Bring Back Simult!! vote!!

JJ OS is hardly uncrackable... but it is hardly worth the effort as somebody would need to fully understand the hardware/encryption system to unlock it for one piece of software. Learning how to do the same on Windows gives you an essentially unlimited supply of software.

illiterati wrote:also - im very surprised at the amount of 'don't give a ****' on the poll.

I'm shocked at the number of people who voted not to remove the chord and arp features... ZERO right now. I call that a flop.

I think it's a cool feature,and if it could be implemented in future updates that would be really nice, and I would use it.

This is the main reason I don't use xl.

whats so special about old simult?

only the parent midi note is recorded, not its SIMULTED note. at face value, this doesn't sound as good, but it's far better for sequencing with than having both notes recorded - except in the rarest of circumstances (kick+hi hat simult combo allows you to manipulate the timing)

rich_biatch wrote:whats so special about old simult?

It's just a great way to make REALLY expressive drum kits man. I don't feel like getting into too many details, but the main thing is layering multiple samples with their own individual envelopes, filters, and playback settings.

One of my favorite snare sounds is a snappy snare, simulted to a low volume (and lp filtered) kick, and simulted to a long and ambient snare sample (with note-on settings). I can play a surprisingly expressive performance using just this 1 pad and basic kick drum pad. Of course I would usually have my kick drum pads set up pretty similar to the snare.

Now the simult pad system in 2XL makes any sequence editing (and using pattern mode) super obnoxious, and not very MPC like.

"MPC like" is often synonymous with super obnoxious. think about life without GPE/WHOLE (current mpc2500/1000 akai os's)

Na you're right... I shouldn't have wrote that. I meant MPC-like as in functioning like an older ("traditional") MPC's simult pads.

I actually should have put "not very JJ like"

To be quite honest with you all, I've never really used that simult feature. Maybe I need to try it out one day and see why its so important to everyone. Anyhow, I'm on OS2XL and I do use the arpeggiator when sequencing external MIDI synth modules for synth-type electronic sounds. Although it's somewhat limited, I find it very useful/convenient and I really like the fact I can adjust the duration in real time to a low value to give the synth MIDI note a "gated" type of sound. So yeah, I think the arpeggiator does come in handy indeed, especially if you like to sequence external MIDI gear.

Chord, on the other hand, is not something I really use. Although you can program your own chords and set each pad to a certain chord, I find it very limited because it only works when using the pads. It doesn't work on MIDI keyboard input. I find this the major downside with chord because I expected it to work somewhat like the chord function on my Roland Fantom S but this is not the case. It's not implemented the same way or similar to the Roland at all. Therefore, I wouldn't miss the chord feature if I lost it.

In my opinion, I think the arpeggiator should stay. If I had to pick any functions to be removed, I would pick the chord function and perhaps the "pong game" (if it's on OS2XL. I haven't tested that out yet. Is it Mode+PAD10+F6? ).

However, other functions I find crucial like track velocity (% velocity on Main Screen), HEQ, LEQ, pad to track, filter 2, should definitely be left alone. These functions are the very reason I bought OS2XL to begin with and make a major difference in sound as far as mixing goes.

Now if I had a choice between arpeggiator and quantizable track mute groups, I'd definitely choose the quantizable track mute groups anyday in a heartbeat!!!

But yeah, I gotta try that simult feature out in OS2 and see what the hype is all about and see what I've been missing out on.

kvmoore wrote:But yeah, I gotta try that simult feature out in OS2 and see what the hype is all about and see what I've been missing out on.

you should try it. I use it all the time and the fact that it's been changed is one of the main reasons I haven't even loaded OS2XL.

the way I work is I chop up a sample, load up some drums from another beat real quick, lay down the hi-hats and snare.. play out the sample chops to make a melody and then add the kick to get the basic beat. I then come back later on and change the drums out for drums that fit the beat a little better, and I layer the drums using simult to make new drum sounds. sometimes I go back and switch out the drums, remove simulted pads, add some back.. it would be a major pain in the ass if I had to re-record the drums each time I did that. the new way is completely counter-intuitive to the way simult is supposed to work.

Oh, I see. Yeah. I definitely gotta try that out!!

illiterati wrote:yeah, quantize strength and filter 2 in os2 would have been bang on.

also - im very surprised at the amount of 'don't give a ****' on the poll. Im wondering, how many of them dont use silmult after recording, and how many just stayed on os2.

I think that "I don't give a kcuf" vote was giving from people who don't know about the difference between old and new simult. It's like everybody is talking about it, but is isn't really explained at all, what this is about. At least that's the situation I'm in at the moment, because I seldom used Simult before. Maybe somebody can explain this more in-depth

I think that "I don't give a kcuf" vote was giving from people who don't know about the difference between old and new simult.

or those of us using better solutions to layer our drums