Feature request: Programs having sex...

[jbejarano]

If they'd really like to beef up the librarian (or an eventual JD-XA editor), I'd love to see a feature where you could take 2 or more programs, give them different weights, and the application produces a bank of 16 new (child) programs where each of the parameters is randomly taken from one of the source (parent) programs. Then, you could audition these new programs, save them, tweak them then save them, or discard them.

In its simplest form, you take 2 programs, and give them equal weight. Then, it goes through each parameter in the JD-XA and creates new programs where each has a 50% chance of taking its value from the "father" program, and a 50% chance of taking its value from the "mother" program. It would do this sixteen times to produce a bank of sixteen programs each with some characteristics of its parent programs.

Again, you could have more than two parent programs if you wanted, and you could give the parents unequal weights if you wanted the children to be more likely to take parameter values from the parent with the greater weight. You could even specify the (low) likelihood of mutations, parameter values that come from neither parent.

If you have a few programs that you really like, this seems like a neat new path to creatively finding new sounds in the same vein.

[zombietactics]

... If you have a few programs that you really like, this seems like a neat new path to creatively finding new sounds in the same vein.

Sooooo you have this amazingly flexible architecture, with a gazillion physical controls begging to be touched, fondled, caressed ... ohhh baby ...

... but you want your computer to "do it" for you?

Maybe the idea of actually understanding how to please a woman ... errr ... program your own patches is just too old fashioned?

;-)

[richardbates1]

... If you have a few programs that you really like, this seems like a neat new path to creatively finding new sounds in the same vein.

Sooooo you have this amazingly flexible architecture, with a gazillion physical controls begging to be touched, fondled, caressed ... ohhh baby ...

... but you want your computer to "do it" for you?

Maybe the idea of actually understanding how to please a woman ... errr ... program your own patches is just too old fashioned?

;-)

I agree with Zombietactics, the reason that the JDXA is so alluring is the ease for sound creation by the user not needing a computer to create sounds for you. It's ease in creating your own personal patches makes it a more personal expression of the user, that's why it has all the knobs and sliders on the front panel. That's my opinion, that's why I got the JDXA, the is why the JDXA is my favorite synth in my studio.

[jbejarano]

Oh, you'll get no disagreement from me about the astonishing flexibility afforded by the JD-XA and it's control panel. That's one of the top things that attracted me to it. The only reason I suggest this feature is that there have been times that I feel almost overwhelmed by it all, like a painter in a studio with every conceivable brush, pigment, canvas, and light source available. There can almost be a "Where do I even start?" feel to it sometimes.

Plus, I've always been a fan of the curious patterns of things produced by random and pseudo-random numbers. It's why I always play songs in my playlists on shuffle. Sometimes, it comes up with crap, but more often than you'd think possible, it comes up with something unexpected and enjoyable. Then, your own creativity can take it from there to the next level.