Patch Contest #4

[hakey]

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

That's an option too. It does require that for auditioning purposes everyone knows that the 2.5 beta has to be used. Would everyone be happy with that?

[elxsound]

Thanks Hakey.... Much easier than I thought it would be.

I'm off, but will check back later to see a decision about a possible extension. If there's no extension, I'll just upload what I have anyways.

[elxsound]

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

That's an option too. It does require that for auditioning purposes everyone knows that the 2.5 beta has to be used. Would everyone be happy with that?

Using the 2.5 beta, but in 2.3 mode?

[hakey]

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

That's an option too. It does require that for auditioning purposes everyone knows that the 2.5 beta has to be used. Would everyone be happy with that?

Using the 2.5 beta, but in 2.3 mode?

Yes, I think in 2.5 patches open in whatever mode they were saved in anyway and I'm guessing that everyone at least created and saved their patches in 2.3 mode (using Zebra 2.5 - this does get confusing!).

[elxsound]

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

That's an option too. It does require that for auditioning purposes everyone knows that the 2.5 beta has to be used. Would everyone be happy with that?

Using the 2.5 beta, but in 2.3 mode?

Yes, I think in 2.5 patches open in whatever mode they were saved in anyway and I'm guessing that everyone at least created and saved their patches in 2.3 mode (using Zebra 2.5 - this does get confusing!).

Sorry, the only reason I asked is because if 2.5 mode is allowed, then there are certainly some other thing I would have done, including additional modulation mappings since there are more in the 2.5 beta (and I thought we were supposed to limit the number of modulation mappings to what's available in the 2.3 version). This to me is the only thing that gets confusing in determining what is allowed or not.

[hakey]

Okay - I'm going to go with option B - we'll proceed as before, but ask everyone to audition the patches in the 2.5 beta. The only possible problem I can foresee is that of making sure that the auditioners use 2.5, but that isn't really all that complex, is it?

[bmrzycki]

Considering the sheer amount of new features in 2.5beta I'd say we should continue to use it as the patch contest default. As elxicano said it gives a lot more tools to the creator.

My only concern would be that since this is beta we might be running the risk of creating presets that don't sound the same in 2.5 final. It seems that Urs is in bugfixing mode in prep for release but it could be possible that in order to fix a bug it might color a preset's sound in some way.

It's a tough nut to crack...

[hakey]

Considering the sheer amount of new features in 2.5beta I'd say we should continue to use it as the patch contest default. As elxicano said it gives a lot more tools to the creator.

It's a tough nut to crack...

Aye, it is. I've just realised that the problem goes both ways: I now have a patch made in 2.3.3 that uses the arp and sounds terrible in 2.5!

So, some people may have built patches in either 2.5 (running in 2.3 mode) or 2.3 that will only sound correct if loaded into the correct version of Zebra. This is getting confusing.

Options:

1. Have two folders for 2.3 and 2.5. Which then requires that the builders tell us which version of Zebra they used to make a patch - may take some time to sort out. It's also a fair bit more complicated for the auditioners - they need to have two different versions of Zebra on their machine!

2. Extend the deadline and ask everyone to make sure that their patches work in a nominated version of Zebra (2.3 seems safer to me atm).

I really don't know what's the best thing to do right now - I'm leaning towards a deadline extension to at least give time to gather some more opinions AFAIK its only MC, bmrzycki, elixicano and myself who are aware that there's a problem.

I'm just sorry that I didn't see this coming .

Anybody?

[elxsound]

Okay, I quickly read all the responses, so hopefully I understood everyone correctly...

My personal vote is that we extend the deadline. Whether that's one day or one week, doesn't matter too much to me, but considering that it seems easiest to use the 2.5 beta as the default for judging and we won't be excluding anyone who utilizes the 2.5 mode or exclude anyone who utilizes the additional modulation capabilities, my preference is definitely an extension of some sort. It only seems fair at this point, but regardless of a decision, I won't be complaining just simply adding my preference now.

[kodama]

I've already submitted my patches that were made in 2.5 but in 2.3 mode, they use XMFs, so will likely sound poop in 2.5 mode...


Just let me know if I need to do something different. I do have to say it's kind of a bummer to extend or complicate this contest, as it seems like it's ben going on for 2 months

[hakey]

I've already submitted my patches that were made in 2.5 but in 2.3 mode, they use XMFs, so will likely sound poop in 2.5 mode...

Okay, this is confusing but, it's not about the XMF's, or taking a patch made in 2.5 (using 2.3 mode) and playing it in 2.5 (using 2.5 mode)!

The problem occurs where you take a patch made in 2.5 (using 2.3 mode) and play it in an earlier (pre 2.5beta) version of Zebra such as 2.3.3 (the latest, non beta, public version of Zebra). These patches can sound very different.

Added to that I've just discovered that a patch I made in 2.3.3 that uses the arp sounds wrong in 2.5 (using 2.3mode).

And one of the original rules stated that patches should be Zebra 2.3 compatible.

It's all a bit of a snafu.

I do have to say it's kind of a bummer to extend or complicate this contest, as it seems like it's ben going on for 2 months

Well, it's only been 3 full weeks, I think, and some people said that earlier contests hadn't run for long enough.

One thing I'm sure of, whatever is decided here, won't suit everyone.

[hakey]

Right - I hate having to make these kind of executive decisions, but I think we're going to have to postpone the deadline, at least for 24 hours, just so that people can discuss the options. Sorry to have to do this

If anyone has any bright ideas about how to sort this out, or any strong preferences either way, let them be known.

My preference, though I know that this probably won't go down well with some, is that we postpone the deadline for a week to allow everyone to ensure that their patches work in one named Zebra revision (2.3 seems best to me).

Apologies again - if anyone wants to have a at me, feel free. I won't take it too personally

[Urs]

Well, it's basically all my fault I prematurely released beta with some really mysterious bugs that are hard to even describe, and obviously they're predominantly occurring in complex patches with lots of modulation of the VCA section etc. The bugs only occurr if certain patches withc ertain features are loaded after patches that eitehr use the same modulations, or no such modulation at all.

On the other hand, if I hadn't released these betas, we would probably not know about these bugs and they might have slipped through into the final version

Nevertheless I'm pretty sure I'll have these bugs fixed very soon, maybe by tomorrow night

Cheers,

Urs

[autodafe]

I have both 2.3 and 2.5 installed on my machine and created my patch using 2.3, as per the rules, not using 2.5 in "compatibility" mode...

I don't know if the patch sound the same if loaded in 2.5

[autodafe]

I have no problem in extending the contest time, I think a week is more than enough to fix the problems with the 2.5/2.3 issue...