u-he at Superbooth 23

[MrJubbly]

I wonder if that's also something that a DAW could / should handle. In Bitwig you have an option to also scale your plugins. It will look a bit blurry, but if you have a 4k screen that's not that much of an issue. If you have troubles with visual perception, you might also not notice the difference if such upscaling is involved?

Well the thing is, everything in the DAW is scaled perfectly to my visual preferences.

All my other third party plugins (of which I have hundreds) have adequate scaling abilities for 4K support.

Up until recently, the only ones a little lacking in that department were Fabfilter, u-he and Gforce.

Now though, Fabfilter have knocked their GUI scaling issues out of the park. As have Gforce Software, with only impOSCar remaining (which is due to get an UI scaling improvement soon).

That only leaves u-he plugins, which while 200% isn't too bad ... it is still usable at 4k. It's just not ideal for high resolution display.

Therefore, if that maximum scaling limit can be increased a little, it would be great. Hence, my suggestion. I didn't intent to upset anybody by asking for this.

[liinnerd]

AUTO-ADMIN: Non-MP3, WAV, OGG, SoundCloud, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter and Facebook links in this post have been protected automatically. Once the member reaches 5 posts the links will function as normal.

Story on Synth Anatomy includes another Superbooth demo video.

https://synthanatomy.com/2023/05/superb ... lugin.html (https://synthanatomy.com/2023/05/superbooth-23-u-he-zebra-3-preview-and-zebralette-3-free-synthesizer-plugin.html)

[PsychicVST]

Has there been any word on when the new Filterscape update will be available?

[audiojunkie]

Really? I didn't notice it going up so much from 100% to 200%. Either way, I think the option should still be there for the user, with the performance caveat highlighted, to let each user decide what's best for them.

Personally, for the time being, I'd probably take the extra performance hit, in exchange for the visual convenience, since my new device seems to have plenty to spare. With each user deciding what is the best setting trade-off for themselves.

For the time being, you have 200 and that's it. It's not like u-he can snap their fingers and 300 is instantly there. It's a bunch of work and for what looks like a marginal benefit (if any) based on the image you posted where 200 looks plenty useable.

You seem quite sure about how just much work it would take to implement an increase in the GUI scaling limit from 200% to 300%. I wonder how you can be so certain about this, since I would have thought only the internal developers at u-he who are familiar with their code, would actually be privy to such information.

Also, if it isn't as much effort as you are making it out to be, then it shouldn't bother you either way, since it is an optional setting. i.e. nobody would force you to use it if you didn't want to. But for those of us who would, it would be very much appreciated.

My guess is, you're just guessing.

Are you for real?! You are new around these parts, I think.

[j wazza]

You seem quite sure about how just much work it would take to implement an increase in the GUI scaling limit from 200% to 300%. I wonder how you can be so certain about this, since I would have thought only the internal developers at u-he who are familiar with their code, would actually be privy to such information.

My guess is, you're just guessing.

Urs himself, the creator of uhe, already told you that it takes more cpu

Well, this just means a lot more CPU on GUI. 300% would be 8 times the CPU usage for GUI than the 100% setting that we're designing for.

I think we'll eventually have to go fully vectorised UIs processed on hardware accelerated things, but that is probably a year of work alone to get right on every platform, and then we'd have to redesign every UI without any bitmaps.

[Urs]

Has there been any word on when the new Filterscape update will be available?

After showing it at NAMM, we briefly stopped work on it for two weeks and then went to Superbooth. Next week we'll compile a definitive list of things we still need to tackle, and then we'll plough through them.

There are a few larger issues - not directly related to Filterscape - that we need to attend to though. Those currently prevent us from releasing anything. If I was optimistic I'd say we can expect a beta in a month or two.

[Urs]

Well, this just means a lot more CPU on GUI. 300% would be 8 times the CPU usage for GUI than the 100% setting that we're designing for.

I think we'll eventually have to go fully vectorised UIs processed on hardware accelerated things, but that is probably a year of work alone to get right on every platform, and then we'd have to redesign every UI without any bitmaps.

Really? I didn't notice it going up so much from 100% to 200%. Either way, I think the option should still be there for the user, with the performance caveat highlighted, to let each user decide what's best for them.

It's not the CPU used by the audio processing as displayed in the CPU meter of your DAW.

It's merely the CPU used by the GUI itself. At that size it will render in a much lower frame rate and probably feel much less smooth. That might be less of a problem with Diva, but as soon as there are cables, oscilloscopes, modulation feedback or larger editors, it's gonna show.

You seem quite sure about how just much work it would take to implement an increase in the GUI scaling limit from 200% to 300%.

Obviously, a lot of non-vector UI graphics would have to be redone in whatever higher resolution. In addition we probably would have to supply these assets in multiple sizes and create a mechanism to select the right size for the right UI scale, because one can't endlessly shrink a graphic and still expect it to look great. Also, with graphics files more than twice the size they are now, UI opening times will roughly double.

So yeah, it doesn't happen easily, neither work wise nor without drawbacks for users.

#-------

Anyhow, a far better option would be a skin/theme with a slightly larger base design. As people might have noticed, our UIs have become bigger over the years, so this kind of thing naturally progresses over time as screen technology evolves.

So a skin that is 40% larger when at the 100% setting would cover twice the area as the current 200% setting, and scale back to the original size at the 70% setting.

That is something I'd be happy to talk about and look into, but it remains to be seen if assets can be taken as they are (and scaled up), or if they become too blurry. If latter is the case then I'm afraid we'll only be able to deliver a larger UI size whenever a redesign is due and size progresses naturally.

[MrJubbly]

It's not the CPU used by the audio processing as displayed in the CPU meter of your DAW.

It's merely the CPU used by the GUI itself. At that size it will render in a much lower frame rate and probably feel much less smooth. That might be less of a problem with Diva, but as soon as there are cables, oscilloscopes, modulation feedback or larger editors, it's gonna show.

I honestly never noticed much CPU difference on either (internal DAW / External OS), but I put that down to how well-optimised the u-he plugins seem to be already. I guess however, on some older CPUs, such a performance hit would be much more noticeable.

Obviously, a lot of non-vector UI graphics would have to be redone in whatever higher resolution. In addition we probably would have to supply these assets in multiple sizes and create a mechanism to select the right size for the right UI scale, because one can't endlessly shrink a graphic and still expect it to look great. Also, with graphics files more than twice the size they are now, UI opening times will roughly double.

So yeah, it doesn't happen easily, neither work wise nor without drawbacks for users.

So, its not as simple as I'd hoped of just scaling up the existing bitmap assets. I guess they'd become too pixelated or blurry above the current maximum scaling values, which they were initially designed for then?

Anyhow, a far better option would be a skin/theme with a slightly larger base design. As people might have noticed, our UIs have become bigger over the years, so this kind of thing naturally progresses over time as screen technology evolves.

So a skin that is 40% larger when at the 100% setting would cover twice the area as the current 200% setting, and scale back to the original size at the 70% setting.

That is something I'd be happy to talk about and look into, but it remains to be seen if assets can be taken as they are (and scaled up), or if they become too blurry. If latter is the case then I'm afraid we'll only be able to deliver a larger UI size whenever a redesign is due and size progresses naturally.

A dedicated 4K skin is certainly an interesting prospect, if like you say, it could still be done without too much hardship of having to redesign/render many existing assets.

If that prospect proves to be too time-consuming, I suppose we'll just have to wait until some other preferred solution becomes available, such as a vectorial redesign at some point in the future, as you previously mentioned.

Okay. Thanks for replying and explaining the situation in detail. I appreciate it.

[glokraw]

I'm OK with things as they are, on a 22 inch monitor. I prefer switching among four desktop screens
instead of having a larger monitor, as it's fatiguing so often moving my neck a little here and there. It adds up over the hours, and I don't often record with lots of tools and plugin gui's open. Reaper on one screen, drum machine on one screen, audio editor on one screen, and a filemanager, media player, recorder, and settings tool on a fourth screen.

I also like to keep focussed on one thing at a time, and while having all and sundry on a huge monitor looks cool at trade shows and in youtube product demos, back at the ranch, it's not
very practical or fun, in my case.

For the money, I can get a second computer with 22" monitor and BlueCat's Connector, and bump up
the studio versatility and processing power, should the muse throw a 'jealous of those guys' tantrum

(I realize some people may need, and can make good use of, multiple giant monitors,
and I hope it helps them make better music in less time, in any case )
Cheers

[glokraw]

My guess is, you're just guessing.

There are people here who might be guessing on the best day to harvest hops and barley for their home-brew, but when it comes to the U-he products, those who have used them for decade or more in many cases, and in a wide variety of settings, have very educated guesses, well worth considering.
Cheers

[MrJubbly]

My guess is, you're just guessing.

There are people here who might be guessing on the best day to harvest hops and barley for their home-brew, but when it comes to the U-he products, those who have used them for decade or more in many cases, and in a wide variety of settings, have very educated guesses, well worth considering.
Cheers

It is worth noting however, that an educated guess is still a guess.

[pdxindy]

There are people here who might be guessing on the best day to harvest hops and barley for their home-brew

Actually, I used to run an organic farm and we grew hops and barley...

[glokraw]

I was afraid of that. I also wouldn't be surprised if various U-he employees create beverages as a hobby, to let all those swirling 0's and 1's and algorithms have a moments peace
I doubt that the AI hops and barley will make a good brewskie
Cheers

[pdxindy]

I was afraid of that. I also wouldn't be surprised if various U-he employees create beverages as a hobby, to let all those swirling 0's and 1's and algorithms have a moments peace
I doubt that the AI hops and barley will make a good brewskie
Cheers

A couple friends of mine make the most amazing wines. All sorts of exotic ingredients. Alchemical brews you could never find in a store!

[DRMR]

Thnx for the t-shirt and tote bag guys!