Poly CV - what happened?

[dioxide]

So Blamsoft came out with a very clever mod to allow CV to carry polyphonic info, and then nobody else (including Propellerhead) bothered to support the standard.
http://blamsoft.com/polycv/

That's pretty disappointing. I mean either PH should have officially adopted the system or at least some other devs could have got involved. It's a shame to see this just get forgotten about seeing as there is a real need for it.

[hamu]

So Blamsoft came out with a very clever mod to allow CV to carry polyphonic info, and then nobody else (including Propellerhead) bothered to support the standard.
http://blamsoft.com/polycv/

That's pretty disappointing. I mean either PH should have officially adopted the system or at least some other devs could have got involved. It's a shame to see this just get forgotten about seeing as there is a real need for it.

+1
I added Poly CV outputs to the ModPanels (and Newtrols), but these are outputs. What's really missing are instruments accepting Poly CV inputs. If I had designed any instruments, I'd add Poly CV asap.
And a new combinator with Poly CV inputs would really be a great solution, since this would enable us to play any existing instruments from Poly CV, with proper note off control. This would be an important step forward within the CV concept, which is, IMHO, one of the most unique features of Reason in relation to other DAW's.

[dioxide]

+1 on the need for instruments. And having at least the Combinator support it is a very good idea!

And credit to you for supporting the standard also, shame PH didn't bother!

[Faastwalker]

Another case for 'Combinator 2'. I really hope Propellerhead expand the Combinator at some point. Hopefully they could just add to it so it could be backwards compatible with existing combinators but have more features (such as Poly CV) & more controls for starters.

[Benedict]

The idea is very cool but I get the feeling that it wasn't an idea that really gained any traction with users. I would assume very few of Blamsoft's units ever sold. There is effectively no chatter over them now (compared to other matters). Even tho I was excited over using Reason to make DIY synths etc I can't say it really feels worth it either for Mono or Poly synths. Sure maybe if there were a SUPER Combi - but even then with Thor, I'm not sure would take off.

[esselfortium]

It's a real shame Propellerhead hasn't added PolyCV support to their own instruments. If NN-XT (and ideally NN19 as well) supported it, it would allow for the creation of a powerful RE-based switchboard to take the place of the very limited Thor-based keyswitching system currently used in instrument combis. This would make a lot of advanced Kontakt instrument behavior accessible to Reason users in an open format (unlike IDT's locked-down scripts), and would open a new avenue for modern instrument libraries to be ported to Reason.

Though of course I'd rather see a new sampler and new combinator that would negate the need for that, who knows how long we'd be waiting for either of those... (And PolyCV would regardless allow for more expandability and more powerful control of existing instruments.)

[Auryn]

+ 1 for more polycv instruments! It's a pity the whole polymod system hasn't gained a lot of traction (yet?). The potential is definitely there, Reason as a whole is potentially one of the most powerful modular synthesis systems available. It's a pity the props don't do more to emphasize that aspect of the program. I think adding it to existing instruments may be problematic because of the space needed for 8 seperate audio outputs for the different voices, but a little foldable breakout box could be added.

I haven't used the hamu control panels yet by the way, but i'm interested. What is the poly cv out for? Is it like a replacement for distrubutor?

[hamu]

@Auryn: With a Poly CV instrument, it's not necessary to have 8 separate outputs for the different voices, albeit that the Viking VO-1 has that solution. It would be enough to add the two sockets for PolyCV input (or a switch for already existing CV Gate&Note inputs), to give the instrument the ability to handle Poly CV note off events separately. Given of course that the instrument is polyphonic.
Without Poly CV you can only get separate note off events if you play the instruments via MIDI (from a keyboard or from the PH main sequencer), or use several copies of the instrument.
When Poly CV is supported, you can e.g. combine notes from several arps or sequencer REs, all with separate note offs, and get the instrument output in a single polyphonic audio output.

Regarding the hamu control panels. Yes, all received midi notes will be sent to the PolyCV output as well as to the separate distributed CV pairs.

[eXode]

The idea is very cool but I get the feeling that it wasn't an idea that really gained any traction with users. I would assume very few of Blamsoft's units ever sold. There is effectively no chatter over them now (compared to other matters). Even tho I was excited over using Reason to make DIY synths etc I can't say it really feels worth it either for Mono or Poly synths. Sure maybe if there were a SUPER Combi - but even then with Thor, I'm not sure would take off.

Poly CV has little to do with the Poly Modular system. The Poly Modular system utilized Poly CV however

Think instead of devices such as ChordSet, Korde Sequencer, or AutoTheory and being able to use a single pair of GATE/NOTE CV cables to a single instance of an instrument that supports Poly CV to send polyphonic note data instead of how you need to do it today.

Props should have implemented PolyCV before even developing the RE format if you ask me. It's a shame that more developers haven't caught on. We need both instruments and sequencers that support it.

[fceramic]

PolyCV requires too much routing. I love cv routing, but not to the point where it feels like chore.
I think it's mind boggling that Props haven't implemented midi routing in the rack. It makes so much sense and would give Reason users the joy of midi tools like everyone other DAW.

[esselfortium]

PolyCV requires too much routing. I love cv routing, but not to the point where it feels like chore.
I think it's mind boggling that Props haven't implemented midi routing the rack. It makes so much sense and would give Reason users the joy of midi tools like everyone other DAW.

PolyCV uses identical routing to monophonic CV.

[ScuzzyEye]

PolyCV uses identical routing to monophonic CV.

Yep.

For anyone who isn't aware of what exactly PolyCV adds:

The default Note + Gate CV connections in Reason allow an instrument to play a note at a specific velocity. Additional notes can be added after the first one is started. It may also be possible to have those additional notes be at a different velocity than the first, if the person coding the instrument pays special attention. But what can't happen is any note be stopped before another. Setting the gate to 0 stops all notes at the same time.

With PolyCV all of the above is possible, and each additional note can definitely be at a different velocity than the first. But there's the added feature that any note can be dropped from those being played at while still keeping the rest sounding.

PolyCV still uses only two cables. It doesn't even require special jacks on the receiving instrument, as specially encoded data is sent on occasion telling the instrument to expect PolyCV. The only thing that would have been nice, but would have complicated things more, is a way for the instrument to tell the sending device that it supports PolyCV. (Like a return CV cable, for a 2-way handshake.) As it is now, you have to manually tell the sending device to use PolyCV, and if the receiver doesn't support it, you'll get unpredictable results.

[esselfortium]

The only thing that would have been nice, but would have complicated things more, is a way for the instrument to tell the sending device that it supports PolyCV. (Like a return CV cable, for a 2-way handshake.) As it is now, you have to manually tell the sending device to use PolyCV, and if the receiver doesn't support it, you'll get unpredictable results.

Wait, really? From reading the PolyCV specifications I was under the impression that there was a 2-way handshake done to avoid that problem.

[ScuzzyEye]

Wait, really? From reading the PolyCV specifications I was under the impression that there was a 2-way handshake done to avoid that problem.

CV is only 1-way, so only cables from the sender to the receiver can't do a 2-way handshake. The sending device puts out the PolyCV signature periodically, and the receive device when it sees that goes into PolyCV mode. But there's no way for the receiving device to communicate back to the sender, that it is actually ready for PolyCV.

Not so much of a handshake as a high-five. If the person isn't expecting the high-five, they get slapped in the side of the head.

[chimp_spanner]

Yeah to be honest, I didn't much go for Poly CV. I usually end up using the mono connections because it just feels more...realistic. I also couldn't get my head around it not mattering which outputs I used and stuff. I dunno, it felt like there was too much going on that I couldn't see, where everything else in Reason feels more transparent. One cable, one message.

Sucks because I was super hyped about Polymodular and then when I got it, I ended up wishing it worked more like the A-Series! I mean it's possible to use it like that I guess but there's a lot of wasted screen space on account of all the redundant ins and outs.

[electrochoc (PRX-A)]

Poly CV has little to do with the Poly Modular system. The Poly Modular system utilized Poly CV however

Think instead of devices such as ChordSet, Korde Sequencer, or AutoTheory and being able to use a single pair of GATE/NOTE CV cables to a single instance of an instrument that supports Poly CV to send polyphonic note data instead of how you need to do it today.

Maybe there may have been some kind of mistake from the Blamsoft office as to how they tried to demonstrate the potential of PolyCV... Or maybe they somehow fail to see how the use of this technology could be really powerful...

As you said, PolyCV could have rendered the work with devices like AutoTheory and other chord generators and sequencers way easier. But Blamsoft themselves applied (and "sold") PolyCV primarily as a tool to facilitate work in a modular environment. The idea was not bad, but came a little late... As of now, there are just too many devices that can be used in a modular way and which work with standard CV (which are, somehow, all Reason native devices and Rack Extensions!), and building a modular synth using both standard and PolyCV devices is not really handy...

I've drawn a little chart showing the current limitations of PolyCV in a modular environment. Let's take that basic configuration:

Mini-modulaire 2jpg.jpg (87.31 KiB) Viewed 3561 times

... in which Pulverizers are used as filters and Charlottes are used to modulate one Scream feature. Let's say I want to replace the Subtractors with VO-1s, Charlottes with Movements and Pulverizers with F-16s, but that I want to keep the Screams, I end up with this configuration:

Polymodulairejpg.jpg (48.69 KiB) Viewed 3561 times

Sure, it's more simple, but the need to have many instances of Scream and a global mixer is not overcome... In more complex configurations (as we, modular guys, like to make!), PolyCV coupled with standard devices can become quite a nightmare...

Disclaimer: the charts are made according to my understanding of how the PolyModular Synth components work, but I haven't tried them yet in real work... It is possible I haven't truly understood how they work!

[Faastwalker]

I'd like Poly CV so OchenK's Micro Tune works properly

[eXode]

Poly CV has little to do with the Poly Modular system. The Poly Modular system utilized Poly CV however

Think instead of devices such as ChordSet, Korde Sequencer, or AutoTheory and being able to use a single pair of GATE/NOTE CV cables to a single instance of an instrument that supports Poly CV to send polyphonic note data instead of how you need to do it today.

Maybe there may have been some kind of mistake from the Blamsoft office as to how they tried to demonstrate the potential of PolyCV... Or maybe they somehow fail to see how the use of this technology could be really powerful...

Blamsoft have been very clear about the usage of PolyCV. It seems that it's several of you who have misunderstood.

http://blamsoft.com/polycv/

[JiggeryPokery]

Without both receiving and sending devices available to other poly cv devs, it's nigh on impossible for a dev to implement with any hope of being compatible with any other dev's products: Blam's package does not include such test devices for the SDK dev environment. I recall reading something about "getting in touch" with Blam to get this, but really, he should have included those devices zipped up along with the tech document. I'd have loved to have had Charlotte poly-cv'd up.

[electrochoc (PRX-A)]

Blamsoft have been very clear about the usage of PolyCV. It seems that it's several of you who have misunderstood.

http://blamsoft.com/polycv/

I understand the concept (or, at least, I think I understand it!): I was more talking about the way they (Blamsoft) themselves applied PolyCV up to now, which is the Polymodular System. They could have developed some kind of PolyCV-Matrix-like sequencer and turned Viking into a PolyCV instrument. They could also have done something like a simple and free MIDI-to-PolyCV utility. Instead, they opted to release as a way to demonstrate how PolyCV can be used the Polymodular System, making PolyCV looking more like a good protocol for modular-related devices instead of it really is: an improved way for controller devices (like sequencers) and instruments to communicate via CV. This could be one of the reasons why many other developers doesn't seem to have even take a look at this technology...

Said otherwise, my comment was more a matter of marketing than of technical stuff... (And, sure, as a side-note, it was also about why PolyCV is not so useful as a modular tool as of now.)

[Tweak]

My take on this:

The system as it stands is a hack, and a very clever hack. However, in my opinion, this is a part of reason on which we certainly shouldn't be relying on hacks. CV between devices is one of the main differentiators between Reason and other DAWs and one of the primary reason's I continue to use it.

With proper development, the CV system could be used to provide all sorts of inter-devices communications; things like resetting of devices, passing patch parameters etc. Without Propellerhead behind this most developers don't really have a stable base on which to build stuff like this. For example without a two way hand shake, I'm guessing it makes versioning and upgrading the current Poly CV system more difficult, or at least less user friendly.

It wouldn't surprise me if Propellerhead had something in the pipeline for this, it being as important to Reason as it is.

Marc

[tiker01]

I hoped developers will pick up poly CV especially I would have love to see an Autotheory update utilising this technology, even without instruments supporting it. One can always duplicate the instrument, although it is not ideal.

However, I have to agree that PH themselves should push the frontier and somehow provide a new way of communication between devices. Perhaps this could be virtual Ethernet cables as they are used in real world too. One could use these Ethernet cables for not only to transfer "MIDI" but other kind of information.
One very important thing is to not introduce anything what can make the implementation of latency compensation any harder.

[Olivier]

Are there any utility devices available, like for example a mono to poly cv merger, and a poly to mono cv splitter ?
If there are, then there's something to test/build devices against.

[Auryn]

@ eauhm : there's a free poly-cv breakout box, I think you could use that!

@ jiggery pokery : I don't pretend to understand the exact problems with implementing poly-cv, but I would kill for a polymodular charlotte and AMMO! Ok, maybe not kill, but I'd gladly pay for such an update. I have a half-finished polymodular synth built out of AMMO-100's sitting on my hard drive. So far it sounds great! But it's very unwieldy.

[hamu]

Without hesitation Blamsoft sent me developer copies of the free Polymodular devices (no, not the complete source code , when I had some minor question about the PolyCV implementation. At the same time I agree with JP that it would've been even more transparent if it had been included in the developer PolyCV download package at PH.