gummigudm Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 I know that i'm not able to bang plugin parameters with regular methods, but I just noticed that the values of my sends do regularly not get sent. I thought I could send them all using a meta button with output meta 1 -99- but now i see, that only sends 1,2,3 and 4 get sent, as control messages but not fader?, insert status (on/off) and sends 5678 don't get banged out of channelstrip? I would expect : F 1 56 through F 1 70 (insert On/Off) F 1 28 through F 1 35 (send amounts) C 1 7 (volume) C 1 10 (pan) F 1 3 (solo) F 1 9 (mute) But i get : C 1 28 through C 1 31 (send amounts) (notice C and only to 31, not 35!) C 1 7 (volume) C 1 10 (pan) C 1 3 (solo) (notice C!) C 1 9 (mute) (notice C!) somthing i'm missing? -G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 somthing i'm missing? No: your results are right, meaning your expectations were wrong (though certainly logical). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummigudm Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 So this is normal behaviour of the bang meta message from channelstrips.. if so, is there a way for me to collect all the data? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Define "normal"! Seriously: not that I have a whole ton of experience banging channel strips, but since it's the results you're getting and I can verify those same results here with another version of Logic on another version of OS X etc... then that's what we have to work with. Using other meta events you could store those values in different ways. For example Meta #98 sets a fader value. Cabling the output of a channel strip into a transformer set as below cabled into a fader will "store" the volume value in the fader: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummigudm Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 Many thanks for the quick replies, i'll give this some thought and find a way to accomplish! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 You're welcome. BTW for some reason banging a channel strip gives me the last value (the last send value) twice... do you get the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummigudm Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 Yes, I always get the last send value twice.. That however does not affect what i'm doing;) i can successfully store the values within transformers, id just rather not tweak each parameter to get the channelstrip to send each value out. My workaround idea was to somehow increase the value by one and decrease again, so the value set, would be the latter and would get to my transformers and change them again after the increment of one.. have no idea how to make this possible though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummigudm Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 My apologies.. I am currently using logic version 9.1.8! just updated my signature. Though that could not be a major factor here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 My workaround idea was to somehow increase the value by one and decrease again, so the value set, would be the latter and would get to my transformers and change them again after the increment of one.. have no idea how to make this possible though. That's a smart workaround idea - unfortunately apparently increment/decrement with Meta #99 doesn't seem to work with channel strips objects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummigudm Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 I've mangaged to keep hold of my information, after initially setting them once! using two large arrays of transformers that do exactly the same thing. Every fader/knob/status on the channelstrip is tweaked once, initially, this sends the information which gets changed to meta and values are stored as 'fix' in databyte 2 in the transformers.. once happy those values get banged (stored) to a second array which stores the same data. changing values after the 'store' only affects the first array and i can keep other info for A/B comparisson with two of those array setups. (current data, saved data) Since the transformers save the position and not faders, they get stored even though i close and reopen my project! These speculations led to a result! Fantastic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 the transformers save the position and not faders Hmmm? All faders should stay at the same position when saving, closing and reopening a project? Using a transformer to store a value seems overkill, especially if you're working with large environments... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummigudm Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 ofc! didn't realize that:s.. there was some scenario where i used the transformer to store the value as well as changing other databytes at the same time.. guess that got me stuck on that idea;) Damn I'm glad that you pointed that out to me, very basic fact i turned my head away from. But having to do a transformer operation, where i can store data within the same transformer, I would not be benefitting from having a fader store the value externally from the transformer that has to be there anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 But having to do a transformer operation, where i can store data within the same transformer, I would not be benefitting from having a fader store the value externally from the transformer that has to be there anyway? I guess not: a transformer is still better than a transformer plus a fader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummigudm Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 Really appreciate the quick replies and pointers. Thanks alot! -Gummi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Don't be surprised if the values that get stored in your transformers don't match the actual values that the various faders (etc.) were set to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummigudm Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 Getting surprisingly stable results.. I am though going through all my environment setup and replacing transformers with faders where possible. Good organizing and good clear naming of environment objects came in handy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Stable result, sure, no reason why not. But I'm not talking about stability. Talking about accuracy. In other words, if your intention is to store (say) channel strip fader values in a transformer for the purpose of reading them back out later, you'll find that your faders will not always return to the value you think you stored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummigudm Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 Aah i understand, yeah i knew that the division of info between 128 values yealds a slight ofset from the original data. And that ofc goes the same for faders as transformers. The reason I am doing this is not for an accurate snapback console, but rather simpler tasks of storing multiple cue mixes on one bus and for A/B comparisson of a few elements at a time I am f.ex. recording vocals and the three singers have different preference in what they'd like to hear while recording. Its convenient to have a small framless floating with a dropdown menu of different presets of cuemixes, than using multiple sends and routing them to multiple outputs and whatnot. Same booth, same headphones, same output, same send, different cue mixes. Works for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Right. Glad you know what I'm talking about. I built a system like that too, same premise, but didn't like the fact that values weren't recalled with precision. But if it works for you then it works. 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummigudm Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 Using a transformer to store a value seems overkill, especially if you're working with large environments... On that note, what do you guys use for summing of signals? I often find myself cabling multiple objects to one transformer for summing to one line. That transformer is nonfunctional and only takes in all midi values and spits them out again (thru). I use this alot for a 'Macro-In' or 'Macro-Out' object. Would it take less prosessing to use a monitor perhaps, for this purpose -- or does it not matter since there is nothing going on inside the transformer? These changes are completely irrelevant in small setups, but with large environments, would this render a difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Yes, it does matter, and yes, a monitor object would take less space in RAM. Even an instrument object would take less space than a transformer. If you have hundreds of them it would make quite a sizeable difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 For summing/merging I use ornaments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 For summing/merging I use ornaments. Ornament is, indeed, even smaller. Believe it or not there is even smaller: the delay line!! But I can see how it would be easier to use an ornament and not be concerned about any processing going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I never knew that! David, do know of documentation that lists the memory footprint of the different objects? Regards, Ski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Yes, there was a list lying around the web somewhere... can't seem to find it, but I've got a copy somewhere on my other computer. I'll update it later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.