Coarse Probability ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Coarse Probability Adjustments


WizardOfZot
(@wizardofzot)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1
Topic starter  

Currently the Eloquencer only allows coarse adjustment to the probabilities. For instance there is only 8 increments for values for CV Variation Probability. Is there an option to switch the Eloquencer to allow more fine grained probabilities similar to Pamela's New Workout (which allows 1-100)?

Here's several ideas for how this could be accomplished:

  1. While editing CV Variation (or any other variation % setting): Pressing in the encoder toggles between fine and coarse adjustment modes
  2. Pressing in and holding in the encoder while turning allows fine adjustments
  3. Global menu setting to allow changing the behavior to fine vs coarse adjustment
  4. Config file edit to change the behavior to fine vs coarse adjustment

Eloquencer is a great module!

Thank you,
Alex


Quote
WinterModular
(@wintermodular)
Member Moderator
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 533
 

Hi @wizardofzot!

Thanks for your feedback.

The limitation of fine values in the step parameters is more related with memory than with interface.
Let's take CVP as an example. As you know CVP has 8 possible values, that means that in the internal memory it takes 3 bits 2^3=8.
In a project context that means 3 bits / step --> 48 bits/track --> 384 bits/pattern --> 24576 bits /project
This is the amount of data that needs to be stored in volatile memory in relation with CVP. We also have to store data for CVR, GL, GLP, GLR, R, RP, RVP and CV (that uses much more bits),

If we increase the amount of data related with CVP to have , let's say, 128 values ( it is always good to have numbers that are power of 2 (2^n)) we will need to use 7 bits for this parameter.  That's a subtancial increment. If we apply that increment to all step parameters will probably increase the volatile memory used like 2 or 3 times, so the volatile memory usage will be critically close to its limits, I mean there will be enough memory but won't let us to add things in the future or have the security margin in memory use.


ReplyQuote
LarsDaniel
(@larsdaniel)
Eminent Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 21
 

I would also love to have just a bit finer control over probability. Going from 8 different levels to 16 would be a huge improvement, and my guess is that it would be within the realm of the possible, given the hardware limitations. And I could easily live with only having twice the resolution on the most important ones, the “top level” ones. 
By keeping it to 16 levels, there is no need for course vs fine. (No need to complicate.) 

There is also another way, to further improve usability, without increasing the number of levels:

As it is, going from 0% to 14% is musically a huge step, while going from 71% to 85% is not nearly as big a step measured in musical impact. So instead of making each step n% bigger, each step should be increasingly bigger. I am not a great matematician, but I will give an example, so you know what I mean: 

0%, 2%, 4%, 8%, 16%, 32%, 64% (100%)

See, even if this is still 8 steps, it is more musically useful.
If we move to 16 steps it will be pretty damn good with a similar spacing. This example is not the perfect numbers, but they are close:

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 21, 28, 37, 49, 65, 87,    (Each step is roughly 4/3 of the previous. Except the first numbers, as I kept it to whole integers. (Doing this in my head. 😆))

 

I hope you see how 16 steps with a better spacing will be so much more musical, without (hopefully) eating too much memory.


ReplyQuote
WinterModular
(@wintermodular)
Member Moderator
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 533
 

Will bear in mind your suggestion for future updates, not for the upcoming because it is quite closed right now.

I think that this 'exponential' probability shape could be more musical. Will think about it.

Thanks for your feedback ! 🙂


ReplyQuote