XOR Userforum
Glide questions - Printable Version

+- XOR Userforum (https://forum.xor.eu)
+-- Forum: Products (https://forum.xor.eu/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: NerdSEQ (https://forum.xor.eu/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+---- Forum: General Questions (https://forum.xor.eu/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+---- Thread: Glide questions (/showthread.php?tid=1155)

Pages: 1 2


RE: Glide questions - XORadmin - 07-22-2021

(07-22-2021, 02:51 PM)geremy Wrote: Hi.  That makes sense.   I just want to point out that it could be handled another way...it could be another FX distinct from GLIDE, only valid within a pattern.  I have seen other sequencers (like metropolix/metropolis) handle the 'not knowing what the next note is' by actually making it work slightly backward.  Example:

Note 1 - Slide 0
Note 2 - Slide >0
Note 3 - Slide 0

In the glide function this would cause a glide from note 2 to note 3.  However, in the slide function this often created the slide from note 1 to note 2.

Thanks!
But thats between notes on the next step. I am more talking about that you never know where the next note is. 
Easy within a pattern, but beyond patterns not possible.

Also another additional glide function = double processing time and that is out of the question (keep in mind that per track 2 glide functions can run and not just the one simple but 16 step sequence).


RE: Glide questions - geremy - 07-22-2021

Completely understand. It would probably be a nightmare to try to calculate glide and slide simultaneously. I also was able to get good slides by keeping the values pretty low.


RE: Glide questions - Paranormal Patroler - 08-16-2021

After reading here and there and the manual, wouldn't it better to think of these as:

GL C > the amount of glide steps
GLCS > the δ between glide step values

So GL C isn't the sample rate, but the number of samples. No?


RE: Glide questions - mgd - 08-16-2021

(08-16-2021, 01:56 PM)Paranormal Patroler Wrote: After reading here and there and the manual, wouldn't it better to think of these as:

GL C > the amount of glide steps
GLCS > the δ between glide step values

So GL C isn't the sample rate, but the number of samples. No?

Number of samples [before the next GLCS increment is applied] would be very much in line with my observation that it is some form of delay.


RE: Glide questions - Paranormal Patroler - 08-17-2021

(08-16-2021, 02:10 PM)mgd Wrote:
(08-16-2021, 01:56 PM)Paranormal Patroler Wrote: After reading here and there and the manual, wouldn't it better to think of these as:

GL C > the amount of glide steps
GLCS > the δ between glide step values

So GL C isn't the sample rate, but the number of samples. No?

Number of samples [before the next GLCS increment is applied] would be very much in line with my observation that it is some form of delay.

So I spent some time yesterday trying to understand it and I think we are correct:

GLC seems to increase the number of steps it takes for the glide to reach the highest level. At the same time GLCS seems to define the delta of the steps. For a specific GLC you can use GLCS to have the glide jump between intermediate values more or less. Additionally, and as is expected, higher "jumps" take less time to move through the voltage range.

It's a balance between the two.


RE: Glide questions - geremy - 08-18-2021

So I was incorrect on my description of slide previously.  After some further research, this appears to be the gospel of what I'm talking about (taken from https://www.firstpr.com.au/rwi/dfish/303-slide.html):

Code:
Lets say you have 16 1/16 th notes programmed.  Each note occupies
six clock pulses - lets call them pulses 0 to 5.

The gate goes high at the start of clock pulse 0 - the positive edge.

The gate goes low half-way through clock pulse 3 - on its negative
edge.

That is for a normal, 1/16 note.  So there are 3.5 clock pulses on
and 2.5 off.

If there is a slide programmed on that note, then the slide circuit
is actually activated on the *next* note. The slide starts at
the start of clock-pulse 0 and ends at the end of clock-pulse 5.

The other function of slide is that the note it is programmed on does
not turn off, but the gate stays high and runs into the next.

Two diagrams.  They are wide - so don't let the lines wrap in your
email reader.  Also, of course, you need courier text, not some
proportional spaced font.

Firstly, three 1/16 notes. no slide:

Clock edges:   / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \

Clock number:  0   1   2   3   4   5   0   1   2   3   4   5   0   1   2   3   4   5   0    

Note boundary: |                       |                       |                       |  

CV:            AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCDDDD  

Gate:        __==============__________==============__________===============_________====  


Now with slide programmed on note B, which ties it to note C.
Note B plays at it's normal pitch, but it keeps playing.
Then at note C's starting time, there is no new note - as
far as the gate is concerned - because the gate is just
staying on.  However it is a new note as far as the CV is
concerned - because it changes to whatever CV is programmed
for note C.


Clock edges:   / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \

Clock number:  0   1   2   3   4   5   0   1   2   3   4   5   0   1   2   3   4   5   0    

Note boundary: |                       |                       |                       |  

CV from DAC:   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCDDDD  

Gate:        __==============__________=======================================_________====  

Slide        __________________________________________________========================____


So the CV seen by the VCO - which is the output of the slide circuit -
is sliding from pitch B towards pitch C, during note C. We don't
hear the last part of this - since the gate is off

Since slide is fixed time and not dependent upon the state of CV, it would just be a straight addition to the glide time calculation (if someone happened to have them both on).


RE: Glide questions - Marizu - 01-24-2022

Did the glide change around 1.24a?
Has it become slower than it used to be?
Would there be any appetite for having the option to make it faster?


RE: Glide questions - XORadmin - 01-24-2022

(01-24-2022, 09:25 AM)Marizu Wrote: Did the glide change around 1.24a?
Has it become slower than it used to be?
Would there be any appetite for having the option to make it faster?

I think it stayed the same. But what do you mean with faster? If you want to have it snappier then you need to increase the glide steps.


RE: Glide questions - Bitflipper - 01-16-2025

(07-22-2021, 01:25 PM)geremy Wrote: Thanks for the reply.  So for the slowest, smoothest glide, the answer is to leave steps at default 000, and change speed to simply 001. 

Would you be open to a feature suggestion of constant-time glide option, or would that be too difficult to calculate between pattern rows?  In constant time glide (slide on the 303, otherwise known as constant time portamento), regardless whether the notes are 1 semitone apart or 3 octaves apart, the glide takes the same amount of time.

Hi everybody,

After reading the manual and posts about glide I would like to redraw the attention to the post of Geremy (quoted above).
I fully understand the principles of the parameters speed and resolution, but in my opinion speed should result in a constant time between to notes / cv's.
If you program a smooth glide between a number of steps it depends from the interval between notes / cv's wether the glide is smooth, too fast or too short to even reach the new value. 
You can achieve this by using FX for different sped values per step, but this takes a lot of experimentation...
(I realise that the parameter is 'speed' and not 'time'; but this is how glide works on most synths I know...)


RE: Glide questions - XORadmin - 01-17-2025

(01-16-2025, 11:28 AM)Bitflipper Wrote:
(07-22-2021, 01:25 PM)geremy Wrote: Thanks for the reply.  So for the slowest, smoothest glide, the answer is to leave steps at default 000, and change speed to simply 001. 

Would you be open to a feature suggestion of constant-time glide option, or would that be too difficult to calculate between pattern rows?  In constant time glide (slide on the 303, otherwise known as constant time portamento), regardless whether the notes are 1 semitone apart or 3 octaves apart, the glide takes the same amount of time.

Hi everybody,

After reading the manual and posts about glide I would like to redraw the attention to the post of Geremy (quoted above).
I fully understand the principles of the parameters speed and resolution, but in my opinion speed should result in a constant time between to notes / cv's.
If you program a smooth glide between a number of steps it depends from the interval between notes / cv's wether the glide is smooth, too fast or too short to even reach the new value. 
You can achieve this by using FX for different sped values per step, but this takes a lot of experimentation...
(I realise that the parameter is 'speed' and not 'time'; but this is how glide works on most synths I know...)

Yep it is indeed speed and not time. I do not plan to change the current implementation.
It's not possible to have it act like a 303 where the space between notes is one step where the next step is always known before.