Would it be possible to have the CC & NRPN definitions within Instrument Definition Files to have a operation range defined by two values: minimum & maximum (min/max). Currently only the granularity can be defined by DEPTH (either 7 or 14 bits), but within that range a lot of values can be outside the range defined be the actual instrument. It would be great if MIN and MAX could be part of the spec, so that the range could be made actually meaningfull.
+1 for this idea! This would help me a lot as well.
Just off the top of my head for my studio, it would make it a lot easier to use Automation Lanes with Conductive Labs NDLR and several synths that use 0 or 1 for on/off parameters.
I would like to be able to “lock” the Min & Max settings for an Automation Lane then have those Min/Max settings translate/corespond/scale to the pads, so that rather than the bottom row being 0 and top being 127, the bottom would then be “Min” and top “Max”.
Here’s an example. This would be incredibly helpful for me sending automation to the Conductive Labs NDLR. CC 26 (Chord Degree) for NDLR has a range of 1-7. The way Hapax works now, all 7 of those Chord Degrees are represented in the bottom row of pads for an Automation Lane.
Furthermore, it may be best to be able to select how many rows you want represented rather than Min/Max ‘scaling’ to the 8 pad rows, and then allowing for scrolling up and down (similar to the function of the piano roll). Again, using NDLR for an example, CC 74 (Mode/Scale) has a range of 0-15. Rather than each row representing 2 parameters, it would be very useful to set a Min/Max AND Number of Rows (16 in this case) and allow for scrolling up and down the column.
Additionally, it would be great to set these Min/Max settings (and perhaps Number of Automation Lane rows?) in the Instrument Definition files. There is a discussion about this here:
The two suggestions here (setting Min/Max in instrument definitions and scaling the grid according to those settings) are the things I most want in a future firmware update; I sent Squarp a feature request with both a few weeks back. It is really difficult to draw NRPN automation without this because of the huge number of values, plus many manufacturers only using a fraction of the possible values on particular parameters.
The other thing I’d love is being able to set “enumerated values” for certain CC. I.e. a synth has a filter type parameter where CC 0 - 15 is low pass, 16 - 32 is high pass etc; you could set a CC in an instrument def to take discrete named values and then be able to scroll through them on Hapax (this would be a lot like how it works when setting automation lanes for Hapax FX parameters). The Electra One midi controller is able to do this. This would be very helpful in @Cyclopticowl’s example.
If we had these three things together, Hapax would be really hard to beat as a control change sequencer.
Thank you for clarifying. I have not used this myself so I didn’t know exactly how it worked, but I just recalled reading about it in the manual so figured it was worth mentioning as a possibility.
I don’t see how a filter on controller #'s would be useful for this purpose or in general. Filtering values was more obvious in my brain but I guess it is not implemented.
I just wanted to share with you the response I received from Squarp regarding my request: “I totally got your idea and I think it’s a good one. We are currently closing the HapaxOs 2.0 version, so it’s too late to add it to this one. I copy/pasted your email in a ticket to review it with the team after the holiday. Thanks for your suggestion, and for its clarity :).”
So sounds like the Hapax team may be receptive to this idea in a future OS Update… fingers crossed!
+1
It’s particularly frustrating when the enumeration values don’t line up with the 8 rows in automation on hapax. so like you have to add a step to row 6, but then hold it and scroll down/up a bit to get to the right point.