New hardware?

[TweakHead]

Still think there should be a new software standard, similar to what's been done with MIDI back in the day - like "namnibor" pointed out. I started thinking about this when using Reaktor. I suppose most users run it just like any other instrument, but it can be used as a stand alone music studio software. This means that any instrument for it is multi platform and is the exact same file for any operating system. In other words, this illustrates how this could be easily done if the companies in this business would come to terms about such a thing. Mind you, Reaktor isn't - as some may think - just software, it can handle midi and audio inputs and outputs pretty well. To prove my point here, just take a look at the complex setup that Tim Exile is running with it.

How does this relate to the Virus? I'm pretty sure that running such a complex synthesizer and having to code it to meet all the formats used in this industry is a waste of time and subject to constant changes - as the software or operating systems gets updated. One perfect example of this is the changes from Apple's Snow Leopard (which is the one I'm using, still today) to Lion, where developers were forced to update their products to 64bit compatible - even if the user chooses to run the software in 32 bit mode. If they were to pay attention to what pro users want, they'd never do this. With this move they've left users that rely on older software wondering why this change had to come. And this isn't just some good old plug-ins, it's also true for such things as the good old, still very expensive in second hand market, synthesizer like the modulars from Clavia. Does it make any sense? Not really, but here we see, again, that Apple and their oriental friends at Intel are trying to push the market towards new hardware.

The case is such that no proper usage of the multiple cores has been obtained in current software, despite what the marketing guys may tell us. And if they were to invest for the good of the users, such technologies we already have, like the processors on our graphic cards could be used to power some really demanding DSP. There's some companies trying to do that, alright, but it's another nightmare to jump into, since it's another platform. And of course, isn't the same for Nvidia or Ati. You can see where I'm going.

What about having some spare processor inside the computer that software companies could write stuff to? Sort like an open DSP component inside the computer, that would work like Universal Audio cards do, but not in a proprietary, closed way.

Some may argue that the Virus is also a closed system, which it is. But it's also got a very good physical interface to go with it, and you can still play it live without a computer. So being an instrument, and a very good one, sort of makes up for it - and could even be better if only the industry would come to terms about where its going and common goals were set. My 2 cents. Rant over

[MBTC]

Originally Posted by Berni

Well there you all go on about connectivity but software doesn't need it in the physical sense & as for a few different plug in formats, compared to hardware it is nothing. I also believe that midi has also been updated by several people, yamaha & roland spring to mind but has never caught on.
I know a lot of people that are quite happy to produce using only there laptop & if all you are using are virtual instruments then it is quite feasible.
It is a good time to make music indeed!

Well in my case my only interest in hardware is the fact that CPU technology has hit very real thermal limitations in the past few years, and they are not doubling in speed year over year (or even remotely close) like they used to. The CPU in my primary PC was purchased about 4 years ago, and benchmarks only a few percentage points below the fastest CPUs you can buy today.
So, although admittedly is it partially mental, I do not like my polyphony or type/quality of FX I can run to constantly hit a CPU ceiling. So, dedicated hardware to take some of the processing load is the only viable option.

With that in mind however, CPU savings doesn't do me any good if the workflow around a piece of hardware is agonizingly cumbersome or the integration doesn't work very well. Then it becomes like a risk/reward balancing act where the risk is the cost of the hardware versus how much of a pain in the ass it will be. Every time I run the purchase of a new Ti2 through that equation, it comes up short and I end up foregoing the purchase (at least thus far).

[MBTC]

Originally Posted by TweakHead

Still think there should be a new software standard, similar to what's been done with MIDI back in the day - like "namnibor" pointed out.

I was a little confused about this, we already have software standards. For example VST, created by Steinberg (now owned by Yamaha) and still the most widely used. It is designed for exactly the kinds of things being discussed here (even if it is not used for all of them)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Studio_Technology

But, even though as far as I can tell, Steinberg has never required royalty payments to utilize VST technology, anyone can adhere to the standard that wants to, but nobody is twisting their arm to do so. Perhaps that's the problem.

I could talk a lot about the reasons (from a software development company's standpoint) why a company like Apple, Propellerhead, AVID, etc would decide to be defiant and utilize their own proprietary plug-in technology. If anyone is really interested in the hows and whys it makes sense for Apple to create AU plugins, etc., then maybe I will talk a little about that in another post. Short version of the story it is in their best interest (toward the goal of gaining market share for their DAW host, which is the key to remaining competitive in the audio software market). It is not in their interest to make their platform dependent on a competitior's product (Logic being dependent on technology invented for Cubase? Not Invented Here! Must Create Own).

This might be sort of a tangential leg of this thread, and I'm not sure how exactly it relates to new hardware from Access but I just wanted to raise the point that there's no lack of a standard. What there is a lack of is motivation for every company to line up and use one of them.

There's an interesting recent article here about so many software companies getting beaten up in this market. Strong Musikmesse showings from only two companies (Steinberg-Yamaha and Cakewalk-Roland). See where that's headed? Strategic DAW position very important to makers of hardware instruments.

http://www.kvraudio.com/focus/frankf...ies-gone-22161

[TweakHead]

Yes, but even though VST can be considered a 'standard', the files are not exactly the same for different operating systems. I mentioned Reaktor because the same ensemble (.ens file) can be used in any operating system. This changes are handled on the platform that runs the plug-in itself, leaving the plug-ins out of that equation. Such a move would be more then welcome - as it would allow developers to focus on what's important.

I think the only product that has a good enough excuse to have its own plug-in format is Reason - since there's a clear advantage in making the plug-ins compatible with the rest of the rack. Apple clearly has some very aggressive way of making their users pay for dedicated support for their products. That's precisely what I'm saying: I feel evolution is somehow halted by this greedy companies making things different for their own interests that many times collide with those of the users.

[namnibor]

Originally Posted by Berni

Well there you all go on about connectivity but software doesn't need it in the physical sense & as for a few different plug in formats, compared to hardware it is nothing. I also believe that midi has also been updated by several people, yamaha & roland spring to mind but has never caught on.
I know a lot of people that are quite happy to produce using only there laptop & if all you are using are virtual instruments then it is quite feasible.
It is a good time to make music indeed!

Now realize I may be coming from my Psychology college training when I say this but it also is very much a basic Humanistic stance as well in that there is something to be said about a great physical, hands-on interface and turning physical knobs, even if realistically for quite some time now, that very physical interface is and has been controlling software, that to me would be the difference in trying to convince anyone that stepping into Woody Allen's "Orgasmatron" from his early and best movie IMO, "Sleeper", is better experience than having real intimacy in all it's unpredictability (ideally); where "working solely within the box" would leave me with "I can't no satisfaction" ringing in my soul!
Perhaps a strange analogy, but I seem to do strange well on this planet!
The fact that the modular movement has really had a surge of avid interest to point that MFB and other former and present hardware co.'s are making modular units, contrasted by Arturia, whom had done software in beginning and now venturing quite successfully in hardware, makes me believe that perhaps we very well could be looking at an evolution that meets BOTH desires in the middle, with Native Instrument's hard drive release to even their Maschine, et al; perhaps we shall see more software companies leaping OUT from "the box" to hardware??!!
We are all fortunate in any case to be living in such technologically creative times.
Just remember this: Winsor & Newton, long-time artist's oils, watercolors, and art supply makers are in NO way fearing the demise of the actual painter and his or her's interface, the canvas, from becoming extinct and the same goes for those touring musicians that have to entertain the crowds, of which their attention span probably would not these days be sated by such stage presence of static musicians in front of screens. The general public probably would not be that entertained by such automated music that follows a piano roll in a live situation...but who knows?
Freudian or not, I just happen to like knobs...and uh, switches!!

[MBTC]

Originally Posted by TweakHead

Yes, but even though VST can be considered a 'standard', the files are not exactly the same for different operating systems. I mentioned Reaktor because the same ensemble (.ens file) can be used in any operating system. This changes are handled on the platform that runs the plug-in itself, leaving the plug-ins out of that equation. Such a move would be more then welcome - as it would allow developers to focus on what's important.

I think the only product that has a good enough excuse to have its own plug-in format is Reason - since there's a clear advantage in making the plug-ins compatible with the rest of the rack. Apple clearly has some very aggressive way of making their users pay for dedicated support for their products. That's precisely what I'm saying: I feel evolution is somehow halted by this greedy companies making things different for their own interests that many times collide with those of the users.

The ensemble file and file format is similar in some ways, yet ultimately very different than a published software development standard like the API used for a technology like VST. I can go into a lot more depth on this subject and software architecture in general than might be welcome in a music forum, but suffice it to say that the ensemble file format is more analogous to providing compatibility with a document format like word documents among word processors than it is a development standard.

Basically Reaktor is an engine and programming environment, developed by one vendor (NI). In order for them to take that to a more "vendor neutral" level, they would have to publish a complete programming API that could potentially be implemented, license free, on any operating system and any hardware and use any language. Reaktor is NOTHING like that right now, it is provided to us only by NI and any instruments we buy are only valid as long as NI is in business unless they transfer all rights to someone else just before closing shop.

Also, with that, comes a huge amount of processing overhead and also sonic limitations. I'm not saying Reaktor synths don't sound good, but maybe you saw my recent post asking why a single instance of Prism, while no notes are being played, consumes a relatively huge amount of CPU?

The reason VST files are incompatible between operating systems is because the API standard describes a specification... a protocol if you will of doing something. It does not mandate where that instrument can run or by whom. Therefore, instruments can be written literally in any language as long as they conform to the API spec. Instruments written in a native language are always going to perform much better in terms of system resource consumption (think CPU cycles and RAM) than instruments that run within a synth-development toolkit like Reaktor.

Are you familiar with Synthmaker? http://synthmaker.co.uk/

Similar idea to Reaktor. A toolkit that helps the creator focus on the specific synth implementation without worrying about the bits and bytes, low level coding and formal computer science knowledge required to write synth code from the ground up. But the result? For example the now legendary Sylenth1 started as a Synthmaker synth. Everyone loved the sound so the first order of business was to re-write it as a native synth. The performance improvements of doing so were huge, even though in that case only the UI was scripted in Synthmaker.

If you are familiar with it, you might remember everytime a good synthmaker synth came out, many folks would post "when are they gonna rewrite this native so we can get the most out of it"? Its all about CPU and overall performance (like the way it feels when you tweak a controller, even nanoseconds of latency result in diminished user experience).

I hope I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence with a bit of geekspeak here, but the fundamental difference comes down to scripting (or dynamic) languages versus strongly typed languages.

Short version of the story: JavaScript, Python, LISP, PHP etc always end up with shit performance because they are scripted and have dynamic typing. C++, C#, Objective-C, Pascal/Delphi (FLStudio!) etc are what's called strongly typed languages. They are much harder to write in, thus the coding labor and knowledge requirements are higher, but the payoff is much more efficient code.

The VST standard is a native-language API. It is possible to fuck things up, even with a written spec. I worked with the lead developer of SynthMaster (which is now gaining on Zebra in notoriety) to fix a bug in where it was crashing in FLS and some hosts due to a threading issue, because he was not properly adhering to the Steinberg spec. In other words it appeared to work, but did not adhere to ALL the rules so the devil was in the details.

I don't know if any of that makes sense or not but I was trying to illustrate why an API like VST is more powerful than a modular synth engine like Reaktor. At a licensing level they are also different because for Reaktor to be analogous, it would mean NI allows anyone to write their own player without using the Reaktor application (correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that's even a glimmer in their eye).

Anyway, backing up a bit I'm still not sure what exactly that has to do with Access' incompetence with proper audio streaming over USB. No standard can really solve that problem. My example above with Synthmaster shows that publishing a standard does not guarantee that the synth vendor adheres to the standard perfectly, and more importantly allocates proper QA resources to test and verify compliance.

[Berni]

What I'm trying to say is that the cheap laptop has not only replaced the crappy guitar that most contemporary musicians started with but also the budget studio they cut there first demo on & a lot of the instruments they wanted to try but could never afford. Once you learn a decent daw & all it's shortcuts & instruments you dont need big expensive boxes with lots of knobs & switches & it is more natural to use what you learned on. There are millions of people out there producing some really cool electronic music with just a DAW & some speakers. Making music is all about heads & hearts not gear.
Access blowing us away with the next big thing? My Arse! I think they came to the same conclusion I did quite a few years ago. There just riding it out now
I have an Apple macbook pro & can run any plug-in I want too on it 32 or 64bit on Lion in any host that I have.
I can also create great works of art without slinging mud at a canvas
Wake up this is 2013!

[MBTC]

Originally Posted by Berni

What I'm trying to say is that the cheap laptop has not only replaced the crappy guitar that most contemporary musicians started with but also the budget studio they cut there first demo on & a lot of the instruments they wanted to try but could never afford. Once you learn a decent daw & all it's shortcuts & instruments you dont need big expensive boxes with lots of knobs & switches & it is more natural to use what you learned on. There are millions of people out there producing some really cool electronic music with just a DAW & some speakers. Making music is all about heads & hearts not gear.
Access blowing us away with the next big thing? My Arse! I think they came to the same conclusion I did quite a few years ago. There just riding it out now
I have an Apple macbook pro & can run any plug-in I want too on it 32 or 64bit on Lion in any host that I have.
I can also create great works of art without slinging mud at a canvas
Wake up this is 2013!

Not only that but there are just as many options for controlling software now as any hardware interface can provide. The other day I was looking through some old posts here where someone said with a mouse you can't control two params at once like you can with two hands and a knob. And it was said in a conversation with me. How did I let that guy get away with that ? I think in that post I used the example of an X/Y pad like in Zebra to do same (which it does), but now days I can have my hand on a mouse controlling X/Y pad or on the pitch/mod stick (or both), or a few fingers on a few sliders, etc.... The limits are purely mental in nature. Honestly I find it much easier to control the Ultranova VST via generic keyboard mapping than it is to use the knobs on the Ultranova itself, with the only possible exception being the filter sweep knob (which is dead easy to grab on that particular device given its enormous size).

But at the same time I do kind of understand the mystique around a hardware instrument. The physical interface is designed with that particular instrument in mind, thus a relationship between the two is created that is unique and is kind of what makes that instrument what it is. Similar to guitars, they all have 6 strings (er well mostly), thus they are not a ukulele. But wait, a bass guitar has the same number of strings as a ukulele. What makes them different? Physical placement and other physical characteristics that define one instrument from another.

So I kind of see both sides.

But I do agree with you that software has eaten hardware's fucking lunch over the last 5 years or so, and the fact that Access has not responded with realistic price points indicates head up the arse syndrome big time.

[Berni]

Originally Posted by namnibor

the same goes for those touring musicians that have to entertain the crowds, of which their attention span probably would not these days be sated by such stage presence of static musicians in front of screens. The general public probably would not be that entertained by such automated music that follows a piano roll in a live situation...but who knows?
Freudian or not, I just happen to like knobs...and uh, switches!!

Ever see kraftwerk live?

[MBTC]

Originally Posted by Berni

Ever see kraftwerk live?

I did, but only in dreams and videos.

Modern finds on YouTube, by the way, explain away the main reason I never did well during stage musicianship:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPSwGj45gxM

No matter what, it always seemed like I ended up looking for a fellow band mate that was feeling a little too confident, then the mixed martial arts side of me took over

Must watch that one to the end.. heheh.

There was a reason that electronic music in the 80's needed to be highly sequenced or at least put on tape in a room not susceptible to spontaneous grudge matches