Hello all, Why is it that when i slice more than 16 slices 17 and on populate pads which can only be used in 64 pad mode and not populate the next bank?
This is the most logical behavior.
Why have a 16 pad mode then??
Or am i slicing wrong??
When you slice to pads in a bank, you're only dealing with one bank. If you have more than 16 slices, or if you choose to start slicing to pads beyond 16, or whatever, those slices go to pads 17+ in that bank. When you go to 64 pad mode, you're effectively just using smaller pads, and thus fitting more on the screen. Each bank has 128 pads, and you use the page buttons to go up. If you actually want to send the rest of the slices to a different bank, you could do a number of workarounds to copy the pads, or just load the sample into another bank and slice the next stretch of that long sample to that bank.
This might make a good feature request though. It remains to be seen what goodies are waiting for us in 3.1, such as perhaps a much more robust select/copy/paste feature that would allow you to select pads 17-32 and copy them into another bank's pads 1-16 (this has been requested and I'm sure it'll be added soon enough). That might be just enough to accomplish what you might be wanting to do. Otherwise, a feature request to send so many slices to the current bank and then so many slices to another bank, so you can populate multiple banks in one go of slice to pads, might be reasonable?
Thanks roni...I know what happens with the slices...I just think that when i work in 16 pad mode the banks should be restricted to 16 slices with all subsequent slices populating the next banks....Basically one is being forced to work in 64 pad mode if 17 slices are present....Illogical imo..🙂
The quickest way to do this is create a Raw files bank, load the sample in to a bank, slice it to 4 or 8 sections, now copy a single slice (pad) to the next bank to slice it to 16 etc, repeat with each RAW slice.
It is also worth keeping the Raw slices so that you can trigger them as loops too.
But as @ronji said, a great FR is slice to multiple banks
As far as I know it's not possible to view two banks at once so throwing >16 samples to a new bank solves nothing?! It's easy enough to swap pages on one bank if it contains more slices.
@Paint you can restrict yourself by working around the current functionality pretty well, or using @5pinlink's suggestion of preparing your long samples ahead of time, but I don't see a problem with having a bank with over 16 pads filled and using the 16 pad mode. Using the page buttons to go up and down is pretty easy, and you can also program/edit patterns using all of these pads in a single bank. Like in my video, I don't think it's really completely necessary to have two banks for all the vocal chops I made from the same source, unless I'm going to use the second part of the vocal in a different way, using different bank effects or parameters. You're also going to use more resources with an additional bank, when it could all live in one bank.
I can see where you're coming from, and a feature request to enhance the functionality makes sense, but to restrict slice to pads to remove functionality that I know I use and probably others as well would not be the best solution, in my opinion.
There is a valid reason for wanting this, you may want the extra parts to have their own track, so they have their own pattern in the arranger and can be moved separately.
@ronji..I dont think it would restrict the slice to pad function...I think it would simply ba a true 16 pad mode. As it is now it's a hard 64 pad mode with the option to show 16 or 64 pads..
This is how BM2 handles longer slices & im used to it.
But to each his own..🙂👍🏾
Comments
When you slice to pads in a bank, you're only dealing with one bank. If you have more than 16 slices, or if you choose to start slicing to pads beyond 16, or whatever, those slices go to pads 17+ in that bank. When you go to 64 pad mode, you're effectively just using smaller pads, and thus fitting more on the screen. Each bank has 128 pads, and you use the page buttons to go up. If you actually want to send the rest of the slices to a different bank, you could do a number of workarounds to copy the pads, or just load the sample into another bank and slice the next stretch of that long sample to that bank.
This might make a good feature request though. It remains to be seen what goodies are waiting for us in 3.1, such as perhaps a much more robust select/copy/paste feature that would allow you to select pads 17-32 and copy them into another bank's pads 1-16 (this has been requested and I'm sure it'll be added soon enough). That might be just enough to accomplish what you might be wanting to do. Otherwise, a feature request to send so many slices to the current bank and then so many slices to another bank, so you can populate multiple banks in one go of slice to pads, might be reasonable?
Here's a quick video illustrating what happens when you slice to pads with more than 16 slices.
Thanks roni...I know what happens with the slices...I just think that when i work in 16 pad mode the banks should be restricted to 16 slices with all subsequent slices populating the next banks....Basically one is being forced to work in 64 pad mode if 17 slices are present....Illogical imo..🙂
The quickest way to do this is create a Raw files bank, load the sample in to a bank, slice it to 4 or 8 sections, now copy a single slice (pad) to the next bank to slice it to 16 etc, repeat with each RAW slice.
It is also worth keeping the Raw slices so that you can trigger them as loops too.
But as @ronji said, a great FR is slice to multiple banks
I fail to see the problem/issue here?!
As far as I know it's not possible to view two banks at once so throwing >16 samples to a new bank solves nothing?! It's easy enough to swap pages on one bank if it contains more slices.
@Paint you can restrict yourself by working around the current functionality pretty well, or using @5pinlink's suggestion of preparing your long samples ahead of time, but I don't see a problem with having a bank with over 16 pads filled and using the 16 pad mode. Using the page buttons to go up and down is pretty easy, and you can also program/edit patterns using all of these pads in a single bank. Like in my video, I don't think it's really completely necessary to have two banks for all the vocal chops I made from the same source, unless I'm going to use the second part of the vocal in a different way, using different bank effects or parameters. You're also going to use more resources with an additional bank, when it could all live in one bank.
I can see where you're coming from, and a feature request to enhance the functionality makes sense, but to restrict slice to pads to remove functionality that I know I use and probably others as well would not be the best solution, in my opinion.
There is a valid reason for wanting this, you may want the extra parts to have their own track, so they have their own pattern in the arranger and can be moved separately.
@ronji..I dont think it would restrict the slice to pad function...I think it would simply ba a true 16 pad mode. As it is now it's a hard 64 pad mode with the option to show 16 or 64 pads..
This is how BM2 handles longer slices & im used to it.
But to each his own..🙂👍🏾