Input Module

[PyroMalibu]

Simple but confusing question.
Are there 16 inputs? I only see 1-8 on any screen. I see the screen visually representing the jacks. I get that pressing +PG moves to the next set of 4 jacks…

However only 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 are available.
Also, when sending out to another module, only 1-8 are available. What if I have a cv in jack 1 and jack 9… do they share the 1 output? If so, then this isn’t 16 inputs by any stretch of the imagination.

Is this just a rough edge you have to smooth out? It would be super helpful if we actually had 16 inputs to choose from… What do I not understand?

[PyroMalibu]

@celine When there’s only 8 options for inputs to route to the filter, how do I choose jack 1 and 9??

[2disbetter]

Because the input module is so flexible it can be a bit much to take in.

The 1 through 8 are the outputs of the input module. You assign these outputs to the various inputs you wish to use with the input module.

At any one time you have a physical input row displayed on the screen. By pushing the left or right arrow you can move up and down between the rows. This is depected on the screen as you do it.

In this way if you want to use physical inputs 1 and 9, you would go to the first row (default row when first going to the proc menu for the input module) and you could use either output 1 or 5 for physical input 1, By pushing the soft buttons for 1 or 5 the output will be highlighted and the connection made. Now you would push the right arrow twice to put you on the 3rd row where input 9 is. Here you would need to use the other output that you didn’t use for input jack 1. By selecting that soft button you will create that connection as well.

So you get 8 dedicated outs per input module. As you can see though, these outputs are respective to their physical input jack locations.

Does this help?

[aengine]

I was about to post some questions about the input module when I saw this thread. After reading it, I’m even more confused.

One of the things that leads to confusion with the input module is that there’s a rendering on the right hand side of all 24 jacks, but one is able to +PG past the first 16 input jacks onto another 5 Blank pages of interface before wrapping around back to the first row of inputs.

So you get 8 dedicated outs per input module. As you can see though, these outputs are respective to their physical input jack locations.

Having constraints on routing based on physical jack locations for a virtual device is confusing, and feels arbitrarily complicated.

Because the input module is so flexible it can be a bit much to take in.

Seems like it’s the constraints of the input module that are causing the confusion.

[PyroMalibu]

So, I’m confident this could have been done in a more obvious way. Like… 1 is 1, and 2 is 2. and having a 9-16 as well. I do NOT mind being limited to 8 chans per input module, because I can simply add another input module, but chan 9 is chan 9 in my mind.

In what scenario does this complexity layer actually help us?

[2disbetter]

One of the things that leads to confusion with the input module is that there’s a rendering on the right hand side of all 24 jacks, but one is able to +PG past the first 16 input jacks onto another 5 Blank pages of interface before wrapping around back to the first row of inputs.

Yep this is a bug that has to do with menu space on a global level. It will be fixed. I understand how it could lead to confusion.

Having constraints on routing based on physical jack locations for a virtual device is confusing, and feels arbitrarily complicated.

That is also understandable, but given that all things are modifiable, if this is truly a problem and leads to confusion, it can be changed.

Seems like it’s the constraints of the input module that are causing the confusion.

Given that the input module allows you to work with the inputs and has to be able to route them to essentially anything in the SSP, I think I fairly attributed flexibility to it, haha. On the other hand I think that by having the input module’s outputs correspond to the physical input jacks is helpful when routing those inputs in the system. It is easy for me to remember that I plugged cv, gate, and some other modulation into input jacks 2, 3, and 4 of the first row, then I can remember that I used outputs 3, 5, and 7 within the input module, for example. The physical correlation helps keep things together in software for me.

[2disbetter]

Making the outputs all correspond to the inputs physical location is a good idea.

Possibly one that can be turned into a feature request?

[PyroMalibu]

so basically I can’t use 1,5,9, and 13 at the same time? I mean that’s not a big deal, but I’m confident it will be annoying at some point in some patch somewhere

[2disbetter]

You could use 1 and 5 in one input module and 9 and 13 in another. If you assign all of those inputs to the same output destination you are using all 4 at the same time.

[PyroMalibu]

yes I understand that now. However, in such an advanced module, sold as being very high tech, that kind of limitation is a compromise that makes no sense to me as the user. there is obviously a reason for the compromise, but that reason is probably “not enough time spent yet in the code”. So I look forward to the further development of the SSP, and will just use 2 input modules if I need all 4 inputs for some reason.

[2disbetter]

Yes. I think it is difficult for many to understand just how high the mountain is that the SSP aspires to be. The firmware itself is a massive undertaking. I’ve seen companies with teams of people fail at something half as complicated. Yet with B&C I’ve only been impressed.

The hardware is so solid and as a software engineer myself I understand software can always be worked on and improved. So by just pointing out things that make it better it will continue to get better.

The input module can be improved for sure but that I can already get everything out of it that I need, I’d prefer efforts used on other modules personally.

[tiger001]

true, but it is confusing (the input)

[bert]

that kind of limitation is a compromise that makes no sense to me as the user.

you can get access to all the input channels, you just have to use multiple input modules if you want to use all 16 in your patch.

I do understand that the way you assign them internally in the input module is perhaps more complicated right now than it can be, so can you explain how you would like it to work?

@tiger001 @aengine how would you like the input module to work so it is less confusing?

Possibility #1

One possibility to make it less confusing is to reduce the outputs of the input module to 4, and then just have 1-4 per page of input jacks. So jack 1, 2, 3 and 4 on each row can be sent to out 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

You can use multiple input modules of course, to get access to your 16 input channels. In this scenario you would need 4 input modules, each module giving you 4 channels to access.

Possibility #2

The other alternative is to show 8 scopes on each page (2 rows of input jacks) and the 8 soft keys show 1-8. You can use them to turn the outputs of the input module on/off.

[bert]

so basically I can’t use 1,5,9, and 13 at the same time?

no, that is not correct. You can send each input jack to TWO outputs of the input module. So the first jack on the first row can be sent to 1 and/or 5, the second jack to 2 and/or 6 and so on.

You can do the same thing with the next row. So if you send jack 1 on the first row to out 1, and then send jack 1 on the second row to out 1 as well, you are outputting (mixing) both jacks to out 1.

Out 1 is available in the patcher grid on the right hand side, when you are on the input module. You can send that output to whatever you want.

So the input module is capable of summing input jacks in various ways.

[bert]

However only 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 are available.

Also, when sending out to another module, only 1-8 are available. What if I have a cv in jack 1 and jack 9… do they share the 1 output?

in this specific situation, you go to the first page, press the soft key “1” to send jack 1 to out 1. You then go to the 3rd page and press soft key “5” such that jack 9 is sent to out 5. You now have routed jack 1 and jack 9 to two different outputs of the input module, numbered 1 and 5.

[tiger001]

Possibility #1

One possibility to make it less confusing is to reduce the outputs of the input module to 4, and then just have 1-4 per page of input jacks. So jack 1, 2, 3 and 4 on each row can be sent to out 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

You can use multiple input modules of course, to get access to your 16 input channels. In this scenario you would need 4 input modules, each module giving you 4 channels to access.

that is even more confusing

Possibility #2

The other alternative is to show 8 scopes on each page (2 rows of input jacks) and the 8 soft keys show 1-8. You can use them to turn the outputs of the input module on/off.

scopes can help, but you ought to be absolutely sure what the scopes were showing (ins or/and outs)

i think it is mostly the nomenclature what is bogging me + is it all the way through (in the SSP) the same setup? (as mentioned before, a clear layout/color & naming would help to tie things together)

[tiger001]

from the manual:

How can I use an external module for modulation on the SSP?

Insert an “input” module on the network grid.

Go to the Proc editor.
In the Proc editor you will see 4 scopes. Each scope represents the incoming data of 1 input connector. Since there are 16 inputs, there are also 16 scopes, but they are divided over 4 different pages. Use the “left” or “right” of the keypad to switch to another page/scopes until you find the scope of the input you’d like to use and make sure to enable to corresponding button using one of the 8 soft keys. For example, if the signal you want to use is on the first page the leftmost scope, you press the “1” button to send the signal to the “1” output or the “5” button to send it to the “5” output of the input module.}

Patch the input module with another module in the grid. Use the output you enabled in the proc editor menu (in the above example, either 1 or 5).

basicly, the 8 softbuttons are the outs of the input module and you merge in a scheme of your choosing the fys. ins to the 8 outs by activating/arming softbuttons and later in the module choose which outs go to which destination

[bert]

is it all the way through (in the SSP) the same setup?

what do you mean exactly?

[bert]

basicly, the 8 softbuttons are the outs of the input module and you merge in a scheme of your choosing the fys. ins to the 8 outs by activating/arming softbuttons and later in the module choose which outs go to which destination

yep, that is how it works.

[aengine]

Given that the input module allows you to work with the inputs and has to be able to route them to essentially anything in the SSP, I think I fairly attributed flexibility to it, haha. On the other hand I think that by having the input module’s outputs correspond to the physical input jacks is helpful when routing those inputs in the system. It is easy for me to remember that I plugged cv, gate, and some other modulation into input jacks 2, 3, and 4 of the first row, then I can remember that I used outputs 3, 5, and 7 within the input module, for example. The physical correlation helps keep things together in software for me.

I hear ya, but it feels like the benefits of the constraints are more rationalized benefits or silver linings to an interface that’s a tad brittle and counter-intuitive. I’m not necessarily saying that the solution has to be a completely open routing matrix (though it would be nice), but seems like there’s room for some improvement and clarity. Use of color and maybe some other hinting (for colorblind folks) could go a long way in this case.

I don’t have time at the moment, but when I do, I’ll see if I can whip something up in photoshop which builds on the existing paradigm.