u-he

thetechnobear · Post by **thetechnobear** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 7:50 pm

Hi,

its fantastic that U-he supports voice per channel Midi, and its the reason Ive bough all your synths

I wonder now all the expressive controllers are supporting MPE (and also bitwig) could U-he start supporting the MPE spec (http://bit.ly/mpe-spec) :

the primary difference for the u-he synths, I think are:

A) CC 74 is used for timbre (i.e. Y axis)
this is an issue since, mainly cc 1/2, and perhaps 11 are supported per channel
perhaps expression could be changed to be CC74 (or CC 74 and CC 11 for compatibility), and added to those without it (e.g. ACE)
(CC74 was used as was used as the standard for the continuum)

(its not always easy to do this in a DAW either, as multi channel support is 'variable'

)

B) pitchbend can be set from the controller.
this is useful as its usually set according to the number of 'keys', but in 12 semitone intervals....
(I know we can lock pitchbend, but its just 'one less thing'

the other parts of the spec, using individual pitchbend and channel pressure per midi channel are already very well supported by u-he.

would make things so much smoother when using my favourite synths

Mark

NothanUmber · Post by **NothanUmber** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 8:02 pm

Yes please! Now that Bitwig will support MPE starting from 1.2 this would be awesome! And compared to other plugins the u-he synths are already 90% there. It looks like the "MPE consortium" and Urs came to the same conclusions in many aspects

palaires · Post by **palaires** » Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:53 am

oh and one more, Yes please!!

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Wed Jun 17, 2015 1:37 pm

Once the standard is defined, we'll happily adopt it.

Our last info during Musikmesse was, it's still a draft.

NothanUmber · Post by **NothanUmber** » Wed Jun 17, 2015 6:14 pm

Fantastic news!
The current version of the spec is 1.10 - that sounds pretty stable from a version number perspective

Will try to get the attention of Geert Bevin (who worked on the MPE spec), perhaps he can confirm that this is already final (or which changes might still be to be expected).

gbevin · Post by **gbevin** » Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:35 am

Nope, it's still draft, we're working with the MMA to make it an official spec and there will most certainly still be changes in the way MPE is activated.

thetechnobear · Post by **thetechnobear** » Sun Jan 10, 2016 12:40 am

a quick 'bump' on this...

I know its still not out of draft, but now there are implementations in hardware for Eigenharps, Continuum, Linnstrument, Soundplane, Seaboards.

as i mentioned in the post, Im not so worried about the switch to MPE mode, nor the automatic pitchbend range selection (via NRPNs),
simply support for CC74 (supplementing CC11 is fine) and an increased pitchbend range. (+/- 48)
with the current VpC implementation of u-he synths, the above would work for all DAWs,
even Bigwigs per note expression would work (it has a 'force MPE mode' on it)

as a fellow software developer I understand wanting to make changes once, based on a spec, but sometimes the real world moves faster than standards committees, if we wait for MPE to be approved, its highly likely we will be bumping this thread in another 6 months, and we will be no further forward...

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:58 am

thetechnobear wrote:a quick 'bump' on this...

I know its still not out of draft, but now there are implementations in hardware for Eigenharps, Continuum, Linnstrument, Soundplane, Seaboards.

as i mentioned in the post, Im not so worried about the switch to MPE mode, nor the automatic pitchbend range selection (via NRPNs),
simply support for CC74 (supplementing CC11 is fine) and an increased pitchbend range. (+/- 48)
with the current VpC implementation of u-he synths, the above would work for all DAWs,
even Bigwigs per note expression would work (it has a 'force MPE mode' on it)

as a fellow software developer I understand wanting to make changes once, based on a spec, but sometimes the real world moves faster than standards committees, if we wait for MPE to be approved, its highly likely we will be bumping this thread in another 6 months, and we will be no further forward...

BIG +1

Bitwig did it's part to come partway (added force MPE mode)... now u-he needs to do the same. A couple small changes and we got it. We'e so close now!

Echoes in the Attic · Post by **Echoes in the Attic** » Sun Jan 10, 2016 2:03 pm

thetechnobear wrote:a quick 'bump' on this...

I know its still not out of draft, but now there are implementations in hardware for Eigenharps, Continuum, Linnstrument, Soundplane, Seaboards.

as i mentioned in the post, Im not so worried about the switch to MPE mode, nor the automatic pitchbend range selection (via NRPNs),
simply support for CC74 (supplementing CC11 is fine) and an increased pitchbend range. (+/- 48)
with the current VpC implementation of u-he synths, the above would work for all DAWs,
even Bigwigs per note expression would work (it has a 'force MPE mode' on it)

as a fellow software developer I understand wanting to make changes once, based on a spec, but sometimes the real world moves faster than standards committees, if we wait for MPE to be approved, its highly likely we will be bumping this thread in another 6 months, and we will be no further forward...

YES PLEASE! U-He synths are so close. I'd really like to be able to use the Y axis modulation like in the Bitiwig touch screen keyboard to control u-he synth parameters.

Also wondering if Zebra will be supported like Diva and Bazille?

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:56 pm

Echoes in the Attic wrote:
Also wondering if Zebra will be supported like Diva and Bazille?

I might be wrong about this... but my understanding is that the Mod Matrix in Zebra would need to be re-written for the note per midi channel stuff to work in Zebra... so maybe Zebra 3

Echoes in the Attic · Post by **Echoes in the Attic** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:47 am

pdxindy wrote:
Echoes in the Attic wrote:
Also wondering if Zebra will be supported like Diva and Bazille?
I might be wrong about this... but my understanding is that the Mod Matrix in Zebra would need to be re-written for the note per midi channel stuff to work in Zebra... so maybe Zebra 3

Oh ya, makes sense. I wonder if Urs would consider bringing Tyrell up to par with Diva and Bazille as far as MPE. Tyrell is a beauty.

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:44 am

pdxindy wrote:
Echoes in the Attic wrote:
Also wondering if Zebra will be supported like Diva and Bazille?
I might be wrong about this... but my understanding is that the Mod Matrix in Zebra would need to be re-written for the note per midi channel stuff to work in Zebra... so maybe Zebra 3

Nah, that's multicore support.

Per Channel MIDI in Zebra2 requires a big effort in the voice management parts - which are separate from that of the other synths.

Echoes in the Attic · Post by **Echoes in the Attic** » Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:13 pm

Ok I just found out the huge bummer about the consequences of not having a 48 note up/down pitch range. Sliding up or down doesn't land on the right notes. I was just about to buy bazille as it seemed to be the one, along with diva, that I'd be able to use with bitwigs touch screen but it's just not useful without the proper pitch range.

Big ol' sad face on this discovery ->

SuperFly76 · Post by **SuperFly76** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 2:32 am

thetechnobear wrote:a quick 'bump' on this...

I know its still not out of draft, but now there are implementations in hardware for Eigenharps, Continuum, Linnstrument, Soundplane, Seaboards.

as i mentioned in the post, Im not so worried about the switch to MPE mode, nor the automatic pitchbend range selection (via NRPNs),
simply support for CC74 (supplementing CC11 is fine) and an increased pitchbend range. (+/- 48)
with the current VpC implementation of u-he synths, the above would work for all DAWs,
even Bigwigs per note expression would work (it has a 'force MPE mode' on it)

as a fellow software developer I understand wanting to make changes once, based on a spec, but sometimes the real world moves faster than standards committees, if we wait for MPE to be approved, its highly likely we will be bumping this thread in another 6 months, and we will be no further forward...

A big huge +2 from me.

+1 for CC74
+1 for +/- 48 on pitchbend

I also use bitwig. I have hopes of using it with Diva and Bazille on my surface touch screen with Bitwig's excellent MPE onscreen keyboard. The pitchbend is a drag, as it doesn't land on the correct note.

I dream of being able to use Diva, Bitwig, and my Surface Pro 4 live.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 2:51 am

SuperFly76 wrote:
thetechnobear wrote:a quick 'bump' on this...

I know its still not out of draft, but now there are implementations in hardware for Eigenharps, Continuum, Linnstrument, Soundplane, Seaboards.

as i mentioned in the post, Im not so worried about the switch to MPE mode, nor the automatic pitchbend range selection (via NRPNs),
simply support for CC74 (supplementing CC11 is fine) and an increased pitchbend range. (+/- 48)
with the current VpC implementation of u-he synths, the above would work for all DAWs,
even Bigwigs per note expression would work (it has a 'force MPE mode' on it)

as a fellow software developer I understand wanting to make changes once, based on a spec, but sometimes the real world moves faster than standards committees, if we wait for MPE to be approved, its highly likely we will be bumping this thread in another 6 months, and we will be no further forward...
A big huge +2 from me.

+1 for CC74
+1 for +/- 48 on pitchbend

I also use bitwig. I have hopes of using it with Diva and Bazille on my surface touch screen with Bitwig's excellent MPE onscreen keyboard. The pitchbend is a drag, as it doesn't land on the correct note.

I dream of being able to use Diva, Bitwig, and my Surface Pro 4 live.

and another big +1

u-he

KVR Audio

Feature Request : MPE support