Updates on Multi-outs Audio In?

@pbeprod

Much thought, little progress. Updating Unify to support Apple's new ARM processors took up most of 2022 for me. Selling my home and moving (three times -- long story) killed the rest.

@getdunne

Understandable, was curious!

Have a Great and productive New Year!

@getdunne sorry to hear that 

hope things have settled for now 

Glad it’s on your mind 

For me it’s really the addition of multi outs that will give me a reason to begin using my Unify. I can see so many powerful use cases for me  once it happens 

Posted by: @nonchai

↑

For me it’s really the addition of multi outs that will give me a reason to begin using my Unify.

Is it entirely useless to you without multiple outputs?

multiple outs would be nice .. I wondered if I can adjust the buffer size which is usually 16 at my pc and works for most cases and the sample rate somewhere .. it seems I have quite some latency with unify right now. But still great ideas .. like it

Posted by: @uisbf

↑

I wondered if I can adjust the buffer size which is usually 16 at my pc

Unify will not work efficiently with such a small buffer size. I recommend 256.

I'm anxious for audio ins.  I haven't had a desire for multiple outs.  If you're running in a daw, can't you just run different instances of Unify?  I guess not if you are running surround samples in surround.  Do they make surround samples?

But I'd love to get my FX vsts 'unified'.  Since I patch them dynamically in Hollyhock, I don't want them as part of my Unify presets.  And I also have external audio inputs that I route to my FX....

In regards the off-topic above, I run two instances of Unify in my live performance setup, along with 5 instances of kontakt, 4 instances of Reaktor and 4 vst effects channels comfortably under Hollyhock 5 at 64 samples latency on my Ryzen 5900 with no dropouts.  If you have a fast processor, it's not a problem.  Unify does not seem inefficient, I don't see measurable increases in processor over running the vsts by themselves.  16 samples is ambitious, but 64 has been very playable for me.  I was extremely happy to move down from 128 when I bought the Ryzen.  128 always felt sluggish, and it was hard to play fast tempos.  I haven't been at 256 since 2010.

Posted by: @woodslanding

↑

I'm anxious for audio ins.... I'd love to get my FX vsts 'unified'.

For the moment, have a look at Kushview Element. It's free and the plug-in version allows for what you are trying to do.

Hi Shane,

I know your a busy man, but is the addition of having multi audio outs still on the Unify roadmap?

Posted by: @grambo1966

↑

is the addition of having multi audio outs still on the Unify roadmap?

Yes, absolutely, but so are many other urgent things, so scheduling is very difficult.

I know your busy doing wonderful magic & thanks for the reply. 

@grambo1966 This may not help, but my desire to generate 8 audio outs from a single instance of Unify, led me to an alternative solution. Instead of driving separate audio outs, I present Unify with separate midi ins. As such I can play, control and record each Unify layer separately and not have to produce audio stems at all. Each layer records into a separate track in both session or arrangement view in Ableton. Any stems can obviously be rendered as audio when required. AFAIK, you can accomplish this much easier in other DAWs. Ableton just groups all inbound midi to channel 1, so this setup allows you to split back out again.

Posted by: @

↑

(...) Instead of driving separate audio outs, I present Unify with separate midi ins. As such I can play, control and record each Unify layer separately and not have to produce audio stems at all. Each layer records into a separate track in both session or arrangement view in Ableton. Any stems can obviously be rendered as audio when required. AFAIK, you can accomplish this much easier in other DAWs.

 Screenshot_20230819-233718_Gallery.png

It's a pretty good solution.

@robert-p Thanks for the tip.