Open Labs debuts SoundSlate

[Throbert]

and no Openized VST's

[SurfacePatterns]

and no Openized VST's

Wow. Upgrading my Receptor to a Receptor Pro Max would cost $1,599. For $400 more, I can keep my Receptor, and get the Soundslate, which has a more elegant, feature-filled, stable VST host (RIFF) than the Receptor, and allows me to install other pieces of software that can co-exist with the VST host.

In addition, I get support from a company that is much more responsive and competent than Muse Research has shown itself to be. How long have we been waiting for the new operating system to be released for the Receptor Rev. C models? How inane have the excuses been for the delay? Yeah.

Thank you for posting this.

[projektio]

I wonder if Open Labs offers a trade-in program... I kid, I kid!

projektio

[Throbert]

Yea, tell me about it I'm sitting hear with a pro2 max thinking I should have never upgraded.
It'll be awhile before I can afford it but I don't think I'll be wondering when or if muse will ever get its shit thogether anymore.
I'm also wondering if Open Labs will make the OS or the modified OS available.

[MartinHines]

I'm also wondering if Open Labs will make the OS or the modified OS available.

All OpenLabs products run Windows XP as their Operating System.

They write some of their own hardware drivers and (perhaps) streamline the OS, but it is Windows XP. That is why they can claim they can run any VST that runs on Win XP.

The SoundSlate appears to come with Win XP Home.

[Throbert]

Yea I know, But it would be nice to know what they do with the OS and to get a copy of Riff and Mimik. OH, looks Like I can buy a copy of Mimik. There's probably alot of other stuff in there that helps everything flow better too. Hell I've already got 2 rackmount quadcore setups.

[richwhite9]

The touch screen controller and Mimik run $500 to $600 depending on the deal. They are seperate products from the SoundSlate. A Receptor user could use Mimik and import the results into a sample player on Receptor.

All we really know is that the SoundSlate runs Windows Installers and ships with a 2.8 dual core and a 2GB/500GB configuration for 2K.

The comparable Receptor (the Pro) ships with a 2.53 dual core processor and a 3GB/500GB config for $600 more..

The Receptor can be run live without the remote or a netbook. The slab doesn't have any front panel controls AFAIK.

Load times of RIFF versus Receptor? No one really knows yet. I can say that there were complaints on the OL forums about the load times on some of their machines but they are primarily studio machines (not live) and every computer can be pushed over its limits.

I'm trying to score a PRO for under 1K. You guys ready to go to Ebay yet?

And NAMM is coming up meaning Muse should have some announcments then regarding configs, prices, and upcoming installers.

[nathankingcole]

This looks pretty enticing. I have been on the fence about upgrading my Rev C to a Pro 2. The description and price of the Soundslate certainly puts my MUSE loyalty on shaky ground!

[Throbert]

I'd like to say that I think I was wrong starting this thread and leaving the replies and posts that I did. It was not intended to hurt any of the staff at muse but I guess I went a little too far and for those at muse who I am giving this please accept my apologies.
Sorry
Throbert

[nathankingcole]

I think this discussion is healthy. I love my Receptor, and I would like to upgrade to version 2, but the Soundslate idea brings up big questions for me about the OS. I want to be sure that I can trust that the Receptor system will keep evolving towards more compatibility with every VST that I can run on my XP systems. I think that the Receptor has some major features that the soundslate does not have-the front panel control being a big one, and the absolutely beautifiul sound quality being another, but the idea of a more open operating system that would be compatible with all of the software I use on my studio computer and laptop has a strong pull for me when I consider investing more money into this technology.

[okiikahuna]

Seems like a healthy discussion to me as well. In fact the appearance of the soundslate which seems at first glance to be more directly competitive with the Receptor raises a number of interesting issues.

First question is this: Is it really competitive? I can show up with a Receptor and control it just like a sound module from my keyboard controller. I Don't need to hook up a touch screen, doodads or geegaws. Can you do this with a Soundslate? (I'm not talking about front panel controls, just the ability to stick it in a rack and run it from my keyboard. I don't want to have to go near a rack module.)

Second is this: how much of an advantage does Receptor's use of Linux really have? The disadvantages are readily apparent to all: VSTs are not automatically compatible and Muse must spend inordinate amounts of time and energy trying to receptorize some VSTs and tweak the Receptor's OS to make it compatible with others. Open Labs gets to spend probably far less time developing nifty user interfaces like Riff and utilities like Mimik. So, now that we may (or may not) have a competing product, we will get to see what the performance advantages of the Linux system really are.

Problem for Muse, and maybe us, is that any Linux performance advantages will be a lot less apparent to the casual shopper than the nifty user interface OL has pasted on ol' Bill's OS. Lets hope competition in this very small market turns out to be a good thing.

K.

[SurfacePatterns]

Yea I know, But it would be nice to know what they do with the OS and to get a copy of Riff and Mimik. OH, looks Like I can buy a copy of Mimik.

I don't know if you have a Linux box, or if you'd ever consider running Linux. If you do (or would), then check the program in my sig. It does a lot of what Mimik does (and some things it doesn't do), and it's free (LGPL).

... the absolutely beautifiul sound quality being another ...

I don't think this is a factor unless the hardware I/O on the Soundslate is botched. VSTs should sound the same regardless of the machine you use them on.

Second is this: how much of an advantage does Receptor's use of Linux really have?

That's an excellent question, and probably the only question I care about when comparing the two machines.

The real-time capabilities of the 2.6 Linux kernel are fantastic. I run Linux on my main audio machine, and, in most cases, can move audio around my machine with around 2-3 ms of latency with no problems. It's my understanding that doing this in Windows is very difficult.

One of the reasons that I'm so adamant about getting the new OS onto Rev. C Receptors is that the new OS has a 2.6 Linux kernel. The old OS has a 2.4 Linux kernel. The real-time capabilities of the 2.4 Linux kernel weren't nearly as mature (nice way of saying that 2.4 real-time was a serious hack) or anywhere near as good as they are in the 2.6 Linux kernel. So, getting the new OS onto Rev. C Receptors could be a real advantage over the Soundslate. Rev. C Receptor users won't know until Muse stops twiddling their thumbs.

The other side of the performance coin is that Open Labs apparently optimizes Windows XP for audio. I don't know if this means that they configure Windows XP out of the box just like any other engineer would configure XP for audio, or if they modify the operating system itself to be more efficient. If any of you have information on Open Labs products and how they perform (the RIFF host in particular), then please share.

The disadvantages are readily apparent to all: VSTs are not automatically compatible and Muse must spend inordinate amounts of time and energy trying to receptorize some VSTs and tweak the Receptor's OS to make it compatible with others.

Muse creates some of their own problems because they use an oversimplified interface. While there are definite advantages to simplifying the interface, there are also some major disadvantages. For example, installing VSTs that have Windows executable setup files on Linux is not generally a problem. Because I have 'wine' installed on my computer, I can double-click the executable, take the appropriate actions with all the different screens, and - most of the time - everything works fine. I can't do this on my Receptor because I have no interface for doing so; instead, I have to wait for Muse to release 'Receptorized' VSTs. Personally, I think this is silly.

[Rick@MuseResearch]

Hi all,

There of course will be a lot of discussion requarding this topic, and it's good to see but I would to to directly address the issue of plugins. There is a very specific set of test cases that are run on every plugin before they are approved by Muse Research. As the Director of QA and Support I want to make sure that first and foremost you have a reliable platform in which to make music. The bugs from plugins may be very subtle or in some case very nasty but extremly difficult to isolate and appear at the worst possible time. We are always doing our best to expand what can be installed, I have my own resaons since I use Receptors as well but not at the cost of instability to you our customer.

Rick

[SurfacePatterns]

There is a very specific set of test cases that are run on every plugin before they are approved by Muse Research. As the Director of QA and Support I want to make sure that first and foremost you have a reliable platform in which to make music. The bugs from plugins may be very subtle or in some case very nasty but extremly difficult to isolate and appear at the worst possible time. We are always doing our best to expand what can be installed, I have my own resaons since I use Receptors as well but not at the cost of instability to you our customer.

The problem, Rick, is that Muse Research enforces this policy for every Receptor user. You cater to the lowest common denominator, which has the potential to frustrate anyone with any technical knowledge.

I actually don't think you're doing your best to expand what can be installed. I think that there are little things you could do that could greatly expand Muse Research's ability to run more VSTs on Receptors.

Here's an idea that could help out everyone: make your test cases/suite public. This helps VST developers because it allows them to make sure that their VSTs will run on Muse Receptors, and will probably make their VSTs more stable on other machines too. This helps tech-savvy users by allowing them to test out VSTs they'd like to run on their Receptors, making it possible for us to help debug and troubleshoot, meaning we can provide you with more useful debugging information, allowing you to diagnose problems faster, which allows the Receptor community to have more stable VSTs in a lot less time. This helps Muse Research because VST developers that run their VSTs through the test suite will be able to create VSTs that have less problems, meaning less time spent debugging and troubleshooting for your tech team, and allows tech-savvy users to give Muse Research useful information on VSTs. This could also help improve your test suite, as tech-savvy users and VST developers contribute ideas and solutions that improve your test suite, and add important test cases that your test suite is missing.

[Kermit Jagger]

The problem, Rick, is that Muse Research enforces this policy for every Receptor user. You cater to the lowest common denominator, which has the potential to frustrate anyone with any technical knowledge.

I totally agree.