u-he

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:26 pm

Hmmm, I don't see it that way.

I see all the people who fire up ACE, press a key and then... nothing.

I would estimate that about 2 thirds of now happy ACE users wouldn't even have given it a spin unless there was any internal connection set up. Another good bunch, maybe a fifth would have sent an email with a bug report ("doesn't make sound"). I'm even pretty sure that these are conservative estimates. That said, I'm very sure that a non-wired version of ACE wouldn't sell more than 50 copies

I am however working on a concept to display different labels when a cable is plugged in, maybe for an update early next year

Cheers,

Urs

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:40 pm

John-E34 wrote:But with ACE, it seems to darken images all by itself...

Interesting. Is that on Mac or PC? Maybe I can adjust the gamma corection a bit.

Tronam · Post by **Tronam** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:46 pm

There's no doubt that this is exactly what would have happened, especially for a product that is kind of designed as an entry level modular. I'm just saying that with this hybrid approach, the routing may seem a little bit harder to visualize when secret connections are being made behind the scenes. Bazille's nuts'n'bolts approach may be easier in some respects.

ThomasHelzle · Post by **ThomasHelzle** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:50 pm

Urs wrote:Hmmm, I don't see it that way.

I see all the people who fire up ACE, press a key and then... nothing.

I would estimate that about 2 thirds of now happy ACE users wouldn't even have given it a spin unless there was any internal connection set up. Another good bunch, maybe a fifth would have sent an email with a bug report ("doesn't make sound"). I'm even pretty sure that these are conservative estimates. That said, I'm very sure that a non-wired version of ACE wouldn't sell more than 50 copies

I am however working on a concept to display different labels when a cable is plugged in, maybe for an update early next year

Cheers,

Urs

That may or may not be true (users tend to check out presets IMO and the default could have some cables attached already - don't see a problem there, honestly

) but still a button to remove all internal connections would help a lot.

While for some people at the beginning it may be helpful to have the default connections, in the long run they will be more and more in the way of really understanding what's going on.

I look forward to what you come up with!

Cheers,

Thomas Helzle

John-E34 · Post by **John-E34** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:58 pm

Urs wrote:
John-E34 wrote:But with ACE, it seems to darken images all by itself...
Interesting. Is that on Mac or PC? Maybe I can adjust the gamma corection a bit.

I'm on a PC, if you can adjust the gamma correction, that would be great...

Ace seems to lower the gamma more than Zebra, but both GUI's present the original image at a reduced brightness.

I would welcome the change, but I'm also aware that other people prefer darker interfaces...

Imho - I don't think a VST with a skinnable GUI should alter the image at all, just display the image "as is".

Regardless, ACE is Ace...

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:06 pm

ThomasHelzle wrote:I look forward to what you come up with!

Well, it can be either changing labels *or* switching off default connections. I'd rather go with changing labels then.

The default connection does not only follow the purpose of a workable init patch, it also greatly reduces the amount of cables in 95% of patches. I think that the number of cables needed to wire up a patch as simple as the default patch would be rather confusing.

Cheers,

Urs

Howard · Post by **Howard** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:32 pm

Urs wrote:I think that the number of cables needed to wire up a patch as simple as the default patch would be rather confusing.

Agree. Replacing labels is the way to go IMO.

John-E34 · Post by **John-E34** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:38 pm

Howard wrote:
Urs wrote:I think that the number of cables needed to wire up a patch as simple as the default patch would be rather confusing.
Agree. Replacing labels is the way to go IMO.

+1

rexlapin · Post by **rexlapin** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:03 pm

I did something with ACE which I have not done before. I did a quick
read through the manual and then without listening to any of the presets
I started trying to make my own patches. I saved anything I found of
interest and then changed some connections, turned a knob in the
opposite direction etc. to see what would happen. I would usually have
scanned through the presets, but I still haven't and I have found that
ACE is ideal for me as an experimental lab. I did have some experience
with both the Timewarp and 2600 V emulations which perhaps made it
easier to understand the basic concept of the prewired plus patch cord
approach. It took me a while to get to that point I will admit. ;-)
Anyway, I have been having a fantastic time with ACE (and Bazille as
well). Thanks Urs...and my apologies to the preset designers. I'm sure I'll
eventually get around to hearing them! :-)
Cheers,
Scott

Fred_Abstract · Post by **Fred_Abstract** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:33 pm

it s the same for me, i have so much fun to program this synth,there is a learning curve .i find the gui/ internal routing are perfect after few days of patching

(i was lost at first too, give it some time)

dave dove · Post by **dave dove** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:35 pm

agree about the labels
but i do like the pre-patched architecture..
what i like most is the sound
doesn't sound "old" to me
sounds really modern
the only old synths i can think of that this compares to
are the really expensive ones i could never afford
this is the best soft-synth i've bought
i'm rethinking my workflow now 'cos
the way it sits in the mix is fantastic

looking forward to the finished article

thanks Urs

dave

Bobbotov · Post by **Bobbotov** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:58 pm

Just curious as I downloaded the demo and it did eat up a lot of CPU what it is specifically about ACE that makes it so CPU intensive? I am running a 2.3 Ghz dual core and a single instance of ACE was peaking around 60% on one CPU and 30% on the other through Sonar 7. I haven't tried multiple instances yet.

Nice synth for experimenting with all things considered.

C-note · Post by **C-note** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:08 pm

ACE presets by themselves are only at 4 to 6% on a single core (I7 950 cpu) but stacking each up to 8 used 40-45% with gave a much nicer sound. So not too bad. Great synth Urs!

Cheers,

C

kmonkey · Post by **kmonkey** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:21 pm

Bobbotov wrote:Just curious as I downloaded the demo and it did eat up a lot of CPU what it is specifically about ACE that makes it so CPU intensive? I am running a 2.3 Ghz dual core and a single instance of ACE was peaking around 60% on one CPU and 30% on the other through Sonar 7. I haven't tried multiple instances yet.

Nice synth for experimenting with all things considered.

It's all about sound quality ...compare it to others and you'll see why is this thing nice sounding at 44khz

HiEnergy · Post by **HiEnergy** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:42 pm

I like the concept of ACE being pre-wired. Reminds me of the ARP 2600.
Please keep it pre-wired.

May I fantasize a bit about my over-the-top ideas on pre-wiring?

Maybe the way of "pre-wired-ness" could be made configurable. (none, one VCO-VCF-VCA chain (EG1->VCA, EG2->VCF), two in parallel (one EG per VCF/VCA group)). An even improved idea: one could clear off all wires and pre-wirings then set up wires and and save this construction as a pre-wiring schema.
On starting a new patch you could select one of the saved pre-wiring configurations.
Yet another feasible workstep: Have ACE set up wires according to its selected pre-wiring then nullify the pre-wiring. You could then partially re-wire the whole thing and store this as a new pre-wiring schema.

Is there already another soft synth offering this flexibility in the workflow? I guess not.

u-he

KVR Audio

U-he ACE!