Oops! Yeah, I must’ve crossed some wires there lol I read a post from Mitch a while back and thought the limit on CPU had something to do with the memory for samples. Sorry for the confusion.
Here’s the post about the possibility of integrating the PHZ engine to the + series that I got mixed up
(What is the PHZ synth engine? - #18 by Mitch)
So not that the sample memory has to do with the UI, but that the CPU may already be pushed to a threshold, so adding much more to it could take away from the quality of other aspects. It’s just a gut feeling, so I could be wrong all the same. Perhaps @Mitch could chime in on feasibility of your concept? Regardless, that’s why I made the wish for a synth and sample editor that works similar to Novation Components for the circuit tracks and rhythm, seeing as there is inherent need to use a computer to create and edit any samples and that there’s not much of a synth interface to play with.
If i were you, I’d definitely put the idea up as a feature request. It’s well thought out and any improvement to the synth editing UI would make the device 100x better.
The lack of tactical hands on editing of the synth engine on the play is the most counter innovative workflow aspect of the unit and I really hope they address this. The Play is close to Greatness…One thing though in regards to: Tracker vs Play is that TR users seam to be way more productive and creative with it vs what I’ve heard from the Play Heads (?) ..
If any thing, I would say this is why I love composing and designing on my tracker mini over my play+. It feels more complete in its UI, especially in regards to the synth editor pages. I think if Polyend would adopt the synth pages of the Tracker+ UI to the synth pages of the Play+, it’d make them way more fun to tweak and develop my own patches for it. Your idea would take this to a whole new level though and give the play an “analog” feel that would be heaps of fun to use.
Could because there are a lot more trackers out there? Or the fact that the tracker has a sampler + radio or is there something ‘‘je ne pas quoi’’ quality to the tracker that breathes music better.
Well, and this is just my opinion on it having used both the tracker mini and play+ to write multiple songs with, the Play is not a fully standalone device. It begs to be hooked up to a computer for everything that isn’t sequencing, synth editing, or what’s immediately available on the knobs. Which is fine by me, I say they lean into it to be honest. Some proper interface software to let us tweak all the little bells and whistles that Polyend can dream up for the Play without it putting an extra load on the CPU would be magnificent in my book. I realize that’s a big ask, so I’m choosing to be patient and find new ways to utilize my Play+, but it is because of these limitations in it’s workflow that I don’t feel it makes a good leading device and could really do well if Rx’ing CC’s and PC’s were more utilized, allowing us to tap into it’s brain a bit and make it more flexible for different users rigs. This is just how I feel, so I’m interested to see where they take it.
Now, I feel it’s important to mention here that I freakin love my play and still using it as my drum and bass dream machine. Once you have everything in place you’d think it was reading your mind half the time and blowing it the other half lol I don’t know what device on the market out there that can even match its performance fx for the price. It is an absolute beast of a groovebox and I stand beside it all day as is. But, as most things are, there’s plenty of space to improve. I think the the hill to climb for the play+ is deceptively more difficult to climb once you start trying to using it for anything other than a synth and sample-based groovebox, whereas the Tracker UI is more prepared for deeper design and editing options when the need arises in the workflow. Also, the price tag and form factor of the mini could play a huge part of the increased use of it.