Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Behringer Poly Aftertouch!


Recommended Posts



  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Affordable poly AT on a traditional synth action that works well and holds up to use would be impressive.

When the $500 Behringer CS-80 arrives how will the big companies respond?

Perhaps the end of day"s where Roland releases a Jupiter-50 with no AT.

Yamaha CP88, Casio PX-560

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I LOVE polyphonic aftertouch!!! I hope every day that my Ensoniq TS-10 - the only keyboard I have with poly aftertouch, aside from the CME Xkey - hasn't died. I think Ensoniq's patent may have expired, so maybe we'll see more [fingers crossed].
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is wonderful news. I'm not sure whether it means that Behringer will do anything spectacular or not. The Osmose and Hydrasynth are clearly striking a nerve within the keyboard community. But they are small enough that Korg, Yamaha, and Roland can ignore them. But they cannot ignore Behringer, who is increasingly moving into their space and copying their own history with credibility and a cost point that they'd prefer not to sell at. If this makes Poly-AT into a "standard feature" that would be a great outcome. Perhaps we are finally getting to the point that we can have an evolution of keyboard expressivity. We have been stuck for far too long, and the Roli stuff only gets part way there. The black and whites need this kind of innovation, and some healthy competition for expressive blank and whites is long overdue. I hope they have product managers across the industry sweating and consulting with their design teams on the best way to get maximum playable expression out of a standard keyboard form factor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've played a real CS-80, so I understand how seductive poly AT can be... up to a point. IMO, you rather have to assign it consistently (to the filter, for ex.) to get USED to that expressiveness. Most people, even other synthesists, can't necessarily perceive too delicate a shift, especially if its going to some esoteric modulation on the right side of the sound as a whole. It may be fun to play as an insider, but can it really reach the general listener? I love release velocity (also MIA on most gear) as being much more expressive in real-world terms, but its only one target for HOW many possible modulations? That's right, a wad of 'em. Is that added REQUIRED individual finger strength really going to get any more panties flung onto the stage as you play?

 

To also play angel's advocate, do you think poly AT can become intuitively reflexive to your playing, leading it to be X amount better, more emotive in some solid sense? The great AT configuration that makes your strings massive will sound like crap on some layered synth patch. Is keeping that added complexity in mind as you play resource-effective or a case of diminishing returns? I suppose we'll see as more poly AT instruments appear.

 "I want to be an intellectual, but I don't have the brainpower.
  The absent-mindedness, I've got that licked."
        ~ John Cleese

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used Ensoniq's Poly AT for years, and still miss it. Its greatest value in performance (back then) was that I could have a multi-way split in an EPS-cum-MIDI controller, sending out per-zone Channel AT so that my left and right hands could drive separate instruments. Nowadays I am into a lot of expressive non-public playing, and PAT would be a welcome addition to the expressivity (is that a word?) toolbox as Nathanael described above.

-Tom Williams

{First Name} {at} AirNetworking {dot} com

PC4-7, PX-5S, AX-Edge, PC361

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've played a real CS-80, so I understand how seductive poly AT can be... up to a point. IMO, you rather have to assign it consistently (to the filter, for ex.) to get USED to that expressiveness. Most people, even other synthesists, can't necessarily perceive too delicate a shift, especially if its going to some esoteric modulation on the right side of the sound as a whole. It may be fun to play as an insider, but can it really reach the general listener? I love release velocity (also MIA on most gear) as being much more expressive in real-world terms, but its only one target for HOW many possible modulations? That's right, a wad of 'em. Is that added REQUIRED individual finger strength really going to get any more panties flung onto the stage as you play?

 

To also play angel's advocate, do you think poly AT can become intuitively reflexive to your playing, leading it to be X amount better, more emotive in some solid sense? The great AT configuration that makes your strings massive will sound like crap on some layered synth patch. Is keeping that added complexity in mind as you play resource-effective or a case of diminishing returns? I suppose we'll see as more poly AT instruments appear.

 

 

Exactly.

Voice leading with polyphonic AT makes the proper voice cut through.

All of the other treats are fun but why I steered clear of recent expensive boards.

Then Infinite Response caught my attention, but alas they succumbed to consumer options.

Behringer would be affordable and from an established manufacturer that is here for years to come.

 

I always wanted Pedal Steel Guitar style PBends too, but even the CS80 was not quite accurate and drug other notes with it randomly.

Ensoniq had that down pat though.

Ulli B. most likely have options and various curves or modes.

 

Anxiously await, and hope it"s not another return to the last century clone, been there already.

Magnus C350 + FMR RNP + Realistic Unisphere Mic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To also play angel's advocate, do you think poly AT can become intuitively reflexive to your playing, leading it to be X amount better, more emotive in some solid sense? The great AT configuration that makes your strings massive will sound like crap on some layered synth patch. Is keeping that added complexity in mind as you play resource-effective or a case of diminishing returns? I suppose we'll see as more poly AT instruments appear.

 

I agree with this. I do think that it is a chicken-and-egg problem. Because it has been near impossible to get the kind of satisfying expression one gets from an acoustic instrument out of a synthesizer, no one will put in the time to deeply woodshed on one. They just aren't musically satisfying most of the time in terms of expression. Great at setting a mood, or shredding a solo, but compared to guitar, most synth solos are one-dimensional. The boards just aren't that expressive. Roli shows this can change - but who wants to put a multi-year learning curve into something that may or may not be commercially stable? Whatever happens with the standard piano keyboard, I know it will exist the rest of my life. That is worth investing in. So I keep playing the piano, and the synths are for playing roles in songs. But I practice piano.

 

I think that to open synthesis to its proper place, we are going to have to have an era of expressive keyboards break out where the manufacturers compete on how expressive and useful their interfaces are. Then the best players will gravitate toward the most expressive instruments and we'll get stuff besides simple subtractive leads on almost raw oscillators. The kind of sounds an Eagen Matrix can make are "uncanny valley" as someone said in another thread. That's the point. Great interfaces + great engines with tuned modulation + great amplification and there is no reason that synths won't be as expressive as anything else. When they are, then it wouldn't be odd for someone to devote a significant amount of time to becoming great at playing one and truly bonding with it. But right now? Lots of people are happy with Nord Lead - it does what the last 20 years have demanded of synths. But that is not what should happen in the next 20 years. Synths should finally outgrow the Minimoog and Prophet level of development and go past where the Eagen Matrix or the C15 are - but with a musicians interface. We are still dealing with the whole exposed nerdy guts of the thing, and sooner or later someone will figure out how to abstract that goodness into the right primitives, and make something that is only for playing, and that is so satisfying one is lost for hours on one patch. When that happens, we will have moved to a new era of synth history. I am looking forward to it.

 

Poly-AT isn't the only thing needed for this transition, but it is certainly in the right direction - the Osmose is the leading contender in my book, but I wish all these options to come out and for the industry to rise up and innovate again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me started on this...I mean it! I have two PolyAT controllers at the moment (GEM S3 and VAX77) and I couldn't possibly live without them. The technique for controlling PolyAT is not difficult to learn, and there are many more things you can do with it besides assigning it to filter cutoff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is obviously the prerequisite development for their already-teased CS80 clone.

 

This means they"re serious about the feature set.

 

They"re sure to use the keyboard in other designs as well, but I"m well stoked about the CS80.

"The Angels of Libra are in the European vanguard of the [retro soul] movement" (Bill Buckley, Soul and Jazz and Funk)

The Drawbars | off jazz organ trio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you rather have to assign it consistently (to the filter, for ex.) to get USED to that expressiveness. Most people, even other synthesists, can't necessarily perceive too delicate a shift

I think you could notice it more dramatically for things that affect pitch (as opposed to something like filter cutoff) on the individual notes, though I don't know how much of that can be done with "standard" poly AT compared to MPE (i.e. when talking about direct pitch control and pitch related modulations).

Maybe this is the best place for a shameless plug! Our now not-so-new new video at https://youtu.be/3ZRC3b4p4EI is a 40 minute adaptation of T. S. Eliot's "Prufrock" - check it out! And hopefully I'll have something new here this year. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me started on this...I mean it! I have two PolyAT controllers at the moment (GEM S3 and VAX77) and I couldn't possibly live without them. The technique for controlling PolyAT is not difficult to learn, and there are many more things you can do with it besides assigning it to filter cutoff.

 

I also still have a VAX77, and it is more expressive than a standard keyboard. It is not hard to use, as you say. It is also very limited in what it can do, and does not replicate the subtlety that is possible with a guitar string. I was able to easily best it with a Roli Seaboard for single line work, but then it didn't play well as a keyboard - it is something else entirely. This is also why I haven't bought a Continuum, which is clearly the most expressive thing currently available.

 

I think the Eagen Matrix gets the last part of your statement right.... note on velocity, note off velocity, pressure, x-y.... whatever data streams are available have to be mapped to multiple parameters. PolyAT isn't enough - it has to be tied into the sound engine properly. This is something that the Solaris gets right - all mod sources can modulate all destinations all the time. The Montage and C15 develop the additional understanding that you need to create master controls that then affect multiple destinations, and we get closer to abstracting the complexity of a synth engine into something that can be controlled in real-time.

 

But we still need an instrument maker who is dedicated enough to go beyond simply exposing the engineering guts and inviting us to build our own instruments. Where is the clever person who figures out the right way to take all this data and have the instrument preset so that it "tends" to produce expressive sound? INIT patches should have dozens of subtle mappings in keeping with the gesalt of a particular instrument's design, in my opinion.

 

It seems to me that we are still where cars where in the 1950's. It was a car culture - everyone knew something about them and people fixed them up themselves, bought upgrades, etc. And you kind of needed to - they weren't that great and needed help. Now? Cars are super reliable. No one lifts the hood. We just use them to get places. Synths are still "kit cars", or "build your own airplane". Yes, that gives maximum flexibility, but it has not created superbly playable instruments. Most musicians want to play instruments, not make them, and without the instrument maker taking the time to work out the haptics and control logic and how it interfaces with the sound engine, we are stuck at a relatively low level of expression relative to what is possible. Once the thoughtful designers sort this in a way that average musicians can use, the whole world will shift when they see what is possible. But it will take an instrument maker to do this. Someone who realizes that musicians want to adjust the sound through playing the instrument. Only sound designers want to do it by going under the hood and tweaking all the parameters.

 

When this occurs, the musicians will immediately respond because they will know what to do with it, and it will not be in the way. I don't know if anyone would have the guts to release an instrument with a very small number of exquisitely expressive sounds. Perhaps one, or two, or three... Would we musicians have the guts to commit to them? I don't know. I suppose we will see how it develops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The elements are mostly all there. Some just resonate more with some people than others. And people prefer different combinations.

One of the most important for me is release velocity, yet relatively few keyboards take advantage of it.

I brought it up on one forum and got a response something like 'no one uses that'.

 

Also depends on what you've been exposed to and accustomed to.

Lots of people nowadays don't even want keys at all. They're satisfied with sequencers and arps.

The ideal solution would be for a company to offer 'design your own' keyboards,

where you could specify what you want included, but that could be prohibitively expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you rather have to assign it consistently (to the filter, for ex.) to get USED to that expressiveness. Most people, even other synthesists, can't necessarily perceive too delicate a shift

I think you could notice it more dramatically for things that affect pitch (as opposed to something like filter cutoff) on the individual notes, though I don't know how much of that can be done with "standard" poly AT compared to MPE (i.e. when talking about direct pitch control and pitch related modulations).

 

I find Poly AT to be, surprisingly enough, most useful for solo lines. With channel aftertouch and solos, it seems there's always some "hangover" among notes, and not all solo lines are single notes anyway. Poly AT on, for example, distortion drive can be a thing of beauty. With chords, I do like to have Poly AT do VERY subtle changes to tone, pitch, etc. to add variety among notes due to my hitting them differently, more than a "planned" expressive event. Although of course, you can also swell individual notes with filters and such on purpose.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To also play angel's advocate, do you think poly AT can become intuitively reflexive to your playing, leading it to be X amount better, more emotive in some solid sense? The great AT configuration that makes your strings massive will sound like crap on some layered synth patch. Is keeping that added complexity in mind as you play resource-effective or a case of diminishing returns? I suppose we'll see as more poly AT instruments appear.

 

I agree with this. I do think that it is a chicken-and-egg problem. Because it has been near impossible to get the kind of satisfying expression one gets from an acoustic instrument out of a synthesizer, no one will put in the time to deeply woodshed on one. They just aren't musically satisfying most of the time in terms of expression. Great at setting a mood, or shredding a solo, but compared to guitar, most synth solos are one-dimensional. The boards just aren't that expressive. Roli shows this can change - but who wants to put a multi-year learning curve into something that may or may not be commercially stable? Whatever happens with the standard piano keyboard, I know it will exist the rest of my life. That is worth investing in. So I keep playing the piano, and the synths are for playing roles in songs. But I practice piano.

 

I think that to open synthesis to its proper place, we are going to have to have an era of expressive keyboards break out where the manufacturers compete on how expressive and useful their interfaces are. Then the best players will gravitate toward the most expressive instruments and we'll get stuff besides simple subtractive leads on almost raw oscillators. The kind of sounds an Eagen Matrix can make are "uncanny valley" as someone said in another thread. That's the point. Great interfaces

 

+ great engines with tuned modulation + great amplification and there is no reason that synths won't be as expressive as anything else. When they are, then it wouldn't be odd for someone to devote a significant amount of time to becoming great at playing one and truly bonding with it. But right now? Lots of people are happy with Nord Lead - it does what the last 20 years have demanded of synths. But that is not what should happen in the next 20 years. Synths should finally outgrow the Minimoog and Prophet level of development and go past where the Eagen Matrix or the C15 are - but with a musicians interface. We are still dealing with the whole exposed nerdy guts of the thing, and sooner or later someone will figure out how to abstract that goodness into the right primitives, and make something that is only for playing, and that is so satisfying one is lost for hours on one patch. When that happens, we will have moved to a new era of synth history. I am looking forward to it.

 

Poly-AT isn't the only thing needed for this transition, but it is certainly in the right direction - the Osmose is the leading contender in my book, but I wish all these options to come out and for the industry to rise up and innovate again.

 

Interesting perspective. The ability to be expressive with a synths vs. acoustic instruments- which ones? Because I believe keyboards and guitar are the only polyphonic instruments, at least in the main stream. I contend that every other instrument can be played more expressively in large part because you can shape each note one at a time. I also think in the right hands a mono synth can be played much more expressively than trying to play something polyphonically. Of course how many actually take the time to master this skill- probably not too many. Most acoustic instruments have a near infinite number of detectable variations in expressiveness. While even the best equipped mono synth with every conceivable performance controller at one"s disposal still yields far less possibilities there"s still a tremendous amount of subtle expressivity to be had. I don"t believe the synth is the limiting factor.

 

Now consider the piano. Is it really more expressive from a polyphonic stand point? Good musicians can control each note"s volume in relation to the others resulting in beautifully phrased lines and dynamics galore, but that"s really it. It"s expressive because despite the minimal number of control options available people wrote music specifically for this strange polyphonic instrument taking advantage of its unique and positive attributes. And polyphony makes up a whole lot of ground. I much prefer to hear someone play mediocre piano than really good solo trumpet- but that"s just me. On the other hand try to imitate an orchestra or even 5 piece band with a piano and see if it approaches the expressiveness of the real thing, i.e. a group of individuals playing one note at a time. There"s just no way.

 

So why are we asking a synth to be a more expressive polyphonic instrument? Because we somehow think that with technology allowing all these subtle hand controlled parameters it"ll get us to the holy grail of expressiveness, or at least closer. But I think you had it right; someone is going to have to commit a whole lot of time to master this - well beyond the bleeding edge exhibitor types. More importantly someone is going to have to create new music specifically for whatever instrument it is. Just like the piano, just like the guitar, just like the B3 organ.

 

One last caveat.: I love technology and anything that has the potential to enhance the synth playing experience, even for a hack like me...bring it on

:keynana:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe keyboards and guitar are the only polyphonic instruments, at least in the main stream. I contend that every other instrument can be played more expressively in large part because you can shape each note one at a time.

Interesting post, but there are numerous other polyphonic instruments... e.g. accordion, vibes, marimba, organ, banjo, harp, harpsichord, mandolin, lute

 

Maybe this is the best place for a shameless plug! Our now not-so-new new video at https://youtu.be/3ZRC3b4p4EI is a 40 minute adaptation of T. S. Eliot's "Prufrock" - check it out! And hopefully I'll have something new here this year. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accordion and organ do not allow you to shape each note at a time though.

 

Also: apart from Marimba/vibes, I believe every other instrument you list falls under keyboard or guitar, at least in the previous commenter's sense.

"The Angels of Libra are in the European vanguard of the [retro soul] movement" (Bill Buckley, Soul and Jazz and Funk)

The Drawbars | off jazz organ trio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have DM12 and RD-8, they are both great products.

 

I think they will use this action for the CS80 and OB-XA, but I doubt those Synths will be under a grand. Hydrasynth has it for just over a grand, plus that slidey thingy also, which is worth 100 anyway.

 

Let's hope it's done better than normal AT on the DM12, which is so/so.

 

The real questions:

why doesn't every board have a 40 year old feature supported by MIDI?

why do we have only one MOD wheel, always on left?

 

It's a mentality I often see in offices. Learning new software is often taboo, as it may entail some sort of extra, uncompensated responsiblity.

 

Osmose, if they pull it off, is putting the lie to 5 decades of crappy synth action purveyed by almost everyone.....at least if you believe the players here.

 

Such turbidity may cause some people at Fatar to cut back on wine consumption for a bit............maybe.

 

Behringer announced this in August, and it may be worth a genuine "thank you". Hardly revelatory.

 

What would impress at Osmose levels? Increasing resolution and functionality of 5 pin MIDI DIN. Bringing Osmose sensitivity to other stuff. Especially old stuff. That would be truly impressive. Behringer's polyAT is mere competence, but considering the ModX has no AT at all, competence is laudable these days. The shame factor alone is great.

 

 

 

RT-3/U-121/Leslie 21H and 760/Saltarelle Nuage/MOXF6/MIDIhub, 

SL-880/Nektar T4/Numa Cx2/Deepmind12/Virus TI 61/SL61 mk2

Stylophone R8/Behringer RD-8/Proteus 1/MP-7/Zynthian 4

MPC1k/JV1010/Unitor 8/Model D & 2600/WX-5&7/VL70m/DMP-18 Pedals

Natal drums/congas etc & misc bowed/plucked/blown instruments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting perspective. The ability to be expressive with a synths vs. acoustic instruments- which ones? Because I believe keyboards and guitar are the only polyphonic instruments, at least in the main stream. I contend that every other instrument can be played more expressively in large part because you can shape each note one at a time. I also think in the right hands a mono synth can be played much more expressively than trying to play something polyphonically. Of course how many actually take the time to master this skill- probably not too many. Most acoustic instruments have a near infinite number of detectable variations in expressiveness. While even the best equipped mono synth with every conceivable performance controller at one"s disposal still yields far less possibilities there"s still a tremendous amount of subtle expressivity to be had. I don"t believe the synth is the limiting factor.

 

Now consider the piano. Is it really more expressive from a polyphonic stand point? Good musicians can control each note"s volume in relation to the others resulting in beautifully phrased lines and dynamics galore, but that"s really it. It"s expressive because despite the minimal number of control options available people wrote music specifically for this strange polyphonic instrument taking advantage of its unique and positive attributes. And polyphony makes up a whole lot of ground. I much prefer to hear someone play mediocre piano than really good solo trumpet- but that"s just me. On the other hand try to imitate an orchestra or even 5 piece band with a piano and see if it approaches the expressiveness of the real thing, i.e. a group of individuals playing one note at a time. There"s just no way.

 

So why are we asking a synth to be a more expressive polyphonic instrument? Because we somehow think that with technology allowing all these subtle hand controlled parameters it"ll get us to the holy grail of expressiveness, or at least closer. But I think you had it right; someone is going to have to commit a whole lot of time to master this - well beyond the bleeding edge exhibitor types. More importantly someone is going to have to create new music specifically for whatever instrument it is. Just like the piano, just like the guitar, just like the B3 organ.

 

One last caveat.: I love technology and anything that has the potential to enhance the synth playing experience, even for a hack like me...bring it on

:keynana:

Thank you for the thoughtful reply! I think you have a number of excellent points to clarify my thinking. Your distinction between monophonic synth expressivity vs. poly is a valid point. And, I suppose, why should one instrument excel at both poly and mono voices? I suppose in the "I want it all" category it is easy to make an arbitrarily exorbitant ask that might not reflect reality well. After all, there are not polyphonic oboes or trumpets without inviting friends over. I agree with both sides of your point around expressive mono synth playing: much is possible, few develop it - and it is still not quite up there with acoustic instruments. But more is possible that is commonly experienced.

 

I suppose that it is exciting to me to think about what could be unlocked as a new music. Keyboard music has been in a "express yourself through a string of notes" mode for a very long time, as you point out. And it is a wonderful expression! But this other.... I'm with you, it has an element of "I wonder what that would be" and "I sure would like to be part of the exploration!".

 

I am quite sure a group of excellent synthesists could form an ensemble that would blow people away, even with what we have today. I guess the challenge is that most of the ensembles one sees are just classical pianists who get roped into doing Bach on synths. They pretty much play the patch the leader assigns them (though I have seen some great wind synth put to use on the solo lines...). But to have a group of people who would each go after the full potential of their favorite synth and make music together? Even if each was just monophonic? It would be that multiplication factor you speak of. And maybe that is what is needed to really show the way? It is an interesting to thought to a guy with a room full of very wonderful synths all picked because they have uncommonly good sound and/or modulation/real-time capabilities.

 

I suppose that some of the bedroom synth productions are this in a way. One could automate enough controllers to get a lot of expression out of a set of synths. But a lot of this is locked to a grid and just never breathes the way an ensemble would play together.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why doesn't every board have a 40 year old feature supported by MIDI?

Maybe cost of implementing it reliably?

 

why do we have only one MOD wheel, always on left?

There are boards with multiple wheels or other modulation controllers (joysticks, levers, ribbons)... e.g. Roland Fantom and JD-XA, Korg Kronos, Physis K4. I don't see much need to add one on the other side... if you're thinking to modulate a left-hand part with your right hand, to do that you can usually play a left hand part WITH your right hand if need be (but not so easily vice versa). But the Kurzweil PC4 does give you the option of a configurable ribbon you can place in a strip above the keys.

 

Maybe this is the best place for a shameless plug! Our now not-so-new new video at https://youtu.be/3ZRC3b4p4EI is a 40 minute adaptation of T. S. Eliot's "Prufrock" - check it out! And hopefully I'll have something new here this year. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good example of expressiveness from advanced controllers:

 

[video:youtube]

 

 

That is extremely expressive and no doubt took a lot of work to develop that level of skill. But...I would like to see someone use this to make a synthesizer sound expressive. By synthesizer I mean something producing a unique electronic type sound, not an imitative sound like a violin, or cello. It's great that you can approach the expressiveness of a real string instrument but in the end I think the string instrument has the advantage.

 

Also notice how most of his lines are monophonic or duophonic. Very few chords because I think that's where it gets extremely difficult to control. And despite all that control maybe playing chords with a string sound loses it's real-ness. This is why I'd love to see someone using this to control a synth sound more conducive to real polyphony.

 

I mentioned guitar as the other polyphonic instrument (I agree there are a few others Scott). Here's one that falls into the guitar category but is still it's own thing, polyphonically expressive as all hell and absolutely wonderful in the right hands:

 

[video:youtube]

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think the most common advantage of polyphonic aftertouch is not to give you individual control over many notes at once, but to allow you to affect one note without affecting every other note. IIRC, the Arturia Origin had a novel implementation for doing something similar on a keyboard without poly-AT, it could apply aftertouch to only the highest played note. That probably is the one note you want to do something different with, more often than any other, because it is most often the melody.

Maybe this is the best place for a shameless plug! Our now not-so-new new video at https://youtu.be/3ZRC3b4p4EI is a 40 minute adaptation of T. S. Eliot's "Prufrock" - check it out! And hopefully I'll have something new here this year. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, the Arturia Origin had a novel implementation for doing something similar on a keyboard without poly-AT, it could apply aftertouch to only the highest played note.

 

Cool! The Andromeda lets you set up a trigger condition for some of its mod sources like LFOs. For example you can set up an LFO to provide modulation when after touch is applied and only when a note velocity exceeds some threshold value. Notes played after this that fall below this velocity threshold will not be modulated via after touch. Or you can use a pedal instead of velocity to control this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...