X-fader adaptation

I have set up X-Fader and it is working beautifully. I wonder if it would be possible to implement a couple of features within this script:

  1. The possibility to “modulate” or add random cross fading within a certain range to add “movement” or fluctuation between sources
  2. The possibility to add a third fader source e.g. 5-6

I am using this to control several banks of percussion in groove agent inside Gig performer and this would just add endless sound possibilities.

The original script is here: Original x-fader script

I would much appreciate any guidance in doing this. Thank you

I dont understand this perhaps you could explain a bit more and give an example?

I don’t know what you exactly tries to achieve, but no way for you to combine more X-faders?

@David-san Hi there

My initial outline was a bit confusing, sorry. If I focus on one thing here it is the question of how I can adapt the existing x-fader script so that rather than simply fade one source to another it can also be automated so that it move back and forward between 2 sources allowing a variable mix. In a DAW I would use an automation lane to do this.

So, I would like to set the mix “range” for source A, and also for B so that I have input from both sources creating some nice tones and textures. The existing x-fader script allows me to do this manually and to good effect!

I realised that it may be possible to remove MMorph or Transmutator plugins by adapting the X-fader script. MMorph and Transmutator are basically cross-faders on steroids.

The scripting needed for this though is a bit beyond my current skill level I think (although I am getting better each day!)

How exactly? The current automation of this Scriptlet makes it possible to go from source A to source B in a specified cross fade time. At each push on the button the destination source changes. You can automate the pushes on the « start » button using an automation Scriptlet. Is it what you want to do? If yes, on which basis would you like to automate the « start » button?

You mean the mix « ratio »? You would like to hear a certain ratio of A and B at the same time? This is already possible using the manual setting.

Could you please give an example of how you would automate what?

So, yes, the current settings allow me to specify cross-fade time. Very nicely too! But I would like to use the same principle but instead of just going A-B I would like to move A-B-A, endlessly, within a specified ratio (mix range) until such time as I stop the process. I would like an imaginary hand moving the rotary knob back and forward to create an endlessly “morphing” mix. I can do this manually, yes, but it needs me to constantly move the control.

It was while setting up the script I realised how cool it would be to automate the mix ratio to allow some automated morphing between sources.

…I forgot I had MRatio (Melda) sitting on my hard drive which does exactly what I needed. Had not used it since my Cantabile days! Why reinvent the same wheel. :woman_facepalming:

1 Like

If you have the full version, you can indeed randomize crossfade parameters.
That is what I’m missing because I only have the free version,but you make me want to upgrade to full version :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Have a look at their black Friday sales!
Maybe you can make a bargain?

1 Like

Melda have their 50% Black Friday sale on now :slight_smile:

1 Like

@BLC @schamass
Thank you guys, it is done! full license for 25€ is a good deal for excellent plugins.


Faderratic, by De La Mancha plugins is a nice randomized crossfader for PC, unfortunately it’s only 32 bit, but it’s working great for me with jbridge.

Continuing the discussion from [Gig] X-fader - crossfade two volume parameters:

Thanks for your contribution @David-san…really appreciate it…my question is…when you need a very simple cross fade and you want to minimise UI ie just a single knob, as you know it so well…is it best practice to mod the script and directly access the volumes of the mixer (if that is simpler and also possible) and assign those in the plugin or is it better to hide the 2 faders on the ui?

It is far more trivial to use two widgets in a group and just invert one of them. If you feel the need to hide one, then just make it smaller and put it underneath the other one.

Generally I think we should be trying to do things with GUI features where possible and only rely on GP Script when it is simply not possible to use the GUI. In that situation, if we see that there’s enough interest in that particular feature, it makes sense to consider implementing directly.

It may be that we should add a feature called “hide” that makes a widget invisible when we’re not in edit mode — that might be another approach if it is really critical to not show two widgets

1 Like

I would of course prefer the simple path…and that makes the workflow clearer…the widgets are really the control pivot in essence. I can bake it behind something…but might be better to put the energy into just colour control ie alpha value of fonts and colours…that way its really invisible but still maintains a simple edit access eg just a toggle to set all alpha to full transparency…imvho.
Im only showing the single manual crossfade as its relative to the levels of the existing output levels being fed in…ie its just a cascaded mixer was relatively easy to copy etc.

If its a linear inversion though…then you dont get equal power fade? Or is that just managed by the value transfer graph? That then raises the question of bipolar behaviour…but Ill do that somewhere else :wink:

Thanks for the info

You should probably read the documentation — you can create any kind of curve you want.


I have been drizzling through…its more about changing siltation…so use to direct access…but the last post made it clear…its quite abstract when you arent use to it. I looked at the value widget straight away and studied…it made sense but its a long way from every other machine (software) I have used now …and its really good.
Whilst the ui speaks about curves very mathematically…tbh…terminology is so important…eg “equal power” and those types of audio terms would be a lot more comfortable for me…not sure about others but transfer relationship needs context.

Obviously there will always be room for improvement but I think it’s worth understanding all the existing capabilities first.

I do agree…it was unexpected workflow for me…but everyday is a school day! I think even easy to implement now things like the presets in categories eg ‘Audio Curves’ but as hardwired dropdowns to the left where those other presets are…maybe grouped…just a thought

Yes, all of these things are already known…again I have to point out that if we waited until we had everything, there would never be a product.

@Aurasphere, this exactly what I wanted to answer.