#41

I want(ed) a long, empty buffer with CV control over cue points within that buffer. not even precision, just different start points. the feature I would add is CV to add cue points. instead, I got no more cue points. 1.21 let me use CV to modulate overdub/overwrite while modulating cue points and tbh I love that.

do I have other modules to do this? yes, but none have a long buffer (or are 2hp).

there is a lot about the original controls that I picked up after a little practice and “made sense” after that practice. an entirely new control scheme is really unpleasant. I can’t imagine another module doing this.

is “just a looper” a reason to dump W/? not sure, but I’m having trouble simply using it now (and do not want to be surprised by my last run), so I loaded the old firmware and I guess that’s that.

1 Like
#42

only really had time to dig into w/Del mode, but wowee! i love the control scheme. using the toggle for setting various parameter values seems very intuitive, as does choosing which parameter to edit. it’ll take some time for muscle memory, but that’s to be expected :smile:

3 Likes
#43

I’m confused about the synth but, like alternate modes on a Mutable module, I’m not required to use it at all. I’m confused about an entirely new set of controls, which I am required to use.

2 Likes
#44

Let’s slow it down a sec… we’re here because this is a beta testing thread. We’re not reviewing a device on launch.

The following two statements occur to me to be true:

  1. Synth mode is a cool feature. Its addition does not “harm” any existing use case.
  2. Delay mode is a cool feature. Its addition does not “harm” any existing use case. In fact it makes the module easy to use for a thing people were already using it for.

The contention seems to be around the Tape mode and the following in particular:

  1. Muscle memory changes.
  2. Changes to cueing, locating, moving.

In my mind the more that W/ behaves like a physical tape machine in its naked state the better, but users have clearly evolved specific use cases…

What would a more structured or quantifiable way of gathering feedback and analyzing these specific use cases look like? As it happens we’re all just firing off forum posts, which is the product design equivalent of playing bidirectional Jenga, whereby removing or reinserting any block could tip the Jenga over.

15 Likes
#45

In Synth Mode:

  • I had tried to set up “this” as a trigger input but it wasn’t working. I tried the “in” jack and that worked. I believe when I previously used Synth mode I had experimented with using the “in” jack as a trigger input, because it remembered that routing. I was not able to use “this” as a trigger input until I set the “in” jack to control a different parameter. It seems like whichever input you set to control a parameter should take precedence — I was not using both inputs simultaneously, it was simply not letting me use “this” for triggering the LPG because “in” was taking precedence (I believe). No problems at all switching routings between “this” and “that” seems like only an “in” problem, so I assume it’s limited to this specific case in synth mode where “in” can be used in this way.
1 Like
#46

Definitely appreciate your very reasonable and measured reminder of the state of things - it’s easy to lose sight of the very clear beta this is - which is why I haven’t installed it. I’m curious from a totally ignorant point of view that maybe some of you programmery people can answer - do potential bugs in one mode make other modes or the module itself less stable? If synth mode has no impact on the overall stability, then I’m all for it and will just pretend it doesn’t exist. I just didn’t know that that was definitely the case.

I’ll bow out for awhile to your Jenga point at the end, just curious for the answer to the above if anyone has any definitive knowledge of that sort of thing with firmware design.

EDIT: I think I’m chiming in despite not installing the beta as a musician trying to speak from my perspective of what I hope the module accomplishes. Not sure that’s out of bounds or not, but just figured this point might be useful to make so you all know where I’m coming from.

3 Likes
#47

and I am responding to a beta that, while functional (to the ends described in the orig posts) makes this module difficult to use and eliminates features I was using.

no I don’t really have a thought on Delay or Synth as neither of them address how I use W/.

I agree that an open thread discussing beta issues is less than ideal, but this is the choice Mannequins made, and I am trying to be constructive with my criticism.

1 Like
#48

if the new features feel superfluous, or something you use is being removed, why update? if the update doesn’t make the module better for you, then maybe it’s better to stick to v1 :smile:

10 Likes
#49

Because v2 has stability improvements unavailable in the previous version.

If a previous version plus the stability improvements was offered, that’d be great.

4 Likes
#50

the improvements are likely because of the code changes. :smiley:

1 Like
#51

If that’s true, then sure, but it’s still very disappointing.

At the least the improvements to handling SD card failures / initializing new card should be backported.

3 Likes
#52

i can totally agree with that, assuming it’s feasible :smiley:

2 Likes
#53

Yesterday Trent told those watching that the new version is a complete rewrite so I might think that a backport wouldn’t be in the realm of possibilities but what do I know.

#54

I don’t know any modern software team that backports fixes anymore. For the engineers this creates progressively less affordable “legacy debt” and for the business it creates a hostage situation.

All the more reason that we need a more dispassionate or quantifiable way of understanding what, exactly, did you like about the old version?

Ok, why? I’m not trying to be rude here, I think we all need to know more about each other’s use cases rather than less. The 1.x firmware was borderline incomprehensible to me, so I’m genuinely curious.

What does what you describe above sound like? What does it help you accomplish in live performance or the studio or both? How does this interpretation of W/ 1.x differ from, say, the Morphagene’s concept of “splices”? It’s one thing to describe things from a technical perpective—CV over cue points, broadly, if I understand you—but why?

2 Likes
#55

i’m not trying to be rude either but I’m not sure how I could be clearer. why? because that’s what I want to do and W/ lets me do it, in eurorack, a modular format I use, with longer durations than other modules. This creates repetition that’s not “loopy.” Obviously how it sounds depends on the material I use.

I don’t have a Morphagene.

I feel I have made my contribution to this thread, given the status of the beta.

1 Like
#56

FWIW I’m QA engineer and the small team I’m part of always has multiple branches going and back ports happen all the time especially when there’s stability updates that would be held back waiting on feature updates. Obviously there are thresholds where we say “upgrade to the new thing” but we also don’t fundamentally change the way entire features work between releases.

And at the largest possible scale, only for illustration, Apple, who pride themselves on breaking backwards compatibility when the time is right, still supplies security updates and safari updates to two previous macOS versions.

3 Likes
#57

I probably shouldn’t have said “fixes” there, you’re right.

1 Like
#58

Let’s hear more about this, as a musician.

#59

Kind of like Billy, nothing to add as I feel like my post was pretty clear: stability is important for live performance. That should be a big priority in my opinion.

3 Likes
#60

I will say that while w/syn sounds like a nice additional feature/mode that some might never use, I was absolutely blown away by the short demo of it during the stream. the range of sounds possible in 4hp (+ crow) will be insane.

8 Likes