Topic: Note Number as Modulation Source

Hi all - I've been trying to work out how to get note number ( / keytrack ) as a modulation source within Airteq, but haven't gotten any ideas better than going into the MIDI mapping page and mapping every single Note On event to Timbre values 0.00 through 1.00. Before I spent an hour clicking (for something I'm not even sure would work with polyphonic playing), I decided it would be a good idea to ask here to see if anyone else had found a better solution.


Have any of you been able to find a way to use note number / keytrack as a modulation source in Airteq?


For anyone searching for the answer to this same question, but are only interested in setting the destination as the volume of a stop, this is easily available by right-clicking on the Volume knob of that stop, then clicking on the "Note Edit" button in the box that comes up.

Re: Note Number as Modulation Source

Indeed, using the note number as a modulation source is not supported currently. We consider making more parameters "Note Edit"-able in the future, would that be a good solution for your purpose?

Re: Note Number as Modulation Source

Alexis Thibault wrote:

Indeed, using the note number as a modulation source is not supported currently. We consider making more parameters "Note Edit"-able in the future, would that be a good solution for your purpose?

As tscheevel stated, "keytrack" is really the correct term for modulation by note number.  It should be capable of working in negative and positive mod values with mod level being a parameter - just as you have mod levels for all the other modulation sources.  So for example, assign keytrack to modulate volume and you can either get louder notes or quieter notes when you play higher up the keyboard.   It can be useful for a lot of parameter modulation.  This is one of the things I suggested as a beta tester.

Last edited by Cellomangler (21-09-2026 20:14)
"Downing a fifth results in diminished capacity."

Re: Note Number as Modulation Source

Positive/Negative keytracking would be a great feature!

Re: Note Number as Modulation Source

Alexis Thibault wrote:

Indeed, using the note number as a modulation source is not supported currently. We consider making more parameters "Note Edit"-able in the future, would that be a good solution for your purpose?

For what I'm trying to do right now, yes - the particular patch I was working on needs to shorten all the envelope times with increasing pitch, to keep the length of time air is supplied in a constant ratio with the response time of the pipe.

In general, though, I think including note number as a modulation source is probably a cleaner way to solve more problems for more users. In the process of refining a patch for performance use, slight modulations by note number can be useful across essentially every parameter on the entire synthesis engine. (For an example, in a patch I put together or find as a preset on a more traditional software synth, I would fully expect anywhere from a fifth to a half of the modulation links total to have note number as their source!) Besides, if your target user is mainly familiar with synthesizers, note number as a modulation source is the standard way to accomplish this kind of voicing across the keyboard; it's what they'll expect. On the other hand, if you're instead going for more organists who are interested in synthesis, I can very much see the reason to do things the way you are suggesting here!

Re: Note Number as Modulation Source

I think the problem lies in the very essence of Airteq, which works through physical modeling rather than conventional oscillators. The response of each pipe for each note is different, and this happens at the model level, just like with real pipes. Therefore, in a way, there is already a sort of built-in keytracking within the model itself.

If you add keytracking as a modulation source, unpredictable things can happen. What works for a specific pipe in a certain register won't necessarily work with other pipes and/or other registers, as they respond differently to the same envelope times, air pressure, or whatever parameter you are modulating.

Having said that, I will now say what I have said other times before: dear creators of Airteq, if this is more or less the case, I personally wouldn't mind taking the risks of that 'loss of control' over the results. I wouldn't mind a certain ethical flaw regarding what physical modeling is supposed to be either, as we have seen so many times that interesting results have been achieved by pure chance. Happy tweaking!!"

tscheevel wrote:
Alexis Thibault wrote:

Indeed, using the note number as a modulation source is not supported currently. We consider making more parameters "Note Edit"-able in the future, would that be a good solution for your purpose?

For what I'm trying to do right now, yes - the particular patch I was working on needs to shorten all the envelope times with increasing pitch, to keep the length of time air is supplied in a constant ratio with the response time of the pipe.

In general, though, I think including note number as a modulation source is probably a cleaner way to solve more problems for more users. In the process of refining a patch for performance use, slight modulations by note number can be useful across essentially every parameter on the entire synthesis engine. (For an example, in a patch I put together or find as a preset on a more traditional software synth, I would fully expect anywhere from a fifth to a half of the modulation links total to have note number as their source!) Besides, if your target user is mainly familiar with synthesizers, note number as a modulation source is the standard way to accomplish this kind of voicing across the keyboard; it's what they'll expect. On the other hand, if you're instead going for more organists who are interested in synthesis, I can very much see the reason to do things the way you are suggesting here!

Re: Note Number as Modulation Source

tscheevel wrote:

For what I'm trying to do right now, yes - the particular patch I was working on needs to shorten all the envelope times with increasing pitch, to keep the length of time air is supplied in a constant ratio with the response time of the pipe.

Why not try something like Bome MIDI Translator and convert the pitch to a given CC #74 (say) value - then in Airteq map this as you wish ...