u-he

mcnoone · Post by **mcnoone** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:04 pm

hakey wrote:And a quick reminder for those who've already made the switch to 2.5 - make sure that your patches work in Zebra 2.3 and by that I mean when run in a Zebra 2.3 dll, and not a 2.5 version running in 2.3 mode.
I hope that makes sense
(I've just discovered that patches I made with 2.5.7 running in 2.3 mode sound very different when opened in a 2.3 Zebra)

That sucks. I guess I'll have to unistall 2.5, and reinstall 2.3. Send bmrzycki the presets again. I thought just making them in 2.3 mode would be good enouph...guess not.

The confusion keeps mounting...

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:25 pm

I've just fixed some bugs in 2.3.3 till 2.5b8 that MCnoone pointed out to me... with some luck I have a new build tomorrow where some patch loading problems with ModMatrix/XYs are fixed...

mcnoone · Post by **mcnoone** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:35 pm

hakey wrote: (I've just discovered that patches I made with 2.5.7 running in 2.3 mode sound very different when opened in a 2.3 Zebra)

OMG! I just installed 2.3.3 then listened to my presets, and realized they now sound like...horrible. Disappointing to say the least. I don't think I can repair these, they just sound horrible in 2.3.
I'll try to do some new ones.

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:47 pm

MCnoone wrote:
hakey wrote: (I've just discovered that patches I made with 2.5.7 running in 2.3 mode sound very different when opened in a 2.3 Zebra)
OMG! I just installed 2.3.3 then listened to my presets, and realized they now sound like...horrible. Disappointing to say the least. I don't think I can repair these, they just sound horrible in 2.3.
I'll try to do some new ones.

Yes - I'm having to redo mine

. It seems that some of the modulation routings have got tangled up - an AT has become ArpMod, modmapper has reverted to it's original values etc.

Personally, I'd be happy auditioning everything in 2.5, but as it's a beta I thought it best to make sure that everything works in 2.3.

Sorry for adding to the confusion.

mcnoone · Post by **mcnoone** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:53 pm

hakey wrote: Yes - I'm having to redo mine . It seems that some of the modulation routings have got tangled up - an AT has become ArpMod, modmapper has reverted to it's original values etc.

Well mine are turning out as not being able to fix them at all.
Maybe the contest folder can contain a 2.3 and 2.5(in 2.3mode) in 2 seperate folders. Cuz I can't fix these. Otherwise just count me out of this one.

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:16 pm

MCnoone wrote:
hakey wrote: Yes - I'm having to redo mine . It seems that some of the modulation routings have got tangled up - an AT has become ArpMod, modmapper has reverted to it's original values etc.
Well mine are turning out as not being able to fix them at all.
Maybe the contest folder can contain a 2.3 and 2.5(in 2.3mode) in 2 seperate folders. Cuz I can't fix these. Otherwise just count me out of this one.

I'd be happy doing that, though it would lead to yet more mudification of the waters - I can foresee confusion arising with the auditioning and voting instructions that would be required; might be asking a bit too much of the voters. And I imagine there's a good number of people haven't made the jump to 2.5 yet, so they wouldn't be able to audition or vote for patches made in 2.5.

(And the requirement for 2.3 compatibility was made quite explicit in the rules at the top of the thread

)

Anyone else got an opinion on this?

mcnoone · Post by **mcnoone** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:42 pm

hakey wrote: (And the requirement for 2.3 compatibility was made quite explicit in the rules at the top of the thread )

Yes I read that before, but it was not pointed out that the 2.5 version, saving to 2.3 mode would not work.
I got a patch going again in 2.3.3, but it won't ever sound like the original.
It was quite a shock to hear just how different the versions sound.
I guess it pays to expect the unexpected.

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:48 pm

MCnoone wrote:It was quite a shock to hear just how different the versions sound.

AFAIAA this is mostly the ModMatrix and XYs on VCA Volume... there's something strange going on which I think wasn't going on in 2.3.1. It's certainly also a bug in 2.3.3 though...

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:53 pm

MCnoone wrote:
hakey wrote: (And the requirement for 2.3 compatibility was made quite explicit in the rules at the top of the thread )
Yes I read that before, but it was not pointed out that the 2.5 version, saving to 2.3 mode would not work.

I didn't know that myself until I tried it today.

I only mentioned that 2.3 compatibility rule because, if we do now allow 2.5(2.3) patches, someone might well complain.

Anyway, MC, I'm in the same boat as you - doubtless others will be too. Obviously it's not a brilliant state of affairs, but there's not much I can do about it right now. I'd quite like to get a range of views before making any decisions about allowing 2.5(2.3) patches.

elxsound · Post by **elxsound** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:56 pm

So, is the only issue if you created a patch in 2.5 mode and then switch back to 2.3 mode, or are problem there too if you've created the patch in 2.3 mode of the 2.5 beta?

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:02 pm

elxicano wrote:So, is the only issue if you created a patch in 2.5 mode and then switch back to 2.3 mode, or are problem there too if you've created the patch in 2.3 mode of the 2.5 beta?

The problem is if you've written a patch using 2.3 mode in 2.5; if you then load it into a previous version of Zebra - say 2.3.3 - the patch may well sound very different (you'd need to have two versions of Zebra on your system to test this).

elxsound · Post by **elxsound** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:10 pm

hakey wrote:
elxicano wrote:So, is the only issue if you created a patch in 2.5 mode and then switch back to 2.3 mode, or are problem there too if you've created the patch in 2.3 mode of the 2.5 beta?
The problem is if you've written a patch using 2.3 mode in 2.5; if you then load it into a previous version of Zebra - say 2.3.3 - the patch may well sound very different (you'd need to have two versions of Zebra on your system to test this).

hmmmm

I have no way for testing and/or making adjustments before the deadline.

Any chance for a 24 hour extension?

Also, how do you have 2 versions of zebra to check? If this is already in another thread, please feel free to point me there.

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:16 pm

elxicano wrote:I have no way for testing and/or making adjustments before the deadline.

Any chance for a 24 hour extension?

Yes, a deadline extension was kind of what I was thinking too. Any good to you MC? And would 24hrs be enough for everyone, or might 2, 3, 5 days or even a week be better?

Also, how do you have 2 versions of zebra to check? If this is already in another thread, please feel free to point me there.

DL the latest current Zebra installer (I think it's 2.3.3) from the U-He website and during installation when it asks you where to put the VST make a new folder.

mcnoone · Post by **mcnoone** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:18 pm

That's gotta be a big undertaking to fix that code.
Good luck Urs.

BTW:2.5 mode is understatedly awesome. Just an amazing upgrade.

bmrzycki · Post by **bmrzycki** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:22 pm

An alternative is to use the Beta for the contest since it seems so many people probably did this already.

u-he

KVR Audio

Patch Contest #4