improve effects defaults by Be-ing · Pull Request #1118 · mixxxdj/mixxx

Be-ing · 2017-01-13T20:50:07Z

Improve default effect parameter values
Change default metaknob linkings
Rearrange parameters so those linked to metaknob by default are at the end. This allows controllers that can control individual parameters to make best use of their knobs without having redundancy when controlling the metaknob or controlling individual parameters.

* Improve default effect parameter values * Change default metaknob linkings * Rearrange parameters so those linked to metaknob by default are at the end. This allows controllers that can control individual parameters to make best use of their knobs without having redundancy when controlling the metaknob or controlling individual parameters.

Be-ing · 2017-01-22T18:31:25Z

Can someone test this?

rryan · 2017-01-22T20:44:37Z

It all seems reasonable to me -- I'm wondering if moving the important (metaknob-linked) parameters to the back is limiting for these 2 cases:

presets that don't use the meta/superknob (and sure you can say "they should be updated" but realistically that's not going to happen for a while for most of our presets)
for advanced users who want to tweak the parmeters manually and have mapped their controllers to have real parameter access rather than SK/MK.

But let's see if we get feedback from the beta.

rryan · 2017-01-22T21:01:32Z

+    depth->setSemanticHint(EffectManifestParameter::SEMANTIC_UNKNOWN);
+    depth->setUnitsHint(EffectManifestParameter::UNITS_UNKNOWN);
+    depth->setDefaultLinkType(EffectManifestParameter::LINK_LINKED);
+    depth->setMinimum(0.5);


I can hear a difference with the phaser (with the rest of parameters at their defaults) starting at around 0.2. Did you change this because you find it unnoticeable until 0.5?

Listening closer, I do hear an effect at lower values, but it is really subtle. I changed it because I don't think it's good to have to turn up the metaknob half way to really start noticing an effect. Maybe this parameter should have a logarithmic scale?

I tried changing it to logarithmic and that did not solve the issue.

Any other ideas?

Nope -- I think what you have is fine. I agree it's really subtle when the parameter is that low.

daschuer · 2017-01-22T22:05:21Z

Now (the same in master) the Filter effects are started silence, because the super knob is adopted to avoid going out of sync.
I am not sure if I can get used to it. I think I like the old behaviour more that every effect starts with its reasonable default parameters and the super knob has to snap in by passing the defaults.
This might be a problem when there is no super knob visible. for example if you load the Effect to the EQ knobs.

I also have mixed feelings if we move the Super knob to the end. This will move out the most important parameter from the parameter knobs if you have only three parameter knobs.

We can also not guarantee this assumption if we consider external effects.

On the other hand I fully understand your requirement to not have a redundant knob in single parameter mode.

What alternatives we have? Do your really need the super knob in single parameter mode? Would it be possible to use it as 4th parameter in that case?

daschuer · 2017-01-22T22:49:15Z

We have also the issue, that a right click on the super/meta button reset the super button to it's default. Which is not a good default position for every effect.

rryan · 2017-01-23T00:30:20Z

Now (the same in master) the Filter effects are started silence, because the super knob is adopted to avoid going out of sync.

To clarify -- this is not a problem with this PR, right? You're talking about #1111?

daschuer · 2017-01-23T00:47:33Z

Yes, here is only the question if we should move the mapped parameter to the last knob.

Be-ing · 2017-01-23T00:49:31Z

Okay, let's keep the discussion on this PR about this PR. I agree it is awkward to have some metaknobs that apply no effect at center and some that apply no effect when fully left and I do not have an idea of how to handle that better. The mailing list may be a better place to discuss that.

Be-ing · 2017-01-23T01:00:55Z

presets that don't use the meta/superknob (and sure you can say "they should be updated" but realistically that's not going to happen for a while for most of our presets)

I do not think we should make the new UI less useful to accommodate mappings that have not been updated. All effects mappings made for 2.0 were already bound to need updating because there is no way to map effects in 2.0 in a way that makes sense for all the skins.

for advanced users who want to tweak the parmeters manually and have mapped their controllers to have real parameter access rather than SK/MK.

The rearrangement is for users who want to tweak individual parameters. If one of the first 3 parameters is linked to the metaknob, then there is no way to manipulate the 4th parameter from the controller, but there is a redundancy because the metaknob-linked parameter is controlled both when manipulating the metaknob and when manipulating each parameter.

Do your really need the super knob in single parameter mode? Would it be possible to use it as 4th parameter in that case?

I do not understand what you are asking.

daschuer · 2017-01-23T01:07:23Z

Do your really need the super knob in single parameter mode? Would it be possible to use it as 4th parameter in that case?

I do not understand what you are asking.

A Traktor like controller has a mode switch where you can control either the parameters of a single effect or the meta knobs of all effects. Do you need to control the super knob if you are in single effect mode?

How does Traktor solve the issue? Do they also have the default metaknob mapping on parameter four?

Be-ing · 2017-01-23T01:09:32Z

Do you need to control the super knob if you are in single effect mode?

It could be helpful to, but the trade off is not being able to manipulate a different parameter via the controller.

How does Traktor solve the issue? Do they also have the default metaknob mapping on parameter four?

Traktor has no concept of meta or superknobs, so it does not have this issue.

…faults

daschuer · 2017-01-23T10:27:51Z

If we look at the Denon MC 4000

We have three parameter knobs an one Beats knob. I think now you use the Beats knob as Meta knob in the single effect mode right?

If we one day have the real Beats feature for that knob, we cannot control the most important effect parameter anymore.

Would it be a solution to move the mapped parameter to one of the first three parameters and map the beats knob to parameter four?
This way you have still full control to your effect. This has also the advantage that there is no redundancy if the user remaps the meta knob. And it works for all external LV2 effects as well.

This will also help on controllers without an effect region where the user wants to use the EQ Rack to control effects.

Be-ing · 2017-01-23T21:14:52Z

I think now you use the Beats knob as Meta knob in the single effect mode right?

No, it stays as dry/wet in both modes. Changing it to the meta knob in single effect mode is an interesting idea though. I'll try playing with that.

Would it be a solution to move the mapped parameter to one of the first three parameters and map the beats knob to parameter four?

I'll try playing with this too.

daschuer · 2017-01-23T22:09:53Z

You answer is surprising. I probably have not fully understand why you need the mapped parameter on four. In case of Beats = Dry/Wet, you have already the issue that you cannot access the most important parameter in single effect mode. How was it redundant?

Be-ing · 2017-01-23T22:16:45Z

It is redundant to control the metaknob in both modes because that means one less parameter is accessible from the controller. For example, consider an effect with 4 parameters. If parameter 1 is linked to the metaknob, the user can control parameter 1 by turning the metaknob in unfocused mode. In focused mode, only 3 parameters are accessible. In neither mode can the user manipulate parameter 4 from the controller. If the linked parameter is instead moved to parameter 4, the user can manipulate it in unfocused mode via the metaknob. In focused mode, the user can access the other 3 parameters.

Be-ing · 2017-01-23T22:20:47Z

My general intention for the two controller modes is that unfocused mode (controlling metaknobs) is what will be used most of the time. Focusing an effect to control individual parameters is more for setting up those parameters to a particular configuration than adjusting them while mixing. If the user wants to adjust parameters other than what is linked to the metaknob by default while mixing, that is what custom metaknob linkings are for.

No arrangement could cover every way a user might want to set up their effects. If a user does want to manipulate parameters independently while mixing and one of those parameters is beyond the 3rd position, unfortunately there is no good way to handle that right now. I think the solution to this issue would be to make parameters arbitrarily rearrangable, but let's leave that for after 2.1.

daschuer · 2017-01-23T22:54:13Z

Ah, thank you, now I understand. So the decision here is basically a trade of use-cases.

Single Effect Mode for Mixing <-> Single Effect Mode for Preparing.

Since it effect only > 3 Parameter effects which are probably anyway hard to use during a mix and not very suitable as EQ replacement, you changes should be OK.

LGTM!

@rryan: Is this merge-able?

rryan · 2017-01-23T23:24:40Z

@rryan: Is this merge-able?

Yep, sounds good to me. The failing appveyor build is fixed in master.

This was referenced Jan 14, 2017

persistent effects #1092

Merged

Fix the reverb effect #1113

Merged

rryan added the effects label Jan 22, 2017

rryan reviewed Jan 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into better_effects_de…

4ed75b8

…faults

rryan merged commit 9f55352 into mixxxdj:master Jan 23, 2017

daschuer mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2017

Remove adopting Meta knob after effect load #1148

Merged

Be-ing deleted the better_effects_defaults branch February 1, 2017 01:13

This was referenced Aug 22, 2022

effects need defaults that sound like an effect #7349

Closed

Delay and Tremolo effects #8916

Closed

Uh oh!

Conversation

Be-ing commented Jan 13, 2017

Uh oh!

Be-ing commented Jan 22, 2017

Uh oh!

rryan commented Jan 22, 2017

Uh oh!

rryan Jan 22, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Be-ing Jan 23, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Be-ing Jan 23, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Be-ing Jan 23, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rryan Jan 23, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

daschuer commented Jan 22, 2017

Uh oh!

daschuer commented Jan 22, 2017

Uh oh!

rryan commented Jan 23, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

daschuer commented Jan 23, 2017

Uh oh!

Be-ing commented Jan 23, 2017

Uh oh!

Be-ing commented Jan 23, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

daschuer commented Jan 23, 2017

Uh oh!

Be-ing commented Jan 23, 2017

Uh oh!

daschuer commented Jan 23, 2017

Uh oh!

Be-ing commented Jan 23, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

daschuer commented Jan 23, 2017

Uh oh!

Be-ing commented Jan 23, 2017

Uh oh!

Be-ing commented Jan 23, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

daschuer commented Jan 23, 2017

Uh oh!

rryan commented Jan 23, 2017

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Be-ing Jan 23, 2017 •

edited

Loading

rryan commented Jan 23, 2017 •

edited

Loading

Be-ing commented Jan 23, 2017 •

edited

Loading

Be-ing commented Jan 23, 2017 •

edited

Loading

Be-ing commented Jan 23, 2017 •

edited

Loading