We are excited to announce a new Organelle today, the Organelle M. This new instrument adds many hardware improvements and portability. Powered by batteries and housing a very capable built in speaker, it is ready to be untethered from your studio and accompany you on the go!
Read more about it here:
https://www.critterandguitari.com/blog/organelle-is-brand-new-again
Also features MIDI in/out jacks!
Check out the video:
congratulations - so cool!
I love the new video, thats is so much fun 
Ordered mine a few minutes ago
can you all share what version of pd it ships with?
I will make the appropriate dev adjustments
pp
pd 0.49
so you can update organelle-1 if you wish with my patch
https://patchstorage.com/pd49update/
TY!
Summer is here and i have a few months to update a bunch of patches
Sexy! Looks like a really nice upgrade! Definitly want one, but I also have to ask:
Is everything back and forward compatible between the two models? Minus the obvious stuff line hardware Io, and patches that pushes the hardware.
By that I mean will you still update software on the old model to support the stuff that will be implementere on the new one?
Great you tube video made my day! 
Oh man that looks great–trade-in program ?
All of the patches made for the original Organelle will run on the new one without modification, at least all the ones we have tried so far: all of the factory patches and many of the user patches.
We also do plan on updating the old Organelle with any new OS features… That said there are things the new one will be able to do which the old one cannot (higher performance, better graphis, etc), so not everything will be able to be back ported to old hardware.
Congrats!! revised, augmented And still lovely in blue
Congrats guys, all looks great. Only a shame you had to compromise its size due to the addition of a speaker, feels slightly counterintuitive to me for it to look more toy-like as the organelle is clearly turning into such a powerful and advanced tool. Although I understand that it’s in line with the brand.
Having said that, I’m not the one with a super successful synth brand ;–)
Hope both this and the old model can keep up with each other patch-wise. I’m really into mine for quite some time!
looks like the new one is 64 bit and 2X fast which is going to make things interesting
Damn this is cool. I imagine the speaker sounds great as the pocket piano was top notch. Love that you’re bringing back that on the go capability that the pocket piano had.
Will there be a way to distinguish which patches will work on the new ones but not the old one?
I don’t expect there’ll be an upgrade option? I got my Organelle 3 weeks ago 
Is the audio hardware and DAC the same?
on patchstorage we can ‘tag’ , organelle-m specific patches.
ones that also work on organelle-1 will not generally need a tag, since all work on organelle-m.
that said, I will be adding tags and adding ‘protection’ to a few organelle-1 specific utilities, Ive made for the organelle-1. (these are things that change the OS, not general pd patches)
also its possible for patches (etc) to detect if its an organelle-m or organelle-1, and so alter its behaviour where necessary.
let’s talk a little about what would make a patch incompatible…
(this is a personal perspective and just how I think it will play out 
)
TLDR; I think most patches will happily still run on an organelle-1, and many patches (not all) can be made to utilise the improved hardware on the organelle-m in compatible way.
a) compatibility
from the patch perspective the organelle-m and organelle-1 are the same, because PD and Linux hide the hardware differences (memory, cpu, additional midi, speaker, mic).
b) many users and patch developers will still have an organelle-1
so there is motivation to make things work on the organelle-1 where possible, so you have the widest user base/community.
I’d also suspect many that get an organelle-m will keep their organelle-1 as its really run having two organelles e.g. perhaps use OTC on organelle-1 to generate visuals for your organelle-m
c) increase in memory (doubles to 1gb)
this is probably the first area we will see incompatiblities arise, mainly because the extra memory means we can allocate larger buffers for sample memory etc.
however, this can be done sympathetically, such that the patch can just use ‘whats available’ i.e. you just get less sample time on an organelle-1, but it still works
d) increase in CPU (single core 1.0 ghz to quad core 1.2ghz)
initially this seems like a huge increase, and it is IF patches are developed to use it - but it’s not that simple…
Ive detailed this before on other threads including supercharged organelle thread , but to recap…
the main gain here is the quad core, but basically PD is single threaded, you need to start using poly~ to make it utilise more cores, and whilst thats not hard - it has limitations, and is a little more complex - so I suspect it’ll take a short while for this to leveraged by most/lots of patches
until patches start using this, the main benefits for simple patch performance are:
the 20% cpu gain, some minor improvements due to internal threading, improvement due to OS and mother host being able to run on a separate core to PD, so they do not compete.
again… here patch developers have the option to programmatically ensure that the patch works on the organelle-1, but is improved on the organelle-m
(theres a number of simple ways to achieve this)
looking at Orac is, perhaps, a good example of this in practice.
the current Orac runs smoother on quad cores, because its got a bit more headroom due to processor bump, and the fact that the OS, and mother (and MEC) are running on different cores, and also my ‘kontrol’ infrastructure is already multi threaded (so works on multiple cores)
the main DSP is done on a single core, but the extra processing/memory can be used already, since you can use more modules, or more complex modules.
so we have 100% compatibility, but organelle-m is just a bit better.
moving forwards of course I want to leverage those extra cores, and Ive been playing in development with (optionally) having separate chains running on different cores.
this would yield a huge increase in whats possible on an organelle-m - whilst retaining 100% compatibility with the organelle-1.
what’s cool is that retaining this compatibility is not ‘extra work’ , its just a matter of design… a modular design almost by definition is scaleable.
overall, I’m excited…
we can get the best of both worlds…
I think there’s going to be some interesting opportunities here for combining organelles
So I feel slightly conflicted. On one hand I think is cool that the OrganelleM has introduced many good features that a lot of people were asking for and for them I’m happy as it will give them the Organelle experience they were hoping for. (Plus the performance boost is nice) On the other hand this feels a bit like a deluxe Organelle. Which is great in its own rights, but personally I was really routing for an Organelle 2.0 and now with the Organelle M out, I fear that this will not happen any time soon.
Regarding an Organelle 2.0 I was really hoping to see an overhaul and redesign of the interface. I always felt that in this regard the instrument had some shortcomings, one had to akwardly design around when making patches. My personal wishlist: 16 buttons on the bottom row of the keys, extra aux-buttons, encoders instead of pots and (excuse my heresy) better keys. Now I fully understand that a massive redesign would have meant that there would have been little to no backwards compatibility between 1.0 and M and therefore I totally get why C&G did what they did, but… yeah…
Isn’t it possible to just upgrade the original Organelle to a quad core with faster CPU and more RAM. Wouldn’t this solve any RAM or CPU related issues? This thread mentions something about it:
