Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dan Mortensen" data-source="post: 123726" data-attributes="member: 2826">Re: Rhythm DelayWhile the user interface is clearly working as designed, that design is substituting one subjective perception of &quot;what&#039;s best&quot; for another much more widespread perception of &quot;what&#039;s best&quot;.The &quot;forget physics&quot; comment was a much-shortened version of what it should have been: &quot;physics has nothing to do with this discussion; it&#039;s about user preference and expectation based on widespread past experience&quot;. The user group preferring a much quicker response which allows for changing conditions in the moment seems to be much greater than that which prefers averaging over some random unspecified time (unless you read this thread and get the inside explanation. I have read the thread, though, and can only recite an impression that the averaging works one way unless you do something different, in which case it works another way, which very nearly equates to &quot;random unspecified time&quot;).While the X32 has in many ways substituted the designers&#039; desires and preferences for widespread industry practices, there are clearly some operational user sequences which are tried and true and where change is going the wrong direction. Behringer has responded admirably in the past to user requests, and I hope and trust that they get the point of this discussion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dan Mortensen, post: 123726, member: 2826"] Re: Rhythm Delay While the user interface is clearly working as designed, that design is substituting one subjective perception of "what's best" for another much more widespread perception of "what's best". The "forget physics" comment was a much-shortened version of what it should have been: "physics has nothing to do with this discussion; it's about user preference and expectation based on widespread past experience". The user group preferring a much quicker response which allows for changing conditions in the moment seems to be much greater than that which prefers averaging over some random unspecified time (unless you read this thread and get the inside explanation. I have read the thread, though, and can only recite an impression that the averaging works one way unless you do something different, in which case it works another way, which very nearly equates to "random unspecified time"). While the X32 has in many ways substituted the designers' desires and preferences for widespread industry practices, there are clearly some operational user sequences which are tried and true and where change is going the wrong direction. Behringer has responded admirably in the past to user requests, and I hope and trust that they get the point of this discussion. [/QUOTE]

Verification