Why only 16-voice Polyphony?

[nebulae]

Just wondering what the rationale behind this was? If you have long release pads, you can eat up 16 voices pretty quickly. Was it to conserve CPU? Is the idea that you would just add more instances if you need more voices?

I would think that with modern dual-core CPUs, having a 32 or 64 polyphony synth is the bare minimum?

BTW, I don't want to sound critical with my first post here. I'm listening to the demo MP3s, and they sound INCREDIBLE. Just wondering if future development involved more voices. Is that difficult to change?

Keep up the great work.

[Lennard]

Just wondering what the rationale behind this was? If you have long release pads, you can eat up 16 voices pretty quickly. Was it to conserve CPU? Is the idea that you would just add more instances if you need more voices?

I would think that with modern dual-core CPUs, having a 32 or 64 polyphony synth is the bare minimum?

BTW, I don't want to sound critical with my first post here. I'm listening to the demo MP3s, and they sound INCREDIBLE. Just wondering if future development involved more voices. Is that difficult to change?

Keep up the great work.

Thanks. This is related to the current implementation of the voice management system, which is built around SE's voice management. With a higher maximum polyphony, more memory would need to be allocated and more voices would consume CPU when playing fast sequences of notes, even if the maximum polyphony parameter is set to a low value.

The voicemanagement system will be rewritten in the future though and SE will be removed completely. When this is done the maximum polyphony will very likely be higher.

Hope that explains it.

[nebulae]

Cool, thanks for the quick response.