LDRF - playing around with this and getting some nice sounds - would it be possible to get finer tuning at the low end? At the moment I’m getting 0 jump 500 jump to 1000 etc. missing out on some cool modulation down that bottom end there.
push the encoder while turning you can get it down to 20 increments… this is a comon feature in most if not all TB’s vst’s
1 Like
yeah, all my modules/parameters use ‘push encoder’ for fine control, so that we don’t have to spin the encoder wildly for values.
due to the nature of encoders, it’s still ‘stepped’… so I find a coarse and fine ‘step’ that I think provides a nice control.
also, if there is CV in for the parameter, then you can use a voltage to really fine tune values…as this is not at all quantised… e.g. with ATTN + scaling, you could get to the full 32 bit resolution.
I did try implementing rotation velocity, but I didn’t like it at all… it was ok for really big and small jumps, but everything in-between I found hard to control… so gave up on that.
I have considered doing something like the ER301 to allow precision values, but its hard to squeeze into the UI in a generic way (really no spare gestures/buttons across all my modules)
2 Likes
That’s brilliant guys - just what I wanted - many thanks - did not know that 
2 Likes
Well this beast has diverted my attention from the SSP for a while 
Osmose was a three year wait, well worth it too…, but means I’m a bit obsessed with it.
That said everything is related in music , so already I’m starting to wonder how can the SSP play a role with it.
I’ve been think for a while about a polyphonic synth module , supporting mpe (of course) , possibly based around plaits …
though perhaps could be a complete voice … so include a filter ?
as ‘obviously’ after the module it’ll be a mono (ore stereo?) signal … so prevents polyphonic modulation.
Anyway for now , just appreciating the glorious sounds of the Eagan matrix
3 Likes
Yes! Good for you!! I’m still waiting for the US pre-order units to start shipping. I love the Continuum with the Haken CVC module that converts 4 notes to CV (XYZW each). The resolution is much higher than Midi. But of course you could do more notes with midi. &e
resolution is the same when using MPE+ , as this is how Continuum/CVC communicate. ( * )
(mpe+ is also, surprisingly (to me), used internally within continuum for surface to dsp comms!)
Osmose, like Continuum support MPE+, and so I might well add support for this if I do a poly synth module.
that said, Im not convinced MPE+ adds that much too Osmose , its certainly a non issue on the X axis due to limited travel/pitchbend range used - I guess for Y/Z, 7 bit is pretty granular, but its not a very long travel, and with interpolation you, of course, don’t notice it…
I tried 14 bit midi on multi channel midi (pre mpe 
) for the eigenharp, and I didn’t really feel it added much… esp considering the extra bandwidth used.
however, I will say on the Eigenharp and Madrona Labs Soundplane,
I often used OSC in preference to midi , and that definitely did add ‘something’ to the feel.
I not quite sure though if that was the better resolution or the fact that the x/y/z would all in one message, so it was more efficient, and touch was one entity (not a serial stream).
hard to say…
anyway, adding MPE+ is not that big a deal, as Ive done in before for the Eigenharp implementation (in the form of 14 bit midi), so I guess why not
of course, if I do this for a poly module, then I will make the MPE/MPE+ handling ‘generic’, so I can use in other modules… though to be useful they’ll have to be polyphonic.
so it would be pretty trivial to for me to create an MPE module that simply outputs w/x/y/z , ,say for 4 voices… I guess I could do 8… though thats a lot of outputs.
of course # physical outputs on asp will limit its use for mpe-> cv usages… though, for me thats not an issue, as my euroack has no polyphonic voices (outside SSP), so Id mainly use this for mono/duophonic use.
( * ) I’d assume the CVC will slew/interpolate the mpe+ to show a continuous voltage… but at 14 bit (21 for x) , its not really going to be noticeable, we are talking pretty small voltage steps… 20v (pp) / 16384 ~ 1.2 mV ! (assuming cvc is +/-10v)
1 Like
Just for clarity, from the Haken website,
“The CVC is built around i2c chips which communicate directly with the Continuum, ContinuuMini, or Osmose at 400kHz data rate.”
hmm, thats odd… I’ll discuss it with Leepold next time I see him…
see the Osmose din port does indeed connect to the cvc, and you can set its mode to cvc.
but connect that up to a computer, and you’ll use see mpe+ come out of it in this scenario.
(tested this already, its the only way to get mpe+ out of the din)
I also know the surface/dsp comms was midi, leepold told me this directly, he actually was very proud about how he’d optimised the midi stream to make this possible - but admittedly that was a few years ago.
so, perhaps they’ve got some kind of sensing protocol on it, that switches mode… again, I’ll try to remember to have a chat about it it when I see him next.
anyways, no matter, midi is fine for this purpose… and as I said, really the Osmose doesn’t even really “need” mpe+ in practice.
They use the same dim port, but it uses all 5 pins for the cvc device. Midi of course uses only 3 so you have to use a supplied cable that has all 5 conductors. Also, I’m certain that the surface and the DSP are not merely communicating over midi. Lippold or Edmund can explain it to you.
Yeah, I’ll have a chat with them at Superbooth or Continucon
Great to hear you’ve received your Osmose. I’m still waiting for my delivery; it looks like Expressive E is making EU deliveries a priority (I’m in the US, it seems). I need to post an SSP issue, but not in this thread. Enjoy the Os!
2 Likes
I know I’ve been quiet on the development front recently…
but no worries I am working on something for the SSP
there are a few balls up in the air that Im juggling, but hoping to have something to show around Superbooth (11-13th May)
9 Likes
apologies for falling off the radar…
Ive been busy with other projects for a while.
the SSP project I was working on has kind of been ‘delayed’ by some external factors - hence why it wasn’t released at Superbooth… but, its still in the works, but can’t give a release date yet, which is why Ive not said anything.
I do also hope to get a bit more time on other SSP projects, post September.
(unfortunately, up until September its very busy with other projects)
one question…
does anyone have active interest in quad ‘surround’ output?
Im quite tempted to delve into a surround output for an event/project I have in early September…
so thinking about getting an extra pair of monitors, and perhaps doing something with the SSP in this area.
Im thinking something simple… inspired by the Buchla 227e / Koma Poltergeist.
at the outset something like :
4 or 8 (?) mono inputs
each input with cv controllable angle/magnitude.
then we have 4 outputs.
the other option would be less audio inputs…so we later have more cv per channel.
i.e. with max 24 inputs, possibilities are…
4 audio = 1 audio + 5 cv
(5 audio = 1 audio + 3 cv, 4 master)
6 audio = 1 audio + 3 cv
(7 audio = 1 audio + 2 cv, 3 master)
8 audio = 1 audio + 2 cv
of these, I think 4 and 8 audio inputs are my preferred options.
of course, you would then have the option of using multiple quad mixers, by simply summing (with attenuation) the 4 outputs.
Interestingly, if we look at the 227e/Poltergiest they are both limited to 4 inputs, and also actually little cv control…
so I think Im tempted with 4, to retain some future potential for cv, as it doesn’t prevent us from doing more voices… and I suspect often, musically, 4 will often be enough.
I can also see myself using this quad mixer alongside other mixers (pmix) to either on input stage (group voices), or output when quad placement is not critical.
anyway… just thought id ask… as not decided yet, as it needs me to spend a few hundred euros on extra monitors
what are those other SSP projects ?
working on improvements of the SSP UI ?
TBH - I have never moved beyond the good old stereo image 
. In movies and art installations though the various 2.1, 5.1 and 7.1 arrangements are well established.
Personally I would use something like a quad-mixer for smoothly routing between different filters or sound processing chains for audio. Quad mixing control voltages might be interesting too, but I guess that requires a different approach
1 Like
yeah, its a bit of an investment… and you also need the space.
fortunately, I recently move my setup around, so now have space for 4 monitors, and I already had an audio interface with a lot of outputs… so just needed to grab a pair of monitors (which match my existing ones), should be here in next week or so
… so quite excited to play with this.
as mentioned, Ive an event in September where we have the opportunity to use quad, so that was the extra motivation I needed to ‘give it a go’
(just to be clear - Ive absolutely no interest in surround encoding e.g. dolby atmos. its completely different topic… and one I will not venture into for a whole bunch of reasons)
Im going to start by creating a fairly simple quad mixer initially, with a static/standard rectangular speaker layout - as I want to play with it a bit, both on SSP and other implementations (vcv / ableton) … as there are quite a few things that can be played with, and Ive a few ideas too… so the ideas need to evolve, and I can decide where to place my efforts.
for CV its better to use a matrix mixer, like MMX4.
why? because for CV you want to (and can) use linear crossfading.so its relatively straightforward…
(Im also not sure why you’d want spacial characteristic unless it was being targeted into a space… without this its just crossfading/modulation)
the issue with quad/audio mixing is you need to use a non-linear pan/xfade, which makes it a little more tricky - also the positioning is also (obviously) very important… its not an arbitrary relation of input to outputs sources.
what is quite interesting in this area, is if you use vector or cartesian addressing, they lend themselves to different applications.
also I looked closer at poltergeist vs the 227e, and its interesting…
the 227e is an a way more an fx unit, as it kind of includes the modulation (swirl).
whereas the poltergeist seems a little more open - where the spacial effect is from the modulation inputs.
Im more into the poltergeist approach, as it’s more modular… but makes me wonder if I might want a kind of specialised modulation module. but we will see.
(that said, Ive only used poltergeist / 227e as inspiration, what Im doing is different and its own things)
1 Like
I’m a heavy 227e user as Buchla is my main thing.
Not only is there “Swirl” but manual and CV controlled spatial positioning as well. “Swirl” is nothing more than an LFO that modulates depth (amplitude, really) and rate of signal to each of the 4 outputs; Master Rate and Master Depth per principal input channel.
Swirl can be engaged or disengaged. The potentiometers and CV inputs do the same thing and offset each other. They control the LFOs when Swirl is active or directly adjust the input channel’s amplitude to each of the 4 outputs.
Outputs C&D can be viewed as stereo FX sends, and I do often use them as such.
Swirl is just an option that allows for instant, but rather limited, modulation. It is nice to use when C&D are FX sends and the amount directed toward dry v wet can have added interest at the touch of a button.
Would it be missed if you didn’t include it? Nope.
Let me know if you want to chat about the 227e in greater depth. I could show you stuff over Zoom, and so forth, too.
1 Like
ADDAC803s here… Cant wait for your special creation…
1 Like
ooh, Id forgotten about the ADDAC803…
the way it does x/y vs angle/radius was something Id been considering.
main difference is (like 227e/poltergeist) I want 4 input channels, all with independent placement.