source audio c4

[RONPARK]

Aside of the source audio expression pedal, does anyone have know of other brands' expression pedals with compatibility with the C4?

I am using a Roland EV-5 with a 6.2 - 3.5 TRS converter plug. But I have to have the EXP pedal dialed to 0 for it to work. Then I had to calibrate it. Now I can assign it up to three parameters and it works perfectly. I will eventually replace it with a Boss Dual EXP that will also run into my MXR Bass Synth pedal.

 

[davio]

Apologies if this has been covered in the past, but my search didn't get me anywhere. Also, if it's painfully obvious and everyone already does this but I just haven't figured out out yet... I'm sorry. I'm having my morning coffee & had this idea but I'm not able to play around with it until at least tomorrow.

Is it possible with the C4's internal routing or in conjunction with the Aftershock (just as an example) to set up a "sidechain" similar to the classic Chunk Systems Brown Dog/Agent 00Funk setup in which the clean signal controls the envelope while the distorted signal is actually affected by it? Seems like it would be, but I haven't quite wrapped my brain around it yet without the pedal(s) in front of me.

 

[Quatschmacher]

Apologies if this has been covered in the past, but my search didn't get me anywhere. Also, if it's painfully obvious and everyone already does this but I just haven't figured out out yet... I'm sorry. I'm having my morning coffee & had this idea but I'm not able to play around with it until at least tomorrow.

Is it possible with the C4's internal routing or in conjunction with the Aftershock (just as an example) to set up a "sidechain" similar to the classic Chunk Systems Brown Dog/Agent 00Funk setup in which the clean signal controls the envelope while the distorted signal is actually affected by it? Seems like it would be, but I haven't quite wrapped my brain around it yet without the pedal(s) in front of me.

Yes.

 

[davio]

Yes.

Lol thanks

 

[tb_user]

To clarify a few things, after much research and confusion, there are two versions of the MVAVE Chocolate. The first is the older model which is called the MVAVE Chocolate. Whereas the latest model is called the MVAVE Chocolate Plus. It is the Plus version which acts as a MIDI Host, whereas the original model does not act as a Host and therefore it requires the SA Midi adapter. I am literally getting a Plus tomorrow and I am yet to try it on my C4, but when I do I will report back here and also post an instructional video on YouTube, because there is quite a lack of info on this particular subject online.

What I want to achieve is this. I will be powering my MVAVE Choc Plus via the USB-C port. I will have the MVAVECP switched onto Host Mode, and I will be running from the MVAVECP to the C4 via a USB-A → Mini-USB-B Data Cable. This is the cable that is used to hook the C4 up to Neuro3 App via computer. This connection should work and also allow the TRRS input to be free to still have an Expression Pedal or SA Hot Hand plugged into C4. There is a 3.5mm input on the MVAVE Plus that apparently allows for the EXP to be plugged into there as an option. Once I figure out how to assign the MIDI on the MVAVE Chocolate Plus, I will report back here.

Hello @RONPARK , did you manage to carry out your plan? What did you learn?

 

[sruedafoto]

Hi everyone,


I'm a bass player and I've been doing a deep dive into the C4 Synth from a synthesis-learning perspective. I started with very little knowledge of synthesis, and I've now spent more than 120 hours studying and experimenting with the C4. My goal has been to understand not just what each parameter does, but how the different parts of the architecture interact.


As part of that process, I've been doing controlled experiments with the six ADSR envelope types, and I recently discovered a behavior that I haven't seen clearly documented anywhere.


I tested ADSR 1–6 using exactly the same patch and settings, changing only the ADSR type.


What I found was surprisingly consistent:


ADSR 1, 2 and 3:

• Consecutive notes are much harder to retrigger if the previous note hasn't been muted.
• For example, if I play a short note followed immediately by a sustained note on the same string, I can physically hear/play the second note, but the envelope often doesn't recognize it as a new event.
• Muting the previous note allows the next note to trigger correctly again.

ADSR 4, 5 and 6:

• The same playing technique retriggers much more reliably.
• A short note followed by a sustained note is recognized as a new event much more consistently.
• With 4 and 5, the envelope can remain sustained while the input remains at a sufficiently constant level.
• Interestingly, ADSR 6 behaves similarly in terms of retriggering even though its Sustain is 0, so Sustain alone doesn't seem to explain the difference.

I also tested the effect of Gate independently. Increasing Gate changed the amplitude of the later/secondary portion of the note, but it did not eliminate the difference in retriggering behavior between the two groups.


I contacted Source Audio about this, and they gave me a very interesting answer. They explained that the original C4 engineer is no longer with the company and that, because they were running out of code space, some envelope parameters had to be implemented as fixed presets rather than as a fully configurable envelope system. They said that the different envelope types contain slightly different fixed settings as a compromise to make them useful for different applications.


So perhaps what I'm hearing is one of those hidden differences.


Has anyone here investigated the C4's envelope retriggering behavior in detail?


I'm especially interested in understanding what is happening internally between ADSR 1–3 and ADSR 4–6 that produces this difference.


I'm still learning synthesis, so I'm not claiming that my interpretation is necessarily correct. I'd really appreciate input from anyone here who has worked extensively with the C4, especially anyone who knows something about its original envelope implementation.


Thanks!

 

[Quatschmacher]

Hi everyone,


I'm a bass player and I've been doing a deep dive into the C4 Synth from a synthesis-learning perspective. I started with very little knowledge of synthesis, and I've now spent more than 120 hours studying and experimenting with the C4. My goal has been to understand not just what each parameter does, but how the different parts of the architecture interact.


As part of that process, I've been doing controlled experiments with the six ADSR envelope types, and I recently discovered a behavior that I haven't seen clearly documented anywhere.


I tested ADSR 1–6 using exactly the same patch and settings, changing only the ADSR type.


What I found was surprisingly consistent:


ADSR 1, 2 and 3:

• Consecutive notes are much harder to retrigger if the previous note hasn't been muted.
• For example, if I play a short note followed immediately by a sustained note on the same string, I can physically hear/play the second note, but the envelope often doesn't recognize it as a new event.
• Muting the previous note allows the next note to trigger correctly again.

ADSR 4, 5 and 6:

• The same playing technique retriggers much more reliably.
• A short note followed by a sustained note is recognized as a new event much more consistently.
• With 4 and 5, the envelope can remain sustained while the input remains at a sufficiently constant level.
• Interestingly, ADSR 6 behaves similarly in terms of retriggering even though its Sustain is 0, so Sustain alone doesn't seem to explain the difference.

I also tested the effect of Gate independently. Increasing Gate changed the amplitude of the later/secondary portion of the note, but it did not eliminate the difference in retriggering behavior between the two groups.


I contacted Source Audio about this, and they gave me a very interesting answer. They explained that the original C4 engineer is no longer with the company and that, because they were running out of code space, some envelope parameters had to be implemented as fixed presets rather than as a fully configurable envelope system. They said that the different envelope types contain slightly different fixed settings as a compromise to make them useful for different applications.


So perhaps what I'm hearing is one of those hidden differences.


Has anyone here investigated the C4's envelope retriggering behavior in detail?


I'm especially interested in understanding what is happening internally between ADSR 1–3 and ADSR 4–6 that produces this difference.


I'm still learning synthesis, so I'm not claiming that my interpretation is necessarily correct. I'd really appreciate input from anyone here who has worked extensively with the C4, especially anyone who knows something about its original envelope implementation.


Thanks!

There's an excel spreadsheet somewhere that explains all the envelope stage values. Might even be buried in this thread somewhere.

 

[Gibs210]

Found it. Here's the file.

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[sruedafoto]

Found it. Here's the file.

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

GIBS210 Thank you very much, I appreciate it!!

 

[bassbrad]

Hi everyone,


I'm a bass player and I've been doing a deep dive into the C4 Synth from a synthesis-learning perspective. I started with very little knowledge of synthesis, and I've now spent more than 120 hours studying and experimenting with the C4. My goal has been to understand not just what each parameter does, but how the different parts of the architecture interact.


As part of that process, I've been doing controlled experiments with the six ADSR envelope types, and I recently discovered a behavior that I haven't seen clearly documented anywhere.


I tested ADSR 1–6 using exactly the same patch and settings, changing only the ADSR type.


What I found was surprisingly consistent:


ADSR 1, 2 and 3:

• Consecutive notes are much harder to retrigger if the previous note hasn't been muted.
• For example, if I play a short note followed immediately by a sustained note on the same string, I can physically hear/play the second note, but the envelope often doesn't recognize it as a new event.
• Muting the previous note allows the next note to trigger correctly again.

ADSR 4, 5 and 6:

• The same playing technique retriggers much more reliably.
• A short note followed by a sustained note is recognized as a new event much more consistently.
• With 4 and 5, the envelope can remain sustained while the input remains at a sufficiently constant level.
• Interestingly, ADSR 6 behaves similarly in terms of retriggering even though its Sustain is 0, so Sustain alone doesn't seem to explain the difference.

I also tested the effect of Gate independently. Increasing Gate changed the amplitude of the later/secondary portion of the note, but it did not eliminate the difference in retriggering behavior between the two groups.


I contacted Source Audio about this, and they gave me a very interesting answer. They explained that the original C4 engineer is no longer with the company and that, because they were running out of code space, some envelope parameters had to be implemented as fixed presets rather than as a fully configurable envelope system. They said that the different envelope types contain slightly different fixed settings as a compromise to make them useful for different applications.


So perhaps what I'm hearing is one of those hidden differences.


Has anyone here investigated the C4's envelope retriggering behavior in detail?


I'm especially interested in understanding what is happening internally between ADSR 1–3 and ADSR 4–6 that produces this difference.


I'm still learning synthesis, so I'm not claiming that my interpretation is necessarily correct. I'd really appreciate input from anyone here who has worked extensively with the C4, especially anyone who knows something about its original envelope implementation.


Thanks!

There were some design considerations about the C4 especially when addresssing ADSR profiles. My process was finding the profiles that work best for particular sound types depending on punchy, legato or longer notes with different attack needs or playing styles and in some cases will also differ a bit depending on which bass I am using.

To get a better understanding of how synth modules function and interact I suggest looking into modular synth architecture. I found this course to be an excellent primer full of good explainations and prractical examples Your 1st Modular Synth Patch that's free. Also free is the soft synth used in the course VCV Rack 2. I have set up my own virtual synth setups for the C4 and FI in VCV as well as a few other well known synths.

 

[bassbrad]

For those looking for deeper dives into sound design and how synths work in the real world I have learned quite a lot from Anthony Marinelli who has many youtube and videos on his website, he also has done interviews with players well worth giving a mind and ear to.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=anthony+marinelli+bass

Free

Anthony Marinelli Free Digital Downloads

anthonymarinellimusic.com

 

[bdplaid]

I just saw an announcement for the Behringer BCR32 midi controller. Can that be used to program the c4?

 

[5stringedfrenzy]

I just saw an announcement for the Behringer BCR32 midi controller. Can that be used to program the c4?

There's a midi mapping panel in the editor. all you gotta do is assign the parameters you want to control to the BRC's CC messages, up to 127 parameters. the mapping is one-way though, so your LED encoders won't update to show current parameter levels if you change presets, or between sessions.

 

[bdplaid]

I could use some help with one of my patches. It's designed to mimic a fretess bass and for my purposes works well except for one thing: it's not touch sensitive at all. I have played with the filter, the envelope, input gain, different sources, tried it from scratch and I just can't make any headway at all making it sensitive to playing touch. Any ideas?