Sender JS... need help to modify inputs & outputs

[timbralzoom]

Hi,
i was trying to modify the sender JS for more than 4 outputs at first..
i think i did it..it works.
(no idea if i broke any performance thingy..just multiplied the codes via trial error)
now i want to do a version like in the picture..
anyone voluntary to make this happen? (actually make my day )
i would be grateful really!

just in case .. i am attaching my modified version also.

Thanks in advance.

[ashcat_lt]

Well, you'll need to make more sliders and then basically copy all of the code that many times. Or much better use functions. It's not really that difficult, but you'll need to be a bit careful. If nobody else comes along, I might give it a shot in a while.

I can say right off the bat that everything in the @slider section of what you posted is weird.

All that conditional stuff trying to force slider2 to an integer could really be replaced with "slider2 = floor(slider2)", though I'm not sure why you need it for a dropdown...

The gain = 16^(slider3/20) will get you a gain factor, but it's not right for converting from db. Change the 16 to a 10.

[timbralzoom]

that was a nice start Thank you!
i will try to change what i understand from your reply
but all the honest i know nothing about JS coding.

if make sense
this is the actual setup i was trying to accomplish:



EDIT:
and if works as i expect (just worrying about the cpu usage)
..23 instances will be a part of this setup as an extensive Fx Send Matrix

(middle part.. under the mockup title)

[lb0]

Originally Posted by timbralzoom

that was a nice start Thank you!
i will try to change what i understand from your reply
but all the honest i know nothing about JS coding.

if make sense
this is the actual setup i was trying to accomplish:



EDIT:
and if works as i expect (just worrying about the cpu usage)
..23 instances will be a part of this setup as an extensive Fx Send Matrix

(middle part.. under the mockup title)

Here's my take on it. I've added Ashcat's suggestion to the gain here - I don't have much idea of these things - so thank you.

Thought I'd post it here rather than direct so it might get scrutinized - as I only really dabble with really simple JSFX stuff (as you know).

[timbralzoom]

Originally Posted by lb0

Here's my take on it. I've added Ashcat's suggestion to the gain here - I don't have much idea of these things - so thank you.

Thought I'd post it here rather than direct so it might get scrutinized - as I only really dabble with really simple JSFX stuff (as you know).

i couldn't get it to work ..i believe did it routing correctly..
here is the test i just record

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9...C1KeHA5a2ZJY2s

weird part is if i "inf" the wet/dry parameter, signals pass through to channels
(see the routing window)
but if i Bypass it, nothing pass as expected.

[ashcat_lt]

Originally Posted by timbralzoom

i couldn't get it to work ..i believe did it routing correctly..
here is the test i just record

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9...C1KeHA5a2ZJY2s

weird part is if i "inf" the wet/dry parameter, signals pass through to channels
(see the routing window)
but if i Bypass it, nothing pass as expected.

I can't see your video there, but if you' s set up the thing lb0 posted the same way you had the other thing, I can tell you why it's not working:

lb0's thing is already shifting all of the outputs. That is, it starts putting out on 19, so you shouldn't have to do as much with the output side of the plugin pin connectors. I think it probably should be changed actually pass the original input channels through to the matching outputs, but for now you just want uncheck those altogether and leave the higher "Send" channels matched 19>19 rather than 3>19.

Hope that makes sense.

[timbralzoom]

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

I can't see your video there, but if you' s set up the thing lb0 posted the same way you had the other thing, I can tell you why it's not working:

lb0's thing is already shifting all of the outputs. That is, it starts putting out on 19, so you shouldn't have to do as much with the output side of the plugin pin connectors. I think it probably should be changed actually pass the original input channels through to the matching outputs, but for now you just want uncheck those altogether and leave the higher "Send" channels matched 19>19 rather than 3>19.

Hope that makes sense.

ah! yes absolutely!
i was trying with the same routing matrix in the picture above!
resetting matrix to all ins to all outs ..did the job done.
...
also now i understand why lb0 shifted the outputs.. seems i miss leaded with the pictures.
i think i am gonna try to shift outputs back.. with my ancient trial error way
Thank you so much ashcat_lt !
PS. no thanks to the lb0.. for now

[lb0]

Originally Posted by timbralzoom

ah! yes absolutely!
i was trying with the same routing matrix in the picture above!
resetting matrix to all ins to all outs ..did the job done.
...
also now i understand why lb0 shifted the outputs.. seems i miss leaded with the pictures.
i think i am gonna try to shift outputs back.. with my ancient trial error way
Thank you so much ashcat_lt !
PS. no thanks to the lb0.. for now

haven't had a chance to check your video - but I thought you wanted the dry passed through too - hence why having to shift all the channels up... sounds like maybe not?

anyway - it's early - i've been up all night with a 1 year old who won't sleep! :| - if i can work out what needs changing will do it a bit later

Ok - misread your intentions. I thought the output on off was to also mute input. also if output off - the n send off.

easy to fix.

[timbralzoom]

Originally Posted by lb0

haven't had a chance to check your video - but I thought you wanted the dry passed through too - hence why having to shift all the channels up... sounds like maybe not?

anyway - it's early - i've been up all night with a 1 year old who won't sleep! :| - if i can work out what needs changing will do it a bit later

Ok - misread your intentions. I thought the output on off was to also mute input. also if output off - the n send off.

easy to fix.

Sorry to hear that! i wish nothing serious?

just never mind for now..take a good rest first!


EDIT:
PS.
created a test project (for one uTonic yet)
& i left 30 Snapshots to morph "64 & >> N" settings Stripper plays BG music
and i am trying to rename the sliders as i want.. then will try more crazy stuff

[lb0]

This one still allows bypass of input channels - but should still activate sends on those channels if required.

This makes more sense...

[lb0]

Originally Posted by timbralzoom

Sorry to hear that! i wish nothing serious?

just never mind for now..take a good rest first!

gotta go to work in a minute anyway

nothing serious - not even ill - just won't sleeeeeeeeeeeep!!

Post above should do nearer to what you want - just had to move 8 lines of code to the end

hang-on - still not as per your initial image... but should still work ok. you want the send outputs to 3/4 5/6 etc?

is that to mix in with the input channel 3/4 5/6 etc. or simply to replace the input channel - and then that send can be mutes via the on/off buttons...

it is a little confusing from your initial graphic...

[timbralzoom]

Originally Posted by lb0

gotta go to work in a minute anyway

nothing serious - not even ill - just won't sleeeeeeeeeeeep!!

Post above should do nearer to what you want - just had to move 8 lines of code to the end

OK good to hear that! ..Don't complain! its called parenthood (i guess )
will try.. Thank you and good luck with the work!

EDIT:
Nothing urgent,
we can look at when you are free..
Thank you so0Oo much!

[lb0]

Originally Posted by timbralzoom

OK good to hear that! ..Don't complain! its called parenthood (i guess )
will try.. Thank you and good luck with the work!

can you check my edit message above?

[timbralzoom]

Originally Posted by lb0

can you check my edit message above?

...well then:
i created that "confusing" routing matrix because i thought inputs and outputs must be different...
if this new scenario work i believe would much more easy to use for anyone..

(still worrying about making more confusing ..but here it is anyway)

new scenario:

just 16 inputs / 16 outputs

9 Send states "8 for actual sends" & "1 for Bypass" as like now...
but Bypass will work internally so we do not need any extra channels for it..
(i have no idea if the Bypass already work like this currently)

in this scenario input channels can be muted / replaced directly in code or
by slider like in the original sender.


and a Q.

i replaced last 3 in the first one

slider1 == 0 ? spl0=spl1=0;
slider4 == 0 ? spl2=spl3=0;
slider7 == 0 ? spl4=spl5=0;
slider10 == 0 ? spl6=spl7=0;
slider13 == 0 ? spl8=spl9=0;
slider17 == 0 ? spl10=spl11=0;
slider20 == 0 ? spl12=spl13=0;
slider23 == 0 ? spl14=spl15=0;

to

slider1 == 0 ? spl0=spl1=0;
slider4 == 0 ? spl2=spl3=0;
slider7 == 0 ? spl4=spl5=0;
slider10 == 0 ? spl6=spl7=0;
slider13 == 0 ? spl8=spl9=0;
slider16 == 0 ? spl10=spl11=0;
slider19 == 0 ? spl12=spl13=0;
slider22 == 0 ? spl14=spl15=0;

did i wrong?

[lb0]

Originally Posted by timbralzoom

...well then:
i created that "confusing" routing matrix because i thought inputs and outputs must be different...
if this new scenario work i believe would much more easy to use for anyone..

(still worrying about making more confusing ..but here it is anyway)

new scenario:

just 16 inputs / 16 outputs

9 Send states "8 for actual sends" & "1 for Bypass" as like now...
but Bypass will work internally so we do not need any extra channels for it..
(i have no idea if the Bypass already work like this currently)

in this scenario input channels can be muted / replaced directly in code or
by slider like in the original sender.

aaah - goalpost changed again.

this one's really close - just move the out assignments up so out 2/3 becomes 0/1 etc.

then pay attention to the spl assignments towards the bottom before the mute bit (very bottom).

I will fix later on if required.

[timbralzoom]

Originally Posted by lb0

aaah - goalpost changed again.

this one's really close - just move the out assignments up so out 2/3 becomes 0/1 etc.

then pay attention to the spl assignments towards the bottom before the mute bit (very bottom).

I will fix later on if required.

will test both & report later..
Thank you!

[lb0]

Originally Posted by timbralzoom

.

Hopefully this is what you're after (fingers crossed) fixed dropdown labels too.

Let me know

[timbralzoom]

Originally Posted by lb0

Hopefully this is what you're after (fingers crossed) fixed dropdown labels too.

Let me know

i will, but not now!
you did already too much after sleepless night.

Thank you so much again and again and...!

[lb0]

Originally Posted by timbralzoom

i will, but not now!
you did already too much after sleepless night.

Thank you so much again and again and...!

Here's the pretty code version (but might not be quite as efficient - but we're probably talking not noticeable).

[timbralzoom]

i saved them in order ..the version that before the above one was working great!
i edited names and hide the Output sliders..
they needs to be always on in this case which is default already..
so no need them on the GUI ...well, actually nothing needed on the GUI

here it is: "LBX-SenderMLIOv4.txt" in attachments!

(will test last one in a minute)

EDIT:
oh my god! there is nothing left that i can touch & break


EDIT2:

we should stick with the v4 .. pretty coded v5 is:



i loved fuzzy coding!

[lb0]

Originally Posted by timbralzoom

i saved them in order ..the version that before the above one was working great!
i edited names and hide the Output sliders..
they needs to be always on in this case which is default already..
so no need them on the GUI ...well, actually nothing needed on the GUI

here it is!

(will test last one in a minute)

EDIT:
oh my god! there is nothing left that i can touch & break

Yeah - makes it far less readable and editable - but pretty neat.

You can just copy the top bits of your edits - down to the @init section - into the new one - should work ok.

EDIT: I should just reiterate that the long form of the code is probably very slightly more CPU efficient as there is less maths going on and fewer indirect indexing into the variables.

[timbralzoom]

didn't test them with the sound but
comparing 23 instances of fuzzy(v4) vs pretty(v5) coded
definitely fuzzy won the battle! (picture in the above post) ..now time to merge it to UGG

[lb0]

Originally Posted by timbralzoom

didn't test them with the sound but
comparing 23 instances of fuzzy(v4) vs pretty(v5) coded
definitely fuzzy won the battle! (picture in the above post) ..now time to merge it to UGG

Wow - didn't expect that much of a difference. Definitely the long form one then.

Looking foward to new version of UGG

[timbralzoom]

Originally Posted by lb0

Wow - didn't expect that much of a difference. Definitely the long form one then.

Looking foward to new version of UGG

very soon..
need sleep first and then
have to work for a carton series (sound fxes and full mixing - voice music fx)
theeen time to go crazy

[lb0]

Originally Posted by timbralzoom

very soon..
need sleep first and then
have to work for a carton series (sound fxes and full mixing - voice music fx)
theeen time to go crazy

looking good.

Here's an even more efficient version (under certain circumstances).

You could also remove the final 8 lines of code if you are never going to bypass the send (as you've hidden the sliders).

[timbralzoom]

Originally Posted by lb0

looking good.

Here's an even more efficient version (under certain circumstances).

You could also remove the final 8 lines of code if you are never going to bypass the send (as you've hidden the sliders).

officially v4.1
seems 23x v4.1 uses %1 less cpu than the 23x v4 ...
as said in early 80's Everything Counts! ..plays in bg now
will test them also in UGG to see how performance with full project.. Thank you again!



i deleted this last 8 lines did i get it right?

_______________________________
slider1 == 0 ? spl0=spl1=0;
slider4 == 0 ? spl2=spl3=0;
slider7 == 0 ? spl4=spl5=0;
slider10 == 0 ? spl6=spl7=0;
slider13 == 0 ? spl8=spl9=0;
slider16 == 0 ? spl10=spl11=0;
slider19 == 0 ? spl12=spl13=0;
slider22 == 0 ? spl14=spl15=0;
________________________________

[lb0]

Originally Posted by timbralzoom

officially v4.1
seems 23x v4.1 uses %1 less cpu than the 23x v4 ...
as said in early 80's Everything Counts! ..plays in bg now
will test them also in UGG to see how performance with full project.. Thank you again!



i deleted this last 8 lines did i get it right?

_______________________________
slider1 == 0 ? spl0=spl1=0;
slider4 == 0 ? spl2=spl3=0;
slider7 == 0 ? spl4=spl5=0;
slider10 == 0 ? spl6=spl7=0;
slider13 == 0 ? spl8=spl9=0;
slider16 == 0 ? spl10=spl11=0;
slider19 == 0 ? spl12=spl13=0;
slider22 == 0 ? spl14=spl15=0;
________________________________

yep - if you're never changing the on/off - you don't need those lines of code - which basically mute the audio streams.

Ah - Depeche Mode! - Love their earlier stuff up to and including Violator (one of my fav albums! - been listening to it lots recently)

[timbralzoom]

Originally Posted by lb0

yep - if you're never changing the on/off - you don't need those lines of code - which basically mute the audio streams.

Ah - Depeche Mode! - Love their earlier stuff up to and including Violator (one of my fav albums! - been listening to it lots recently)

great! all done in coding then.
...
+1 for red rose..
i was discover the m.f.m. later & also love it too!
anyway..

you made my day again ..me happy! me Thanks so much!

v4.1 attached!

[ashcat_lt]

Originally Posted by timbralzoom

i deleted this last 8 lines did i get it right?

_______________________________
slider1 == 0 ? spl0=spl1=0;
slider4 == 0 ? spl2=spl3=0;
slider7 == 0 ? spl4=spl5=0;
slider10 == 0 ? spl6=spl7=0;
slider13 == 0 ? spl8=spl9=0;
slider16 == 0 ? spl10=spl11=0;
slider19 == 0 ? spl12=spl13=0;
slider22 == 0 ? spl14=spl15=0;
________________________________

Thats not the best way to do this part anyway. I think much better would be to include these sliders in the gain calculations in the @slider section. You're already multiplying anything going out by gain anyway, right? If gain = 0....

[lb0]

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

Thats not the best way to do this part anyway. I think much better would be to include these sliders in the gain calculations in the @slider section. You're already multiplying anything going out by gain anyway, right? If gain = 0....

very good point - have to be very careful what code goes in the @sample section as each line of code gets run [samplerate] number of times per second.

pretty new to JSFX - only really dabbling to help where I can.

[timbralzoom]

since they removed no problem anymore (i guess)

Here is the final versions
4.1 final (8 in 8 out) & 4.1_(16send) (8 in & 16 out)