fabbr Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 Why can't I move this Delay block to the Path2? The only way I found out how to make that happen was to copy and past it ... but ... why can't can I just move it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncann Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 It being a beta application, I don't think that function is in there yet. How are you even copying it to path 'B'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilottes Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 Its a different DSP you cant move it on the Helix either. You have to copy nad paste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spikey Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 Huh- I didnt know that either... Thanks for the question and answers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital_Igloo Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 The DSP allocation filter (the thing that grays out items in the model list) is different for each Path/DSP. They don't talk to each other; that is, DSP 2's allocation filter can't tell DSP 1 "Hey, you won't fit over here!" At one point Helix had two completely different home screens—one for each DSP. It was done that way specifically to dissuade people from moving a block from one path to the other. In the end we decided "Nah, let's just explain it if people ask." It's something we could add with some effort. It's on our list, but way down because copy/paste (coming soon for the editor) is such an easy workaround. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabbr Posted April 29, 2016 Author Share Posted April 29, 2016 Thanks for all the replies guys. It's something we could add with some effort. It's on our list, but way down because copy/paste (coming soon for the editor) is such an easy workaround. It would be nice to not have think of two DSP (as an user) until you run out of CPU or something like that. If the Helix would just manage the blocks on the best optimal way automatically it would take that part of management from the user and the interface would be more intuitive. IMHO. It's really not a big deal ... thanks so much for the replies. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital_Igloo Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 It would be nice to not have think of two DSP (as an user) until you run out of CPU or something like that. If the Helix would just manage the blocks on the best optimal way automatically it would take that part of management from the user and the interface would be more intuitive. IMHO. FWIU, SHARCs don't deal with shuttling audio back and forth very easily without incurring latency. TigerSHARCs (like those in AxeFX II XL+) work much better in this regard. This was probably four years ago, but we had many weeks of conversations/debates about it—in the end, there was no easy way to make two SHARCs appear as one big DSP without artificially crippling model allocation or routing, and that eventually led to the Path 1/Path 2 paradigm. So when some people say "just throw more DSPs in there!" it makes my head hurt. Dual-DSP systems are much more complicated than single DSP systems. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.