Kel, listen, lets simmer this down a little shall we? I apologize if I’ve been incendiary with my comments, they were meant in jest, and were not meant to be personal.
Let me also make it clear, that I’m not trying to advocate a SSP so as to replace a rack, but rather to fully support and extend it. You can have a 9U system that is able to be more like a wall o’synth. That is the main attraction to me. I gravitate to modular synthesis because of the flexibility and the ability to plug stuff in anywhere and route things. The more powerful a modular synth is, the larger it usually is.
The SSP perfectly compliments that while also bolstering the size of your options significantly. That is the key point.
With regard to your challenge, and to be in line with the crux of this discussion (hardware matters), let me just point out that the processor used in elements cranks out about 500-1000 DMIPs of DSP processing power. The SSP does 20,000 DMIPs. This is say that whatever any of the MI modules do, the SSP can do. Especially since the code is open sourced, it can be ported and made into a module within the SSP. So at some future time, possibly, I can answer your challenge by using the exact same code on the SSP, in parallel with multiple instances of the same module. This is the main point of what I’m trying to convey. The hardware that makes Elements (for example) tick are done better and with superior components on the SSP. Not only can the SSP run it, but the code can have a lot of streamlined and rounded portions of the DSP meant to help aid the processor on the Elements module run it smoothly, removed, and this can potentially improve the fidelity. This is not to say that Olivier did anything wrong, we all know he is a DSP genius. I’m just saying that the shortcuts he had to take because of the hardware aren’t necessary on the SSP.