Ok so it appears to be another gap in my understanding.... oscillators have to be inside the rack to be linked to a modulation source. I’m learning... but by Jove there’s a lot to learn.
it would be very useful to be able to contain a bank of module and access their individual outputs. But currently all racks seem to have only one output.
@d4dg Racks are like organizers, isolated from external world to avoid a mess.. You can fold a rack and forget whats inside.
In other case it would be quite confusing... e.g. your case: imagine you connected external oscillator to something inside a rack and then you change rack preset.
If you need to connect external module to something inside a rack, its a sign that this module should be added to the rack or you don't need a rack here.
@bcrichards You are right racks should have editable inputs/outputs, its planned.
@giku, thanks for the response. I hear you. What I wanted to create was a rack which contained cc modulators mapped to circuits cc values, so that I could place it before other racks. I ended up putting the other rack elements inside with the modulators, and it’s working. This is just a work around for now, I’m hoping midi learn will come at some point.
Just a few more thoughts about this, I think you also addressed that layers might become a little more flexible (layer 3 could take from layer 1, etc.) if you wanted to have 2 or more sources and then cross process them, currently you have to have long stretched out racks. If you could combine layer 1 and 2 with a math operation for instance, you could keep things much cleaners.
@giku , @bcrichards When layer chaining (serial connection of layers) is introduced by the new layer outputs that can be routed to one of the layers below, another routing option would be quite important: Routing any module's output to any module in one of the following layers.
Otherwise, reducing a track's screen width by packing everything inside "serial layers" wouldn't be possible in many cases.
Also, I'm not sure if the planned serial multi-layer feature wouldn't better be placed inside a rack that can be condensed. In that case, I'd prefer to speak of "pages" instead of layers (although visually, there's no difference really).
Comments
Ok so it appears to be another gap in my understanding.... oscillators have to be inside the rack to be linked to a modulation source. I’m learning... but by Jove there’s a lot to learn.
it would be very useful to be able to contain a bank of module and access their individual outputs. But currently all racks seem to have only one output.
@d4dg Racks are like organizers, isolated from external world to avoid a mess.. You can fold a rack and forget whats inside.
In other case it would be quite confusing... e.g. your case: imagine you connected external oscillator to something inside a rack and then you change rack preset.
If you need to connect external module to something inside a rack, its a sign that this module should be added to the rack or you don't need a rack here.
@bcrichards You are right racks should have editable inputs/outputs, its planned.
@giku, thanks for the response. I hear you. What I wanted to create was a rack which contained cc modulators mapped to circuits cc values, so that I could place it before other racks. I ended up putting the other rack elements inside with the modulators, and it’s working. This is just a work around for now, I’m hoping midi learn will come at some point.
Just a few more thoughts about this, I think you also addressed that layers might become a little more flexible (layer 3 could take from layer 1, etc.) if you wanted to have 2 or more sources and then cross process them, currently you have to have long stretched out racks. If you could combine layer 1 and 2 with a math operation for instance, you could keep things much cleaners.
@giku , @bcrichards When layer chaining (serial connection of layers) is introduced by the new layer outputs that can be routed to one of the layers below, another routing option would be quite important: Routing any module's output to any module in one of the following layers.
Otherwise, reducing a track's screen width by packing everything inside "serial layers" wouldn't be possible in many cases.
Also, I'm not sure if the planned serial multi-layer feature wouldn't better be placed inside a rack that can be condensed. In that case, I'd prefer to speak of "pages" instead of layers (although visually, there's no difference really).