ilovefuzz.com

that envelope glitch is a very interesting idea actually, I might give it a try

outsourcing R&D FTW!

drolo wrote:that envelope glitch is a very interesting idea actually, I might give it a try

Awesome. It's going to sound so good. I trust you.


Having an adjustable amplitude fade/release time envelope trigger at the same time as the glitch seems like it would be very useful. So you could choose to have the repeats either come back at full volume for however long (single replay to infinite repeat), and/or you could have them fade over a set period of time (0-15 seconds, say). Hmmm...

Having expression control over the wet signal would be key, I think. So you could set repeats to infinite and no envelope fade, but you would still have manual control over the amplitude of the repeats. OR MAYBE expression control over the threshold? If you brought it to zero, then nothing would repeat? Even more hmmmm...

damnableman wrote:

Invisible Man wrote:Hey guess what: Axoloti.

If you want to program it and build it and then sell it to me at a cost that in no way reflects the volume of labor you had to put into it, I'm in.

A conversation for another thread, but I just can't get it together to learn to program sweet shit in puredata.

Heck yeah man. If you buy a core, we can work on it. Happy to help. I actually think this would be easy to do. Audio in drives envelope. 'Invert' logic. Route to 'mix' of any number of glitch/bit crushers/stuttering effects.

I refuse to read your response through D.o.S's sass lens. Probably because I do financially irresponsible shit all day long in the name of love.

Rainger FX deep space pulsar?

Invisible Man wrote:Heck yeah man. If you buy a core, we can work on it. Happy to help. I actually think this would be easy to do. Audio in drives envelope. 'Invert' logic. Route to 'mix' of any number of glitch/bit crushers/stuttering effects.

Well, you made that sound so easy. I will investigate Axoloti. No promises. I have a deep aversion to actual programming, even though its potential fascinates me more than anything.

Invisible Man wrote:I refuse to read your response through D.o.S's sass lens. Probably because I do financially irresponsible shit all day long in the name of love.

Ha. I'm sure we all do financially irresponsible shit all day, but you might be the only one doing it for love.

doommeow wrote:Rainger FX deep space pulsar?

INTERESTING

There's a hard way and an easy way.

But there's no straight coding unless you want to do that. It's object-based. So you pick objects and patch points together. Sorta modular.

I'll stop now.

Invisible Man wrote:There's a hard way and an easy way.

But there's no straight coding unless you want to do that. It's object-based. So you pick objects and patch points together. Sorta modular.

I'll stop now.

HMMMMMMM

Even more interested now.

If you can find one, the old Toadworks Enveloope pedal might hold you over until one of these fancier options comes into existence. It's not completely unlike the ZVex Loop Gate in concept, but I haven't used the Loop Gate so I can't say for sure if it would work the same way. With the Enveloope you can have it set so that anything in the loop gets mixed in more the harder you play--or the reverse, which is more what you're looking for.

Here's an example of two Enveloopes in action, with harder playing triggering a Carcosa and softer playing mixing in a Count to 5:
https://soundcloud.com/charles-b-gillet ... es/s-8cuNb

Unfortunately, the only Enveloope on Reverb right now is bizarrely overpriced.

Tall Walls wrote:https://soundcloud.com/charles-b-gillet ... es/s-8cuNb

Whoa. That was awesome. Thanks for putting that together. It don't think I've heard any other examples of Enveloope use, let alone DUAL use.

I was thinking about the Enveloope earlier today, for obvious reasons. Having just heard your excellent example I think it is probably the solution until a builder magically fulfills my fantasy or Invisible Man wins me over to Axoloti with his kindness and encouragement.

damnableman wrote:So...does this exist? Inverse threshold trigger so that glitch/stutter/weirdness only happens when the signal falls below a set threshold? Are there an pedals that rain chaos from above?

So it starts stuttering as your played notes fade out?
Is that not what the Judder is doing?
I hope I recalled that correctly cause I just freaking bought one fo that reason

That's how I'm using my judder. The envelope is adjustable for the trigger level so when I'm playing the pedal does nothing but as the note fades the judder kicks in.
It's fun to use after a delay or looper and let it repeat endlessly.

Patched up a quick proof of concept this morning with Axoloti:



Basic premise is audio in straight to output, and then also to a glitch/repeater object. Using the envelope follower with a less than math object to trigger the repeater to play, with a knob controlling the less than number to set threshold. The other object are just rounding fractional numbers to whole, and stabilizing the envelope follower to produce a more consistent trigger. I can explain in more detail if needed.



I have it set up so the repeater is mixed with the dry signal, but it could easily be setup to be a hard either/or if that's the desire. Could also be both by patching up a wet/dry.

Big block on the left is the subpatch I built to route all my physical controls into a patch.

Here's some horrible noodling: https://soundcloud.com/spacelordmother/ ... g-repeater

No other effects -- guitar into axo into ableton. Compression added to bring the levels up.

Realize a video would have better to show the threshold working, but I didn’t have enough time to screw with it this morning.

Glitch when playing quietly/softly, I think. Not silently.

Timv wrote:The envelope is adjustable for the trigger level so when I'm playing the pedal does nothing but as the note fades the judder kicks in.
It's fun to use after a delay or looper and let it repeat endlessly.

Huh. I owned the Judder for a hot minute, but the envelope mode was dysfunctional (the pot was completely shot), so I returned it to the fellow who sold it to me. Did not know what I was missing.

spacelordmother wrote:Patched up a quick proof of concept this morning with Axoloti:

Basic premise is audio in straight to output, and then also to a glitch/repeater object. Using the envelope follower with a less than math object to trigger the repeater to play, with a knob controlling the less than number to set threshold.

......

Here's some horrible noodling: https://soundcloud.com/spacelordmother/ ... g-repeater

Wow. Proof accepted. Very interesting.

It occurs to me that it would probably make sense to have a lower threshold below which it would not trigger/sample. To prevent the needless sampling of silence.

vidret wrote:so you want glitch to happen when you stop playing, but what will glitch if you've stopped playing?

Even though the particle 'approaches from below', as you put it, it means it'll continue sampling as a "regular" delay until you stop playing, at which point it'll glitch out.

Sounds exactly like you want it, no?

Your idea of an inverted signal being applied would mean, the particle for example, would glitch when you played and sample regularly when you didn't.

The blender idea here works better, but it still doesn't matter if you invert the signal or not as long as the function you want happens as the threshold is reached.

Maybe I'm just not getting your idea.

I understand the confusion. I probably shouldn't have used the words "above" and "below" in such cavalier fashion.

It's more like a ducking delay than anything else. So the effect is silent when I'm playing above a set threshold, but triggers when the signal falls below that threshold. Unless it is set to repeat infinitely it would decay alongside a fading signal because it would be continually sampling the fade. As Invisible Man said, if I played softly it would continue to sample/glitch/shift my tender musings, and then would drop out when my passion carried me to the mountains.



I'm pretty sure that's what he said.