Improvements!
-
- u-he
- Topic Starter
- 28065 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
We're working on that... need to try & test in a polysynth first (R-5)Yorrrrrr wrote:I hope the RePro-1's new event scheduling method Urs mentioned a while ago finds its way to Bazille/Hive/etc., whatever that means for sound/performance/etc.
-
- KVRian
- 1465 posts since 25 Sep, 2011
Great! What is it useful for?Urs wrote:We're working on that... need to try & test in a polysynth first (R-5)Yorrrrrr wrote:I hope the RePro-1's new event scheduling method Urs mentioned a while ago finds its way to Bazille/Hive/etc., whatever that means for sound/performance/etc.
-
- u-he
- Topic Starter
- 28065 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Fewer possible bugs, more flexible for future product ideas...Yorrrrrr wrote:Great! What is it useful for?Urs wrote:We're working on that... need to try & test in a polysynth first (R-5)Yorrrrrr wrote:I hope the RePro-1's new event scheduling method Urs mentioned a while ago finds its way to Bazille/Hive/etc., whatever that means for sound/performance/etc.
-
- u-he
- Topic Starter
- 28065 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Sure, it's something we think about. It is very tricky though.Yorrrrrr wrote:I was thinking about this...what if it could be possible to have mod matrix amounts as mod matrix destinations? DUNE 2 has that and it's a great feature.
-
- KVRist
- 450 posts since 5 Oct, 2011 from Deep in the jungle
Such a useful tool, especially when setting up multiple controllers and/or macros on a patch. It really helps to fine tune how they interact with each other.Urs wrote:Sure, it's something we think about. It is very tricky though.Yorrrrrr wrote:I was thinking about this...what if it could be possible to have mod matrix amounts as mod matrix destinations? DUNE 2 has that and it's a great feature.
You can do it Urs
-
- u-he
- Topic Starter
- 28065 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Of course but with the voice of Robert Carlyle: "Magic aaallllways comes with a price!"Satch1 wrote:Such a useful tool, especially when setting up multiple controllers and/or macros on a patch. It really helps to fine tune how they interact with each other.Urs wrote:Sure, it's something we think about. It is very tricky though.Yorrrrrr wrote:I was thinking about this...what if it could be possible to have mod matrix amounts as mod matrix destinations? DUNE 2 has that and it's a great feature.
You can do it Urs
-
- u-he
- Topic Starter
- 28065 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
What if it's double the CPU?operator wrote:we are veeeerrrry willing to face the consequences...Urs wrote: "Magic aaallllways comes with a price!"
-
- KVRist
- 488 posts since 6 Jan, 2015 from Earth
If you ask me personally, i wouldn´t mind at all... especially if we are talking about things like the new drum modules. they would fit perfect into Zebra...Urs wrote:
What if it's double the CPU?
Zebra 2 is 8 years old and back then i guess Zebra used a greater portion of the CPU then today... you have to think ahead of the time (i know you already do that!!!). But the Diva CPU talk maybe forced the company to settle a little bit down and think twice about the customer and their CPU...
Diva was very CPU demanding in the beginnig... but you took the plunge and forced yourself AFTERWARDS to optimize the code and after 6 to 12 months Diva was less CPU hungry... i´ll bet this was very valuable in some way....
the people who talk about the CPU usage of Diva don´t get it... it suppose to be as demanding as possible... modern technologie uses all the resources it can get... i would run an extra computer for a Zebra that kicks Divas butt...
Zebra in it´s architecture would allow to have a sort of modular development strategie, where some modules could be way ahead of it´s time and some (the most common) are like Hive (CPU "friendly")... so you please this folk, who want the newest synth but god not for to much CPU... and with those other Modules YOU and WE can geek out and give a f**k about CPU...
Everyone knows more than I do...
-
- KVRian
- 1465 posts since 25 Sep, 2011
I wouldn't mind either. You can release a CPU eating monster now, but it's as top quality as it can be. But in a few years the CPU usage wouldn't be as high and it'll still be top quality. Just like DIVA. That synth doesn't even bother my PC anymore.
-
- KVRist
- 488 posts since 6 Jan, 2015 from Earth
Yorrrrrr wrote:I wouldn't mind either. You can release a CPU eating monster now, but it's as top quality as it can be. But in a few years the CPU usage wouldn't be as high and it'll still be top quality. Just like DIVA. That synth doesn't even bother my PC anymore.
Everyone knows more than I do...
-
- KVRAF
- 25432 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
Then leave it as is... it is not like Zebra has any deficiency of modulation possibilities as is!Urs wrote:What if it's double the CPU?operator wrote:we are veeeerrrry willing to face the consequences...Urs wrote: "Magic aaallllways comes with a price!"
-
- KVRAF
- 25432 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
I don't want every synth to crush the CPU. One of the great things about Zebra is that it is relatively light on the CPU. I want Zebra 3 to follow in the spirit of Zebra 2...Yorrrrrr wrote:I wouldn't mind either. You can release a CPU eating monster now, but it's as top quality as it can be. But in a few years the CPU usage wouldn't be as high and it'll still be top quality. Just like DIVA. That synth doesn't even bother my PC anymore.
I can already make CPU heavy sounds in Zebra 2... but I have the choice and lots of no compromise sounds are lighter. Doubling the CPU for a rather small increase in modulation flexibility is not worth it IMO.
