Obxd synthesizer

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Instruments Discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS
OB-Xd - Virtual Analog Synthesizer

Post

sin night wrote:Wow, what a flame!

Seriously, I didn't read the whole thread and I didn't look at the code, but I understand aciddose observations about the code.
Maybe it's because I've got a degree in computer science and I write code 40 hours each week for a living.

The "beauty" of the code is something you can't see by just using a software... even a mess of a code can work fine and bug free once all bugs are ironed out. But don't even try making a change on that software because of a change on the requisites.

True story: there's a piece of code that I wrote to check user authorization to access certain resources on the application I develop at work. It works perfectly, but don't even ask me to make a slight change to it (for example adding a new user level): it will take me at least two days of really hard work, while it should be really straightforward. The reason is the client asked for many changes while the feature was being built, so it started in a way and patch after patch it ended in a very different way. That part of the software is spaghetti code, while the remaining parts are rather well structured and easy to modify.
Last week I developed a module to inquiry some data in just two hours because I have been able to clone and refactor a similar functionality which is well structured. Yet, it takes me two days to add a string to support a new user level.
If you were to look at the application from an user point of view, you would say it's great and you wouldn't understand why some "small" changes would take me a lot of time.

A badly structured code is a great source of bugs and it's hard to work. There's a reason while at university you have to study design patterns, too.

That has nothing to do with how great/useful a product is perceived by the user, it's all hidden inside (well... untill you don't experience a bug, which gives you an insight sometimes...). But I understand this is hard to understand if you don't have a background in programming or computer science, this is not common knowledge yet (unfortunately... because this is really important, it's quality and it really pays).
Maybe that all is the reason why the dev finally gave up on maintaining the plugin. :shrug:

Post

Admirallo wrote:Pfft, no bans ever stopped me from making a point.
Thing is, You missed the point completely :roll:

And then read this
sin night wrote:Seriously, I didn't read the whole thread and I didn't look at the code, but I understand aciddose observations about the code.
Maybe it's because I've got a degree in computer science and I write code 40 hours each week for a living.

The "beauty" of the code is something you can't see by just using a software... even a mess of a code can work fine and bug free once all bugs are ironed out. But don't even try making a change on that software because of a change on the requisites.
Yes. +1e10

You know, all this makes me feel to look at the code myself.
Need to learn a bit 'bout Github and things 8)

Post

So, there are people concerned about the future of OB-Xd and wishing that some coder(s) take up where, apparently, George Reales can't anymore (he still even didn't say a word about it, so, we still can't be sure about that).

Then, some people came here bashing the code itself, explaining why they are not interested in picking it. I guess it's OK, everyone is entitled to have their opinion. They may even have all the right in what they say/criticize, but that doesn't change the fact that many of us like the sound (with messy code or not, it works and sound good) and would like to have it maintained, and have a proper patch/bank browser, that allow us to create, maintain and use the many patches and banks available without having to rely on hosts, when many simply don't have support or have insufficient support for this feature.

This is the topic - not if the code is elegant or not, well written or not - I admit this may be important for developers, but frankly, as a user, I don't give a shit, as long as it works. I bet that many great commercial products out there are working with a really messy code, and still they sell and have customers.

Those that don't like the code and/or don't like the synth feel free to leave. Those that are willing to help, please do.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

chk071 wrote:The one thing which always put me off about xhip was that you have to run your project in 48 kHz to use it. Seriously, no other synth does that.
I run my Xhip projects at 44100 and render all audio at 88200.
wetdentist wrote:what's xhip?
Here is what it can do:
https://app.box.com/s/u1fjbbjxxb3pps6m88l6o8af800cjbgo
An official (i think?) thread where you should go if you want to continue talking about it:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 1&t=485102
And my thread where i copy with Xhip various analog sounds i like:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 1&t=450273

Now back to OBXD please. :)
[====[\\\\\\\\]>------,

Ay caramba !

Post

Last night I was going to post something like: As far as subjective opinions go I honestly haven't played with OBXD enough to make a concrete judgement. I wasn't impressed the first time I used it, it didn't do what I expect a synthesizer to do and I found it difficult to use.

What I can say though is that it does what it's designed to do well and sounds good.

I've been told in Germany "You've done an entirely acceptable job that is satisfactory in every way." is just like having a punch in the face. So perhaps some people find my opinion extremely offensive :shrug:

I didn't post that because I felt responding to such stuff is a waste of time. If anyone wants my subjective opinion however, there it is! Just stop insisting I offered any sort of subjective opinion previously because I most certainly did not.

Take note of the clear difference between experienced programmers "I can totally understand" vs. those who have absolutely no clue "he blatantly insulted someone's code!"

It isn't possible to insult code. It doesn't have "feelings". I didn't "hurt its feelings". You're projecting. Code is either correct or incorrect. There are often multiple ways to do things but often there are a set of trade-offs and finding the best solution is called optimization! No programmer would ever feel that any work they've done is the absolute best possible. It is always possible to improve and only very rarely do we create something that we would never again make changes to. The only reason we don't is either that it isn't worth the effort, or we don't know how to modify it to make improvements. This is where critique is extremely helpful.

You musicians are just too up tight which is why you can't handle technical criticism. Everything to you is subjective and can be interpreted in any way you like: it's essentially meaningless. In the world of code it is exactly the opposite. Nothing is subjective. If it were none of the software would work. Programmers absolutely love concrete and detailed harsh technical critique of their work. It is what can help someone to move from being a complete amateur to a master. The most insulting thing I've said in this thread was in fact due to the limited detail (near zero) in my posts! "I can totally understand" is because we're all perfectly well aware the author isn't present.

If I was speaking to the author directly I believe I'd be speaking in something like a foreign language to average people. Both of us would. The conversation wouldn't make much sense to you at all. It is our language.

Obviously wasted effort in some ways because we all know trollette's next post will be identical to the last several... I do feel it is important for everyone to understand one-another though and I believe that if it looks like anything I posted was "insulting" (this word is meaningless in programming) it is something you might benefit by thinking about a little more.
Free plug-ins for Windows, MacOS and Linux. Xhip Synthesizer v8.0 and Xhip Effects Bundle v6.7.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.

Post

aciddose wrote: I've been told in Germany "You've done an entirely acceptable job that is satisfactory in every way." is just like having a punch in the face.
Only in a employment reference. ;)

Post

chk071 wrote: The one thing which always put me off about xhip was that you have to run your project in 48 kHz to use it. Seriously, no other synth does that. I don't know if it's still the case, but, i won't let a plugin dictate what sample rate i'm using. Beyond nonsense.
You do? That's odd, and I didn't notice it of course cause I run my DAW at 48kHz already. :D

Would be nice to be able run it at higher sample rates though.

Post

I could have sworn you could only run it when your project is 48 kHz. I don't find anything about it now though, so maybe i'm wrong.

Post

chk071 wrote:I could have sworn you could only run it when your project is 48 kHz. I don't find anything about it now though, so maybe i'm wrong.
You probably remembered a discussion about a small difference in how resonance behaves at 44100.
Started here by Soundplex near the bottom of the page:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 3&start=75
[====[\\\\\\\\]>------,

Ay caramba !

Post

Aha, good catch. This was probably why i thought xhip wouldn't work with anything lower than 48 kHz:
aciddose wrote: Xhip works okay at 48k, it does not work below that rate. People insist on using 44.1k but unfortunately there are numerous reasons this is a bad idea.

In any case this isn't an issue. It is intentional.

Post

I probably should have worded that differently: Xhip doesn't work as I intended it to work when I designed and settled on the optimized coefficient approximations below 48k, because I was using 48k and still use it for all audio work. It works as low as 1 Hz (I've tested it!) and as high as 9,000,000,000 Hz. Some issues of course (nyquist = 1/2 Hz?) but it actually works quite well. I regularly apply 100x over-sampling by setting the sample-rate at 4,800,000 when I want to test "naive" vs. "alias-free". It's quite interesting to use with very high X-mod depth for example but the result is disappointing: the aliasing makes up 99% of the signal :)
Free plug-ins for Windows, MacOS and Linux. Xhip Synthesizer v8.0 and Xhip Effects Bundle v6.7.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.

Post

Alright. Sorry for spreading confusion, simply a case of not computed well. :)

Post

Synth Justice Warriors are here, defending the codes!

Post

^ Please don't burn down kvr.
Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Post

Only your fav comic books mate

Post Reply

Return to “Instruments”