Using the Inspector-based MIDI Track Arpeggiator

[user 905133]

I would like to be able to use CC64 via a momentary contact foot pedal to latch and unlatch the track arpeggiator. Ideally, it would be nice to function as an on/off toggle.

Using the accepted Remote Control method, the foot pedal changes the state of the button, but not the underlying functionality (latch on/latch off).  As a result, the button status and the latch function get out of sync.

Also, I would like to use MIDI to control other arp functions.

How can I do this?

Edited January 3, 2020 by User 905133

[David Baay]

1 hour ago, User 905133 said:

Using the accepted Remote Control method, the foot pedal changes the state of the button, but not the underlying functionality (latch on/latch off).  As a result, the button status and the latch function get out of sync.

Sounds familiar. I believe this has been a problem with some other remote control functions in the past; will likely need to be fixed by the Bakers. Could be an issue with  pedal sending two messages when depressed and released. You might try remote controlling it with just Note ON or Note ON/OFF to see if one of those works as expected. 

[user 905133]

1 hour ago, David Baay said:

Sounds familiar. I believe this has been a problem with some other remote control functions in the past; will likely need to be fixed by the Bakers. Could be an issue with  pedal sending two messages when depressed and released. You might try remote controlling it with just Note ON or Note ON/OFF to see if one of those works as expected. 

Thanks for the feedback. I already started subtracting tracks to make a minimal project and can use that to write up steps to consistently reproduce the issue with remote control.

Just as an FYI, pedal down causes virtual buttons to light, pedal up  causes virtual buttons to dim.  The actual functions do not change.  Same issue with knob/slider data (0-63 = off, 64-127 = on).   I will try note and other data, though.  Remote control button state + functionality does work properly with track echo to soft synth, though.

ADDENDUM: Based on your comments, I have looked up "remote control" in the previous forum.  I will need to spend more time there, check to see if those older issues currently exist, look for workarounds that might work, etc.  The two-state, flip-flop toggle might be considered a feature request as opposed to an issue. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of previous discussions related to remote control.

Edited January 3, 2020 by User 905133
to say thanks for pointing me in the direction of the previous forum

[user 905133]

Note to self: See this as being possibly related.

UPDATE [2020-06-27] related to the thread referenced:

(1) The interception of midi data as explained by @msmcleod for a different problem (re: pedal CC data) appears to be unrelated to the problem in this thread (re: remote control of the Inspector-based Arpeggiator). So the solution for that problem doesn't help here.

(2) However, a generalized observation made then seems to be related--specifically, the "usual" behavior of remote control midi seems to be either unintentionally or quasi-intentionally intercepted via automation/automation lanes. [This was suggested in a thread related to an issue a user had with automation, though IIRC it was removed because it was off-topic to the original problem.]

On 1/25/2020 at 7:54 PM, User 905133 said:

Thank you for the reply!! For me, your issue seems to be related to the kind of issue I have seen--namely, that in some very definite instances, midi data does not seem to be going where it is supposed to go (and therefore doesn't do what it is supposed to do).

Coupled with the fact that Mark's suggestion points to a way that midi data can be intentionally intercepted from going where it normally goes, it seems to me possible that something in the software could also be intercepting midi data unintentionally** so that it doesn't do go where it should (and therefore doesn't do what its supposed to do).

**or quasi-intentionally, that is intended for some functionality, and coincidentally preventing it from going to other functionality

[emphasis added]

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by User 905133
to add an update to this specific post based on more recent information

[user 905133]

FOOTNOTES (probably Notes to self, unless someone else has been down this road before and/or is interested): 

1. Based on some personal explorations and several forum discussions over the past 6 months (esp. the last few days), I have begun exploring the midi data flow surrounding this issue, particularly as concerns the flow from external controllers via (1) track settings and controls (a) to the Inspector-based arpeggiator and (b) to a software synth (just because it is more handy than having to boot external sound modules) and (2) remote control midi  [aka midi learn] (a) to the Inspector-based arpeggiator's virtual buttons and selectors but not (b) to the arpeggiator's functions themselves. (See also note 3.)
2. So far I have ruled out some possibilities to explain the behavioral differences of the arpeggiator's handling of midi data.    
3. As of this morning, I have a new lead. Based on one test so far (more to follow) it seems that because the arpeggiator exposes its parameters to automation lanes, remote control of the arpeggiator's functionality must use automation lanes.
4. So, for the moment this question is still open (unsolved) but I am actively engaged in answering it (See original question.)
5. Based on more tests, (3) seems to be confirmed when (a) a specific Inspector-based Arpreggiator's parameter has been recorded [W = Write/Record external midi data/CCs.] and (b) it is played back [R = Read/play back recorded external midi data/CCs from the automation lane to the Inspector-based Arpreggiator].
6. Real-time monitoring of the affect of remote control midi might not be possible for all parameters.  That is, it might require recording [automation lane = W] and playback [automation lane = R].  

Edited June 26, 2020 by User 905133
to add notes 5 and 6 based on further explorations

[Astraios]

On 6/26/2020 at 5:34 PM, User 905133 said:

FOOTNOTES (probably Notes to self, unless someone else has been down this road before and/or is interested): 

Think what you want, but from my own view something like that only appears in a sad, ignorant forum... Because - it's a real issue (bug) and nobody cares about... 😇🤪🙃

Edited September 21 by Astraios