Applied Accoustic Systems has a modular now I guess

[pdxindy]

That’s not even including things like ACE or Bazille, which I think of as more semi modulars, because of their normalized connections.

Only ACE has normalized connections... Bazille doesn't.

In the Bitwig Grid, various stuff can only be done in mono mode. Not everything can be polyphonic

[foosnark]

Bitwig’s grid actually illustrates the “how” behind its polyphony quite well I think - certain modules (envelopes for example) have a check box in the inspector panel for whether it affects voice lifetime.

But if you disable that for all envelopes, voices in polyphonic mode only last for a brief click. You can't fool it by wedging the gate open with a button in the Grid, either, it has to be triggered by MIDI.

Anyway, this is all pretty much a tangent. Polyphony is just not something I look for in modular.

I used Bitwig Grid pretty frequently.... but the FX version, which is always inherently monophonic unless you drop more oscillators into it yourself

[vurt]

polyphony is a fad

[future-bit]

Unfortunately, the Multiphonics CV-1 has limited space.
Unable to create a complex patch, I see the message that there are too many modules, but they are actually few compared to Cherry Audio.

aas.png

[jonalyn]

happens to me too....

[pekbro]

Yeah its only 9U, a small stage rig equivalent is all.

[masterhiggins]

It’s probably the limitation of the 16-bit DOS 3.1 SDK they’re still working with.

[future-bit]

happens to me too....

Has anyone contacted support with such a question? I wrote yesterday, but have not received an answer yet. I would like to know the plans. With this restriction, it is impossible to use as a true modular.

[cantaloupe]

With this restriction, it is impossible to use as a true modular.

Huh? Lots of people use 9U setups.

[future-bit]

With this restriction, it is impossible to use as a true modular.

Huh? Lots of people use 9U setups.

I agree with you completely, but neither on the website or in the manual is no warning that there is a limitation in the number of modules in a rack. Why?! I have watched all the videos on youtube too - no one warns that we are limited to the rack window. Nobody makes complex self-contained patches.

[go_fig]

A bit of speculative optimism. Perhaps the 9U restriction is because they have planned what most of us actually want from them, i.e. a return to making new and innovative physical-modeling software. They expand their offering with modules representing physical systems able to interact with each other, mediated/abstracted in some fashion by CV, at audio rate---like what happens inside Chromaphone with 2 coupled resonators, but far more flexible. And they know there's going to be a CPU hit with bulkier patches, so... 9U, a compromise I'd gladly accept. AAS, are you listening?

[Shabdahbriah]

With this restriction, it is impossible to use as a true modular.

Huh? Lots of people use 9U setups.

I agree with you completely, but neither on the website or in the manual is no warning that there is a limitation in the number of modules in a rack. Why?! I have watched all the videos on youtube too - no one warns that we are limited to the rack window. [...]

That is definitely a questionable, if not inexcusable oversight on their part, and the various reviewers. I'm assuming it's an overhead (CPU) thing. But still. Should be pointed out from the start, rather than discovered by users.

Although p.e.r.s.o.n.a.l.l.y, I don't feel it to be a limitation, as it would keep the interface from looking like so many of the VCV-rack over populated nightmares.

[ghettosynth]

With this restriction, it is impossible to use as a true modular.

Huh? Lots of people use 9U setups.

I agree with you completely, but neither on the website or in the manual is no warning that there is a limitation in the number of modules in a rack. Why?! I have watched all the videos on youtube too - no one warns that we are limited to the rack window. [...]

That is definitely a questionable, if not inexcusable oversight on their part, and the various reviewers. I'm assuming it's an overhead (CPU) thing. But still. Should be pointed out from the start, rather than discovered by users.

Although p.e.r.s.o.n.a.l.l.y, I don't feel it to be a limitation, as it would keep the interface from looking like so many of the VCV-rack over populated nightmares.

The original Nord Modular had a similar limitation, 43 modules IIRC (I may not). It turned out to be that the low module limitation was there to prevent any patch from not working. It was computed using the most expensive elements. It was unrealistic and they eventually eliminated it. Those kinds of limitations do limit the usefulness for self playing and polyphonic patches.

[Shabdahbriah]

With this restriction, it is impossible to use as a true modular.

Huh? Lots of people use 9U setups.

I agree with you completely, but neither on the website or in the manual is no warning that there is a limitation in the number of modules in a rack. Why?! I have watched all the videos on youtube too - no one warns that we are limited to the rack window. [...]

That is definitely a questionable, if not inexcusable oversight on their part, and the various reviewers. I'm assuming it's an overhead (CPU) thing. But still. Should be pointed out from the start, rather than discovered by users.

Although p.e.r.s.o.n.a.l.l.y, I don't feel it to be a limitation, as it would keep the interface from looking like so many of the VCV-rack over populated nightmares.

The original Nord Modular had a similar limitation, 43 modules IIRC (I may not). It turned out to be that the low module limitation was there to prevent any patch from not working. It was computed using the most expensive elements. It was unrealistic and they eventually eliminated it. Those kinds of limitations do limit the usefulness for self playing and polyphonic patches.

That number sounds about right (IIRC, also), and of course they do limit usefulness. I just flashed on the visually overwhelming clutter I see so often with VCV patches, and which I try to avoid, by self-limiting.

[future-bit]

That is definitely a questionable, if not inexcusable oversight on their part, and the various reviewers. I'm assuming it's an overhead (CPU) thing. But still. Should be pointed out from the start, rather than discovered by users.

Although p.e.r.s.o.n.a.l.l.y, I don't feel it to be a limitation, as it would keep the interface from looking like so many of the VCV-rack over populated nightmares.

I got a response from support. The AAS were as always very helpful and interested in my opinion (one of the best support imho). Unfortunately, I did not understand whether the limit on the number of modules will be lifted or not:

True. The number of modules in a patch is currently limited by the rack size. Duly noted as well.
Hope this helps. Thank you for your consideration.

But they listened to my requests for fx, poly-mode, new modules, etc. and noted. As I understand it, they are planning an update, but did not say the timing:

This is version 1.0.0. All duly noted.