Otis Scarecroe wrote:What will the new software do to improve/upgrade the Softstep 1 ?
Well, first and foremost the bugs I've been logging for two and a half years are finally going to be fixed (toggles with min+max set to the same value will work, Top+Bottom sources won't constantly retrigger, etc.). We're also going to add settable MSB for bank messages (prior to this it was always at 0 while the LSB would change). There are also plans to at some point add a "CoMA mode" (like in QuNeo and QuNexus) to make mapping keys with multiple modlines less of a hassle.
Really though, the nicest thing (for me, anyway) is going to be not having to use the current editor anymore, which we all know is rather clunky and a huge resource hog. We wrote the editors from scratch in C++ using the Qt framework — so they're not Max/MSP applications anymore. Running in Hosted mode will be much smoother and more feasible for people who may have smaller amounts of RAM or really need to squeeze as much out of the CPU as possible.
adamqlw wrote:On to the hum issue...
Thanks for this post! I would really like it if this thread didn't just turn into another EL hum thread (but it probably will) since it's already been discussed on multiple occasions (and has one of the largest threads on the forum). But when Keith says the hum is only affecting a few people I believe he was specifically referring to the hum actually getting into the audio chain — which does only affect a few people.
Every SoftStep 1 physically hums when the electroluminescent wire is turned on. There is no way around this. I tell people this when they submit a support ticket and ask about the hum.
I'm not sure why we went with EL wire as I was not with the company when this product was made — but the story goes that it was the only way to light up such a large surface area while keeping such a small profile. Why not make it just a little taller and use LEDs? I don't know. Why not make the keys a different shape so there is less surface area? I don't know. But we're going to do that with SoftStep 2. Keith usually has valid reasons for his decisions — and is the sort of person who considers all of the options before going a certain direction.
adamqlw wrote:I think this should really qualify existing SoftStep owners for some sort of trade in...
I think it would be smart of us to offer some sort of trade in, or some sort of discount if you can prove you're a SoftStep 1 owner. Will we do that? I have no idea — I'm not involved in the financial side of things. But it has definitely been brought up around the office by multiple people.