ENV1 wrote:Considering how many features this thing has it seems clear that 8 minutes is way on the short side.
Demo time: 8min
The KVR Audio Instruments forum is sponsored by the Winter NAMM Show. More than a trade show, NAMM brings together the music, sound and event technology communities for exhibits, workshops, performances, events and much more. This year's show takes place January 25-28. See you there!Read more at www.namm.org
ENV1 wrote:wagtunes wrote:
With saving presets, the 20 minute run time is just a minor annoyance. You could still use the synth forever, render all your tracks and never have to pay for the software.
With saving presets, the only way to force you to buy the software is to do what U-he does and put noise in.
Ah...i see what you mean now.
Well, a bit of noise would certainly be acceptable too as long as its not like every 10 seconds (Harmor anyone?) and doesnt blast the domes off your tweeters. A subtle whisper like every 30 seconds or so would be enough to make sure people cant use the demos for production while not getting on the demoers nerves. I could certainly live with that if it meant that i can make a variety of different sounds and take my time.
el-bo (formerly ebow) wrote:Especially because you have to start from scratch with routing before you can even get anything to sound
I deleted the response from the developer. Basically, he insisted it was enough time to get some ideas going, and, that at the asking price of 15euros, perhaps I should just buy it
ghettosynth wrote:I forgot that Arturia has actual demos. Hell, twenty minutes is plenty of time to make use of the Buchla in interesting ways.
ghettosynth wrote:I much prefer time limited but fully functional "trials" to demos though.
ENV1 wrote:But yes, from a users point of view it is certainly perferrable to per-instance timelimits and noise
el-bo (formerly ebow) wrote:The only one I can't stand is audio dropouts, which I find to be obnoxious and unnecessary.
elassi wrote:ENV1 wrote:Considering how many features this thing has it seems clear that 8 minutes is way on the short side.
Demo time: 8min
ENV1 wrote:el-bo (formerly ebow) wrote:I guess I'm the odd one out, then
Nah, there are probably many who think like you.
I shouldnt have put it so broadly.
ENV1 wrote:ghettosynth wrote:I forgot that Arturia has actual demos. Hell, twenty minutes is plenty of time to make use of the Buchla in interesting ways.
The Buchla, yeah, i suppose so.
(I have downloaded it but so far only checked if it runs.)
But the DX or CMI are a totally different ballgame. If youre not a preset user you cant really judge anything unless you have enough time to really get in there. Thus if you only have 20 minutes per go and no saving you cant ever go all the way because time will always be up just when youre about to really get started. After all a good sound can take hours to make, even days if you strive for total perfection. Thats especially true when a synth has as many features as Arturias DX and Fairlight have.ghettosynth wrote:I much prefer time limited but fully functional "trials" to demos though.
Everyone does, i suppose. The reason why we dont see this more is probably because trials can usually be easily reset unless it involves a dongle or some form of online process. (Which many people refuse to put up with just to demo something.) In fact there are quite a few plugins that could theoretically be used forever if you just kept getting rid of the stuff that tells the plugin when the trial period was started. So in a way its perfectly understandable that this may not be every devs solution-of-choice.
But yes, from a users point of view it is certainly perferrable to per-instance timelimits and noise and whathaveyou since you will have enough time to really check everything out in detail AND you can even save your progress too. That way you can make a well-informed decision as to whether or not you should purchase and thus the chance that you will regret the whole thing later on is practically nil. Personally i sure wouldnt mind if it always worked like that.
ghettosynth wrote:Yes, it was stated in context of refuting the universal claim of objectivity via statistical methods. As I said, some emulations can be shown mathematically to be more accurate than others, I did not say all, nor did I imply that I meant anything in specific. It was a refutation of the given statement, not a universal claim. Of course if we want to say something about a specific instance of an emulation, e.g., the 2600v, we either have to know something about its model, or we have to measure it to determine where its model fails. However, it's not unreasonable to assume, based on several factors, that we can infer some details of the modeling techniques used.