is there some official support forum somewhere on the net? i need to get in touch with spectrasonics to


1. congratulate them for the good plugin stuff they released and thank them for their very nice copy protection/multi install handling (for once in my life i can install the stuff on all the computers i use without feeling like a criminal


2. bitch about these nice plugins checking their giant data files every time you open them, and once for every instance. thats a total disaster and is close to making these nice plugins useless - i work with several computers, and they all access the sample archive which is located on a separate sample server machine. i am no hans zimmer and i use this for quite a while already, so this aint some high tech gigabit stuff, just standard 100mbit network cards. always worked fine.

but over network, this scanning of the data files becomes reeeeally slow, you wait an eternity before you even get to load the first sound (like, a 200 MB jupiter pad . now imagine someone who likes these plugins and has a pretty fast computer (thats me , of course he wants to use multiple instances of these plugins right?

can you imagine how long it takes to load a song with several stylus and/or atmosphere instances? these plugins virtually spend *minutes* to scan their files, before even the first sample is loaded. my network is not *that* slow you know, its totally ok for even loading huge sampler setups. but a plugin scanning its data file spending three times the time a sampler plugin spends to fill the entire ram with huge samples, thats just not ok. i think its even more than three times - didnt measure it, whatever, its way too long. my laptop starts to make me feel like in the days when i used an akai S900 with a floppy drive. is that a feature?

anyway, i need some place where i can get on spectrasonics nerves until they fix this - at least to a point where only one instance checks the data file, or even better, none at all, and make the plugins multitimbral - i mean, hey, is there *any* reason for these plugins NOT to be multitimbral (other than their makers using logic audio at the time? . IMHO its *especially* plugins like these that MUST be multitimbral...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spectrasonics

Eric hangs out there a lot!

ppg

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spectrasonics/


is yahoos group, then their website has contacts on it as well

www.spectrasonics.net

Jinx!

I know!!
you beat me only by ONE second

thanks guys .. you saved me quite some money here ..

Glad your liking the instruments and multi-computer licensing setup.

It doesn't really make sense to use our instruments on a network though. Hard disc space is so cheap now (about a dollar per gigabyte)....the solution is to just install the instruments on each computer with the .dat files too. Our instruments are very much designed with the concept of multi gigabyte drives being so readily available. I can see why your system is loading ridiculously slow, they were never intended to be used this way over a network.

Multitimbrality is certainly high on our list for future updates. Lots of cool stuff is going on for the future too!

spectrum

thanks for the reply (guys, should i still register in that yahoo group? looks a bit like i can skip that now...)

i know what youre getting at with the cheap hard drives, but thats really only half the story. no matter how cheap hard drives are, it can become a problem in some situations:

1. you have a huge sample archive - mine is about 100 GB at this point, more to follow quite soon.

2. you have several workstations - i have 3 VSTI-machines in the studio (two desktops and the laptop), plus two audio workstations. this is split into one VSTI machine and one audio machine for each of the two control rooms, and the laptop is used as needed.

now, for one, its already a bit very optimistic on your companies side to expect people like me to buy a 100 GB hd for each computer (thats what i would have to do if all companies would put design their sample libraries like you do, according to what you just said)).
but the money even isnt the real problem - the real problem is sample archive *management* - i know, because i used to have the archive installed on every computer. it becomes a total chaos in a short time, you install this here, that there, you update some patches here but forget to copy it there...

multiply this with 5 computers and then tell me again to put my sample archive local on every workstation this is *exactly* what networks were invented for, so it makes the most sense with *exactly* GB-hungry instruments like yours to put them on a central server. hey, the loading times arent bad. im not complaining about the loading times. im just complaining about the design flaw that *each* instance is checking the entire 3-4 GB data file (why??) and when you have 8 instances, you can go and drink a coffee while each and every plugin checks if my data file is...worthy?

not to mention my little laptop where HD space is really limited. sure, i could buy a firewire HDs and install your instruments there - but i bought the laptop because it was so nicely portable (in a way, thats the point with laptops right? and id like to keep it that way. already with the HDSP its quite on the limit of what i would call "portable".

all in all, it sounds to me like a lot of hassles to accept for me as the selfish customer (TM), only so that you guys can save you the time to make your plugins a little more intelligent. of course, the easiest way is to make them multitimbral. so im glad to hear that this is planned. im just bitching to make it clear to you that this is probably a little more urgent than you might think, and that there are problems that you cant brush off with a short "thats not what we had in mind when we designed the plugins" (hardly my mistake is it?

jeez this post sounds a little too harsh. i sound a bit cynic perhaps cause i spent too much time the last few days waiting for your plugins to load. again, other than that, fantastic work, im really glad i bought this stuff. still, i cant continue using them until theyre multitimbral, so i hope this is a priority on spectrasonics dolist...

anyway, thanks for listening to my standing on the soap box. i guess its not much fun, sorry for that

Hi Derek,

Thanks for explaining your POV more....we always appreciate hearing everyone's perspective and what their priorities are. I do understand some of your points...but there really is a simple solution for you to work right now. First of all, our instruments aren't 100 gigabytes in size...they are less than ten gig for all three instruments. That will easily fit on even an iPod. If you don't have ten gigs free on each system, the iPod would be an excellent solution for you, since you are using so many rigs, and it is super portable and simple (one cable and your up...keep it in your pocket if you like for convenience. This is what I've been doing recently and it is really a cool way to work)

80 gigabyte drives are going for about 80 bucks now, and 200-500 gigabyte drives are right around the corner...so inexpensive space is not really a big deal now or in the future.

You don't have to port your entire 100 GB sample library to every computer, use the network for that. Your argument about the complexities and pains of sample management are exactly the reason that we chose to use a single .dat file. Management is extremely easy that way....it just works.

The reason it works so well is that the plug-in scans the entire dat file when it is opened, that way it doesn't have to scan everytime you load a patch, and the loading times are much faster and more reliable than other soft samplers, once the plug-in is open. Remember that Stylus alone has over 38,000 samples, which is a lot to scan and keep track of...it's much better technically to do it once, and then that's it. (This is not a design flaw at all, it's an advantage over other sampler engines). The tradeoff is that it takes time to load a song if you have a lot of plug-ins open, since each plug instance has to scan first the data file for a couple of seconds. In most cases, this isn't a big deal....however, your network approach is really making things painfully slow, since networks are so much slower than hard drives....so the scanning issue for each instance is multiplied over the slowness of the network. The answer is basically, don't use your network for Spectrasonics instruments, use it for everything else. Have your Spectrasonics stuff installed locally and you're in business.

I'd encourage you to join the yahoo group...this kind of stuff is discussed in greater detail and group members share tips and ideas...it's a pretty cool place with an intelligent discussion between many different kinds of Spectrasonics users.

all the best,

spectrum

ill reply once more here, but i can see that this will turn into something
"more detailed", so ill definetly go to the yahoo group as well when this ones over.

<<First of all, our instruments aren't 100 gigabytes in size...>>

no my sample library is...and yes i dont have to move it to every computer. i would have to if everyone would ask me to like spectrasonics. that was the point

<<they are less than ten gig for all three instruments>>

less than ten gig is one thing, but ten gig for three plugins? sure, i know, having a lot of space is part of the concept (and saves programmers to search for optimal loops, resulting in 200 MB jupiter pads, but i feel with them so i wont bitch about that ,
but what i dont get is that you cant see that EXACTLY these plugins almost cry for being dealt with via network in a bigger studio environment. once more, the *loading times* are not the problem. its the data file scan, which you try to rationalize here in a very weird way (more on that below).

<<That will easily fit on even an iPod. If you don't have ten gigs free on each system, the iPod would be an excellent solution for you, since you are using so many rigs, and it is super portable and simple (one cable and your up...keep it in your pocket if you like for convenience. This is what I've been doing recently and it is really a cool way to work)>>

dont you notice how this is getting a bit bit out of hand?
i mean, as workaround i should buy special hardware to use your plugins, when the solution could also be a simple software fix? look, were not talking about some host software here, were talking about a synth plugin. once again - imagine that every plugin maker would act this way: customer points out problem, plugin maker recommends workaround or hardware solution and rationalizes the problem. the old "its not a bug, its a feature" strategy...

im not saying this to be the smartass here - its just that you sound a bit like you tend to forget that its just a synth plugin, and that people usually have HUNDREDs of plugins on their system, which is why its cruical that NO plugin has any "special requests". networks are becoming more and more common in bigger studios. i load and save much higher RAM values with softsamplers - it works fine over network. atmo and stylus are basically also softsamplers, they do NOT work fine over network. end of story

<<80 gigabyte drives are going for about 80 bucks now, and 200-500 gigabyte drives are right around the corner...so inexpensive space is not really a big deal now or in the future.>>

sure. i can go out, spend a few hundred bucks on additional HDs, spend a day putting them into the computers and fiddling around with UDMA headaches, spend the night with putting the installer CD staple in each computer once, and maybe i will also find a solution for the two computers that *already* have all UDMA ports full. easy one, i could buy a new motherboard with 8 UDMA ports and put the entire computer onto that, or i could buy a firewire card for that computer. external firewire HDs arent sooo expensive either...

what im trying to say it, it doesnt end with the money question. i wish it would.

<<Your argument about the complexities and pains of sample management are exactly the reason that we chose to use a single .dat file.>>

you KNOW that *that* was NOT the reason

<<Management is extremely easy that way....it just works.>>

now youre really trying the distorted reality (TM) approach here IMHO - "it just works" is not my idea of sitting there for hours because i got a hiccup from this &/$%&/%/ dat file joiner program twice. easily the longest installation ive ever seen. relying on a single dat file makes such an installation very vulnerable, and the joiner is definetly a pretty slow fellow. compared to similar plugins with "unprotected", single audio files, the joiner takes about twice as long per GB, and god forbid anything happens during that joining process...i can only imagine how this would be if i installed this on several computers - id be installing all day, minimum.

the way i solved it right now was to install this once on the network machine, then - when i finally got the two dat files for the two plugins together - hide the dat file from the installers when i installed it on the other machines, then put the dat file back. very easy and intuitive management.

i mean, what management anyway? with a custom library like this, there is NO management involved either way. it would be one folder on the root level with lots of subfolders, but the good thing would be, you could partially install it (i.e. locally on my laptop, only my favourite sounds), or you could use the samples in other softsamplers to further process them. but thats where we come to the real reason you used a encrypted dat file...thats ok, you dont have to deny that. theyre really great samples. i would try to protect them too.

<<The reason it works so well is that the plug-in scans the entire dat file when it is opened, that way it doesn't have to scan everytime you load a patch>>

why would it have to scan at all? my softsamplers dont scan a thing, not the first time they load, not "everytime you load a patch". i dont see any need to scan the data file other than copy protection, to be honest, and i believe thats what it really is.
i mean, why scan the file? the list of patches is fixed, the dat file is how it is and cant be altered. why scan it? do the plugins generate their always identical patch list in realtime *every time* on startup, and each plugin instance does it again? well, with a fixed dat file i definetly would call that a design flaw...

<<and the loading times are much faster and more reliable than other soft samplers, once the plug-in is open.>>

oh, come on, the opposite is the case. ever compared? i know how long it takes my sampling plugins to load how much.

<<Remember that Stylus alone has over 38,000 samples, which is a lot to scan and keep track of...>>

keep track of WHAT? is that sample pool in constant flux in an alternate universe or something?

<<it's much better technically to do it once, and then that's it.>>

yes, that is true. this "do it once" should have occured during the installation process, not every time you open the plugin. every time you open a song and once for each instance is not my definition of "do it once".

<<(This is not a design flaw at all, it's an advantage over other sampler engines).>>

its not. it loads slower in general, and it has no benefit in the real world, cause there is no need to scan a *fixed* dat file for possible changes.
yet it scans and scans and scans...even if other sampling plugins were really slower (instead of what they really are, =faster), even then they would be faster cause theyd still be finished in a time where your plugins would still be busy scanning the dat file, each plugin instance again and again and again.

<<however, your network approach is really making things painfully slow>>

make this "the general trend to use networks for huge sample libraries" and maybe youre getting my point...networks are becoming a must exactly because of instruments like yours, and more and more studios work with networks. i doubt it would be wise for spectrasonics to just ignore this.

<<since networks are so much slower than hard drives....>>

and for the last time - theyre not that much slower. a well configured network feels pretty snappy. loading times of even huge sample banks, or, for example, the loading times of the kinda similar VSTI sample-player "virtual guitar" are fast enough. about twice as fast as stylus and atmosphere, and thats NOT including the endless dat file scanning.


sorry, i know this post now sounds *really* erm, hot-headed ,
but youll have to live with that cause, IMHO, you tried the classic "customer is stupid" and "its not a bug its a feature" maneuvers, and ive seen those a bit too often.

i guess i will just have to wait for multitimbrality. i must admit that im a bit disappointed though, so far my experiences with spectrasonics have been pretty promising and i didnt quite expect you to refuse to see the obvious problems but rather rationalize them no matter how weird the explanations become.

there, now im playing the "whiny customer" card. your turn please dont take any of this personally. at the end of the day, were just talking about *plugins* after all

hi derek ... read yours and specs posts and maybe it's not my business 'cos I'm not an atmo user, but you have IMO valid points.

Software that works the way you work has always been the way forward. Fair enough.

And you want a single networked sample mgt solution. Fair enough.

And you want software that doesn't make a special case for itself every time you load. Fair enough.

And extra disks or pods take longer to install than anyone thinks and your time is normally billable at $x per hour as well as the cost of the disks. Fair enough.

Spec frequently says his products are intended for the few with the dosh to afford them, and not the many. It's how he justifies his relatively high prices.

That's fair enough too, but the downside is that those with the dosh to afford them are accustomed to the high standards that money brings, and expect things to work in a familiar way.

So I see your point of view.

derek wrote:

please dont take any of this personally. at the end of the day, were just talking about *plugins* after all

I doubt spectrum will take it personally, but it seems to me that you already did

From my perspective you have made valid points about the pain of the scan for your network use, but in the spirit of -solutions-, you might want to consider installing the .dat files locally, so that while you're playing the "whiny customer" role for this season...at least you have the opportunity maximise the current joy of using the instruments.

I'm a multi-timbrality freak as well, and as bad as I want it, the spectrasonics instruments as they are now are still my favorites.

-david abraham

PS: At least in my 12 years of IT Management, throwing hardware at a problem was frequently an effective solution. It certainly buys time in a hurry

I've certainly been tempted to throw IT hardware at management, if thats what you mean, David...

whyterabbyt wrote:

I've certainly been tempted to throw IT hardware at management, if thats what you mean, David...

lol done that too. It's all about effective solutions

-david abraham

kevvvvv wrote:

Spec frequently says his products are intended for the few with the dosh to afford them, and not the many. It's how he justifies his relatively high prices. That's fair enough too, but the downside is that those with the dosh to afford them are accustomed to the high standards that money brings, and expect things to work in a familiar way. So I see your point of view.

I'm not sure about this "few" statement...I have the distinct impression that the spectrasonics instruments are selling like crazy..could be because the right "high standards" (sound, breadth, interface, legato, filters?) have been prioritized up front...I would expect that the next set of priorities would be appropriately addressed, and among musicians there are probably different opinions on what these would be...

-david abraham

david ... I can't find the exact thread, but I distinctly recall that when spec first announced his prices here, then everyone went "gosh!".

And in reply, spec did politely point out that his products were intended for the well-heeled, and not the average user (or words clearly to that effect).

I have no axe to grind here. Spec makes good products (and good for running up quick multimedia soundtracks with too )

But besides acknowledging spec's quality, it's also fair to say that I've read derek's posts for the last 2 years or more, and I've always found that his comments made a lot of sense and were frequently insightful.

Currently I'm only managing around 48gb of samples on a purpose-bought hard disk, and all in one machine, so it's not too difficult for me.

But I still like software that can be configured to work the way I work.

Who doesn't.

First, let me say that I own both Atmos and Stylus and I think they are brilliant... I will be buying Trilogy as soon as it is available, too. That said, I have to agree with everything the original poster said. The load times on these instruments are ridiculous, even using a local drive. I imagine trying to use them from a network install is a complete nightmare, and it shouldn't be so... the network is the future in studios, as it is in every other kind of data-intensive application.

Spectrasonics (respectfully) you blew it on the copy protection scheme - the scans of the .dat file for every instance on load are a bad idea that should be addressed. It may work in testing when instantiating only a few instances, but for someone working with 6 to 8 instances of Stylus, plus another few Atmos, and (soon) one or two Trilogies it doesn't make sense. And it doesn't support network installs, which I maintain is a bad idea in 2003, regardless of if hard drives are given away free in boxes of crackerjack. Someone a lot smarter than either of us said "The network IS the computer" a while back and they were right. As the original poster said, it is about data management, not the price of hardware. The cost of maintaining multiple installations is in labor, not hardware.

Implementation of multi-timbrality will help (a lot) but please reconsider your copy-protection scheme - I much prefer a hardware USB dongle to anything else I have dealt with, certainly in my eyes it is far preferable to PACE (I will no longer buy PACE protected products).

Thank you for your great products and your willingness to recognize user input in ongoing development.

david wrote:

Quote:

I doubt spectrum will take it personally, but it seems to me that you already did

naah im just playing cards - he played the its-a-feature-card, i play the whiny-selfish-customer-card. its the only one you can play in response, from my experience other than the loading times getting out of hand on my current project, im totally fine. and i tried to stress several times that other than this, im one happy spectrasonics puppy right now

none of this is meant or taken personally by me, and thats even another very selfish thing to do, cause the advantage is that you dont have to be as politically correct

david of course also wrote:

Quote:

but in the spirit of -solutions-, you might want to consider installing the .dat files locally, so that while you're playing the "whiny customer" role for this season...at least you have the opportunity maximise the current joy of using the instruments.

of course youre right about this. may look like im acting the way i am on principle, which of course would be pretty silly. the sad truth though is that i of course know that the multitimbral update will be done "when its done" and not when i need it (now). and i have no choice at the moment, cause i started the current project im working on on the laptop. and that simply doesnt have enough space for the two files anymore...doh!

and i dont feel like buying a firewire drive just to save me some time while i wait for these plugins to load. id rather invite my wife for a nice dinner with that money, cause those are the truly important things in life

and of course (spectrasonics, do NOT listen now!) i can work with it the way it is. its an inconvenience, and a rather annoying one, but no more than that. all thats important for me in this discussion is that the point comes accross - plugins that effectively cant access their samples via network = no good, multitimbrality = important for several reasons, huge dat files that are checked upon launch as copy protection = barely tolerable.

kev, thanks for the nice supporting words

whyterabbyt, speaking of throwing hardware, another good one i can recommend is to throw zip drives (those external blue thingies) at the wall - nothing explodes more nicely than a zip drive, and those click-of-death-%&/&§§ deserve no better

cmcneil - well i couldnt agree more. i think its valid that they try to protect these samples as good as they can, cause thats really the essence of these instruments, and the samples are outstanding and the result of a LOT of work. think of it this way, other companies wont sell their best stuff in software at all (i.e. lexicon, where IMHO the hardware isnt much more than a huge dongle that protects lexicons holy grail of reverb algorithms

and theyre really nice to you when it comes to multi licensing. the way they handle this makes a lot of sense, but you cant say this about every company. now i only wish theyd be as cooperative right to the end, like, spare the user the endless dat file checks. or at least reduce them to once per plugin *type*, not per instance. im no programmer, but im sure there must be some way to do this.

anyway, once these plugins are multitimbral and the loading times are perhaps a bit more optimized, the problem may not be solved but at least less noticable. that would be ok with me

and now ill call my wife and ask when we want to go for dinner this week

cmcneil wrote:

Implementation of multi-timbrality will help (a lot) but please reconsider your copy-protection scheme - I much prefer a hardware USB dongle to anything else I have dealt with, certainly in my eyes it is far preferable to PACE (I will no longer buy PACE protected products)

Finding out anything about "PACE" is soooo bloody hard. Any idea how many documents are out there that deal with CDs and copyright, include the word "pace" and have nothing to do with PACE there are?

Oy.

I'd like to know about this. I've bought a fair number of expensive VSTis lately and have been dismayed to find I can't copy them. Dismayed because my house has been broken into a few times (goodbye best guitar and entire DVD collection) and I would like backups of expensive hardware. You just KNOW that pirates will crack this, but the people who actually pay for it are the ones being inconvenienced.

Anyways, is PACE the two little holes drilled into the CD surface, or is that something else?

http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/4F0B51C39C17DA6386256B 7F0077FBA6
Read that to find out about PACE...
ew

I just BOUGHT the Waves Native plugins!!! I just spent money on software that I just now (after reading that article) found out will crash my computer "protecting" itself from piracy!!!!

#@$^@#^@#$%!#$%$

Man... does anyone know where I can get a cracked copy of it? I'm gonna have to "steal" software that I own to be able to USE it.... what a joke.

pough, it looks like your fairly new... If I were you, I wouldn't talk about looking for cracks here... I'm sure there's a way, you just gotta look...

Actually,the new PACE drivers work fairly unobtrusively.However,5 more days and I'm PACE free;Tassman 3 comes out!
ew

Yes, I agree with derek, that this .dat file system is bad and clumsy. Spectrasonic propably adopted it for copy protection of the samples or just because this happened to be the file system behind UVI engine. From users point of view individual .wav files would surely be much better and flexible solution in many ways.

fwiw, i dont think the spectrasonics plugins are pace-protected.

granted, its a challenge response system, but its different in several ways:

1. automated response (could still be pace but still worth mentioning cause its less hassle)

2. you are allowed to have several installs - spectrasonics is aware that many musicians use several computers, like, system link, second control room or laptop use (could still be pace but again this is worth mentioning - very good solution)

3. the interface doesnt look like PACE. ive got many PACE protected plugins and the authorization dialog always looks the same. spectrasonics authorization looks (and feels) different.

4. and the number one reason why i dont think its PACE: it worked flawlessly, right away, and didnt fuck up my system

*that* part of the spectrasonics stuff is really OK. its the first time i dont feel annoyed or limited by a challenge response system. if they can get rid of the long data file scan times (no matter if network or internal HD), then these plugins could very well be an example for the rest of the industry of how to handle copy protection without "punishing" the honest users that buy the plugins (of course you can find cracks of *anything* on the net, including spectrasonics)

You're right-Spectrasonics stuff is NOT PACE protected. We just got sidetracked
Sorry,
ew

facingdoubt wrote:

pough, it looks like your fairly new... If I were you, I wouldn't talk about looking for cracks here... I'm sure there's a way, you just gotta look...

I am fairly new here; you're right. If you're implying that the folks from Waves are watching, I hope that they are. I wasn't expecting anyone to tell me where I can get cracked copies. I wanted the people at Waves to know how strongly I feel about this. If they know that their paying customers would rather START pirating their software, because it's the only way for it to work properly, maybe that will wise them up!

I've already spent the $500 - they've got that from me. But if I find that their tools are unusable, I'll either actually consider tracking down the cracks or else spend the hours I would have wasted on their stuff spreading the news on all the message boards about it and just cough up some more dough for a UAD-1...

Also keep in mind that if it all works well, you'll hear me sing their praises here, too!

(sorry to everyone else who's finding this WAY off-topic)

facingdoubt's not implying that the WAVES people are watching-it's that we DON'T deal with cracks.End of story!A person who we all respect's company is NOT making native software anymore as of today because of piracy...
ew

ew wrote:

Quote:

A person who we all respect's company is NOT making native software anymore as of today because of piracy...

who?

Couple of important points to clear up before the urban legends get out of hand here:

1. The .dat file is NOT scanned for copy protection reasons. It is only scanned when the plug-in is opened, so that the plug-in knows where all the samples are. It also doesn't re-scan once the plug-in is opened.

2. We don't use PACE.

3. We use the single .dat file not only for copy protection, but for sample management reasons. You can't install or delete just part of the instrument, because many patches cross-reference the same samples. If you deleted one set of sounds, you would mess up many other sounds. This is a big advantage of our system for our sound design, since doing it the other way would require more than 12 gigabytes for Atmosphere for example!

So yes...you need 3 gigs or more for each instrument on your computer. That's how our instruments work....we aren't asking for any special requirements other than that and it's clearly stated in the product requirements.

Derek, I understand your points very well and we are always looking for ways to improve our instruments. (BTW....we are always listening whether you whisper or scream ) One thing you are mistaken about however is that our sounds are not memory optimized. I spent many months of careful looping and optimizing each patch in Atmosphere. (over 13,000 samples!) Your "200mb Jupiter Pad" doesn't exist in the product...the average sound is only 40-70mb in size. My guess is that you created a new sound using two different layers in 32 bit Mode...which doubles the memory size. Please read the section in the manual about Optimization and 32 Bit Mode. A lot of people are confused about how this works, and that you can get memory back by turning 32 bit mode OFF.

For now, network use is just too slow to make sense. Install the instruments locally and you'll be having better luck. We are aware of the song loading issues when a lot of our plugs are used in the same song, and you'll see this improve in future versions.

best,

spectrum

derek wrote:

if they can get rid of the long data file scan times (no matter if network or internal HD),

Just to put this into perspective for non-users....this debate is about a scan of three seconds or less per plug-in on a local HD.

Not a big deal at all for a few plugs, if you have 20 or more....it starts to add up...we know.

spectrum

I need to put my two cents in.

Firstly, I currently only have Stylus. As a song writer, it has completely streamlined the way I write music. I figure out what tempo the song needs to be, wait 12 seconds for a groove menu to load and I'm off to the races. I no longer use up aprox. an hour working on a drum groove that feels right... and by then I've lost any inspiration I had in the first place.

My point is that load time issue must be taken into perspective. While I still have to wait 12 seconds, I gain 59min and 48 seconds.

If the security of the product is responsible for the 12 seconds I have to wait, I don't have a problem with that. If it were my company, I would ensure every measure was taken to see that nobody steals from me.

Everyone knows that the software industry has always driven the hardware industry and when a cutting edge product comes out like any of the Spectrasonics instruments, the hardware has some catching up to do.

Is it really that big of a deal? Not in my opinion.

dano

http://www.kvr-vst.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=150047
That's who,derek...
ew

Now I understand the sentiment. I'd like to drop my explanations for my position, quit my whining and say that if anything I have said has been hurtful or offensive I apologize. I have an immense amount of respect for that person, as well.

spectrasonics wrote:

Quote:

We are aware of the song loading issues when a lot of our plugs are used in the same song, and you'll see this improve in future versions.

thats all i need to hear, thanks is there a rought estimate when to expect an update or is it still in the "when its done" stage?

Quote:

BTW....we are always listening whether you whisper or scream

i apologize if it came across as screaming. i tried to go the "cynical grin" direction but english is not my mother language so im not really in full control of how my brabbling comes across

dano wrote:

Quote:

Everyone knows that the software industry has always driven the hardware industry and when a cutting edge product comes out like any of the Spectrasonics instruments, the hardware has some catching up to do

you could use the same analogy vice versa, where new hardware standards are becoming more and more popular and software that doesnt adapt is left behind, like 3d accelerated graphic cards and the resulting need for a game to be 3d accelerated. in that case, the "new" hardware trend would be networking - its everywhere, almost everybody has several computers these days, companies like steinberg make the first baby steps into a better integration of multi computer setups, and its not going to go away anytime soon. and its really necessary, and the perfect answer for sample libraries that become bigger and bigger (among many other things).

ew wrote

Quote:

http://www.kvr-vst.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=150047 That's who

didnt know. thats really sad. i must admit i use cracks too, but only for evalutation, or for laptop use in cases where the copy protection just isnt, erm, compatible with real life (like, im often on the road and cant take 298763234 original program cds with me, and i only have so many USB ports on the laptop to put dongles into). but i buy *everything* that i use, i dont just say so, and where need i buy multiple licenses. i make a living from music since more than ten years, i might not drive a porsche (not that id want to but im doing fine, and ive been on the developer side already as well. feels kinda funny when someone asks you if you had a copy of this or that, not knowing that the stuff in question was made by you LOL
you gotta support these guys IMHO, using cracks for anything but trial or the very popular buy-it-put-it-on-shelf-continue-using-the-version-that-works-without-d ongle approach is very unfair, downright stealing. it feels different cause people have a hard time to see software as a "thing", but its still the result of someones long and hard work.
and most importantly, many people dont realize how fragile and small this music production industry is. the usual argument is "i dont support those porsche driving suits" etc blabla - somehow people tend to mistake small garage companies that make a plugin or two with daimler chrysler or so it seems...

finally, ive become a real softsynth junkie - i think this whole new world of softsynths (it still feels very new to me even though i started with the LM 4 lol) is just fantastic, and this new world just exists because some people are honest enough to buy the stuff they use. no more buyers = no more pro companies that make new products. theres only so much our freeware heros like tobybear can do in their spare time - if you want to find out whether you could live without say native instruments you just gotta compare tobys sampler with kontakt

ok so now im getting of topic too. but hey, i started the topic right? [/quote]