KVR Audio

memyselfandus · Post by **memyselfandus** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:52 pm

I've seen a lot of positive talk about Opcode Studio Vision over the years. especially related to all the features and things you could do in the program that are to this day.. are supposedly not really available in newer daws? at least concerning workflow?

any examples? what can the devs for various daws learn from the features you could find in Opcode Studio Vision? and why do you think some of those features are non existent now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwfX0k-fqK0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioBYL4svElw

Opcode Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 by Dave Oppenheim and based in and around Palo Alto, California, USA. Opcode produced MIDI sequencing software for the Mac OS and Microsoft Windows, which would later include digital audio capabilities, as well as audio and MIDI hardware interfaces. Opcode's MIDIMAC sequencer, launched in 1986, was the first commercially available MIDI sequencer for the Macintosh computer and one of the first commercially available music sequencers on any commercial computer platform.

At the time Opcode went under, the Studio Vision sequencer was at the front of the pack, with arguably the best MIDI editor written to this day.

Their most notable software titles include:

Vision (a MIDI-only sequencer)
Studio Vision (a full sequencer, including digital audio)
Galaxy (a patch editor and librarian)
OMS (a MIDI-interface environment)
Max (a graphical development environment)

In 1998, Opcode was bought by Gibson Guitar Corporation. Development on Opcode products ceased in 1999.

Some of Opcode's ex-employees went on to be part of Apple's Mac OS X Core Audio and MIDI software development.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opcode_Systems

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:56 pm

Not much, really. Modern DAWs pretty much surpassed Opcode years ago.

memyselfandus · Post by **memyselfandus** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:58 pm

EvilDragon wrote:Not much, really. Modern DAWs pretty much surpassed Opcode years ago.

Of course. just wondering what specific features people talk about that are not found in more modern daws? or at least workflow. I've seen it mentioned more than a few times but with no specific info.

zvenx · Post by **zvenx** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:01 pm

EvilDragon wrote:Not much, really. Modern DAWs pretty much surpassed Opcode years ago.

Midi wise I couldn't disagree with you more.
And I use Cubendo which afaik is ahead of your Reaper for midi stuff.

simple things like wait for note..or segments which nothing can still beat it for film work.
rsp

memyselfandus · Post by **memyselfandus** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:09 pm

It would be cool to get a list together so devs can start looking at adding some of the most useful stuff that was available over 18 years ago

zvenx · Post by **zvenx** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:19 pm

memyselfandus wrote:
EvilDragon wrote:Not much, really. Modern DAWs pretty much surpassed Opcode years ago.
Of course. just wondering what specific features people talk about that are not found in more modern daws? or at least workflow. I've seen it mentioned more than a few times but with no specific info.

Music Shop then Vision then Studio Vision Pro were my first sequencers.... I used it even three exclusively for three years after Henry the Jerk bought it and fired everyone at opcode...then it was time to move on.

I still have it on a working mac but dont' use it much anymore, except once in a few months make sure the computer still works and play a few projects and walk down memory lane.

some of the top of my head.

1. wait for note mode: sequencer waits on till you play something then records.
2. segments/sequences....it is like a sequence within the main sequence...for instance you can create a verse in one segment, a chorus in another.... chain them together or arrange them (oh you could use alphanumeric values to trigger them if that makes sense).
3. the ability to choose your output midi device and channel via a keyboard shortcut.

rsp

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:23 pm

1. Can be done in Reaper for sure with some scripting.
2. Also can be done in Reaper using subprojects. Also, this is basically how FL Studio works with its pattern/playlist workflow. Also, this sounds a lot like DP's Chunks.
3. As in hardware output device, or?

memyselfandus · Post by **memyselfandus** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:26 pm

EvilDragon wrote:1. Can be done in Reaper for sure with some scripting.
2. Also can be done in Reaper using subprojects. Also, this is basically how FL Studio works with its pattern/playlist workflow. Also, this sounds a lot like DP's Chunks.
3. As in hardware output device, or?

Awesome. I didn't know about this.

Watching this now

"The latest release of Reaper (5.11) has a whole host of new updates, and one off the coolest new functions is the ability to save parts of your project out as Sub-Projects.

In this tutorial I take you through the process of creating a new sub-project as well as looking at how to use the Project in Project function to embed one project into another."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jwvAACC-KFQ

Edit

#2 looks a bit different. Or a lot. I guess I'd have to see a example of how #2 is done in studio vision before knowing what I'm talking about.

"2. segments/sequences....it is like a sequence within the main sequence...for instance you can create a verse in one segment, a chorus in another.... chain them together or arrange them (oh you could use alphanumeric values to trigger them if that makes sense)."

Scotty · Post by **Scotty** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:35 pm

The same here but I started sequencing midi on an Atari ST using Creator and Notator and then went your route with Music Shop, Vision and Studio Vision Pro. I also worked with Metro and Bias DECK. Nostalgia. I spent more time ripping apart my computers (Apple Clones) than I did making music.

zvenx wrote: Music Shop then Vision then Studio Vision Pro were my first sequencers.... I used it even three exclusively for three years after Henry the Jerk bought it and fired everyone at opcode...then it was time to move on.
rsp

ksandvik · Post by **ksandvik** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:49 pm

For example, you could record the final format of the song (chorus, verse, Bridge et rest) by assigning keys to various sub-formats, play back the track and record with the keys what comes next. I don't know if I've seen that in any modern DAWs. Kind of improvising out the final song.

Scotty · Post by **Scotty** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:53 pm

ksandvik wrote:For example, you could record the final format of the song (chorus, verse, Bridge et rest) by assigning keys to various sub-formats, play back the track and record with the keys what comes next. I don't know if I've seen that in any modern DAWs. Kind of improvising out the final song.

It is like triggering scenes in Maschine, Bitwig or Live.

memyselfandus · Post by **memyselfandus** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:59 pm

Really cool

machinesworking · Post by **machinesworking** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:40 pm

EvilDragon wrote:1. Can be done in Reaper for sure with some scripting.

Just want to say, this is never the answer; Live can't do SysEx because someone once got Max For Live to read SysEx; Bitwig doesn't support all controllers because you can code your own support for them; and Reaper doesn't have proper support for starting MIDI on the fly because you can script it.

End user experience should not be dependent on any of that. Think of it this way, time is money, scripts, python, javascript, and Max For Live are all great features for a DAW, but the time taken to learn them raises the cost of the tools you get from them. I learn to code a multitap delay in M4L and it's only as free as you think the 20+ hours of learning how to code it in Max takes. Compare that to paying $20 for a multitap VST, or even calling up the one embedded in Live.

zvenx · Post by **zvenx** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:43 pm

@ED back then chunks was similar. Not the same.. too long ago to remember why chunks didn't work for me, cause after I decided to move on from svp dp was the first one I tried... haven't looked at chunks since, so I cant tell u..

Wait for note was a feature without scripting as I am sure u know.. don't use reaper much less its scripting too compare..
Sorry..

With segments u could write each movie cue with its specific time signature, tempo, time code start and then place them at the right position of the film.. made life so much easier.
Rsp

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:53 pm

zvenx wrote:With segments u could write each movie cue with its specific time signature, tempo, time code start and then place them at the right position of the film.. made life so much easier.

This is exactly possible with Reaper's subprojects. Each subproject can have its own time signature(s), tempo(s), project properties, and so on.

machinesworking wrote:
EvilDragon wrote:1. Can be done in Reaper for sure with some scripting.
Just want to say, this is never the answer; Live can't do SysEx because someone once got Max For Live to read SysEx; Bitwig doesn't support all controllers because you can code your own support for them; and Reaper doesn't have proper support for starting MIDI on the fly because you can script it.

End user experience should not be dependent on any of that. Think of it this way, time is money, scripts, python, javascript, and Max For Live are all great features for a DAW, but the time taken to learn them raises the cost of the tools you get from them. I learn to code a multitap delay in M4L and it's only as free as you think the 20+ hours of learning how to code it in Max takes. Compare that to paying $20 for a multitap VST, or even calling up the one embedded in Live.

That is definitely THE answer for certain part of userbase. Some people will never be satisfied even if there's a workaroundish way to achieve the feature that's wanted.

Once a script is written (by whoever is willing/has the know-how), implementing it to your workflow takes mere seconds. Not much of a problem if you ask me. Of course, native solutions are better, yes - but that doesn't discount the viability of scripted solutions.