Release Candidate Firmware V1.25 RC5

[Paranormal Patroler]

The Menu option is 'Auto Fill In Trigger'

I guess you change 'Auto Gate on Note'?

If the functionality is similar, shouldn't the option be called Auto Fill-In Gate to indicate that it's like the Auto Fill-In Trigger but with Gates instead? Just a suggestion.

[XORadmin]

The Menu option is 'Auto Fill In Trigger'

I guess you change 'Auto Gate on Note'?

If the functionality is similar, shouldn't the option be called Auto Fill-In Gate to indicate that it's like the Auto Fill-In Trigger but with Gates instead? Just a suggestion.

These are totally different functions.

Auto fill in Trigger does insert a trigger when entering a note.

Auto-Gate is a setting which does set the gate (or not) automatically on a playing pattern if a note is filled in. (To use it like Note On / Note Off rather than through triggers).

So the only common thing is the 'Auto' in the name

[Paranormal Patroler]

I don't get the difference other than gate vs trigger. Read your description, and read the manual a few times, but still don't get it. This is me being dumb ->

I'll try it out.

[mgd]

I think the problem is about words. As I understand it there being a difference depends on how different you think a trigger is from a gate. And yes, you can make an argument that a gate essentially is a trigger with a length depending on the note attached to it and a trigger being a gate with a fixed and usually fairly short duration. For short notes the two may actually be (almost) the same.

From a conceptual point of view they certainly are completely different in that trigger mark events and gates mark states.

Kind regards,
Michael

[XORadmin]

I think the problem is about words. As I understand it there being a difference depends on how different you think a trigger is from a gate. And yes, you can make an argument that a gate essentially is a trigger with a length depending on the note attached to it and a trigger being a gate with a fixed and usually fairly short duration. For short notes the two may actually be (almost) the same.

From a conceptual point of view they certainly are completely different in that trigger mark events and gates mark states.

Kind regards,
Michael

True. But these 2 settings do have different functions. They could both be called trigger and would still be a different function.

[Paranormal Patroler]

I think the problem is about words. [...]

I honestly hope it's not the case.

Let me start by saying that I see your point, but in the context of a modular system, and in particular a sequencer, a gate is a pulse with a large duration, whereas a trigger is a short pulse. Context and use case is important when setting definitions and UX copy (which is what we're discussing about essentially). In that sense, if 'Auto Fill-In Trigger' automatically adds short pulses when a Note is added, whereas 'Auto Gate on Note' automatically adds gates when a Note is added until the next Note is reached (with the Gate Off setting being independent) then the stages vs events dichotomy isn't really applicable or at least as important, your standard use-case is very similar (as both are mainly aimed as solutions to the necessity of having something being output from the Gate of the track to hear a note), and from a UX-copy perspective these two can be easily "grouped" together by having very similar copy. This was my suggestion earlier with the reasoning that it is less mental clutter for the user (it's easy to distinguish between Gate and Trigger, and you get that generally what these two do is add pulses automatically).

It is suggested that the function is different though. If the differentiation is between Gate and Trigger, then that is already apparent by using that particular term in the title of the function (Auto Fill-In Gate vs Auto Fill-In Trigger, or maybe we should go for Auto Gate on Note and Auto Trigger on Note ?).

My assumption is that we're missing some major difference in the functionality, but I need to check to make sure as the doc doesn't indicate something additional to what we're discussing.

[mvdirty]

I think the problem is about words.  [...]

[...]

It is suggested that the function is different though. If the differentiation is between Gate and Trigger, then that is already apparent by using that particular term in the title of the function (Auto Fill-In Gate vs Auto Fill-In Trigger, or maybe we should go for Auto Gate on Note and Auto Trigger on Note ?).

My assumption is that we're missing some major difference in the functionality, but I need to check to make sure as the doc doesn't indicate something additional to what we're discussing.

I’ve been away from sequencing for a while  but unless I am misremembering: the key naming distinction is not trigger versus gate, it is that of modifying the pattern data versus not.

Auto Fill-In Trigger adds an entry to the trigger column whenever you set a note. Literally fills it in.

Auto Gate on Note automatically outputs a gate for each note (IIRC, just for the ones without their own trigger/gate information,) during playback, without changing pattern data during editing.

Given the existing pattern of naming and behaviour, a hypothetical function Auto Trigger on Note would behave differently than Auto Fill-In Trigger, just as would something like Auto Fill-In Gate compared to Auto Gate on Note.

[vidret]

ok, but let's simplify.

With the current functions we either add a trigger to the pattern or set the gate to on (without changing the pattern).

First off)
Maybe the auto-gate should be a gate-on that fills in - that would be the same behaviour but it's a fill that we can see (imo better readability, rather than ghost-activity on the trigger/gate channel).

Secondly)
With the current functionality, if I have auto-gate and auto-trigger (just roll with the names, you know what I mean) set to ON, doesn't that mean I effectively don't have a gate on because there is a trigger there overwriting it instead?

Doesn't that mean I can't have both on? (I just tested this and it's the same as just using auto-trigger)

If so, it should just be: Nothing, auto-gate, auto-trigger (not both, because the one overwrites the other)
Unless there's something I missed, the only functionality I can see with having both on would be that you fill in a note, you get a trigger, you then delete that trigger and now there's a ghost-auto-gate-on there.

[mgd]

mvdirty very clearly (IMO) explained what is happening and I thus just reread the manual (v1.24.1). There it says exactly what he wrote. I'll try to repeat it in other words so that hopefully the remaining misunderstandings will go away.

1) Auto Fill-In Trigger (on/off)
This is essentially an editor setting/editing help function. You could also view it as a kind of macro function. It (physically) enters a trigger whenever you enter a note. That's it. No more/other functionality or effect.
2) Auto Gate on Note (on/off)
This is a playback setting. Assuming it is on: When during playback you (well, the NerdSEQ) encounter a note and there is nothing set for trigger (gate), then the NerdSEQ will generate a gate for you. When the gate is already high (e.g. from a previous GATE ON) then it will be lowered for a few millisec and then raised again.

To sum it up:
"Auto trigger" is an editing convenience function while "auto gate" is a playback function.

Hope that gets rid of the remaining misunderstandings.

Kind regards,
Michael

PS: From an UX point of view I think they are properly named. IMO "Auto Fill-In Trigger" is very much different from "Auto Trigger". Same for "Auto Gate on Note" which does not "fill-in" anything.

[XORadmin]

ok, but let's simplify.

With the current functions we either add a trigger to the pattern or set the gate to on (without changing the pattern).

First off)
Maybe the auto-gate should be a gate-on that fills in - that would be the same behaviour but it's a fill that we can see (imo better readability, rather than ghost-activity on the trigger/gate channel).

Secondly)
With the current functionality, if I have auto-gate and auto-trigger (just roll with the names, you know what I mean) set to ON, doesn't that mean I effectively don't have a gate on because there is a trigger there overwriting it instead?

Doesn't that mean I can't have both on? (I just tested this and it's the same as just using auto-trigger)

If so, it should just be: Nothing, auto-gate, auto-trigger (not both, because the one overwrites the other)
Unless there's something I missed, the only functionality I can see with having both on would be that you fill in a note, you get a trigger, you then delete that trigger and now there's a ghost-auto-gate-on there.

Just to begin with. I am not going to change it.

These are options for 2 different workflows.

The Auto-Gate option is something absolutely standard with trackers and it works basically with note on / note off. You can overrule it with either a Kill 000 or if something is filled in into the trigger column. The Kill 000 with enabled auto-gate allows to change the pitch while not re-gating or even without gating.

Then additionally there is the trigger column which is for sure a modular only thing and is usually not standard for tracker. Some people are not into the auto gate thing but rather want complete control using the trigger columns and thus create gates or triggers etc. The trigger option is just a convenience thing so also a trigger is inserted if a note is inserted. This allows for a bit faster editing since you only got to do one action instead of 2. The downside is that always a trigger is inserted with a note.

Both functions can be used together.