Ok all this z-plane this and z-plane that seems to be one of the main selling features for EMU, but I can't seem to see the point in it.
So you set up what is, in effect, two separate unrelated filters like a pass and eq or something, and then another parameter, the 'morph' controls the sorta cross-fade between them??
I can't seem to control this morph amount anywhere other than the main filter setup screen, which makes it pretty turd.
Am I missing the point of this whole thing which may revolutionise my use of the filters....? As usual the manual is totally worthless in this respect.
Thanks.
emusonacid! legacy
read-only snapshot at Apr 2014, see FAQ for details
to search emusonacid
use web search engine
use web search engine
Morph - is there a point?
13 posts • Page 1 of 1
by sampleandhold » Sun Sep 21, 2003 5:39 pm
what os are you using? if you are using anything under 4.7 i think. you don't have real time control over the q. and i beleive that the morph on that particular filter is equivalant to the q on say a low pass filter. i could be wrong however. one way to test it out is to set up two cords. one controling filter freq and then one controling filtres, and program a simple progression. i would do probably a bunch of repeating 8th notes. from there try to tweak the filters. if it doesn't work right off the bat then try adjusting the percentage of the cord the other.
i could be wrong on the more complicated filter. it is hard to know what attribute is actualy being tweaked when you have a controller hooked up to it. i know there are other people on here that have more updated eos's and play around with the filters alot more then i do, and probably have a clearer understand as to what is being controled.
i could be wrong on the more complicated filter. it is hard to know what attribute is actualy being tweaked when you have a controller hooked up to it. i know there are other people on here that have more updated eos's and play around with the filters alot more then i do, and probably have a clearer understand as to what is being controled.
"{jU$t-n3Rv0U$-N-+h3-@Ll3y-W@y}"
- sampleandhold
- Posts: 581
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 4:38 am
by MindMech » Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:14 pm
Hahaha, the documentation on the Z-Planes absolutely sucks (as does about half of the entire manual...) Ask questions on here... SOMEONE is bound to know the answer 
Speaking of which, ezman, maybe we need a FAQ page just like DOA?
Speaking of which, ezman, maybe we need a FAQ page just like DOA?
- MindMech
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 3:52 am
- Location: Somerville, MA
by scsi bob » Mon Sep 22, 2003 11:41 am
Yeah thanks for that information. I don't know how they could produce such a massive manual that actually contained no information whatsoever beyond the most basic of sampling and presetting.. fools.
I've gone.
- scsi bob
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:54 am
by scsi bob » Mon Sep 22, 2003 2:26 pm
I've tried cording midiA to resonance +100% and -100% and neither seem to actually control the morph properly (I've tried with the morph starting at both its highest and lowest with both cord configs).
It also isn't the same change in sound as if I whizz the morph up and down manually using the data entry donut.
I presume you do mean the destination labelled 'FilRes or whatever?
Thanks
It also isn't the same change in sound as if I whizz the morph up and down manually using the data entry donut.
I presume you do mean the destination labelled 'FilRes or whatever?
Thanks
I've gone.
- scsi bob
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:54 am
this is how i do it
by blaze » Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:18 pm
i set a cord like this ModWl>FilFreq=100%
and set the morph to 0
peak to -24db
lowmorph FREQ:83Hz high morph FREQ:9824Hz
SHELF:-64 SHELF:+25
PEAK: -24 dB PEAK:-24dB
works every time you could swap mod wheel for any other controller.
and set the morph to 0
peak to -24db
lowmorph FREQ:83Hz high morph FREQ:9824Hz
SHELF:-64 SHELF:+25
PEAK: -24 dB PEAK:-24dB
works every time you could swap mod wheel for any other controller.
Dblaze
check my tunes here
http://www.sectionz.com/artist.asp?SZID=8532 or here
http://www.zebox.com/dannyblaze
check my tunes here
http://www.sectionz.com/artist.asp?SZID=8532 or here
http://www.zebox.com/dannyblaze
- blaze
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 7:45 pm
by madmax » Mon Sep 22, 2003 8:52 pm
Yeah, blaze is right. At least on my EOS (one of the older ones) it is the filtfreq not the 'filtres that is analagous to the morph parameter.
'filtres is analagous to the gain (right under morph) ....
'filtres is analagous to the gain (right under morph) ....
- madmax
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2003 8:09 pm
- Location: DC, USA
by vermis_rex » Sat May 12, 2007 5:43 pm
In a nutshell, yes, that's what they're saying. In versions of the EOS up to and including 4.62, the parameter named "Filter Resonance (FilRes)" in the patch cord system was a parameter that was only read at note-on, and could not be adjusted while the note still played (ok, so you could adjust it, but it wouldn't have any affect since it wouldn't be read by the system... but that's really a lost of hair-splitting).
The difficult part is knowing exactly what effect "Filter Resonance" will actually have on a given Z-Plane filter. While the parameters are called "Filter Frequency" and "Filter Resonance", they aren't always mapped to those features as understood on a regular filter. Yes, on the more traditional low-pass, high-pass, band-pass variety filters, you can probably count on them working in approximately the same way. But some of the more exotic Z-Plane filters don't really work that way.
There are vague descriptions in the EOS manual of the filter types and how the parameters interact with the square-filter-map (the EOS doesn't actually contain any true cube Z-Plane filters... only the Morpheus and UltraProteus racks contained any). Sometimes the descriptions are useful, sometimes you just have to experiment a bit with controllers patched to those parameters.
The confusion in the thread is down to E-mu changing the terms they used for the parameters between the Morpheus/UltraProteus generation of modules and the subsequent development of EOS (and the Proteus 2000 modules a couple of years later). Z-Plane filters are very difficult to visualize, so rather than just call the parameters x, y, and z, E-mu labelled them "Morph", "Frequency Tracking", and "Transform 2". Which didn't really mean anything, except to say that when they designed the filter response cube (or square), they typically used the y parameter to follow the key number and move the cut-off frequency of the filter (if it was working that way) to keep the timbre relatively stable across the keyboard. "Transform 2" was often patched to velocity, when it was used at all (the third parameter only came into play when the filter response was a cube... only about a third or so of the Morpheus Z-Plane filters were actually arranged in a response cube, most just used two parameters to render a square... and all of the EOS Z-Plane filters are square response). To add to the confusion, the parameters didn't always have consistent effects depending on which filter you used.
Basically, it boils down to...
Z-plane filters are actually a series of different EQ responses, arranged into a cube so that moving from one corner to another corner of the cube follows a trend in the progressive response of the filter (the way the timbe changes as you adjust one parameter). The processing power needed to smoothly render the movement in real-time caused the early implementations of z-plane filters to be limited to only one parameter changing in real-time (you could navigate around the cube, but only move in a straight vertical or horizontal line parallel to two of the other major axi). With EOS 4.7, they took advantage of the faster processor in the Ultra series sampler hardware and got two parameters changing in real-time (more than twice the math to keep up... now you can move around the cube on diagonal lines as well, but only on a flat sub-plane of the overall cube... which isn't even a cube any more since they eliminated the third parameter completely).
The power of z-plane filters comes when you realize that you don't have to limit the parameters to typical filter parameters. The design of the response cube requires you to define the start and end EQ curves and think about how you want one to change into the other. While in a traditional low-pass filter you might want to map a smooth response as the cut-off frequency (one parameter) is increased (one end is low cut-off, the other end is high-cut off, but otherwise the transition behaves like a normal low-pass filter), you could just as easily say that the start point was a regular low cut-off low pass while the end point was some exotic response curve, and the progression as the one parameter changed caused increasing peaks and troughs at harmonic intervals.
Confused yet? Now you see why it's always easier to just demonstrate E-mu gear than to explain how it works. Absolutely brilliant engineering, but not in the language of normal folk. Sort of like black holes and folded space-time.
What this will probably mean to you: You are in happy land, as you are acquiring an Ultra model of the Emulator 4 series and should be able to run version 4.7. You will only have to worry if the unit has the optional RFX-32 effects board installed (which doesn't behave very well under EOS 4.7).
(But for a real head scratcher, consider this... each single EQ response frame of a Z-Plane response cube is produced with some arrangement of up to six parametric equalizer blocks... each block could have three parameters [frequency, band-width, cut/boost]... if they actually gave people full control, they would have a staggering 18 parameters to keep their heads around at any given time, resulting in a response mapping that looks like some crazy 18-dimensional polyhedron if you wanted to adjust all of the parameters individually... that sort of math builds up fast, quickly outstripping any current processor for full real-time interpolation control, and it's typically outside the visualization skills of most humans except for advanced theoretical physicists... while it would allow you extremely subtle control over the timbre of a given sound, it wouldn't be all that useful as it would probably be too subtle for anybody to actually appreciate)
The difficult part is knowing exactly what effect "Filter Resonance" will actually have on a given Z-Plane filter. While the parameters are called "Filter Frequency" and "Filter Resonance", they aren't always mapped to those features as understood on a regular filter. Yes, on the more traditional low-pass, high-pass, band-pass variety filters, you can probably count on them working in approximately the same way. But some of the more exotic Z-Plane filters don't really work that way.
There are vague descriptions in the EOS manual of the filter types and how the parameters interact with the square-filter-map (the EOS doesn't actually contain any true cube Z-Plane filters... only the Morpheus and UltraProteus racks contained any). Sometimes the descriptions are useful, sometimes you just have to experiment a bit with controllers patched to those parameters.
The confusion in the thread is down to E-mu changing the terms they used for the parameters between the Morpheus/UltraProteus generation of modules and the subsequent development of EOS (and the Proteus 2000 modules a couple of years later). Z-Plane filters are very difficult to visualize, so rather than just call the parameters x, y, and z, E-mu labelled them "Morph", "Frequency Tracking", and "Transform 2". Which didn't really mean anything, except to say that when they designed the filter response cube (or square), they typically used the y parameter to follow the key number and move the cut-off frequency of the filter (if it was working that way) to keep the timbre relatively stable across the keyboard. "Transform 2" was often patched to velocity, when it was used at all (the third parameter only came into play when the filter response was a cube... only about a third or so of the Morpheus Z-Plane filters were actually arranged in a response cube, most just used two parameters to render a square... and all of the EOS Z-Plane filters are square response). To add to the confusion, the parameters didn't always have consistent effects depending on which filter you used.
Basically, it boils down to...
Z-plane filters are actually a series of different EQ responses, arranged into a cube so that moving from one corner to another corner of the cube follows a trend in the progressive response of the filter (the way the timbe changes as you adjust one parameter). The processing power needed to smoothly render the movement in real-time caused the early implementations of z-plane filters to be limited to only one parameter changing in real-time (you could navigate around the cube, but only move in a straight vertical or horizontal line parallel to two of the other major axi). With EOS 4.7, they took advantage of the faster processor in the Ultra series sampler hardware and got two parameters changing in real-time (more than twice the math to keep up... now you can move around the cube on diagonal lines as well, but only on a flat sub-plane of the overall cube... which isn't even a cube any more since they eliminated the third parameter completely).
The power of z-plane filters comes when you realize that you don't have to limit the parameters to typical filter parameters. The design of the response cube requires you to define the start and end EQ curves and think about how you want one to change into the other. While in a traditional low-pass filter you might want to map a smooth response as the cut-off frequency (one parameter) is increased (one end is low cut-off, the other end is high-cut off, but otherwise the transition behaves like a normal low-pass filter), you could just as easily say that the start point was a regular low cut-off low pass while the end point was some exotic response curve, and the progression as the one parameter changed caused increasing peaks and troughs at harmonic intervals.
Confused yet? Now you see why it's always easier to just demonstrate E-mu gear than to explain how it works. Absolutely brilliant engineering, but not in the language of normal folk. Sort of like black holes and folded space-time.
What this will probably mean to you: You are in happy land, as you are acquiring an Ultra model of the Emulator 4 series and should be able to run version 4.7. You will only have to worry if the unit has the optional RFX-32 effects board installed (which doesn't behave very well under EOS 4.7).
(But for a real head scratcher, consider this... each single EQ response frame of a Z-Plane response cube is produced with some arrangement of up to six parametric equalizer blocks... each block could have three parameters [frequency, band-width, cut/boost]... if they actually gave people full control, they would have a staggering 18 parameters to keep their heads around at any given time, resulting in a response mapping that looks like some crazy 18-dimensional polyhedron if you wanted to adjust all of the parameters individually... that sort of math builds up fast, quickly outstripping any current processor for full real-time interpolation control, and it's typically outside the visualization skills of most humans except for advanced theoretical physicists... while it would allow you extremely subtle control over the timbre of a given sound, it wouldn't be all that useful as it would probably be too subtle for anybody to actually appreciate)
- vermis_rex
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:14 am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
13 posts • Page 1 of 1