TexZK
I've seen there's a bad issue when using volumes. If you set volume to 0, it's mute, but if you set the volume to 1 (1 over 4096, the minimum volume) it will be too much amplified as minimum, and isn't good for transitions.
geposted Sun 04 Feb 07 @ 9:01 pm
Dj Xeo
think you can use the crossfader curves to change this? dont know if it affects the fundamental internal maximum resolution of 4096 values tho, just changes the curve of the fader ?
geposted Wed 07 Feb 07 @ 1:50 am
TexZK
I want to use the Mk2 crossfader for other purposes (video or bass fader). Anyway, why can't we have a logarithmic volume like every other software? It's just a different multiplier computed with a simple formula... instead of being multiplied by a linear formula, the samples are being multiplied by a logarithmic (exponential) one (saved in a variable of course, or computed real-time with an integer divider to improve performance).
geposted Wed 07 Feb 07 @ 8:39 am
VanStino
Yeah i agree to this: crossfading has a too big step from 0 to 1 out of 4096. Doesn't sound perfect. (few people hear, but still)
geposted Wed 07 Feb 07 @ 12:04 pm
Dj Xeo
i think that the fact the fundamental ch attenuation value is stored in 13 bit resolution variables will make the logarthymic curve hard to implement? maybe they will implement that 13xxx precision value to make it compatible with the newer high precision faders/encoders.
you know the herc only goes 0-127 anyway? i think that even hugely amplified 1/4095 is a very quiet signal
you know the herc only goes 0-127 anyway? i think that even hugely amplified 1/4095 is a very quiet signal
geposted Thu 08 Feb 07 @ 12:16 am
TexZK
A logarithmic scale will give it a low volume even at 1/127 of the slider...
Output = Input * 10^ln( Slider / 4096 )
At 1/127 the volume is multiplied by about 0.003 (about -50dB), which is less than 0,0079 (1/127, -42dB). By lowering the log base (at the moment it's e, which is about 2.718, so the multiplier can be e<new_multiplier<1) the attenuation can be higher: it can be more curved but more difficult to handle though.
Output = Input * 10^ln( Slider / 4096 )
At 1/127 the volume is multiplied by about 0.003 (about -50dB), which is less than 0,0079 (1/127, -42dB). By lowering the log base (at the moment it's e, which is about 2.718, so the multiplier can be e<new_multiplier<1) the attenuation can be higher: it can be more curved but more difficult to handle though.
geposted Thu 08 Feb 07 @ 11:24 am
Dj Xeo
i understand the concept of a logarithmic scale. so your problem is the limitation of 0-127 not the limitation of 0-4095?
if cel has made a tool to remap the fader curves then the formula that controls the relationship betweek fader position and actual volume attenuation must be within the scope of the SDK?
if you deem a fundamental linear resolution of 0-4095 to be insusuficient then this would require a rewrite of the code but it is entirely possible to remap the herc faders to whatever curve you like (including a logrithmic one), on the Xfade atleast anyway
if cel has made a tool to remap the fader curves then the formula that controls the relationship betweek fader position and actual volume attenuation must be within the scope of the SDK?
if you deem a fundamental linear resolution of 0-4095 to be insusuficient then this would require a rewrite of the code but it is entirely possible to remap the herc faders to whatever curve you like (including a logrithmic one), on the Xfade atleast anyway
geposted Fri 09 Feb 07 @ 12:32 am
TexZK
I know I can use the crossfader... but I'm using it for other purposes, so I'm using volume sliders for the volume (I haven't got a mixer). Anyway, a logarithmic scale would ebe better... Trust me! Ans this doesn't need a code rewrite, but it's just a simple loop put in the buffer creation routine...
e.g.:
e.g.:
int* s = &buffer[0]; // I'm assuming each sample is an int, not a short (to decrease data lost); I don't know how this is implemented in the VDJ code (obviously)
float scale = pow( 10, log( (float)slider / 4096.0f ) );
for( int i = 0; i < buffersize; ++i )
*s = (int)( (float)*s * scale );
geposted Fri 09 Feb 07 @ 8:29 am
cioce
A simple option for Logarithmic or Linear volume fader will be good.
geposted Fri 09 Feb 07 @ 1:40 pm
studio.st
For me is the lack of switching linear and logarithmic faders curve biggest problem in VirtualDJ. I need to do a clean fadeout.
Much to intercede for the inclusion of this functionality in new versions.
(To use a really nice fadeout SERATO ITCH. There can be adjusted in the setup fader curve.)
Much to intercede for the inclusion of this functionality in new versions.
(To use a really nice fadeout SERATO ITCH. There can be adjusted in the setup fader curve.)
geposted Tue 06 Mar 12 @ 5:05 am