KVR Audio

Spitfire31 · Post by **Spitfire31** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:35 am

Ben H wrote:Yeah, still not tempted into "upgrading" while Iris 2 is in such a cocked-up state.

This!

/Joachim

Sampleconstruct · Post by **Sampleconstruct** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:48 am

mandolarian wrote:
Sampleconstruct wrote:
Ben H wrote:
Maybe they'll be too distracted working on Alchemy to remove some more stuff from Ozone/Iris.
LOL - but I don't believe in that buyout-myth, there are many better options on the takeover-speculation-list, I think it was Adidas.
Not so sure, was just shopping for some new Polka-DJ shoes and saw this new model...

- wrong thread though.

TwoToneshuzz · Post by **TwoToneshuzz** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:55 am

I'm upgraded to Iris 2 and keeping Iris 1, it made sense to me at the time when it could be had for the introductory price..

Sorry to hear about the kludgy conversion process though..

Some amazing material in the Patchpool subscription so I think it is a valuable resource that will be on my harddisk for a long long long time..

Sampleconstruct · Post by **Sampleconstruct** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 10:28 am

Sampleconstruct wrote:Working my way through the patch conversion from Iris 1->2 I find it annoying, how every former modulation value is just being ignored by Iris 2. When the Modwheel was set to LFO depth 11%, it defaults to 50% making vibrato assignments totally ridiculous, when a square-shaped LFO modulating pitch was set to 50% in Iris 1 resulting in an octave tremolo it is now set to an octave and a triton, when a Macro controlling filter resonance was set to 30% it defaults to 50% and so on. Also the exponential scaling of the Macro knobs seems wrong as the slopes are very exponential, too much change is occurring in the first third of the knob range. This renders Macro automations in projects which used Iris 1 unusable when loading the respective patch in Iris 2.

All of this makes the conversion pretty annoying and tedious, but it's happening.

Also in some patches Iris 2 erratically assigns the individual oscillator envelopes to the LFO depth, I can't find any Logic in that, especially not when I have to remove the envelope assignments anyway because the combination of a Macro with an envelope and an LFO all assigned to the volume of an oscillator doesn't work in Iris and the only workaround is to use a master envelope (5) for the overall volume of the sound

TexLoco5 · Post by **TexLoco5** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:05 am

It was great that iZotope listened to Simon and issued some fixes in v2.01 ... but now that they have ... I wonder how willing they are to continue to do so. I've seen nothing that indicates that they won't ... but pride might eventually kick in and dampen their willingness.

Simon ... I hope all the work you're doing to make your Iris1 stuff useable on Iris2 doesn't get trashed if iZotope further revises Iris2.

KenB

Sampleconstruct · Post by **Sampleconstruct** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:11 am

TexLoco5 wrote:
Simon ... I hope all the work you're doing to make your Iris1 stuff useable on Iris2 doesn't get trashed if iZotope further revises Iris2.

KenB

I don't think so, for now I expect them to provide a working, bug-free version of Iris 2, that would be a good start. As it seems, Iris 2 is not getting much attention or praise anywhere (which is not so surprising), so maybe we have seen the last version of it (which of course I strongly hope will not be the case). I still don't understand this whole disaster and probably never will...and if Iris is on iZnoHopes development-priority list - who knows???

Paulnz · Post by **Paulnz** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:19 pm

I had an interesting email conversation with Brad from Izotope before Christmas but didn’t have time to post anything about at the time.

I asked him if there was any chance of any additional features to the spectral editing in the near future etc.

The summary as I understand it is that Izotope understand that Iris 1 users want more spectral editing features however the uptake for Iris 1 wasn’t large enough to justify the work, so their main thrust with Iris 2 was to increase the user base by widening the appeal of Iris, then they could build on the core features.

His main email said the following:

“It's always hard to know when we'll be able to do more feature development on a product, especially in the first few months. So much of it depends on how well it's received by users. For example: our first version of Iris was something we were so proud of and excited about. We got some great press and amazing feedback from users, and those users made up a small and extremely creative group. They figured out possibilities we never could have imagined within Iris; it was inspiring! Unfortunately, we didn't see a major adoption of Iris in the musical community. If Iris 2 becomes one of those products lots of people in the musical community are relying on, it will be easier for us to justify getting in the small but critically important features on the spectral side, and do some free point releases, etc.

So much of our survey data and testing with musicians yielded results like this:

Iris 1 Release: Critics & users say - 'Cool', 'Unique', 'Great for Experimental Stuff'
Iris 1 Users ask for "MORE COOL STUFF & SPECTRAL EDITING FEATURES!!!!!"

But, musicians not using Iris said:
Iris 1 Modulation & UX is a barrier for use in a lot of musical contexts. 'This is fun, but I'd use something else in my everyday work'

We say: "If you had the modulation & UX, what would you like beyond that?"
THEN they would say: "MORE COOL STUFF & SPECTRAL EDITING FEATURES!!!!!"

SO:
We hope that lots of musicians will join the Iris community now, and once they've seen the value in spectral filtering (that so many of our loyal Iris 1 users already have), we can put in the work to make that much much better, and get behind all these great features Iris 1 users have been asking for!

We really do hope we have a successful launch with Iris 2, and from that can get some great new features out to you very soon. As a part of that, we have to make sure you guys get a solid 2.0.1 update with the hopes that the Iris 1 community can be comfortable recommending Iris 2 to new users and colleagues. We've gotten so many great ideas for Iris in the future, and are so excited for the possibilities!”

lnikj · Post by **lnikj** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 pm

I got that from reading between the lines of correspondence with Brad. Your version lays it out in a far more explicit manner.

I guess it's no Iris 3 then. Probably Iris 2.0.2 will be the end of the line.

Perhaps they should sell it to Apple.

JonSolo · Post by **JonSolo** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:35 pm

Sampleconstruct wrote:I don't think so, for now I expect them to provide a working, bug-free version of Iris 2, that would be a good start. As it seems, Iris 2 is not getting much attention or praise anywhere (which is not so surprising), so maybe we have seen the last version of it (which of course I strongly hope will not be the case). I still don't understand this whole disaster and probably never will...and if Iris is on iZnoHopes development-priority list - who knows???

It's all the rage at Sonic State. I think Izotope helps sponsor the show or something though.

Sampleconstruct · Post by **Sampleconstruct** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:00 am

Sampleconstruct wrote:Can this be true: Are the envelopes when assigned to volume and the FX section is running in Send mode, post-send? Because even when I have sustain turned to 0%, audio signal is still reaching the effects, this can’t be right…and it was not like this in Iris 1.

The workaround for this issue is to also assign the envelope controlling the oscillator's volume to the send level to a give FX module, they are thinking about adding a pre/post-switch as this behaviour is new in iris 2 and not intended as it seems (*sigh*). So when you are using 4 FX sends, you have to assign the envelope 4 times to the respective send levels.

Ben H · Post by **Ben H** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:29 am

I'm starting to think that iZotope are not really interested in developing Iris at all.

Rather it's just another way to maximise profits by culling tech from their other existing products.

Iris 1: Synthesizer created using technology culled from RX.
Iris 2: No new features added. A few cosmetic GUI changes + FX culled from other iZotope products.

Ben H · Post by **Ben H** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:30 am

Double post. :/

geronimo · Post by **geronimo** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:13 am

It should perhaps ask to Gforce with some Dave Spiers who worked on the first version of Iris ?

Sampleconstruct · Post by **Sampleconstruct** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:11 pm

Another clearly audible thing which has changed are the shapes of the ramp up/ramp down LFOs, in Iris 2 these produce clicks when assigned to volume, much more than they did in version 1, and although there are ramp LFOs in the "legacy Iris 1" LFO folder, they don't sound the same. The workaround is to use the ramps from the analog folder and to turn the shape slider at the bottom all to the right, these modified ramps then sound similar to the ramps in Iris 1.

wasi · Post by **wasi** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:46 pm

Paulnz wrote:I had an interesting email conversation with Brad from Izotope before Christmas but didn’t have time to post anything about at the time.

I asked him if there was any chance of any additional features to the spectral editing in the near future etc.

The summary as I understand it is that Izotope understand that Iris 1 users want more spectral editing features however the uptake for Iris 1 wasn’t large enough to justify the work, so their main thrust with Iris 2 was to increase the user base by widening the appeal of Iris, then they could build on the core features.

His main email said the following:

“It's always hard to know when we'll be able to do more feature development on a product, especially in the first few months. So much of it depends on how well it's received by users. For example: our first version of Iris was something we were so proud of and excited about. We got some great press and amazing feedback from users, and those users made up a small and extremely creative group. They figured out possibilities we never could have imagined within Iris; it was inspiring! Unfortunately, we didn't see a major adoption of Iris in the musical community. If Iris 2 becomes one of those products lots of people in the musical community are relying on, it will be easier for us to justify getting in the small but critically important features on the spectral side, and do some free point releases, etc.

So much of our survey data and testing with musicians yielded results like this:

Iris 1 Release: Critics & users say - 'Cool', 'Unique', 'Great for Experimental Stuff'
Iris 1 Users ask for "MORE COOL STUFF & SPECTRAL EDITING FEATURES!!!!!"

But, musicians not using Iris said:
Iris 1 Modulation & UX is a barrier for use in a lot of musical contexts. 'This is fun, but I'd use something else in my everyday work'

We say: "If you had the modulation & UX, what would you like beyond that?"
THEN they would say: "MORE COOL STUFF & SPECTRAL EDITING FEATURES!!!!!"

SO:
We hope that lots of musicians will join the Iris community now, and once they've seen the value in spectral filtering (that so many of our loyal Iris 1 users already have), we can put in the work to make that much much better, and get behind all these great features Iris 1 users have been asking for!

We really do hope we have a successful launch with Iris 2, and from that can get some great new features out to you very soon. As a part of that, we have to make sure you guys get a solid 2.0.1 update with the hopes that the Iris 1 community can be comfortable recommending Iris 2 to new users and colleagues. We've gotten so many great ideas for Iris in the future, and are so excited for the possibilities!”

I'd love to believe this, but I just can't see any indication it might happen. Remember the customer survey they did right after Iris 1? Did any of that - anything at all - go into Iris 1? There was what, one single Bugfix update to Iris 1 as far as I remember. That and the complete radio silence from Izotope convinced me that whoever commissioned that user survey either left the company or had no weight at all inside the company and there would be no 'enhancements' whatsoever to Iris 1.

Then came a string of crushed fruit and vegetables "packs", which further underscored their stance of Iris as a plattform for soundsets more than a creative tool for the user.

Then came Iris 2 adding a few seemingly unrequested features and breaking backwards compatibility, and all for a ridiculously high upgrade price (yes, some retailers brought that down to reasonable levels but that in itself is something I find highly irritating and yes, if you were actually cool with the myriad of 'packs' they were selling at huge prices getting them all now is a good deal). But look: not so much of a hint of any spectral enhancements.

So jeez, Izotope, based on what should we who have not bought into Iris so far due to the lack of spectral capabilities buy into it now? Iris 2 is indiscernable from Iris 1 on the spectral side and all Izotope's actions so far would have punished anybody that bought it in the hopes that would motivate anybody to put in what to some so obviously should have been in there from the start?

In other words, if I buy Iris 2 now, will that motivate Izotope to make an Iris 3 I get to upgrade to for the sensational limited time upgrade price of, say, $200 for those features I feel should have been in Iris 1? Or Iris 4, because the numbers are just not quite there yet? That's not how it goes. Make the product you want to sell. If it's not selling, draw your conclusions, but if you want to be a steakhouse, you're probably going to have to offer steak.

iZotope Iris 2