iZotope Iris 2

[fmr]

What does this supposed to mean:

Iris 1 patches can be loaded in Iris 2, but because of all the new features in Iris 2, some parameters (like Modulation and sample locations) may need to be reassigned.

"may need to be", did they test this, could they be more clear, does it depend on the weather or the time-zone I live in?

Sounds to me like they are saying: "don't blame *us* if they don't sound the same and don't expect us to fix it either."

This isn't the first time a v2 of an instrument breaks compatibility with earlier versions patches. Actually, it happened countless times before, even recently. And it's not like v1 stops working. I bet we can have both installed at the same time (it works like that with all iZotope plug-ins).

[Ben H]

Yeah, I know.

But can you imagine the shit-storm say NI would cop, for example, if they told users that if they update to the latest version of Kontakt, their sounds might not sound the same anymore.

[Sampleconstruct]

Yeah, I know.

But can you imagine the shit-storm say NI would cop, for example, if they told users that if they update to the latest version of Kontakt, their sounds might not sound the same anymore.

I could live with a sound difference, but manually reassigning modulation and FX routings to hundreds of patches is just not realistic time- and energy-wise, with FX plugins it's not such a mess, because not so many people rely on FX presets, but with instruments like Iris it's not a minor problem anymore.

[aMUSEd]

great/damn!

[Ben H]

I could live with a sound difference, but manually reassigning modulation and FX routings to hundreds of patches is just not realistic time- and energy-wise, with FX plugins it's not such a mess, because not so many people rely on FX presets, but with instruments like Iris it's not a minor problem anymore.

Yeah, I understand where you are coming from.

[fmr]

I could live with a sound difference, but manually reassigning modulation and FX routings to hundreds of patches is just not realistic time- and energy-wise, with FX plugins it's not such a mess, because not so many people rely on FX presets, but with instruments like Iris it's not a minor problem anymore.

This is something worthing investigation before saying more, I guess. iZotope may very well have messed up the modulations, but at first sight I can't see why should they do that. If they just added modulations, the old ones "should" be there work as before (unless they removed them, which, again, I don't see a reason to). The fact that they give no guarantees doesn't imply, necessarily, that things will not work. Let's try out and see.

I think these statements about giving no guarantes have something to do with the "legal paranoia" that seems to be attacking the US society.

[Breeze]

What does this supposed to mean:

Iris 1 patches can be loaded in Iris 2, but because of all the new features in Iris 2, some parameters (like Modulation and sample locations) may need to be reassigned.

"may need to be", did they test this, could they be more clear, does it depend on the weather or the time-zone I live in?

Technically, if the patch format from 1 can be loaded into 2 at all, there's no reason why they couldn't provide a conversion utility for the transition or even built in. I'm not at my comp right now but if the patch isn't encoded as to be illegible it should be possible to engineer this utility by a third party.

[Sampleconstruct]

I could live with a sound difference, but manually reassigning modulation and FX routings to hundreds of patches is just not realistic time- and energy-wise, with FX plugins it's not such a mess, because not so many people rely on FX presets, but with instruments like Iris it's not a minor problem anymore.

This is something worthing investigation before saying more, I guess. iZotope may very well have messed up the modulations, but at first sight I can't see why should they do that. If they just added modulations, the old ones "should" be there work as before (unless they removed them, which, again, I don't see a reason to). The fact that they give no guarantees doesn't imply, necessarily, that things will not work. Let's try out and see.

I think these statements about giving no guarantes have something to do with the "legal paranoia" that seems to be attacking the US society.

Sure, it's all based on assumption right now, I have to overcome myself first to test v2 though

[stardustmedia]

Great to see this but the price for the upgrade is not very small for existing user :S

No, it's not. 50 would have been suuuupah, or 70.

But at least this time it is an UPgrade

[wakax]

anyone could tell me if the v1 big problem of clicks in Control/Pitch/(one of the modes clicked - i dont remember the exact one) is gone?

[MillerSam]

but when I see that you get Iris 2 for 167 dollar on JRR and wee pay 99 dollar for upgrade

Between 50-70 are good

[Alias9593]

but when I see that you get Iris 2 for 167 dollar on JRR and wee pay 99 dollar for upgrade

Between 50-70 are good

+1, absolutely right, 50% of RTP is really expensive for an upgrade.

[stardustmedia]

but when I see that you get Iris 2 for 167 dollar on JRR and wee pay 99 dollar for upgrade

Between 50-70 are good

That hurts...

[stardustmedia]

+1, absolutely right, 50% of RTP is really expensive for an upgrade.

That depends on the amount of new features

[Sampleconstruct]

So I caved, installed the demo, tried to import a patch from my subscription library: error message: Preset Import failed. Check to see if a preset with the same name already exists. LOL*****F**CK