Microtonic vs Microtonic Multi - why the need for both?

Ploki284 views13 posts
  • Ploki

    So, what's the point of having two separate plugins for this functionality?
    Couldn't you just have Microtonic loaded as Multi-Out? (That way it would retain current settings without the need of saving a preset before replacing it)

  • Steven Sauve

    I mostly use the regular version and use the A/B when I need a specific output, so I'm OK with the current format. But your suggestion makes sense, as long as they added an output setting for each drum to the UI.

  • Magnus Lidström

    Microtonic was 2 x stereo only in the beginning. Later (with version 2 I believe) we added the multi-output one. Back then I probably felt that it was best to offer these as two different plugins (instead of adding new outputs to the standard version) to make sure that nothing broke for our users.

    Today I regret it, as maintaining and testing two different plugin binaries is more work. But if we would remove the multi-output version today, we would definitely break things for our users.

  • Manuel Senfft

    - Magnus Lidström wrote:
    Today I regret it, as maintaining and testing two different plugin binaries is more work. But if we would remove the multi-output version today, we would definitely break things for our users.

    Maybe it would be an option to make a poll, how user would see this?

    To me it would be okay to only have one version from now onwards. I am using the multi out only anyway.If I had to reroute things or so, it would be ok as well. If this would be the only sacrifice to make future development of this plugin easier for you, I would totally support this. (-;

  • phil gregory

    Only one version would be great for me too =o)

  • Christian F.

    - Manuel Senfft wrote:
    If I had to reroute things or so, it would be ok as well.

    Speak for yourself, I don't want to reroute hundreds of projects.

  • Manuel Senfft

    - Christian F. wrote:
    - Manuel Senfft wrote:
    If I had to reroute things or so, it would be ok as well.
    Speak for yourself, I don't want to reroute hundreds of projects.

    You mean you have hundreds of active unfinished projects and all use Microtonic? o-:

  • Ploki

    i generally expect bad stuff to happen when i open old projects. :)

  • Magnus Lidström

    We have a policy of never breaking backward compatibility, so we will always support the multi-output version of Microtonic regardless of what (backward-compatible) changes we may do to the regular Microtonic version.

    If we would remove Microtonic Multi it's not just a matter of having to reroute. You would also lose all sound settings, patterns, and automation for these tracks in your song. We would never leave our users stranded like that.

  • Christian F.

    - Manuel Senfft wrote:
    You mean you have hundreds of active unfinished projects and all use Microtonic? o-:

    Yup. Not even kidding ;)

  • Manuel Senfft

    - Christian F. wrote:
    - Manuel Senfft wrote:
    You mean you have hundreds of active unfinished projects and all use Microtonic? o-:
    Yup. Not even kidding ;)

    You definitely should finish some tracks, before starting new ones from now on! :D

    d-:

  • Christian F.

    While I agree with you it's not ideal to have too many unfinished projects - these are project-files I choose from semi-randomly for jamming live with others ;)

  • Ploki

    Maybe multi-out could be added to the main microtonic, having an output selector instead of "A/B", and MicrotonicMulti being hardwired to Ch=Output like its now?

    I usually need kick+snare+other, so two outputs is just a bit short, but i usually start splitting when i mix - and because MT and MT-Multi don't retain settings it means i need to save a preset, reload, open preset, re-do any mod mapping i might have.

    sometimes i don't bother and just load another instance anyway

You need to be to post a reply

Sign In / Sign Up


First time here? Just enter your current email and sign up.
×