u-he

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 7:01 am

Sorry, but we can't just change the panning bahaviour of the subs. If we did, I'm sure the majority of users would be confused if the subs didn't pan with the main oscillators. A quick workflow is bought by a set of compromises and I think this one (sub inherits pan) isn't that big of a deal - there's always the second lane to achieve two distinctly panned signals.

FX bypass for the subs is outright impossible because their signal goes through the same filters as the normal oscillators. One can't just "unmix" them after the filters in order to send them elsewhere.

bailees7irish · Post by **bailees7irish** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:22 pm

I get the FX thing, but the panning of the sub is kind of ridiculous.

xx JPRacer xx · Post by **xx JPRacer xx** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:58 pm

Maybe add pan option in the matrix so we can "re-pan" the sub in the middle if needed?

edit : Just re-read my post and I fell

. Problem is with audio routing, nothing to do with what I've written. Move along, nothing to see here...

billcarroll · Post by **billcarroll** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 7:57 pm

Urs wrote:Sorry, but we can't just change the panning bahaviour of the subs. If we did, I'm sure the majority of users would be confused if the subs didn't pan with the main oscillators. A quick workflow is bought by a set of compromises and I think this one (sub inherits pan) isn't that big of a deal - there's always the second lane to achieve two distinctly panned signals.

FX bypass for the subs is outright impossible because their signal goes through the same filters as the normal oscillators. One can't just "unmix" them after the filters in order to send them elsewhere.

Is there anyone who actually wants their subs panned?

As for a sub bypass, it could simply bypass filters as well and just go to the main out couldn't it.

medienhexer · Post by **medienhexer** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:22 pm

Yes, why don't we just change the underlying signal routing after several thousand factory presets have been created?

billcarroll · Post by **billcarroll** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:52 pm

medienhexer wrote:Yes, why don't we just change the underlying signal routing after several thousand factory presets have been created?

I'd take that over panning subs.

Shiek927 · Post by **Shiek927** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:22 pm

Can someone please explain to me the benefit of either request and examples of synths that actually do this?

medienhexer · Post by **medienhexer** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:32 pm

So what exactly is the problem with that? Don't tell me mono compatibility!

The sub is mixed with the rest of the signal before going through the filters and then FX, according to Urs. That's what Hive is. Not intended to be everything to everyone.

NNevez · Post by **NNevez** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:04 am

Urs wrote:FX bypass for the subs is outright impossible because their signal goes through the same filters as the normal oscillators. One can't just "unmix" them after the filters in order to send them elsewhere.

Of course, didn´t even took that into consideration..

On a second thought, i think that everything is fine the way it is.
We always have the second lane to have a sub line centrally panned. I rarely use all the oscillators for my sounds so i always have the option to use the other lane if needed.

And if the objective is to have the subs centered when using the two lanes, one can use another synth for the subs, or another instance of Hive.

So, it´all good.

billcarroll · Post by **billcarroll** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:07 am

medienhexer wrote:So what exactly is the problem with that? Don't tell me mono compatibility!

The sub is mixed with the rest of the signal before going through the filters and then FX, according to Urs. That's what Hive is. Not intended to be everything to everyone.

You like your sub frequencies panned? Do tell.

billcarroll · Post by **billcarroll** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:10 am

Shiek927 wrote:Can someone please explain to me the benefit of either request and examples of synths that actually do this?

Serum has a DIRECT OUT switch that enables you to bypass subsequent modules and send the SUB-OSCILLATOR directly to the output module, which eliminates the need to create a seperate sub-bass track in your project and is a major workflow enhancement.

https://splice.com/blog/xfer-records-serum/

Shiek927 · Post by **Shiek927** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:01 am

Ahh~, I feel I can better understand.

medienhexer · Post by **medienhexer** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:13 am

billcarroll wrote:
medienhexer wrote:So what exactly is the problem with that? Don't tell me mono compatibility!

The sub is mixed with the rest of the signal before going through the filters and then FX, according to Urs. That's what Hive is. Not intended to be everything to everyone.
You like your sub frequencies panned? Do tell.

not biting.

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:16 am

Hmm, is that a common practice or are both people who do this active in this thread?

Just asking because it has become hard to tell whether a feature request is esoteric or not. E.g. we're not sure if famous producers who allegedly use synths without microtuning capability are indeed using pythagorean tuning with A = 432Hz. Or maybe they've been using other synths all the way

(also, some synthesis techniques may be advanced enough to recommend using Zebra instead... similar layout as Hive, but broader range of features, hehehe)

Vast · Post by **Vast** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:19 am

"- feature suggestions are highly welcome, especially if they do not involve adding knobs!"

i want to have uneven timebases like 2/3 , 1/5, ...... 3/7

please implement this

purchasing soon ...

u-he

KVR Audio

Hive preview (April 1 update)