Suggestion: Allow overriding current behaviour (expander-wide Mode selection) so the mode can be set per-stage from existing options (and any future ones)
I thought I bought Gx for Stage Num mode combined with clk div/mult modules…but I too use almost exclusively the default “Transport” mode combined with logic operations. Therefore:
“Scott mode”: This could be clutch in some patches for freeing up a logic module and/or hp.
“powpow mode” This would actually overlap a lot with the results I add logic for (would free up space, hp)
“badbass mode” oh gosh…yea , this vid is still on my mind too!
Following on from zilvar and powwow - giving users the option to select a mixture of gate sources (clock/transport/logic/comparator) would really enhance the utility of the GX. Perhaps also allowing mod lane gate sequences such as SKIP/MUTE or LOOPY states to run out via the GX would also give another opportunity for some of the Metropolix’s sequencer DNA to appear elsewhere in the rack.
I posted this over at modwiggler but it didnt spark anything so I’m trying my luck here
Now that we have sequenceable user scales - Wouldnt it be awesome if we could program the scales with a keyboard with cv out?
I imagine setting up a nice loop and then quickly trying out chords and listening for what works with the pattern.
Probably not something trivial to implement but I imagine it could be done using one of the inputs, and listening for held voltages ( kind of like mutable marbles does when programming a scale ) - only hopefully a bit more live, so its adding notes to the scale as soon as they are played, and if there is a longer pause it will interpret the next note as the root and start of a new scale.
While typing I’m realising your own Scales can also listen for notes and add them, so perhaps some of the code can be stolen?
tl;dr—The technical aspects of this are actually pretty simple, the UI/GUI would be the complicated/ugly part.
The Metropolix is very performance oriented, almost anything can be tweaked or used while the sequencer is running. Repurposing XYZ inputs or other UI elements for something like this would really disrupt the general flow of the module.
You would need to line up some many things:
Put the module into some sort of scale record mode
Assign an input to it
Have a custom scale slot selected (what if it’s modulating?)
What if you want to delete a note?
How many pitch changes does it listen for? If we use a timer, and you make a mistake are you stuck with it?
Do you need to be on a certain screen? what if you toggle something else?
Does it care about root at all?
Does it toggle the notes on and off when you press the same one?
Since it’s CV, you can’t really play a chord*, so you would need to add each note separately anyways. *(unless you use all 3 inputs and your keyboard has 3 outputs).
Any octave info is tossed out the window anyways, since the actual pitches are dictated by the sliders (or Stage Pitch data).
I’m not sure how many would dedicate a full keyboard to entering 12-note scale data into Metropolix.
The current editing UI is very quick and allow for this exploration already, with a simple encoder click to toggle the keys on and off, these changes are reflected live with your sequence. It would be much faster than moving your hands between a keyboard and some sort of Add/Delete/Clear/Edit UI on the screen.
Hope that explains the complexity alright. I think in general, the UI is pretty full up on Metropolix. With that said, we still have a few ideas in the pipe, and beta testing is going well.
Thank you so much for taking the time to explain in detail!
I see now that it might not be as smooth as I had hoped and that the current encoder method is quite quick after all
Since you only killed my confidence in this idea 99%, I will take a shot at countering your list of counter arguments.
Put the module into some sort of scale record mode
Yes, once in the custom scale screen you would hit a special combo.
Assign an input to it
A default input could be assumed, and if already assigned temporarily deactived while editing scale.
Have a custom scale slot selected (what if it’s modulating?)
Would be the same as when adding custom scale now. I’m only imagining a quicker method of entering the actual notes
What if you want to delete a note?
Not possible. A new sequence of notes would simply reset the custom scale and fill in from scratch.
How many pitch changes does it listen for? If we use a timer, and you make a mistake are you stuck with it?
If you don’t enter a new note within a small time window it will stop the listening session.
If you make an error you redo.
Do you need to be on a certain screen? what if you toggle something else?
Same requirements as the current scale editing method.
Does it care about root at all?
The first entered note will be interpreted as the root.
Does it toggle the notes on and off when you press the same one?
No.
Since it’s CV, you can’t really play a chord, so you would need to add each note separately anyways. (unless you use all 3 inputs and your keyboard has 3 outputs).
You enter them sequentially, quickly one after the other.
Any octave info is tossed out the window anyways, since the actual pitches are dictated by the sliders (or Stage Pitch data).
Octave info is not important.
I’m not sure how many would dedicate a full keyboard to entering 12-note scale data into Metropolix.
Many people have the keystep or keystep pro already hooked up to their modular.
Well, I don’t know. Maybe it would suck
An easier solution would be that I just practice chords more so I actually know what I want to enter, and not have to try 15 different combinations of notes all the time.
I’m still having a blast with the module though. It’s the best robot-human interaction I’ve had and I will never sell it!
Hehe, you can see how the answers really highlight how disruptive this would be to the quick performance nature of the Metropolix. Special modes, timeouts, repurposed inputs, etc. I really only think it would work with a more dedicated interface like Scales, where your Pitch Source is already passing through the module, and there is a button to clear and enable learn mode.
@slowwild. What are the likely chances that TRK 1 and TRK 2 Accumulator ORDER, LEN and DIV parameters will appear as separate Mod lane targets so that they can be decoupled from the current situation where they are directly tied to the ORDER, LEN and DIV parameters of their respective tracks?
I realise that we already have the option to modulate some Accumulator features, it’s just that decoupling the ORDER, LEN and DIV parameters would offer so much in terms of positioning the Accumulators as key structural parameters in the Metropolix sequencer.
The Accumulators are Tracks features, as such, they follow the Track parameters (Order/Len/Div), so the only way to “decouple” would be modulation. It sounds like you want to modulate the Increment amount of the Accumulators on a Track via Mod Lanes (running on their own Order/Len/Div).
We could add an Accum Increment Aux/Mod lane destination, that should give you enough control to adjust the increment amount outside of the Track’s Stage accumulator parameter.
Implementation of this is doable, but pretty complex as there is 2 parameters per-stage (Increment amount and the Accum Trigger), and modulation is summed with the current stage values, we have ways, but will need to explore the most elegant.
In the meantime, you can get part way there using combinations of Accum **** destinations. (Using Reverse or Invert to move the direction, and Accumulate to enable or disable the accumulator, etc)
I suppose my argument in support of having additional ways to decouple the accumulators rigid sync from TRK1 and TRK2 is a reflection of just how immediately transformative and magical the introduction of a simple accumulated increment is to a composition. Since the arrival of the Metropolix I’ve often wondered what decoupling the increment from the track pitch cycle would bring.
Hey @slowwild, I would like to suggest a feature for the wishlist if it’s not too much to ask:
Probability for the modlanes!
Imagine setting a probability of 35% to slide step 7 or a 75% chance to accumulate step 4, 20% chance to transpose steps 3 & 5 and so on. I think this would be incredibly powerful and make the Metropolix a generative Powerhouse.
I have to admit that I’m not sure how UI for this would look like and in general prefer intuitive workflow over feature creep. But if there’s a good way to implement this, it would be a pretty insane update.
You’re right, the UI would be a bit tricky to implement it like it is on Tracks, the mod lanes actually only have 1 saved stage parameter, and that’s a voltage value.
But great news, you can already get Probability on Mod Lanes! Here’s a simple way to do it—
On your Mod Lane, set the Play Order to “Random”, now the number of active stages (i.e. stages with a value or toggle) will determine your Probability Amount:
3 Enabled = 37.5% Probability
4 Enabled = 50%
6 Enabled = 75%
etc.
You can even set multiple values to have more variation in modulation and use empty ones mixed in for the probability of no modulation.
For example, set 3 Stages of Slide modulation to +25, 3 to +50, and 2 to 0. Now you have multiple values, each with a different probability.
If you add clock division to that, you could get a random value every 8 or 16 pulses rather than every step.
It’s not that it’s impossible, it’s more that it would complicate the UI a lot, feature creep (as you say), but to the point of disrupting the GUI/UI.
The UI to change stage parameters on Tracks is the same UI used to change the Mod Lane. We would need to overhaul all of that.
On the current hardware, I don’t see us complicating Mod lanes too much further. Especially when we have other ways of introducing some controlled random elements.
Maybe crazier Mod Lanes on Metropolix 2030 .
PS— You can assign 2 Mod lanes to a single param, so you could do some static modulation, and sprinkle a little bit of probability on top with the method above
