Sample Aid
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

quick question about filterscape

Discussion in 'Audio Units: Effect and Instrument Plugins' started by rainguitar, Apr 21, 2009.

  1. rainguitar

    rainguitar Member

    I noticed that Filterscape has an arppediator. I have Zebra 2 and FM8, both of which have appediators, but those arppediators only control the sounds contained within those soft synths. But Filterscape is an effects plug in is it not? I'm I therefore right in assuming that filterscape's arp could be used to affect say a EXS24 sample?
     
  2.  
  3. Urs Heckmann

    Urs Heckmann New Member

    Hi,

    while Filterscape itself is an fx plugin, it comes with FilterscapeVA. Latter is a synthesizer that adopts key concepts of Filterscape into its voice architecture. Unfortunately only the latter has an arpeggiator built in, which is pretty much identical to the one in Zebra2.

    I would love to open up my arpeggiator for this kind of usage. But sending MIDI from one AU to another is the one thing that's been talked about for years without anything ever really happening. That's the one area where VST has been ahead all those years :-(

    Cheers,

    ;) Urs
     
  4. rainguitar

    rainguitar Member

    Thanks Urs,

    That clears things up.

    Greg
     
  5. Peter Ostry

    Peter Ostry Administrator Staff Member

    Urs, did you think about sending MIDI to a selectable port and let your application also receive arpeggiator or other MIDI data from a port? I know that sending is possible, not sure about receiving but this can be handled by the user if the plugin reacts to incoming data.
     
  6. Urs Heckmann

    Urs Heckmann New Member

    Yes, one can create virtual ports... I just find it a bit too confusing to pollute projects with tens of virtual ports. Each plug-in would have to create its own port then. The user can only hope that the generated MIDI data keeps in sync with the render slices - because the host has no idea from which position within the arrangement the MIDI originates. Imagine rendering offline or freezing tracks with MIDI data arriving 8000 samples too late...

    A more predictive and clean solution that can be controlled via the host interface would be favourable.

    Cheers,

    ;) Urs
     
  7. Peter Ostry

    Peter Ostry Administrator Staff Member

    Hmm, I don't know your arpeggiator data and don't think about a "network" of MIDI streams across all your plugins. What if you create no port at all but let the user select an existing port and, if possible, let him set a MIDI channel?

    I use the WIDI plugin (audio-to-midi) to get MIDI data from live audio and trigger virtual instruments with them. The latency over the IAC bus is pretty short. They don't create a port but have only a dropdown list for available ports and one for the channel:

    [​IMG]

    It is not a perfect system and this plugin needs some time to analyze the audio but you create your MIDI data yourself and I can imagine that such an out port would be enough for some special usage. Even if one uses it only to trigger other plugins.

    The receiving part is of course another story, if you need to rewrite the plugins to accept control data then it is not worth the time ...
     
  8. Urs Heckmann

    Urs Heckmann New Member

    Well, I don't know how this would work. I havn't dealt with MIDI yet, but as far as I am aware, one has to create a virtual MIDI port for each plugin that wants to send MIDI. I might be wrong though.

    Still, the latency can neither be estimated by the plugins involved nor by the host. It may be cool for a live situation, but when bouncing it can be totally off. Latzter would cause too much trouble to even think about it.

    Funnily there have been proposals for MIDI connections in AUs for some 7 years or so. A dedicated bus that keeps the host aware of connections would circumvent all problems. Just like it does in VST-land (where I think you still have the problem that MIDI is only passed on within the same channel strip, but at least it's working...)

    Seriously, I'm not trying to avoid the topic. All I'm saying is that the status quo is far from ideal, and to my best knowledge, not worth bothering. And I gave up asking for improvements in the area, maybe in 2005 or so.

    Maybe some motivated user should start a petition or something.

    ;) Urs
     

Share This Page