Evan

I was wondering if all of you using MIDI controllers could describe your experiences with its 127-grain sensitivity on knobs, faders, and piano keys when fiddling with your sounds. I'm considering getting a keyboard controller with a few knobs and faders (for the curious, I'm looking at the CME UF5), but I'm afraid its 127 steps will be too coarse to allow for both subtle and dramatic parameter changes. Do you find you encounter the 127-step limitation often in your sound-making? Describing what you're controlling (LFO, grain size, etc.) and with what kind of control (fader, knob, key) would be helpful as well.

I was wondering if all of you using MIDI controllers could describe your experiences with its 127-grain sensitivity on knobs, faders, and piano keys when fiddling with your sounds.  I'm considering getting a keyboard controller with a few knobs and faders (for the curious, I'm looking at the CME UF5), but I'm afraid its 127 steps will be too coarse to allow for both subtle and dramatic parameter changes.  Do you find you encounter the 127-step limitation often in your sound-making?  Describing what you're controlling (LFO, grain size, etc.) and with what kind of control (fader, knob, key) would be helpful as well.

your-experience-with-midi

It depends on what you're doing. Obviously, higher values are nicer 

especially if you're dealing with data coming from say a pressure 

sensor, but ultimately it has less to do with resolution than with 

musical mapping. Hell, 1-bit data can be interesting with the right 

It's also very important to remember that with Max you aren't bound to 

linear mappings. Use the "table" or "function" object (normally used 

with line~, but it outputs an interpolated value out the left when you 

send in a single number) to make a mapping that is mostly linear, but 

then takes some detours along the way; then, you can just access them 

linearly, even though it sounds like you're freaking out...

Also, notice that you don't always need precision in certain ranges of 

ctlin -> scale 0 127 400. 10000. -> filter cutoff freq

ctlin -> table -> scale 0. 127. 36. 127. -> mtof -> filter cutoff freq

Here, you get more granularity in the range of values where you need it 

(the lows and mids) and waste less space on the top. You may have to 

combine several objects to get the desired curves, but the creativity 

pays off in controls that are much more musical. Also, think about 

ctlin -> pack f 1000 -> line 0. -> parameter to control

-> pack f 2000 -> line 0. -> some other parameter to control

can be an interesting way of controlling to parameters with one 

controller. They're linked, but they move slightly differently. 

(especially interesting if one is inversely mapped)

It depends on what you're doing.  Obviously, higher values are nicer 
especially if you're dealing with data coming from say a pressure 
sensor, but  ultimately it has less to do with resolution than with 
musical mapping.  Hell, 1-bit data can be interesting with the right 
mapping.

It's also very important to remember that with Max you aren't bound to 
linear mappings.  Use the "table" or "function" object (normally used 
with line~, but it outputs an interpolated value out the left when you 
send in a single number) to make a mapping that is mostly linear, but 
then takes some detours along the way; then, you can just access them 
linearly, even though it sounds like you're freaking out...

Also, notice that you don't always need precision in certain ranges of 
a parameter.  For instance, this:

Here, you get more granularity in the range of values where you need it 
(the lows and mids) and waste less space on the top.  You may have to 
combine several objects to get the desired curves, but the creativity 
pays off in controls that are much more musical.  Also, think about 
using line.

ctlin -> pack f 1000 -> line 0. -> parameter to control
         -> pack f 2000 -> line 0. -> some other parameter to control

can be an interesting way of controlling to parameters with one 
controller.  They're linked, but they move slightly differently.  
(especially interesting if one is inversely mapped)

Thanks for the suggestions. I think it clarified what I think I was actually asking -- if MIDI would let me both do what I want musically (which can easily be done as you suggested), as well as experiment along broader, less clearly-defined limits (to alter parameters sonically and intuitively rather than technically). I suppose MIDI isn't best suited to accommodate the latter situation, although there are obviously ways to work around it, like dynamically altering the scale of the values with another knob or something similar.

Thanks for the suggestions.  I think it clarified what I think I was actually asking -- if MIDI would let me both do what I want musically (which can easily be done as you suggested), as well as experiment along broader, less clearly-defined limits (to alter parameters sonically and intuitively rather than technically).  I suppose MIDI isn't best suited to accommodate the latter situation,  although there are obviously ways to work around it, like dynamically altering the scale of the values with another knob or something similar.

Don't forget Pitchbend Controler is 14bits resolution (two MIDI words).

In most of my sound control experiences, 7bits resolution was enough.

Of course, we can't expect to control a 20-to-20000Hz filter with a step

But do we really need that much resolution in a performance situation? In

most of the case I guess not. But of course it depends of your needs. And

Peter's right: remaping your MIDI data is essential and is the solution in

Playing with a fader, I feel it's not really relevant to give a better

resolution to this control. My finger mouvement can't really reach that

"resolution intention".... Unless with a really long fader, wich is not

CME UF5 seems to be a nice controler: lots of faders and knobs, I like

that! In most situations, I'm using MIDI faders such as Behringer

B-control because I find keyboards burdensome and faders are longer,

bigger and motorised! When I need triggers, I use the programmable

In most of my sound control experiences, 7bits resolution was enough.
Of course, we can't expect to control a 20-to-20000Hz filter with a step
of 1Hz...
But do we really need that much resolution in a performance situation? In
most of the case I guess not. But of course it depends of your needs. And
Peter's right: remaping your MIDI data is essential and is the solution in
most cases.

Playing with a fader, I feel it's not really relevant to give a better
resolution to this control. My finger mouvement can't really reach that
"resolution intention".... Unless with a really long fader, wich is not
the case on the CME UF5.

CME UF5 seems to be a nice controler: lots of faders and knobs, I like
that! In most situations, I'm using MIDI faders such as Behringer
B-control because I find keyboards burdensome and faders are longer,
bigger and motorised! When I need triggers, I use the programmable
pushbuttons on the B-control.

On 5 Jun 2006, at 19:41, Patrice Coulombe wrote:

> Don't forget Pitchbend Controler is 14bits resolution (two MIDI 

IMHE not many controllers put out 14-bit messages.

nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- 

> Don't forget Pitchbend Controler is 14bits resolution (two MIDI  
> words).

   nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http:// 
www.cassiel.com


You make a good point about faders, especially when using them for volume (which I'll likely be doing). Assuming you can actually step through each of the 127 values, that will give you a 127db range with the most straightforward scaling. I doubt most people's hearing resolves in steps finer than 1db, so 127 would likely be fine for most situations.

I'm mostly interested in getting a keyboard controller so I can compose more traditionally melodic parts. The extra knobs and faders would really just be a nice bonus, but they seem like they'll be fairly usable.

You make a good point about faders, especially when using them for volume (which I'll likely be doing).  Assuming you can actually step through each of the 127 values, that will give you a 127db range with the most straightforward scaling.  I doubt most people's hearing resolves in steps finer than 1db, so 127 would likely be fine for most situations.

I'm mostly interested in getting a keyboard controller so I can compose more traditionally melodic parts.  The extra knobs and faders would really just be a nice bonus, but they seem like they'll be fairly usable.

Actually, I've often found that decibel-faders have the problem (and 

this definitely depends on the type of sound-source you're dealing 

with, of giving me a little too much resolution at the bottom of the 

scale. (in that sounds between -60 and -120 dB have as much priority 

and resolution as do sounds between 0 and -60 dB) Linear scales for 

gain are pretty decent for certain tasks, though they lack low-end 

resolution, so I tend to use a hybrid approach, combining values from 

both the linear and the log scales (maybe 50% lin, 50% log), and then 

converting it back into a dB level for the interface.

Or, something else I've done is have a dB range from maybe -70 to +12 

dB (scale 0. 127. -70. 12.), and then have a mute button. You 

sacrifice the lowest of the low-end, but you get a much bigger 

sweet-spot for your volume fader. This definitely depends on the kind 

of sounds you're making, noise floor, etc.

Actually, I've often found that decibel-faders have the problem (and 
this definitely depends on the type of sound-source you're dealing 
with, of giving me a little too much resolution at the bottom of the 
scale.  (in that sounds between -60 and -120 dB have as much priority 
and resolution as do sounds between 0 and -60 dB)   Linear scales for 
gain are pretty decent for certain tasks, though they lack low-end 
resolution, so I tend to use a hybrid approach, combining values from 
both the linear and the log scales (maybe 50% lin, 50% log), and then 
converting it back into a dB level for the interface.

Or, something else I've done is have a dB range from maybe -70 to +12 
dB (scale 0. 127. -70. 12.), and then have a mute button.  You 
sacrifice the lowest of the low-end, but you get a much bigger 
sweet-spot for your volume fader.   This definitely depends on the kind 
of sounds you're making, noise floor, etc.

scale 0. 127. 0. 1.
|
pow 0.5
the fader top heavy
|
scale 0. 1. -127 12.
|
dbtoa

The first three objects could be compressed to [scale 0. 127. -127. 

12. 0.5] or, better still, [lp.scampf map 0 127 -127 .5 pow 0.5].

You could work the dbtoa into the lp.scampf parameters, using exp 

mode instead of pow. That would save yet another object.

Peter Castine +---> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter

Interface Building for |home | chez nous|

Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri|

The first three objects could be compressed to [scale 0. 127. -127.  
12. 0.5] or, better still, [lp.scampf map 0 127 -127 .5 pow 0.5].

You could work the dbtoa into the lp.scampf parameters, using exp  
mode instead of pow. That would save yet another object.

--------------    http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/    -------------
Peter Castine            +---> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter
                                Heavy-Duty Mathematics for Everyday Use
iCE:  Sequencing,  Recording &
       Interface  Building  for                   |home    | chez nous|
       Max/MSP   Extremely cool                   |bei uns |  i nostri|
       http://www.dspaudio.com/                   http://www.castine.de

The situation in which I have a problem with midi resolution is when I control non-conventional parameters in max from a midi-based sequencer (Logic). We do that a lot, so I experience 7 bits as quite a limitation.

For example I want to control the position in a 2 minutes long sample up to a resolution of milliseconds. 128 steps is obviously not enough and there is no smart scaling trick that will help us here. Of course with hardware knobs there is no point in trying to do this due to the physical limitation, but we do this with automation in logic that has the same (unnecessary, if you ask me) limitation.

The sensor-suit we work with is different. Each limb has midi-resolution but parameters can be controlled with a combination of wrist, elbow and shoulder, thus the resolution becomes 127^3.

I try to do as much communication as possible with OSC, not with midi, but I admit there are not many hardware OSC-controllers available.

The situation in which I have a problem with midi resolution is when I control non-conventional parameters in max from a midi-based sequencer (Logic). We do that a lot, so I experience 7 bits as quite a limitation. 

Yes, it would be more efficient to do it all in one object, but scale 

doesn't accept values for coefficient 5 that are

this one. (since we're trying to squareroot instead of square.)

Unfortunately, the 5th coeff. of scale is only effective at bottom 

weighting a scale. Though naturally there is a litter object for this, 

(for that matter, you could do the entire thing in expr) I like solving 

problems this way because it often points me in a new direction for 

thinking about things. For instance, I use the same trick with 

PM.Scale~ to skew LFOs top-heavy and bottom-heavy. (a sine-wave lfo 

doing filter cutoff is much more interesting if the LFO gets warped...)

When you go to lock things down, then it's definitely handy to optimize 

Yes, it would be more efficient to do it all in one object, but scale 
doesn't accept values for coefficient 5 that are
this one.  (since we're trying to squareroot instead of square.)

Unfortunately, the 5th coeff. of scale is only effective at bottom 
weighting a scale.  Though naturally there is a litter object for this, 
(for that matter, you could do the entire thing in expr) I like solving 
problems this way because it often points me in a new direction for 
thinking about things.  For instance, I use the same trick with 
PM.Scale~ to skew LFOs top-heavy and bottom-heavy.  (a sine-wave lfo 
doing filter cutoff is much more interesting if the LFO gets warped...)

When you go to lock things down, then it's definitely handy to optimize 
things.

what an excellent idea, should've thought about that myself.

what an excellent idea, should've thought about that myself.
thanks...


Oh. I hadn't noticed that. TBH, I never use scale. For other reasons.-)

Peter Castine +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter

iCE: Sequencing, Recording & |home | chez nous|

Interface Building for |bei uns | i nostri|

--------------    http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/    -------------
Peter Castine             +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter

... I own a Doepfer pocket dial "endless" rotary knobs and you have to 

it sends the value 64 +/- 1 to 7 depending on the rotation speed...

I made a patch to manage the [ctlin]. Any advice is welcome !

ps: the "pow" value helps to deal with bigger intervals... I know it 

(and it's been a long time I didn't have any math courses :)

... I own a Doepfer pocket dial "endless" rotary knobs and you have to 
deal with the fact that
it sends the value 64 +/- 1 to 7 depending on the rotation speed...
I made a patch to manage the [ctlin]. Any advice is welcome !
(please, keep in mind I'm a newbie)
cheers
_yvan

ps: the "pow" value helps to deal with bigger intervals... I know it 
could be much better ...
(and it's been a long time I didn't have any math courses :)

> The situation in which I have a problem with midi resolution is when 

> I control non-conventional parameters in max from a midi-based 

> sequencer (Logic). We do that a lot, so I experience 7 bits as quite 

Logic isn't able to deal with 14-bit controllers? I haven't used it for

ages, but I believe it was able to do that...

> For example I want to control the position in a 2 minutes long sample

> up to a resolution of milliseconds. 128 steps is obviously not

> enough and there is no smart scaling trick that will help us here.

even 16384 might be little... if you need more, the smart trick is to 

use audio as controller, gives you 2 to 10-bits more...

But moving the sequencing part into Max could be an easier solution.

> Of course with hardware knobs there is no point in trying to do this

Why not, rotary knobs will give you any resolution you could think of, 

combine it with a display and a button to fire the value.

Mattijs Kneppers wrote:
> The situation in which I have a problem with midi resolution is when 
> I control non-conventional parameters in max from a midi-based 
> sequencer (Logic). We do that a lot, so I experience 7 bits as quite 
> a limitation.

Logic isn't able to deal with 14-bit controllers? I haven't used it for
ages, but I believe it was able to do that...

> For example I want to control the position in a 2 minutes long sample
> up to a resolution of milliseconds. 128 steps is obviously not
> enough and there is no smart scaling trick that will help us here.

even 16384 might be little... if you need more, the smart trick is to 
use audio as controller, gives you 2 to 10-bits more...
But moving the sequencing part into Max could be an easier solution.

> Of course with hardware knobs there is no point in trying to do this
> due to the physical limitation, 

Why not, rotary knobs will give you any resolution you could think of, 
combine it with a display and a button to fire the value.

-- 
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com


> Logic isn't able to deal with 14-bit controllers? I haven't used it for

> ages, but I believe it was able to do that...

I use automation to control a series of pluggo vsts that send OSC to max and automation in logic has only 128 steps. Probably the pitchbend midi cc in logic supports more, but editing in hyperdraw is almost obsolete in the latest logic versions.

> But moving the sequencing part into Max could be an easier solution.

I would have loved to ;) but we have added video editing options to Logic in this way. It is essential that the complete spectrum of audio composing possibilities remains available. Rebuilding all logic effects and editing options in max is definitly on my wishlist :)

> > Of course with hardware knobs there is no point in trying to do this

> Why not, rotary knobs will give you any resolution you could think of, 

> combine it with a display and a button to fire the value.

That's right, although you'll still have come up with a smart way to access all this resolution in a useful way (you wouldn't want to scroll through 2 minutes of data with a milliseconds resolution with any single knob).. With the sensor suit I mentioned, this problem has been solved by combining 3 parameters and some pressure sensors.

----------------------------------------------------

> Logic isn't able to deal with 14-bit controllers? I haven't used it for
> ages, but I believe it was able to do that...

>
> > Of course with hardware knobs there is no point in trying to do this
> > due to the physical limitation, 
>
> Why not, rotary knobs will give you any resolution you could think of, 
> combine it with a display and a button to fire the value.

>
> Stefan
>
>
> -- 
> Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
> --_____-----------|--------------
> --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
> -- _|_)----|-----()--------------
> ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
>
>
----------------------------------------------------


> Actually, I've often found that decibel-faders have the problem (and 

> this definitely depends on the type of sound-source you're dealing with, 

> of giving me a little too much resolution at the bottom of the scale.

The bottom is very important if you want to fade in seemless, usually 

the bottom lacks the resolution it needs at least for me. The first 

value has to be just slightly above the audibility...

I need also higher resoltuion at the top, to be able to control the mix 

I finally made a coll which is incorporated always to give me a good 

control with a Midifader in all ranges. It ended up being sort of an 

s-curve. I am happy with it and stick to it...

Peter McCulloch wrote:
> Actually, I've often found that decibel-faders have the problem (and 
> this definitely depends on the type of sound-source you're dealing with, 
> of giving me a little too much resolution at the bottom of the scale.  

The bottom is very important if you want to fade in seemless, usually 
the bottom lacks the resolution it needs at least for me. The first 
value has to be just slightly above the audibility...
I need also higher resoltuion at the top, to be able to control the mix 
subtly on a good working level.
I finally made a coll which is incorporated always to give me a good 
control with a Midifader in all ranges. It ended up being sort of an 
s-curve. I am happy with it and stick to it...

> The bottom is very important if you want to fade in seemless, usually 

> the bottom lacks the resolution it needs at least for me. The first 

> value has to be just slightly above the audibility...

> I need also higher resoltuion at the top, to be able to control the 

> I finally made a coll which is incorporated always to give me a good 

> control with a Midifader in all ranges. It ended up being sort of an 

> s-curve. I am happy with it and stick to it...

That's an interesting approach, and makes a lot of sense. For 

continuous values, you could also use the function object as a lookup 

table (something that has been enormously helpful in the past), though 

this is going to be slightly less efficient than coll. (though 

probably negligible) It's good for making "crazy" faders...

In the past couple of years, I've gone to using spatializers instead of 

faders on my modules, so that the very softest sounds are filtered and 

only in the reverb. As a source moves closer, the filter sweeps up, 

and you also get more dry sound. It's also a pretty effective way of 

managing density; you can have a lot going on, but as long as things 

are at different depths, you get pretty decent separation, and the 

field doesn't become saturated as easily.

Something I've found that works well is to run at about 70-85%, so that 

you get used to that as "full volume"; then, when you punch it up to 

100, it feels much more intense because of the additional high-freq 

boost, even though the change in amplitude coeffs. isn't that 

substantial. When I've done it in concert, people tend to notice it. 

("It's like it was coming right at me, man...")

A high-shelf filter is really handy to have near volume controls, IMHO; 

a 6dB boost or cut can make a world of difference.

One other thing mixing-land trick that I've found enormously useful is 

Gives you a volume settings as well as an on/off all in one. (very 

>
> The bottom is very important if you want to fade in seemless, usually 
> the bottom lacks the resolution it needs at least for me. The first 
> value has to be just slightly above the audibility...
> I need also higher resoltuion at the top, to be able to control the 
> mix subtly on a good working level.
> I finally made a coll which is incorporated always to give me a good 
> control with a Midifader in all ranges. It ended up being sort of an 
> s-curve. I am happy with it and stick to it...
>
That's an interesting approach, and makes a lot of sense.  For 
continuous values, you could also use the function object as a lookup 
table (something that has been enormously helpful in the past), though 
this is going to be slightly less efficient than coll.  (though 
probably negligible)  It's good for making "crazy" faders...

In the past couple of years, I've gone to using spatializers instead of 
faders on my modules, so that the very softest sounds are filtered and 
only in the reverb.  As a source moves closer, the filter sweeps up, 
and you also get more dry sound.  It's also a pretty effective way of 
managing density; you can have a lot going on, but as long as things 
are at different depths, you get pretty decent separation, and the 
field doesn't become saturated as easily.

Something I've found that works well is to run at about 70-85%, so that 
you get used to that as "full volume"; then, when you punch it up to 
100, it feels much more intense because of the additional high-freq 
boost, even though the change in amplitude coeffs. isn't  that 
substantial.  When I've done it in concert, people tend to notice it.  
("It's like it was coming right at me, man...")

A high-shelf filter is really handy to have near volume controls, IMHO; 
a 6dB boost or cut can make a world of difference.

One other thing mixing-land trick that I've found enormously useful is 
the following combo:

your experience with MIDI