Software improvement suggestion

For the Voluum™ Digitally-Controlled Analogue Volume Effects Pedal

Moderators: johnmc, james

User avatar
james
Site Admin
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:12 pm

Re: Software improvement suggestion

Post by james »

13) With fast attack and fast release settings on the compressor, there is some buzzing/clicking, and also some tremolo effect. This is more obvious when chords or low notes are played. You can try 0 ms attack, 0.1 s release and high compression/low threshold in order to reproduce this issue. Is this caused by the automatic make up gain fighting back and forth between note beatings? Can this be improved by software or is this the physical limit?
I did some testing. Clicking will happen on any fast gain change. The compressor can't respond instantly. It's faster than 1ms, but not zero. So when the signal comes in, it has high make-up gain so is loud. The signal is detected and the gain is dropped, but the start of the signal gets through then the gain drops quickly. This causes the click. Using the limiter can reduce the click by keeping the level in check at high gains with high signal levels like this.

Buzzing will happen on low-frequency notes and chords. What is happening is the compressor is following the signal as fast as it can, on a low note it is following the waveform so you can get modulation of the waveform itself. You need to increase the release time (and possible reduce the attack time) to avoid this. The compressor is just trying to do what it thought you wanted: to respond as quickly as possible.
Plexi
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Software improvement suggestion

Post by Plexi »

Hi,

Is there any chance to get an Eq in the volume block? I made some 'boost presets' and it would be great to be able to eq them. I'm not talking about a sophisticated one, a simple low cut / hi cut would already be awesome.
Anyway, thank you for making this, Voluum is the best guitar tool I ever used and the price is ridiculously low considering the quality of every effect.
(Sorry for my english, not my native language)
User avatar
james
Site Admin
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:12 pm

Re: Software improvement suggestion

Post by james »

Hi,

I'm so pleased to hear how much you like the Voluum. And yes, the price is ridiculously low -- we always try to offer great value for money on all our products.

We can't add an EQ on the current hardware. The full signal path is analogue, and to add EQ would require a redesign of the hardware.
Plexi
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Software improvement suggestion

Post by Plexi »

Hi James,
Thanks, yes I was expecting it was impossible. Voluum is so tweakable, I often forget it's all analog path.
By the way, the tuner is excellent, thanks again.
Plexi
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Software improvement suggestion

Post by Plexi »

How about a "blend" control for the comp?
User avatar
james
Site Admin
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:12 pm

Re: Software improvement suggestion

Post by james »

A blend control mixes in some of the dry signal with the compressed signal, so that's not possible without hardware changes because the signal path would need to have two paths instead of one and a way to mix them.

One reason for having a blend is to prevent the compressor affecting the tone of your signal. The Voluum compressor won't affect the tone, so a blend isn't needed for that. Of course, blend can be desirable for other purposes too.
Plexi
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Software improvement suggestion

Post by Plexi »

Yep your comp is very transparent, one of the best comp I ever tried to be honest. The purpose was to set a huge amount of compression then add some of the uncompressed signal.
Guitarists love that (mostly because it's an easy way to setup a comp) but I can live without.

Thank you for the quick answer James.
From now I'll stop asking for improvements that aren't software related :oops:
canbaz
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: Software improvement suggestion

Post by canbaz »

Hello James,

Loopa is a very exciting product. I hope that your kickstarter project will be successful. Below are my comments.
james wrote:
1) My suggestion is: long press on hi/lo to swap the parameters being edited and long press on hi/lo + control button to swap all the parameters of the effect being edited, like your example all the parameters of LFO, or volume, but not both at the same time. Yes, same functions on the editor would be great. Such as a swap button between each hi/lo parameter and a global swap button on each effect page tab...
This seems to be a solution that will work.
Cool! Thanks.
james wrote:
4) I tested the tap tempo with a metronome and found out that the pedal runs faster than the tapped tempo. Is there a bug or do I do something wrong? It captures the tempo from heel all the way down to toe all the way down, correct? If it is not all the way down, but it captures somewhere in the middle, this may be the source of the problem, since my ankle movement may not be consistent between the heel down and toe down positions :mrgreen: .
The "switch" for tap-tempo is when the pedal crosses over the middle position (approximately). So you don't need to go right to the heel-down or toe-down position. It actually averages a few measurements to get a better estimate of the tempo. It needs at least 2 "taps" before it will change, then it averages the last 4 "taps". Maybe you aren't doing enough taps?
Can you please test the tap tempo with a metronome? There is something strange with it. I tried with lots of taps that should be enough, but the pedal was always faster than the metronome.
james wrote:
5) I also tested the LFO tempo with a metronome and found out that the LFO runs slower than a metronome. It is more obvious at slower rates. For instance try 60 bpm and compare it with a metronome at 60 bpm. This slowness is very dramatic when the bpm is slower, but it is multiplied by a larger division. For instance try 10 bpm tempo and x 6 division, then compare it with a 60 bpm metronome. You will see a big difference. Is this a bug?
I will check this.
Could you check this? This and the tap tempo issue may be somehow related.
james wrote:
6) It would be interesting to have other divisions for LFO, such as 9, 7, 5, 8/3, 3/2, 4/3, 3/4, 2/3, 3/8, 1/3, 1/5, 1/6, 1/7, 1/9, etc in order to obtain dotted-eighth pattern, complex time signatures and syncopations. You can even add phi (golden ratio) and 1/phi for fun. For instance Pigtronix Echolution has this.
There was a reason for limiting the available ranges. I believe it was for efficiency reasons (faster calculations) and for MIDI Sync. But the code has changed a lot since the first version we'd need to go through it carefully to work out how much of a change this is.
Could you check the possibility for additional divider/multiplier options? Not all but maybe some of them should be very interesting to have.
james wrote:
7) I like to max the tempo to 999 bpm and choose x 16 division, in order to obtain results similar to a ring modulator. For me this is more musical than a ring modulator, because we don't lose the carrier signal. It would be good to have higher tempo rates in order to obtain divergent sum, carrier, difference frequencies. Can you increase the upper limit of tempo and or division to something larger?
The division (i.e., multiplier) needs to be increased. But the hardware is capable of fast modulation (a few kHz). However, the LFO itself is limited in how fast it can move to ensure it is very smooth and there are no clicks if the LFO is moving quickly. It can be a problem with LFO shapes with sharp edges (not a problem with sine waveforms for example). This would need to be changed to allow the fast speeds. Maybe if it only works for sine waves that would be ok. It would need to be tested.
Could you test the sine wave for fast modulation?
james wrote:
8) When the tempo is increased from fast to very fast there is a volume drop. What is the reason of this volume drop? Loss of high frequencies? You can also observe a volume drop at 999 bpm x 16 when you change the LFO wave shape to Saw Down from Saw Up. Is this the same reason?
It is probably the speed limit on the LFO. If "optical mode" is on, the effect will be more obvious too. Eventually the LFO can't move much in the available time so the level will then be somewhere between the low and hi values, and you'll get a level drop. (You always get a level change with an LFO because it is modulating the level, but above a certain speed it should remain constant unless speed-limiting like this is done.)
9) Although the inharmonic output of a very fast fixed modulator is interesting, I would like to see the result of a non-fixed modulator correlated to the carrier. For instance, the pitch of the input signal could be tracked, then the frequency of the modulator could be related to the frequency of the input signal. So, the sum, carrier and difference signals could be harmonically related. As you know, if the carrier and the modulator are both X Hz, the result should be an octave up effect. If the carrier is X and the modulator is X/2, the result should be an octave down + 3rd harmonic. I don't know how it would sound in practice, but in theory this should be like an analog Whammy :D. This would be a great addition to the Voluum, although it is already a fantastic pedal.
Actually, I experimented with this early during the development of the Voluum. You can get some nice sounds, especially nice sub-bass octaver effects. However, it was deemed to be getting too complex for most users, so it was not included in the firmware. Also, as the effects got more CPU-intensive, the available CPU time for the pitch-processing got less, so it wasn't possible to do both at the same time (all effects and pitch-tracking) without compromises. The tuner works, but no other effects are running at the same time to do this. So it might be possible to get it back in, but it's not trivial.
I see, yes this should need too much CPU power. However, this should be a very interesting effect. I don't know any other pedal that uses this approach to obtain sub-bass octave effects. Maybe a factory preset which does not allow any parameters to be changed (in order to limit additional CPU intensive functions) can be fun to have.
james wrote:
10) If I first define parameters, next I select a control either pedal or envelope, I lose the settings that I've defined and that can be controlled. This may be useful for some cases, but usually annoying for me :). Is this done by purpose?
It's partly of on purpose, partly due to how the parameters work. Each parameter has a "not-controller" and a "hi" and "lo" value. So when you enable control, you get the "hi" and "lo" versions, when you disable control, you get the "not-controlled" version. It can be useful because you don't loose any values when you toggle control on and off. What else could it do? If it modified the parameters when you toggle in and out of control it might be worse! Your suggestions are welcome.
You are right. It is better to keep this function as it is.
james wrote:
11) It would be useful to start the LFO pattern at a different position rather than its absolute beginning. Is it possible to make the LFO phase adjustment available when the retriggering is not on? When it is being edited it should function like this : If we adjust the phase when the effect is engaged, it does nothing. However, if the effect is bypassed and engaged again, the LFO starts from the selected point.
This makes sense. We did add a change so the LFO would start at the same position each time the effect was enabled. Making it take account of phase might not be a big change. I need to look at it.
Could you check it?
james wrote:
12) It would be useful to see the tempo clock (value before div multiplication), either parameter or tap tempo, blinking somewhere. This would function like a visual metronome to help the player for confusing tempos that I asked for above (6th suggestion, e.g. x 4/3 division). If the division is set to x 1, it would be useful as well to mark the start point of the LFO if you could evaluate the above 11th suggestion :). So, LED tempo should restart each time the effect is engaged.
Could this be done as an option to change how the 5 LEDs that show the tremolo operate? Instead of showing the actual volume position, it could show the position at the non-divided BPM, regardless of other tremolo settings and volume setting?
Yes those 5 LEDs may be used to show the non-divided BPM and the tapped tempo. However, please also consider the additional multipliers/dividers for the BPM tempo that are asked in the 6th comment.
james wrote:
15) In tuner mode, note to midi out would be really great.
This can be done, but it wouldn't be the same as our pitch-to-MIDI products (a little slower). Is pitch-bend required?
Yes pitch-bend would be very cool to have. Is it too much to ask for? :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Thank you James!
Diegombass
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 12:06 pm

Re: Software improvement suggestion

Post by Diegombass »

Hi, I'm interested on buying the Voluum, but before that I've got a few questions.

The Ring modulator thing that Canbaz proposes could be great, even the greatest if I could set the LFO frequency synced to the note I am playing (like the Subdecay Vitruvian Mod). I don't care if I cannot use the other effects at the same time. Could be possible in next firmware versions? There will be latency in the low notes of my bass guitar?

Another question is: Can I send pedal movements, envelope, ADSR or LFO movements via MIDI out while the Voluum is in bypass mode?

Thank you very much!
User avatar
james
Site Admin
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:12 pm

Re: Software improvement suggestion

Post by james »

Currently, only the pedal can send MIDI. But more extensive MIDI control has been requested by so many people that we plan to look at this next month to see what can be added in a firmware update. Allowing the LFO and ADSR envelope to send MIDI would be very nice.

When bypassed, the pedal will send MIDI.

For the proposed new MIDI control sends (LFO, ADSR etc), I am not yet sure!
Post Reply