pfm2 : 2.21

[Xavier]

Small sacrifice for such an increase in functionality!

Thanks

BTW, I'm curious about the bitcrusher; is it using dithering at the low settings?

preenFM2 FX are very simple.
The code is opensource and the FX are in Timbre.cpp in fxAfterBlock function.

The Bitcrusher algo is this one :
http://www.musicdsp.org/archive.php?classid=4#139
No dithering, no interpolation...

Xavier

[kuzma_p]

Heh, i noticed that envelopes were modified slightly, but there is no such behaviour like Norbim has.

[norbim1]

That's interesting i modified slightly the enveloppes.

Hi Xavier,

By further analyzing I realized, that it is now the correct behavior according the envelope time and level values! So the enhancement showed me, that there were wrong parameters in my sound, but it didn't turn out in earlier versions. So thanks a lot, it's way better than before!

By the way the bootloader works the same way as on original HW, I'm using the "Access Usb" - "flash from USB" method to upgrade the FW.

Norbim

[Xavier]

Great. 
Thanks for the feedback norbim1 and kuzma_p.

[SirPrimalform]

No dithering, no interpolation...

Ah good, the way a bitcrusher should be, full of artifacts!

[JLagadec]

Hi Xavier,

I found a bug on the page modulations (IM1, IM2, IM3, etc…). Once the value 10.0 is exceeded, encoders require 10 steps to advance one value.

Julien

edit: it’s normal, the screen can show only 3 digits.

[Xavier]

Hi Julien,

Thanks for the feedback.
That's because one encoder step is 0.01 and after 10.0 values show up with only 1 digit after the comma which makes 10 encoder steps for one display step.
Turning the encoder modify the internal value even if the display does not reflect that.
Same problem with envelope time values.

I agree it would be more comfortable if the encoder step become 0.1 for value bigger than 10.

Xavier

[SirPrimalform]

I agree it would be more comfortable if the encoder step become 0.1 for value bigger than 10.

Rather than lose resolution above 9.99, why display the just the 'tens' column in hexadecimal or something? So 9.99 - A.00, A.99 - B.00 etc.? I can't remember, is the maximum depth 16.0? If so I guess at the end it could go from F.99 to 16 or MAX or something.
Or if custom characters are possible on this screen, maybe some characters with two digits squashed together... not sure how possible that would be at this resolution though.

[martindunne]

i dont think you lose real resolution its just the displays limitations

[SirPrimalform]

i dont think you lose real resolution its just the displays limitations

Not at the moment, but look at the quote in my previous post. I interpreted that to mean Xavier was considering changing the resolution to 0.1 above 10.

[Xavier]

i dont think you lose real resolution its just the displays limitations

Not at the moment, but look at the quote in my previous post. I interpreted that to mean Xavier was considering changing the resolution to 0.1 above 10.

Yes no resolution lost, only display limitation.

What is possible is to change the encoder tick step (from 0.01 to 0.1) for value above 10 .
A=>F for value 10=>16 is also possible.
Not sure i'll implement any of both though

I have to check custom characters, but they are very limited and i already use several of them.

[SirPrimalform]

Yes no resolution lost, only display limitation.

What is possible is to change the encoder tick step (from 0.01 to 0.1) for value above 10 .
A=>F for value 10=>16 is also possible.
Not sure i'll implement any of both though

I have to check custom characters, but they are very limited and i already use several of them.

I might be misunderstanding, but if the tick was changed to 0.1 over values of 10 how would we get a modulation amount of say 10.04? It seems to me that we would be limited to multiples of 0.1, this is what I mean by loss of resolution. At the moment we can at least count the ticks to get values like 10.04. Apologies if I'm just misunderstanding.

[Xavier]

I might be misunderstanding, but if the tick was changed to 0.1 over values of 10 how would we get a modulation amount of say 10.04? It seems to me that we would be limited to multiples of 0.1, this is what I mean by loss of resolution. At the moment we can at least count the ticks to get values like 10.04. Apologies if I'm just misunderstanding.

Right... 10.04 would be impossible from the preenfm2 itself.
But do you really hear a difference between 10, 10.04 and 10.1 ?

Anyway for the moment i won't change anything 

[SirPrimalform]

Right... 10.04 would be impossible from the preenfm2 itself.
But do you really hear a difference between 10, 10.04 and 10.1 ?

Anyway for the moment i won't change anything 

Ah yes, this is what I meant by loss of resolution. And I think whether its audible depends on what you're modulating. If it's something like operator frequency modulated by an envelope, it might be quite audible.

[Xavier]

Firmware 2.01 uploaded 
See first message of this thread for more information.

Here are 2 examples that you have to copy on the preenfm2 USB drive in /pfm2/waveform/

Enjoy and don't hesitate to share your waveform and how you like it to be modulated.

Xavier