Quadrax Feature Request

id have a feature request on the Quadrax: it would be really great to create a function in which the envelope lengths get scaled to a clock input, so that they match the time between the two last pulses of an incoming clock.
would there be general interest in this?


I really have no idea if it would be useful or not. Sounds interesting anyway!

How would the rise and fall knobs behave in that case?

Off the top of my head I can’t think of any software or hardware synth with an envelope that behaves this way. What’s the effect you’re trying to achieve?

the attack and rate knobs could eventually be used as clock multiplication or division of the incoming signal.
the 4ms pingable envelope does such a thing. it just opens other synchronization possibilities which you wouldnt have with just the regular v/oct input!

Lot’s of software synths have envelopes with a tempo quantize (sync) option. For Quadrax it would be nice when using it as a cycling envelope (like you can with LFO mode). Obviously you’d loose the ability to trigger these envelopes, so it would have to be a special mode (maybe that’s the deal breaker?).

So basically it would be a unipolar triangle LFO with a skew factor? I think we considered that before but thought that the random LFV option was more interesting.

I think it could be a good idea though, I’m just not sure how to cram it into the UI for waveform selection as it is now.

1 Like

I LOVE the LFV option, just one of the many features that makes this one of my favorite modules to date.
While I’m not the person who made this suggestion (and understanding there’s no easy way to actually add this option without losing another option), you get a similar thing with the LFO using the saw/tri/saw shape. The only problem is the bi-polar nature of the LFO means the trigger comes in the “middle” of the waveform.
IMO the way it “should” work is with tempo synced rise and tempo synced fall, which means the total cycle length would still change as either rise or fall changed (but the changes would be in steps, as the LFO does in tempo sync mode. In contrast, the LFO/skew approach keeps a consistent cycle time. Honestly, I have no use for the trigger input in the current Cycle mode, so I’d not miss turning it into a tempo sync mode, same as LFO mode doesn’t have a key sync mode opting instead for a tempo sync mode, right?
But in the end, this is STILL my favorite device, being a fan of modulation, and really is the heart of my modular system. :slight_smile:


Hm interesting idea, so you mean the cycle time would still change as you moved the rise and fall knobs, but the rise and fall would always be multiples of the incoming clock?

1 Like

Yes, but again I’m not the OP just expressing my version of the original request. This would allow things like a 1-beat rise and a 3 beat fall, etc. In other words, exactly as it works now, but rise and fall times quantized to divisions of the beat exactly as rates are quantized (aka tempo synced) with the LFO. Hope I’m not stepping on the OP’s toes with this, or maybe it’s what was originally proposed (though I think they were suggesting this for all envelope types, not just cycle). IMO the trigger is less useful for cycle mode, and would be more interesting if it was used to sync as with LFO - but also realize this breaks current functionality, so would need another system mode setting (not ideal, but doable). OK, back into my hole now…

That’s interesting, can’t say I’d ever considered something like that, but I can see how it would be useful for modulation, especially if the envelope times themselves were also modulated.

I’m not sure if we will be adding more options to Quadrax, it seems kind of unlikely given the UI limitations and how packed it is already, but I’ll keep this idea in mind.

Thanks for the reply - it’s STILL my all time favorite module to date, as a fan of modulation sources in general. The recent changes took it over the top for me! Not wanting to offend any fans of Maths, but it’s replaced Maths in my rack because the primary use for me was envelopes for Qpas. The way Quadrax handles the modulation curves, especially compared to Maths, and especially with the new mode, works much better for me. Wish I still had space for Maths - not going to sell it, and it will return to the rack when I expand later this year. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I don’t know if this is possible, but I’d like to be able to adjust the voltage of the Qx gate outputs. At the least having them mirror the 5v / 10v system setting would be good, but being able to have them independent from Quadrax would also be great.

My reason is I have a Dual Xfade from Happy Nerding and unfortunately it requires 6v to go from one side to the other. So the gates from Qx are just slightly not enough for me to use the Qx and Dual XFade as a voltage controlled switch.

I think QX is only able to output 5v gates, so unfortunately I don’t think this is possible but yeah I can see that being useful.

What I would do is set your envelope to AHR mode and just use the gate length (aka pulse width or duty cycle) of the clock signal. What sort of clock do you have?

1 Like

Thanks for the detailed reply. Yeah, that’s not a bad idea - it does tie up one of my channels but can work. I can send a gate in from a number of places (Steppy / Octatrack). Thank you!

1 Like

I hope that one day it would be possible to configure Quadrax’s AD and AHR resetting behavior on two dimensions:

  • whether it resets if a trigger is received before the attack segment has completed, or ignores triggers while mid-attack (currently Quadrax ignores triggers received mid-attack, and I really appreciate that this can be enabled or disabled in “the other” quad digital envelope generators: Zadar, Quadigy, QuBit Contour, and Ornament and Crime’s Piqued)
  • whether it resets to 0V when a trigger is received before the envelope has finished, or restarts the envelope from whatever voltage level it is at when the second trigger is received (I also appreciate that we can choose between these options on Zadar)

These would be two separate options, as they are orthogonal to each other. I think they would make the most sense as System Mode options, since there’s no room for this in the UI and these aren’t something you’d want to toggle on/off too frequently. It comes down to preference and how you tend to use envelopes in your patches.

The problem with an envelope resetting to 0v if a new gate is received during the attack phase is that the abrupt voltage change can sometimes cause unwanted clicks and pops.

1 Like

May I enquire what sort of algorithm you use to make your envelopes? Is it a piecewise function or anything fun?

This is true, but this definitely has its use cases. We aren’t always using envelopes as modulation sources for VCAs :slight_smile: And I think this click/pops issue is less prominent in the VCA use case when the audio gated by the VCA is more complex or harmonically rich than, say, a low-frequency sine wave.

Let’s say we want to use an envelope with a maxed-out attack duration to scrub through a Planar2 recording, or a Morphagene buffer, and we want that envelope to reset every 2 bars, even if it hasn’t completed the attack ramp by then. It’s not so easy to get the timing right so that it resets every time. (I understand that in this particular example we could keep attack at minimum, max out the decay segment’s duration, invert the envelope, and offset it so that we’ve effectively “reversed” the envelope in its original polarity, but that definitely ties up some extra utilities and could be avoidable with an optional behavior. I’d also not prefer to use a ramp LFO instead, because I like to control the curves and to trigger the events rather than retrigger a cycling event.)

1 Like