Identical Patches sound different after update; FW 0.21 to 0.27

UDO Audio Gear Super 6
,
22

Voice allocation:
I talked to George Hearn a few days before, and he described, why in the current release voice allocation has been changed to achieve MPE compatibility – especially when you push one key repeatingly (depending on your parameter settings in 0.21 this resulted in happy accidents as randomely allocate voicing in stereo field). I am not a technician, but what I understood was, that the MPE compatibility in 0.27/0.30 is the reason, why a single key is now fixed in voice allocation (once one key is pressed, all CC parameters such as portamento and stereo allocation have to be be fixed assigned to one voice, to achieve those key/voice dedicated MPE expression and playing versatility).

But George understood the issue immediately and had some ideas to recreate this keystroke related stereo voice allocation. He will care for it, and I am sure, there will be an update to this. On the other hand, he assured to me, that there will be no essential “sound” character changes in future. But off course there will be continuous improvement of the software, enabling features (for instance thus MPE ability, which is a great thing).

Regarding otherlike sound behaviours - as a workaround he made the suggestion to check if the sound can be set 12 semitones lower (one octave) which affects all filtering characteristics as well. Either via DDS settings or via Keyboard range selector. One main reason .21 and .27 differs is, that all “ranges” and resolutions of the controllers/knobs/faders/parameters have massively been extended allowing us to get smoother and finer sound adjustments, which is a good thing. But it needs manual readjustments of existing FW .21 sounds in some cases (as we all know :wink: If you have already fw 27 installed, and will update to .30 this issue may not accure.

Again, I am happy to see, that a UDO is working on it, constantly improving - many other companies do not care about improvements, once they released the device to public. Having an editor (! TOP, even VST!), MPE, Polychained Super 6 (what a soundbeast will it be then, in stacked mode?) a.s.o. in near future, makes it a more and more complete instrument.

I compare it to Synthstrom Deluge - every FW release enabled amazing features (off course, without loosing existing ones).

On the other hand, as I am not a technician, it would be nice to have somebody officially from UDO here, to explain thus more competent, than me.

We should support them, and talking/dialogue will help symbiotically.

6 Likes
23

You’d have thought that the voice allocation would only change if MPE was enabled.
No interest in MPE here - but if my Osmose ever arrives, I look forward to testing the response to poly aftertouch. Manual seems to imply both mono and poly aftertouch are interchangeable as far as the performance control section is concerned - something a lot of Hydrasynth users seem to pine for.

24

Watching the race to see whether my Osmose or the MPE firmware update for Super6 will ship first has been one of my favorite pastimes the last year.

As for why there might not be two voice allocation modes, it could be limited memory. IIRC, George has stated in the past that increasing patch storage wasn’t likely possible because of the number of parameters that have to be stored for each patch (since there’s no limit to mod slots, every possible mod slot has to be accounted for to make sure all patches will fit). Perhaps that also means there’s a hard limit to how large the firmware files can be?

1 Like
25

As long as we have the option of having a standard round robin voice allocation option when not using MPE then I’m happy. That would also re-enable the previous portamento behavior, which is a must, as the new one does not make any sense in poly.

That, and addition of individual key tracking setting per envelope, would enable me to fully fix old patches.

4 Likes
26

Totally agree, Zvuk… this would fix it.