Are there still plans to implement the two MPE Modules as shown here, or a configuration page with equivalent functionality?:
The stretch goal modules will of course be implemented, I am working on the microtonal quantizer (MTQ) at the moment which is one of the modules from the recent stretch goal module voting. Please see the voting results in the KS updates for the list of modules to be implemented. The MTQ should be done later tonight or tomorrow, I’ll post an update when I have a new build.
Regarding the MPE functionality - this has now been implemented in the MIDI module and partly at the global level with the round robin voice assignment and incoming MIDI note/channel handling. The MIDI module has multiple outputs so you get access to all the typical MPE dimensions. You assign it to a voice number and the note data is handed off to the voices as it comes in together with its aftertouch / pitch bend data. If you have any specific questions about how to use it let me know.
Keep in mind you can use multiple MIDI modules and set them to be part of different voices so you can get really creative with that. The module also already offers a few “global” CCs like volume (CC7) and mod wheel (CC1). @ahhdem has already asked about how to get access to the other CCs and I’ll look into a solution for this as soon as I can.
Based on the answer above, it sounds like the answer to my question is “No,” which is extremely disappointing, but I’d like you to confirm this before I compose a more detailed response.
In terms of how I’d like to use it, based on the kick-starter images I had the impression that it would be quite trivial to setup something like: use channels 1-8 of MPE data to control various internal patches, and send pitch and velocity data from channels 9-12 through the perucssa’s 8 physical outputs and receive direct visual feedback through the interface when setting this up.
I don’t think you fully understand how it works right now. You seem to think it’s “limited” but it’s really not.
What you want is possible to do, you just use MIDI modules for voices 1-8, and you patch the signals from those to internal modules however you want, and then you add MIDI modules for voices 9-12 and send the signals from those modules to the output jacks of the SSP using output (OUT) modules.
If you want to do something else or I don’t understand fully what you want to do then post more details so I do understand.
In a project like this it’s unavoidable that features or functionality ends up in other locations in the software for technical or usability reasons
I think the visual feedback provided for incoming MIDI/MPE is “limited” when compared to this:
I really haven’t gotten that deep into trying to get more out of MPE on the module due to the existing pitchbend issues. One of the reasons I find myself desiring the visual interface that was promised on kickstarter is to troubleshoot my current experience.
I’ll try again after the next update, and will certainly post questions if they come up.
That’s understandable, but in this case (and possibly others) there seems to be a bit of dissonance between the flexibility that was pitched/promised on both kickstarter and MuffWiggler and sometimes hinted at in early screenshots — vs. the current state of the software. (Some other folks have hinted at this, though not necessarily in the most constructive of manners.)
I also appreciate that this is a work in progress, and appreciate the effort you guys are putting into meeting expectations and in some cases adding additional polish.
In general, I’ve made the assumption that 99% of concerns would be taken care of as updates were made, (after all, I backed this project because I believe in you guys) but I’m starting to have some anxiety regarding the MPE scenario.
for the next update, hopfully it won’t come as a surprise if after it I’m asking for visualizations of incoming MIDI/routing.
I do however, promise that I will never complain about not being able to create a patch with a billion oscillators.
Oh, come on, maybe just a tiny little complaint? I mean, it’d probably sound like white noise but it’d be the coolest white noise ever!
I don’t think it is limited: you can go to the MIDI module in the grid, and you can scroll in the output list of the MIDI module using encoder 4, and highlight the output you want to look at. The scope at the bottom will show the signal coming out of that output. So you have signal monitoring capabilities just like in the UI mockup. If you send your MIDI signals out of the SSP using an OUT module you additionally have scopes on the P-page of the output module which you can use for monitoring.
The signals from the MIDI module can be summed any way you want, so you can send any of the output signals to any input in the grid, and you can automatically sum the signals by sending multiple of them to the same input. Using shift-left + encoder 3 you can scale any incoming signals into an input and using shift-right + encoder 4 you can scale any outgoing signals from a module.
I’d like to keep the discussion about MPE in the current MPE-related thread here -
As you can see at the bottom of the thread, there is an explanation of the MPE toggle to use in the global menu, and I’ve just posted a lengthy in depth explanation of the MIDI module today.
I don’t really understand why you think there is no flexibility in the software? You can literally patch anything to anything in the patching grid, and you have scopes for any output or input, in multiple places, to debug anything, including MPE signals from the MIDI module. There is a learning curve with the software but that is unavoidable.
The MPE functionality is already there and works since the MPE fix that was posted, but perhaps you expect the user interface to look exactly as in the mockups? It might not have been implemented identical to the mock up, but such is the nature of software development, and it is still in development.
You make it seem like they are not delivering on their kickstarter rewards. I don’t think that’s true. After 40+ kickstarter updates, and the continued presence of B&C here, and all the hard work they put in, I really don’t see how they could be any more reassuring about their dedication to the module and its development.
They already have delivered a solid piece of hardware and are not done with the software yet. They’ve been very clear about that both in the kickstarter updates and here on the forum.
From all the responses here, on the forums, I think it’s clear B&C are open to changes and suggestions and act on them. Since the hardware was delivered they already posted 4 software updates which fix things or add features people asked for.
I don’t think it is realistic to expect that you have feature request this week and get it implemented next week. I think they want to make sure that when they add a new feature or make a change to the code base it is something everyone will agree upon?.
If you have specific suggestions to improve the MIDI module then please do share them here in the forum. That is why we are all here.
It’s been a minute… Deadlines and literal floods, but at least no gear was damaged.
Looks like there’s been a lot of activity, and I’m excited to check out the updated software. Don’t want to debate things that might have changed, but you’ve made some points here that I can’t leave hanging.
I never gave any indication that I expected anything to be implemented immediately, and looking back my posts are pretty clear on the subject.
I never expected visual parity, but I do expect feature parity.
I’ve never questioned their dedication, in fact I’ve come to their defense a number of times on this board. However, no amount of word wrangling is going to change that if after all updates are in place, and there isn’t visual feedback of midi signals coming into the unit before assignment, as promised on Kickstarter, I’ll consider it a reward not met.
This doesn’t mean I don’t think everyone is doing a great job on a number of things, or that I won’t continue to have a direct conversation with the folks who promised them if at the end of the day sales promises aren’t met.
With that said, looking forward to catching up on both software updates and conversations on this forum. I certainly wasn’t expecting the SDK to be ready this soon!
That’s crazy, glad everything is OK. Welcome back!