Yeah I really like the idea of a flexible matrix also. A setting for one tap next part in the sequence during playback would be super useful.
Thanks man! It works! 
1 Like
for this one !
I think it would deserve a whole feature request of its own as its a bit aside the core topic of this one. Definitely a good idea which could be expanded and triggers multiple ideas of improvements in the song navigation subject…
Let’s consider 3 =< X =< 6:
- 2x2 matrix managed as it is today
- 2xX matrix managed like the 2x2 for the multipart, and like the 6x6 for the tracks
- Xx2 matrix managed like the 6x6 for the multipart, and like the 2x2 for the tracks
- 3xX matrix managed sequential next part for the multipart, and like the 6x6 for the tracks
- Xx3 matrix managed like the 6x6 for the multipart, and with sequential next track for the tracks
- beyond like 6x6 by default with possibility to override behavior with one of the other above…
So cool!
5 Likes
At the moment my 6x6 experiments restrain my eyes on the Aeros. Navigating involves continues selection of NEXT part/track. On top of that it is very easy to accidentally create a part I don’t need while it is impossible to get rid of it afterwards.
To improve navigation,
1.- Next part should be by default selected. I should need to take actions (select another part) only when I want to interrupt serial operation. Otherwise Aeros should just follow BeatBuddy, switching from part to part serially, like it does in 2x2, without having to press any extra buttons. For this to happen the only thing you need to change is having the next part selected by default.
2.- If we can set the maximum number of parts when creating a 6x6 song, we would need no extra actions when reaching the end of a song. So like in 2x2 mode when reaching the last part Aeros would chose the first part by default. Accidental generation of song parts would never happen. No extra button presses at the end of a song.
A generalisation of my second suggestion would be to allow songs with a subset of 6x6 . I have songs I treat like 2x4 for example (2 tracks, 4 parts) or 3x5 or even 1x6. If we could chose the song matrix dimensions when making a new song, we would have two concerns less while performing.
I think the above improvements would enhance the 6x6 mode with the current midi implementation. When the long awaited extended midi implementation comes, it would allow the needed exceptions in this serial flow by using an external midi controller.
18 Likes
I think the idea of number of tracks o 6 x 6 would be a great idea. Often, with my soundscapes, I tend to use 3 or 4, so to have the option to limit it to that would save some unnecessary clicking.
1 Like
Agree.
+1
Bonus points for using more of the screen for the number of tracks chosen (e.g, the tracks are taller).
Super bonus points for making the above work in 6x6 mode using the current number of “active” tracks. That is, you start if with one track displayed, that expands to two when you record another track, three when you add another one…
6 Likes
+1 to this!
1 Like
Oooh, I really like that idea.
1 Like
I already liked your proposal when you initially did it in another topic, so obviously I still agree…
It may be possible to set the number of parts but that is not currently a priority. We have talked about the possibility.
We have also toyed with this idea but it will be massively complicated to implement, so bear with us on that possibility. It is not currently a priority, the auto-record function would make 6x6 a less tap dancey on its own.
To my point of this is not a light issue, and is really a polish not a priority.
I agree - but as this is not a priority with Singular now - when and if they get to it (hope they do) I’d prioritize choosing # of Parts over # of Tracks. For myself, i typically know how many Parts my song is but as an improviser, a new track idea can appear anytime so the ability to add tracks & not be limited to a set number would be important to keep.
1 Like
Brennan next part default will be a great improvement, thank you. I sincerely hope that Max no of Parts will not need a lot of coding too, so that it can slip into your plans. I hope that it is clear now that only with both these changes in place, the 2x2 and 6x6 modes will work exactly the same (in their sequential use).
meadowbrook I agree on your prioritisation, that’s why in my proposal I first ask for choosing/fixing the no of parts (now) and only later I introduce the concept of song matrix as a generalisation (future).
1 Like
Noted!
1 Like
I’ve given more attention to 6x6 mode lately.
Super +1 for this!
That is exactly what I need!
2x4 or 3x4 with auto next part following with BB
1 Like
We can see the point of something like this but we do see it as an advanced feature seeing as 6x6 can be used to achieve all of this and that will be streamlined with the in progress MIDI update.
Thank you all for your feedback!
6x6 by itself will not achieve this, right?
‘Next part selected’ needs only one initialisation statement like ‘C=1;’ instead of ‘C=0;’ in the code, so programming time would be like 1 minute. Max number of parts seems similarly changing a constant to a variable. It looks like political reasons push this implementation to the far future not technical difficulties.
Here is what I think: Big companies like Roland can afford to mutilate some of their products in order to protect the more expensive ones, but smaller companies can not afford to hold back strong sides of their products for too long.
1 Like