Possible Envelope Bug

[Tuttle]

Not sure this is a bug (maybe i'm just misunderstanding how it works) because the behaviour goes back to when envelopes where first implemented.

If you set the trigger source of an envelope to 'ENV1..8 Start' and trigger the source envelope again before its decay phase has completed the second envelope doesn't trigger.

[mgd]

Not sure this is a bug (maybe i'm just misunderstanding how it works) because the behaviour goes back to when envelopes where first implemented.

If you set the trigger source of an envelope to 'ENV1..8 Start' and trigger the source envelope again before its decay phase has completed the second envelope doesn't trigger.

Not sure if that explains things, but when you restart an (analog) envelope it does "start" from where it is just then. AFAICT the NerdSEQ is replicating this behaviour.

Kind regards,
Michael

[Tuttle]

Not sure if that explains things, but when you restart an (analog) envelope it does "start" from where it is just then. AFAICT the NerdSEQ is replicating this behaviour.

Kind regards,
Michael

When you re-trigger the NerdSeq envelopes it doesn't matter where you are in the cycle it always appears to start from the beginning of the attack phase. But this isn't the issue. The problem is when you use 'ENV1..8 Start' as the source for a second envelope. It works fine as long as you don't re-trigger the source envelope before it's full cycle. If you do a trigger command is not sent to the second envelope. I'm assuming this is how the command works.

[mgd]

Not sure if that explains things, but when you restart an (analog) envelope it does "start" from where it is just then. AFAICT the NerdSEQ is replicating this behaviour.

Kind regards,
Michael

When you re-trigger the NerdSeq envelopes it doesn't matter where you are in the cycle it always appears to start from the beginning of the attack phase. But this isn't the issue. The problem is when you use 'ENV1..8 Start' as the source for a second envelope. It works fine as long as you don't re-trigger the source envelope before it's full cycle. If you do a trigger command is not sent to the second envelope. I'm assuming this is how the command works.

Not sure about the main module. On the CV16 there was a firmware update (V1.2 IIRC) that did fix this problem.

[Tuttle]

Not sure about the main module. On the CV16 there was a firmware update (V1.2 IIRC) that did fix this problem.

This was a fix for a specific problem with re-triggered envelopes on the CV16. On the main module envelopes trigger perfectly every time. This issue relates to the 'ENV1..8 Start' command not triggering a second envelope in certain circumstances.

[XORadmin]

Not sure about the main module. On the CV16 there was a firmware update (V1.2 IIRC) that did fix this problem.

This was a fix for a specific problem with re-triggered envelopes on the CV16. On the main module envelopes trigger perfectly every time. This issue relates to the 'ENV1..8 Start' command not triggering a second envelope in certain circumstances.

I understand. I got to get to the test bench and check this behaviour. Of course it should follow the retrigger. I assume I only check for a complete new start here which is not entirely correct then.

[XORadmin]

Not sure about the main module. On the CV16 there was a firmware update (V1.2 IIRC) that did fix this problem.

This was a fix for a specific problem with re-triggered envelopes on the CV16. On the main module envelopes trigger perfectly every time. This issue relates to the 'ENV1..8 Start' command not triggering a second envelope in certain circumstances.

I understand. I got to get to the test bench and check this behaviour. Of course it should follow the retrigger. I assume I only check for a complete new start here which is not entirely correct then.

I did a little test and what is actually happening is that the follower envelopes look at the gates and in fact the gates stay on until the release phase kicks in. Of course I can change that behaviour but it is a bit too complex with possible side effects for now so I wil not make it for the upcoming release. Maybe you could use the same source for it which should create the same result in the most cases.