does anyone use it? what is your opinion? is it multitimbral?
got any vids? ive searched youtube and found nothing
1 Like
i have toyed around with it before and it can be pretty fun. Hereās some infos:
- It is currently not multi-timbral, but there is a wish to change instruments via MIDI.
- Itās technically a 8 voice synth based on one instrument with possibility to change parameters via CC
Itās especially fun if you use a granular instrument.
2 Likes
hmm thats sort of disappointing: it should be multitimbral. i mean why include it at all if you get only one instrument? what is the use of that? they must be worried you would overload it with midi. but really, the implied limitation is that if you record the midi output from tracker, theres no way to control it with the midi going back in from your external sequencer. how inconvenient. and you cant switch the instrument with a command. they seem to want to force you to use tracker only in the way it historically was made to operate. this is 2024 though! theres no reason for certain limits, its the whole interface concept thats the limiting factor but we have more than enough resources these days for a lot of limits to go away. multitimbrality should not be limited on a device like this. theres no good reason for it imho. its like polyend seq and a single cc per track only. what a useless limitation when the rest is absolutely gorgeous! i sold my seq and i would have kept it were there just one more cc lane per track lol.
so yeah, i like the tracker a lot but the limitation paradigm of polyend is frustrating. i mean, what is the function of some unnecessary limits?
1 Like
this is just a critique and not a dismissal. i wouldnt have repaired my data wheel if i meant to dismiss polyend. please take it constructively. or just laugh at my opinion i guess. the workflow of a tracker can be special and certain limits are good limits for sure.
I use this a ton as its generally faster for me to quickly play something via my midi keyboard than program it into the tracker. I have 20-30 instruments that I have saved into an āinstrumentsā project and just use the Instrument Synth in there most of the time. Itās a quick way to access a ton of sounds for my demo purposes.
2 Likes
how about a paid upgrade to multitambrality? theres gotta be enough cpu for it?
I already read that dividing by āzonesā isnt possible, but is it possible using different MIDI channels per instrument, or even per track? I guess that could be a workaroundā¦ I need testing how it works as this is an intereesting feature, giving access to parameters that seems impossible to sequence internally otherwise.
isnt the new tracker+ allowing all tracks to be accessed with midi input at once? or is it still just the active instrument?
My guess is that the real answer to all of your great ideas not being already implemented is the limitations of development resources. I suggest you create some wishes for the things really want.
1 Like
Thereās actually already one wish that is related to synth mode:
1 Like
thanks done that. i was asking because i dont have the + yet. do you?
I want to use the polyend as an instrument controlled by another midi device (pyramid squarp). And to be able to access on each midi channel a sample that I can control. I have voted on the same wish that you have voted. Hopefully they will add this feature in the future as it will provide added value to the tracker as a midi instrument.
the more i think about this the more it looks weak and crippled. what a sad excuse for a current piece of musical gear. and what does show up as a new feature doesnt do anything for its crippled nature. id say polyends priorities only frustrate and the limits are artificial. its cool tho. ive learned my lesson fucking with polyend gear. what an absolute shame. well they wont pimp me out anymore, im getting rid of this giant frustrationā¦ and ill never recommend this to anyone. if you want midi control over a multitimbral synth/sampler go buy a dirtywave m8. theres even a freeware version. m8 will allow you to use all 8 tracks over midi and even send pc messages to all. and if polyend doesnt want to play then they wont get my money. see ya!
3 Likes
We are in the same boat, but I will keep mine, as I like the form-factor and unique workflow, but I find the Development pibe-line oddā¦.
People who say āYou should buy it for what it featuresā has not realized, that Polyend does not state the basic essential feature, that are missing.
broken is more like it.
I donāt think it is broken, but in need of more Tender, Love and Care from @Mitch or who ever sits as project manager for the firmware development.
broke dick lol! no tlc on the horizon! many more-important things voted for. no real hope for working features! its not important to these people. ridiculous.
but im so glad i wasnt here from the start. there is that. 
1 Like
I actually had some kind of optimism, when the Polyend team stated, that we would see improved Communication after a longer shitstorm topic about lack of updates ā¦. 
1 Like
I know that feeling, bro. They still cant repair or remade chorus in sample editor. There is nothing to say about all other useful features. People want micro-stepping, multitimbrality, tune shifting, microtonality and other useless in most cases stuff that you can do in post-production, but the composing itself feels like you are dropping something to something, beg for it to sound good and there is no workaround. My first question in 2020 was: why there is no stereo sampling, its 2020. They said its their credo to make stuff that feels like 90s, but after few more tries one of them answered me that there is some limitations. Ok. (But why to choose outdated hardware for making devices in 2020?) Also I asked why not to make some switch in software to turn 8 mono tracks to 4 stereo tracks, or maybe pair them like 4 mono tracks + 2 stereo tracks. One of them said: its too much work. Maybe it is really so, but nothing stops them from developing new, much more hard to code devices.
No one will hear your anger here, forget it
1 Like
well multitimbrality is logical and its bizarre that the excuse could be its too much work. i mean presumably all users would develop sequences and āperformā midi into a daw. but for what purpose? you cant play back your midi and control the sound source in tracker. we all were doing this back in 1992 with our asr-10s. thats over 30 years ago! we are all involuntary testers for polyend who cant be held to functionality thats been common for over 30 years.