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.
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…
- we now have a much more powerful organelle, that more portable, more compatible with other hardware etc
- our organelle-1s are far from obsolete, future patches can still be run on it, and many will attest to, having 2 organelles is really fun - they are small enough to not take up to much space, and you get the opportunity to run 2 of your favourite patches. e.g. use one as a synth, other as an fx.
tip: if you want to link together via midi, you can either use a usb midi host to host adapter, or get a usb->midi din cable (cheap ) then use the organelle-m new midi din (trs)
tip2: you can clock sync via ableton link
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:
While having 2 organelles would be neat I wish there was some way I could trade in my Organelle for credit towards a new one. I didn’t buy mine that long ago and it was a considerable financial commitment for me. If I’d known these features were coming I might have waited to pull the trigger. Maybe someone out there wants to buy a lightly used Organelle 1?
How quickly will the Organelle-M ship?
I’m in the same situation, bought the Organelle recently and would have waited knowing these features were coming. What I’m a bit sad about is that if I want to sell it it just lost a lot of value.
Add me as another that thinks it would have been nice to have a little heads up on this. I just bought a brand new Organelle just over a month ago and ABSOLUTELY would have waited if I knew this was coming.
I’m in a similar boat—bought mine in November, but probably would’ve waited if I knew the new one was truly portable and had a built in speaker/microphone. Now to talk myself into splurging for the new one…
I’m even more bummed out, I emailed C&G asking for a release date and they just said ‘it shouldn’t be long’, I figured that meant months and bought an Organelle 1 second hand as I coudln’t find any new ones from UK stockists, it was almost full price. It’s in the mail, I’ve not even held it in my hands and now they have released a new model!
you can replace the iMX6, as I did a couple of years ago (and not had any issues, except the ‘initial startup’ issue I mention) in the post about this here
the quad imx6 is slightly less powerful (1gz vs 1.2ghz) but had a bit more ram.
however, you miss out on the other benefits of the organelle-m.
- speaker, mic
- battery power
- trs midi
- newer version of linux
organelle-1 uses pretty old version of arch linux, which is less compatible with other hardware, and more difficult to add software to … I did start a project to upgrade the linux, see here but never had time to finish it off - perhaps one day
but for sure, if you have an organelle-1 its a good upgrade - and will become more attractive to end-users if patches start making use of multi-core/more memory.
(as I mentioned in my above thread, up till now, mainly Ive been using the quad for development purposes, as I wanted to create patches compatible with ‘factory’ organelles)
After hearing complaints about our timing of release and requests for a trade in program:
We apologize to our customers who feel they were burned by the launch timing of the M - this was not our intention. This is not a gimmick to achieve some element of 'surprise.’ We just don’t announce products until we are ready to ship!
That said, we entirely stand by the Organelle 1, even if we will no longer be producing it. It is a great machine, it is the foundation on which the new version stands. In terms of patches, there currently isn’t anything the new version can do that the old one cannot. As we mentioned above we plan on updating the Organelle 1 with the new OS features in M OS.
Thank you to all of our customers!
I understand you not announcing beforehand, that’s your prerogative, and as customer, shit happens and you’re unlucky. I am really disappointed, however, because I got an email from C&G on May 15 saying “Hey, the Organelle is back in stock!”
Surely you could’ve 1) not sent out that email or 2) said “we’ll have it in 4 weeks”. What you did wasn’t something I would expect C&G to do.
This looks great. Awesome video too
Thanks for making such great instruments!
What’s the estimated battery life running 4 AA’s?
This is great! Any word on shipping date?