-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 89
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add Gates & Triggers script #307
Conversation
…stants" This reverts commit 327c3cc.
There is some related (reversed?) functionality in PR #260, but it hasn't been reviewed yet. Part of me wonders if there might be advantages to combining the functionality into a single script, as they are spiritually similar. |
Ah, I hadn't gone through open merge requests to see if there was already something that implemented this. I just went through Reading through #260 it these stand out as the biggest differences:
There's definitely a lot of overlap in the trigger-to-gate functionality, but I'm not sure how to reconcile the other differences without sacrificing some of the functionality (e.g. losing the manual gate buttons to add UI interaction, removing the LFO feature in favour of two independent signal channels). EDIT After thinking about it a little more though, we could do something like this to combine them:
I don't hate this, but I'm currently using the 307 version in a patch and really enjoy having the two independent channels. Being able to convert two separate LFOs into rising/falling edge triggers is convenient for generative patches. The LFO feature from 260 is neat, but it doesn't feel like it fits with the design goal of a gates & triggers program. It's useful, but it's also its own thing and trying to shoehorn both of them together into the same program feels like it sacrifices more than it adds. If I want clocks/LFO signals I'll use the Harmonic LFO or Pam's modes. If I need to process gates & triggers I'll use G&T. I struggle to think of a time where I'd need both at the same time. |
I've been thinking about the comparison between the two G&T-like scripts some more this week. As nice as the two-channel mode is, I do find myself wishing there was CV control over the gate length too. I'm considering an I/O overhaul where the new version would work like this:
The gate duration would be calculated by sending This leaves CV4-6 free for some new features. Haven't thought this out all the way yet, but I was thinking:
B2 is also free, since it's not manually triggering the second set of gates/triggers, so it can be used as a manual toggle input; it would invert the state of CV5, but would not affect CV1-4 This brings some more of the functionality from #260, while also making the script a little less specialized and opening up some CV-control options. The LFO/clock feature is still absent though; are we okay with that feature not being reimplemented here? Before I get into the nuts-and-bolts of rewriting the script to add the features above, are there any opinions? Does something seem obviously missing or out-of-place? |
I've made the proposed changes above in #309, along with some other updates & improvements. If that one gets approved I'll close this one, as it's probably redundant now |
@chrisib You've though about and used these scripts more than anyone else recently, so I trust your judgement on the best way to move forward. Just to be clear, there is not requirement from me to borrow any functionality from the #260 PR. I just wanted to point it out to you as another source of ideas, and work that the community has produced. I say Focus your energy on the single script / PR that is the most useful and whose features make the most sense to you and leave the rest behind. |
Fair enough. I think I'll close this one and shift efforts to #309. As convenient as the dual-channel mode is, I think the CV control in the other version is ultimately more useful. |
Adds a new script to convert gate signals into rising/falling edge triggers & convert incoming triggers into variable-duration gates.