) adapt the speed and rate and fade-in of vibrato by the note and articulation. And they have less vibrato on the 1 and 3 beats. And singing vibrato starts on an upswing while instrument starts on a downswing. And each instrument has a different vibrato shape (Oboe is more like downward spikes than a triangle.) And the shape changes with dynamics too. They do it to get maximum affect.

So, yes, people will notice, but no, they cannot detect why or articulate it.
R.U.Nuts
ricko wrote:
I dont get it.

Unless it is a specrapularly boring and simple patch, no-one can possibly know what non-audio rate modulations are done by hand or by patch. And they wont know much unless they are familiar with the same modules you use. But that does not mean it is unnecessary.

A good guide for whether tricky modulation is good is to consider what people do to make physical instruments interesting: lots of different tricks.

Take vibrato. Everyone thinks they understand it, but no-one does. Real players (on a wide range of instruments) adapt the speed and rate and fade-in of vibrato by the note and articulation. And they have less vibrato on the 1 and 3 beats. And singing vibrato starts on an upswing while instrument starts on a downswing. And each instrument has a different vibrato shape (Oboe is more like downward spikes than a triangle.) And the shape changes with dynamics too. They do it to get maximum affect.

So, yes, people will notice, but no, they cannot detect why or articulate it.


Well, you can do quite a lot of stuff that doesn't mimic accoustic instruments and still is perceived as a musical expression related to another (for example use your synth voice's pitch CV to modulate the delay time of a delay - high pitches = short delay, low = long) . But in the end it doesn't matter if that expression is accomplished by CV, DAW automation or live playing. What matters is the musical expression.
dooj88
vqlk wrote:
what is true with simple musical examples like yours [and in the OP] may not hold at all with noisy effects units -- if their response to cv seems chaotic.


and that's how we like it, dammit. you might get a basic mooring in a rhythm or bass sound, but other than that, you're in a funhouse of shifting sands on my watch. Flamey Trampoline headbang

i definitely do both, and something like the JAG can help capture relationships between unrelated CV sources and spread them around the patch.
Bachelard
I absolutely like to use the same cv signal and run it through different utilities. So much you can do just by running a parallel signal through attenuators/verters (and that's why I believe you can never have enough attenuators, and utilities in general).

I like playing with splitting a melodic/stepped sequence, with one signal unprocessed, and one through an attenuator, to get a narrower range to modulate something else. Sometimes I prefer to use the attenuated signal for my oscillator pitch if I want to get all microtonal - it's also more fun to be able to adjust the range of your melody on the fly.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Modular Synth General Discussion  
Page 1 of 1
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group