Software Arpeggiator - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Software Arpeggiator

Posted by Tom_cowan on Aug-22-2002 13:50:

Software Arpeggiator

I was wondering if anybody knew of a good arpeggiator program for the pc where by it will convert midi signals coming in from a keyboard into a user defined arpeggiator pattern and then be able to play that pattern into a program like reason in the form of a midi signal???

I found a program here but i havent had a chance to look at it
http://www.ronimusic.com/

Posted by Tom_cowan on Aug-28-2002 15:03:

I still need a programable arppegiator!

**Please**

Posted by Michael Russo on Aug-29-2002 03:08:

I've been looking for a good one too... the problem is that even if a good one existed, you'd have some problems playing it right into reason. It's possible, but a pain.

I wish there were a VST arpeggiator that you could load your VST's into, kinda like a mini host...

Posted by Tom_cowan on Aug-29-2002 10:56:

A descent midi arpeggiator would be awesome, one which you could program an arpeggiator pattern into then play on the keyboard. It would make life so much easier, im tired of drawing all those notes into the sequencer!

Posted by 8Wonders on Aug-31-2002 01:56:

Fruity loops

Posted by Michael Russo on Aug-31-2002 03:20:

quote:
Originally posted by DC-
Fruity loops

if only it would render to piano roll like orion...

Posted by Tom_cowan on Sep-03-2002 15:34:

If one doesn't exist why doesnt somebody make one!

Posted by Michael Russo on Sep-03-2002 18:31:

I think one is being made, by the person who makes the sequencer massiva... people are saying it's really good.

Posted by 8Wonders on Sep-03-2002 21:31:

Actually it does render to Piano Roll.

Open up piano roll and press CTRL + U, then select a pattern and click the checkbox and all your keys will be changed (you can choose from chords, melodies, arrpegiators, leads, etc or you can make your own)

You could also preview it in realtime but playing your pattern first then going into piano roll and doing the above.

Posted by Tom_cowan on Sep-04-2002 10:00:

As a reason user is it worth getting fruity just for the arpeggiator? On fruity can you play into it using a midi keyboard and arpeggiate the signal as specified above?

Posted by 8Wonders on Sep-04-2002 17:26:

I like fruityloops as a whole, I wish it was a little bit more powerful. I can't stand Reason, i find the UI incredibly unintuitive.

As to your question, I'm pretty sure you can, the worst thing you'd have to do is record a midi and import it.

Posted by Michael Russo on Sep-04-2002 23:28:

Thanks DC, gonna try it out... the question I have is why is it not in the manual? I read the WHOLE thing... I'm guessing its around 300 pages. And I know that I wouldn't miss something like that... unless I read the wrong help? Which I doubt... why would they have more than one help file. On their site there's a little manual for getting started, but I'm referring to the one u get when you click help in the program.

PS: We seem to have the same taste... I absolutely can't stand reason's interface... what a pain it is to do anything. The only advantage is the complex routing u can come up with. Just curious, what exactly do you mean by more powerful?

PPS: Tom, you may be able to achieve good results by trying fruity as a vst plugin... maybe you can use it with your virus (you have one, right?), or somehow set the midi out from fruity as the midi in to reason. (I'm talking about from within cubase). But I don't know for sure, i'm not familiar with rewire or a lot of cubase advanced midi stuff.

Posted by 8Wonders on Sep-05-2002 01:12:

By powerful I mean, way more effects channels with unlimited # of effects / channel (well not really but something higher than 8), I wish you could apply effects to patterns in the playlist directly rather than creating seperate patterns with the effect you desire (a filtered synth builup, snare buildup, etc), thinks like that.

Also it sucks that you cant edit each effects paramaters numerically in addition to knob tweaking. Something like cubase where if you right click on the # it allows you to enter a value via keyboard.

Also, another cool thing (ala cubase and others) would be to allow the user to use simple point envelopes for changing paramters in any manner they desire rather than the archaic one they have no that which you cannot even reset if you make a mistake and have to do all over, instead of just click on the point and changing its value.

There's lots of other things I would like to see from it functionality wise.

P.S. For arpeggiator usage, check out some of the sample files that come with fruity (which is how I found out about it and not by looking thru the help, in which it seems to be missing)

Posted by Michael Russo on Sep-05-2002 23:27:

Why do you need more effects per channel? If you really need more for a specific track you can always use the sends and stick reverb, chorus, flanger, delay etc. on it and then use the inserts... but why do you need that many effects per channel? What do you use? Sometimes you might want to go crazy with distortion or other quality-reducing fx for some percussion or something, but I can't think of any other scenario where you'd be limited by what fruity gives you. More FX channels would definately be nice though. And what I'd also like is to be able to drag and drog each effect within that fx channel to change the order around... that would be great because changing the order changes the sound in different ways.

I can see what you mean with applying fx via the playlist, but isn't that what automation is for? Can't you turn off an effect if you don't need it? (by setting "mix" or similar parameter to zero)?

Anyways, it's constantly improving, so there's a good chance you'll see what you want eventually/

Posted by 8Wonders on Sep-07-2002 23:17:

I use a ton of effects on all my stuff, and having 16 channels is limiting me by a lot. The 8 effects / channel isn't as much of an issues as the 16 channel limit.

As far as automation goes, it just seems so cumbersome, I'm not even sure on how to do it, doing it the way I proposed would be a ton easier and more interactive.

Guess time will tell

Posted by Joi Lamusic on Sep-11-2002 06:57:

Can't U do those arp. by hand? I mean, create your own arp. melody in piano-roll... Or is that totally stupid idea?

Posted by Tom_cowan on Sep-11-2002 09:23:

THats what i do now, its just a pain in the arse coz i cant play it live.

Posted by Theotrope on Sep-17-2002 00:27:

who uses 8 effects on a channel?

hey, at least we fruity users HAVE more than 8 different kinds of effects to pick *prepares for flaming*

ooh, 2 band EQ, phaser, distortion, chorus, delay, im so jealous

regards, Entheogen

Posted by Michael Russo on Sep-17-2002 01:31:

Lol Enth, I was going to ask you what your TA name was

Anyways, yeah... I used to not like reason, but I started playing with it a bit and I'm actually starting to like it. I'm not sure why though... the effects aren't very good, you don't have many options in terms of synthesis, you can't make cool layered channels (without a ton of work), etc., etc.... But there's something about it I like. I'm not sure what though...

Posted by Joi Lamusic on Sep-17-2002 09:55:

I think Reason has betetr sounds for first

Posted by FuzzyGreen on Sep-17-2002 17:41:

comparing actual sound quality produced with Reason Vs FruityLoops it seems that Reason's sounds are higher quality. I have both and I use Event PS6 monitors running through a Makie mixer and I find that the loops I make in Fruity loops usually come out sounding like their frequncy response is a little limited where as Reason loops sound full and proffessional sounding. But then again, maybe I just don't know what the trick is in FL to make that higher quality sound. Enth, your productions always sound HQ, what type of fx are you applying in FL?

As for the original question: Sonar has software arppegiators and I'm pretty sure you can use them in real time. But that IS a complicated software to learn.