Lmms: Effect Value Inequality

[ghost]

Not all but some effects have much more value on one side then other making it hard to control.
Ill show example with : GLAME Butterworth Lowpass
Here is maximum :

Here is 50% :

And here is about 10% :

The difference from 100% to 50% is about 16733.
But from 50% to 10% its about 3000.
Tested this on version RC4.

[tresf]

@Texxiliator I think this is due to the plugin making incorrect use of the logarithmic flag.

https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/blob/32f07ac317b42dda42a1d00b0a3b1fa1feef0655/plugins/LadspaEffect/swh/butterworth_1902.c#L588-L589

See also https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/293.

[softrabbit]

Logarithmic is perfectly OK here. All these intervals are one octave and sound the same musically:

• 100 - 200 Hz
• 1000 - 2000 Hz
• 10000 - 20000 Hz

That doesn't mean someone might need more precise control in the upper part of the range, but I believe that'd be less common.

[musikBear]

Imo the situation often with lmms dials, are that nothing or all comes 'out' within a very short span. The issue here, is that f.i. a filter pass can be quite difficult to automate. perhaps a 1.2.x could introduce something like an 'expander' in dials context menu, making the 'functional' span fit better inside the full span of the dial.

[PhysSong]

Well, there are "Set linear"/"Set logarithmic" in context menus. If you don't like log scale, you may set that to linear.

perhaps a 1.2.x could introduce something like an 'expander' in dials context menu

<off-topic>
You might know, but 1.2 is on a feature freeze. New features are targeted to master branch.
If we do something known as "rolling release", however, you may use new features before 1.3 rc.
</off-topic>

[zonkmachine]

Logarithmic response is what I'd expect to find on a filter cutoff control. In the example given has the correct control in my opinion.

PS. The resonance control on the filter above seem to be inverted.

[BaraMGB]

Can this one to be closed? I can't see a bug here.

[DomClark]

Not sure if this was what was meant originally, but whilst the scale on the dial is logarithmic, as makes sense for frequency, the mouse control isn't. Both the scroll wheel and dragging on the dial change the value by the same absolute amount no matter where the dial currently is, with the effect that it moves a lot faster for lower values as the logarithm increases more quickly there.

[Spekular]

+1 on that, since a while back some knobs have very coarse control at low
values.

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018, 15:03 Dominic Clark [e-mail] wrote:

Not sure if this was what was meant originally, but whilst the scale on
the dial is logarithmic, as makes sense for frequency, the mouse control
isn't. Both the scroll wheel and dragging on the dial change the value by
the same absolute amount no matter where the dial currently is, with the
effect that it moves a lot faster for lower values as the logarithm
increases more quickly there.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/3871#issuecomment-371495234, or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIgVmv8WviJvH_OxfCgpjxyq9YScrwvEks5tcToqgaJpZM4P0PHS
.

[zonkmachine]

OK. We can look a bit closer at this. Reopening.