Global features on modelers suck

Another approach could be the ability to split the grid and dynamically link one part to the same area in another preset.
There are more variants.
 
Another approach could be the ability to split the grid and dynamically link one part to the same area in another preset.
There are more variants.
For sure.

With what I outlined in my previous post, the only difference between preset vs global group is where the data comes from and is saved. Linking presets quickly gets complicated, so having global features separate is better even if under the hood it's basically just saving into hidden presets.

I think this sort of feature needs to be a bit dumbed down so you can't do every possible niche case with it. I felt Fractal's scene ignore and global block features were overcomplicated.
 
The current modeler paradigm is largely built around making full rigs inside one preset, and some modelers are powerful enough to handle complex kitchen sink presets. But many are not, and that's when global blocks can become relevant as you might want to swap the array of fx around your global amp/cab blocks for example.

I'd add to this that even if you could build the biggest kitchen sink preset in the world, you probably just don't want to.
I remember coming back to one of my Floor presets after a while of not using it and I was all like "WTF did I do there and why?!?" - and it's been pretty much impossible to reverse engineer things (not necessarily the "how"s but the "why"s).
So spreading things over multiple presets often is a lot easier.
On my current GT-1000 based setup I'm doing just that - and while I'm not doing much more in one bank of 5 presets than with the kitchen sink stuff I used to use with the HX Floor, it's quite easier to manage.
Let alone, it frees up footswitch capacity. Spread the load over 2 presets = have twice as much switches available for manipulation (well, not exactly, but you get the idea).

The main issue I see with global block is how to handle assignments to snahpshots/scenese/controllers/whatever if they are not constant throughout the presets.

That's a pretty valid issue.
For a start (there might be better solutions and not everything might be covered), values programmed per snapshot could be "offsets" of the global value. This is kinda like how modulations work on synths.
Example: Let's say some parameter X has value 100 in snapshot 1 and you wanted it to be at 70 in snapshot 2, you'd program an offset of 30% ("program" not being the proper word as you would just have a simple offset knob/slider, possibly also showing you the global value, just so you knew how far you could go).
Sure, that won't work if you were sure about certain values for certain snapshots - but in that case, you'd not lose anything compared to the current situation but just not be able to use that block in a global fashion.

Another approach could be the ability to split the grid and dynamically link one part to the same area in another preset.
There are more variants.

This would only work on certain units. But hey, why not? I mean, in the proposal I posted in the Stadium thread, *anything* could be globalized, so what you're suggesting would as well be possible.
 
Fwiw, I should possibly really record and post a video of the Behringer BCR 2000 controlling things (too bad I didn't record one back when I actually had that setup running, so I'll have to look for it and set things up properly).
What I was doing back then should all be possible to be transported into whatever modelers without much programming hassle, as it really only adds a certain "layer" on top of otherwise "normally" working patches.

Hm, come to think of it, I could replace the Behringer with TouchOSC. I'll think about that later on.
 
The main issue I see with global block is how to handle assignments to snahpshots/scenese/controllers/whatever if they are not constant throughout the presets.
That's easy. If you set a parameter to change with snapshots, it both doesn't update when that parameter is changed in another preset that uses that global block, and any change doesn't spread to other presets that have that global block.

It would be just an override. The parameter is not controlled globally anymore, but by that preset's snapshots.

It would be up to the user to snapshot a blobal block parameter, but that would be the most straightforward and less risky approach.
 
That's easy. If you set a parameter to change with snapshots, it both doesn't update when that parameter is changed in another preset that uses that global block, and any change doesn't spread to other presets that have that global block.

It would be just an override. The parameter is not controlled globally anymore, but by that preset's snapshots.

It would be up to the user to snapshot a blobal block parameter, but that would be the most straightforward and less risky approach.

that could be a solution but not ideal, imho
 
It would be just an override. The parameter is not controlled globally anymore, but by that preset's snapshots.

That's another option. Personally, I'd still rather prefer "offsets" of the global value. Instead of 100 and 70 (between snapshots), you'd get 100% and 70%, so if you lowered the max. value of the parameter globally from 100 to 50, your snapshots would then represent 50 and 35.
As said, this might not be ideal in each situation, but I think in general it's more useful than having snapshots overriding things with absolute values.
In an ideal world, both should be possible.
 
that could be a solution but not ideal, imho
I mean, if you want to use snapshots on a global block, it's because there are certain parameters you want to keep shared across certain presets, but you also want to be able to change some of them in that preset only. I can't figure out another way of having both things and ensure you don't ruin other presets, which would be the biggest issue.
 
Fwiw, come to think of it, given my real life gigging practice, any parameter I ever wanted to alter between snapshots (I used that feature very sparsely anyway) has never been part of any global tweaking incentives.
I do understand the possibly arising issue, though, especially when it comes to things such as delays and what not. You might just want to use the same delay with, say, different mix settings for different snapshots while still being able to tweak the mix globally. But that's where offsets would come in handy.
 
Fwiw, come to think of it, given my real life gigging practice, any parameter I ever wanted to alter between snapshots (I used that feature very sparsely anyway) has never been part of any global tweaking incentives.
I do understand the possibly arising issue, though, especially when it comes to things such as delays and what not. You might just want to use the same delay with, say, different mix settings for different snapshots while still being able to tweak the mix globally. But that's where offsets would come in handy.

I like offset.

I asked Line6 (via the old ideascale) to add an offset mode for any parameter assignment - with no luck (I'm sure wasn't a popular idea, lol); instead of specify a min and a max value, being also able to specify a positive or negative delta to sum to the current value.

That mode would come handy in many situations like using a footswitch for adding gain while not being tied to a min level, therfore tied to a specific guitar or range of guitars outputs.
 
See above. Offsets would adress most of the issues.
Tbh, if I'm using snapshots over a global block, I'd rather be able to set an absolute value than a relative.

For instance, when the global block parameter is set to one of the extremes I might not be able to reach a value in the opposite side.

But even if the global parameter is not a extreme one, being able to set an absolute value would cover every change one would want to make in that parameter, while relative (if I understood correctly) wouldn't, right? 🤔

Also, implementation would be more complex in the car if relative values. I know I'm a bitch for simplicity in software, but that's who I am😅
 
That mode would come handy in many situations like using a footswitch for adding gain while not being tied to a min level, therfore tied to a specific guitar or range of guitars outputs.

Absolutely! And it's been the very reason why I didn't use parameter modifications for snapshots much, as it'd make patchwide edting of any values impossible.
 
For instance, when the global block parameter is set to one of the extremes I might not be able to reach a value in the opposite side.

Why not? Have you ever used a typical synth? Even when you have, say, your cutoff all the way down, the ModWheel (or any other continuous controller you may have assigned in a modulation matrix) would still be able to bring it all the way up.
 
Why not? Have you ever used a typical synth? Even when you have, say, your cutoff all the way down, the ModWheel (or any other continuous controller you may have assigned in a modulation matrix) would still be able to bring it all the way up.
In that case, cool. I misunderstood the approach. I thought the offset would be limited to a certain percentage from the base value.

I'd still prefer absolute values for better reference, though😅
 
You could still have them once your block isn't set to be a global one anymore.
But I would loose the usefulness of having certain parameters with global values and some others with local values.

Actually, the simplest solution would be that a global block can't have parameters tied to snapshots. But the ability to override them with local absolute values from snapshots looks more appealing to me, and the development cost wouldn't be much higher.
 
I also think a relative value on snapshot changes would be a good default. Perhaps with a setting to toggle to absolute values but that’s perhaps going too far into unneeded complexity.
 
I also think a relative value on snapshot changes would be a good default. Perhaps with a setting to toggle to absolute values but that’s perhaps going too far into unneeded complexity.

What if the parameter was delay time (1/4, 1/8 triplet, etc), on/off, a 3 option select...? How would relative values work in that case?
 
Back
Top