iZotope Iris 2

[Sampleconstruct]

In the long run, running a business based on delusion rather than transparency and honesty is not going to work.

[Ben H]

Maybe we will see a update shortly for fixing this problem :S

Ofc we will. It will be called Iris 3 and it will be a paid upgrade again.

[Rookie2]

Looks like another episode of
"marketingguys kills the creatives".
Wondering, why there is no sh**storm on FB?

[lnikj]

"With many new features in Iris 2 such as as flexible new modulation system, enhanced effects and filters, extensive visualizations and metering, hundreds of new patches + 11 GB sample library (24-bit .WAV files for use in any sampler), optimized workflow, an updated UI, and much more, we feel that a $99 upgrade price is well worth the investment. "

I also had this exact response.

I guess we're all going to get the same boilerplate flannel back from our emails of complaint now.

[Sampleconstruct]

"With many new features in Iris 2 such as as flexible new modulation system, enhanced effects and filters, extensive visualizations and metering, hundreds of new patches + 11 GB sample library (24-bit .WAV files for use in any sampler), optimized workflow, an updated UI, and much more, we feel that a $99 upgrade price is well worth the investment. "

I also had this exact response.

I guess we're all going to get the same boilerplate flannel back from our emails of complaint now.

Sure, even the product manager I communicated with obviously used template sentences in his emails, it's like having a conversation with a robot.

[Sampleconstruct]

Another thing they removed when assigning modulators is the max/min amount for each assignment, now it's only knobs with graphics and values can just be guessed, not accurately edited and you can enter a value for each modulator numerically. This makes the process of restoring old patches even more tedious, but I am not giving up yet.

[Sampleconstruct]

FYI: I am just doing some more conversion tests.
The patch in v1 has an LFO assigned to pitch modulation in each osc, LFO depth assigned to the Modwheel (different values for each LFO) and each LFO has a different speed and shape.

So opening that patch in v2: The only thing that translates are the LFO speeds, the shapes are all set to sine, depth to zero, the wheel is not assigned to anything. So the procedure now is to drag each LFO to pitch or pitch fine in each osc, then assign the wheel to the depth parameter in each LFO.

That was only restoring that simple routing and it takes a while (and I'm fast at editing). Now to the filter parameters. If I would do this restoring-work for 400+ patches I could easily spend 2 moths or more.

EDIT: So it's not only that all the assignments get lost, also the LFO shapes don't translate, this is nowhere mentioned in the release notes for v2.

So this was only partially correct, if an LFO was set to SYNC in v1, it is not in v2 but it defaults to a speed of 3.5 Hz in unsynced mode. So all temposynced modulation LFO settings are also lost. Only the speeds for unsynced LFOs translate. I don't see any kind of logic in this yet...

[Sampleconstruct]

And some modulation combinations are simply not possible in v2, so the "advanced modulation system" is in fact less advanced in some respects. E.g. I had the Modhweel assigned to the volume of Osc2 in v1, also a temposynced LFO was assigned to volume in Osc2 via Macro 4, turning the wheel up brought in Osc2, turning Macro 4 up added synced amplitude modulation on top of that. With the wheel up and M4 down Osc2 was inaudible, as it should be.

Now with the wheel down and the Macro up I still hear Osc2 being modulated by the LFO, no matter which combination settings I choose in the Combine (Mod 1-2) menue and which depth settings I choose in the LFO assignment, as LFOs are only bipolar there is no workaround, but maybe I'll find a workaround...

[Sampleconstruct]

And some modulation combinations are simply not possible in v2, so the "advanced modulation system" is in fact less advanced in some respects. E.g. I had the Modhweel assigned to the volume of Osc2 in v1, also a temposynced LFO was assigned to volume in Osc2 via Macro 4, turning the wheel up brought in Osc2, turning Macro 4 up added synced amplitude modulation on top of that. With the wheel up and M4 down Osc2 was inaudible, as it should be.

Now with the wheel down and the Macro up I still hear Osc2 being modulated by the LFO, no matter which combination settings I choose in the Combine (Mod 1-2) menue and which depth settings I choose in the LFO assignment, as LFOs are only bipolar there is no workaround, but maybe I'll find a workaround...

And yes, the workaround is to not assign the wheel to osc volume but an emevelope with sustain set to 0, then assign the Modwheel to the envelope sustain level and the desired result can be achieved.

That's amazingly advanced, bravo iZotope, why keep things easy when you can complicate them.

EDIT: shit, it still doesn't work as expected, so the LFO modulation even overwrites the sustain level of the envelope, that must be a bug.
EDIT: ahh, now it works with the Modulation combo set to multiply.
EDIT: but it still sounds wrong, nothing like in v1, it's simply not possible to recreate that combination it seems.
EDIT: I finally found a way to recreate that routing, assign the wheel and the Macro to LFO depth and set Modulation combo to Min, now it sounds the same as in V1, but that took 6 assignments to substitute 2 assignments in v1. That's not advanced!

[matteogk]

In the long run, running a business based on delusion rather than transparency and honesty is not going to work.

I feel sad and disappointed... Simon's work for Iris 1 is "a real piece of art", and made me buy Iris at first glance.
Factory patches were (and are) way less inspiring.
I started studying Simon's patches (Iris 1 was a very simple environment, perfect for a beginner) and ended up into designing mine, which is now leading me to a whole new perspective while working on a new track.

I extended my studies to Alchemy, Kontakt and Padshop Pro, luckily... (these softwares will not die as soon as I update my system).

All the work I have done is an investment for the future, and - of course - there is no Iris v2-3-4 that can cancel it, or make it less valuable, but right now iZotope shows me they do not care at all about the music and the ideas people develope with their softwares.

Thank You for the lesson, dear iZotope... I learned what "devalue" means and it's a crucial thing to keep in mind while clicking on a purchase button.

[Harry_HH]

According to these comments, which seem to focus on the sound compatibility between the vers. 1 vs. 2, someone who happen to read this thread, get a picture that Iris 2 a complete failure. After demoing the product I can´t agree with that - when the Iris 1 was launched, I tried it but didn´t like some feature, but now I´m buying. Think that Iris 2 is a great product. I believe that when you look at the overall picture, many of the users (pot users) agree. The problems risen are no doubt real, but I wonder if sometimes few loud voices can color the picture too dark. (It seems that the badwill generated by the unfortunate recent pseudo-upgrade of the Ozone is haunting in the background.) H.

[Sampleconstruct]

According to these comments, which seem to focus on the sound compatibility between the vers. 1 vs. 2, someone who happen to read this thread, get a picture that Iris 2 a complete failure. After demoing the product I can´t agree with that - when the Iris 1 was launched, I tried it but didn´t like some feature, but now I´m buying. Think that Iris 2 is a great product. I believe that when you look at the overall picture, many of the users (pot users) agree. The problems risen are no doubt real, but I wonder if sometimes few loud voices can color the picture too dark. (It seems that the badwill generated by the unfortunate recent pseudo-upgrade of the Ozone is haunting in the background.) H.

Sure, for new Iris users all of our lamento is obsolete and not interesting, but that's the case with many things in life, different perspectives can't be changed in this case.

[Sampleconstruct]

Oops, just noticed that maximum release times for the envelopes are no 10 seconds, it was 30 seconds before, that's a big big difference.

[lnikj]

Oops, just noticed that maximum release times for the envelopes are no 10 seconds, it was 30 seconds before, that's a big big difference.

Possibly about CPU usage?

From what you are discovering it looks like a forlorn hope that there is any automated way to translate the patches (as they claim) that they have been too lazy to implement.

[Sampleconstruct]

Oops, just noticed that maximum release times for the envelopes are no 10 seconds, it was 30 seconds before, that's a big big difference.

Possibly about CPU usage?

From what you are discovering it looks like a forlorn hope that there is any automated way to translate the patches (as they claim) that they have been too lazy to implement.

Naa, CPU seems identical to me, they just thought 10 sec seems enough, who cares.