How best to denigrate non-modular hosts?

[SJ_Digriz]

So how do you respond to my point?

Look at the post before that one.

[SJ_Digriz]

Oh if you mean the comment on #s of in-outs for VST. That has nothing to do with modular/non-modular. Not sure why you even bring it up.

If you are going to narrow this down to the single aspect of routing then we can switch and discuss other related issues that revolve around that.

[quincy]

Tracktion is one of few hosts that makes decent use of the elasticity of a software environment. Computer software interfaces can be bent, stretched and used in all sorts of clever ways that can't be done in hardware, so why the f**k does a lot of software keep copying a hardware interface?!

A lot of developers quite badly need to get some education on user interface design, cos some of them clearly haven't got a bloody clue.

At the very least Jules has made an effort to use the elastic nature of computer GUI's to its full, instead of copying ancient interface paradigms just to keep old hardware users happy.

Bottom line is that its all a matter of taste, but frankly the modular hosts such as EnergyXT are more powerful becuase they don't restrict the way things can be done, they blow it wide open so things can be done in numerous different ways to suit the user. You can't say that about cubase.

Not that i give a shit, i pretty much gave up on making music now!

[shamann]

interface paradigms

You all hate me! Is there a :headache: emoticon around here?

[Borogove]

Oh if you mean the comment on #s of in-outs for VST. That has nothing to do with modular/non-modular. Not sure why you even bring it up.

If you are going to narrow this down to the single aspect of routing then we can switch and discuss other related issues that revolve around that.

I love humans.

In my vocabulary, and as used in the original post of this thread, the *only* thing modular means to me is supporting arbitrary # of I/O and arbitrary routing.

(I understand that the thread has drifted somewhat.)

[IIRs]

Oh if you mean the comment on #s of in-outs for VST. That has nothing to do with modular/non-modular. Not sure why you even bring it up.

You're a Cubase user right? Lets say you have a compressor followed by an EQ, but you want to hear them in the opposite order. Care to outline the steps involved?

[aMUSEd]

Oh if you mean the comment on #s of in-outs for VST. That has nothing to do with modular/non-modular. Not sure why you even bring it up.

If you are going to narrow this down to the single aspect of routing then we can switch and discuss other related issues that revolve around that.

I love humans.

In my vocabulary, and as used in the original post of this thread, the *only* thing modular means to me is supporting arbitrary # of I/O and arbitrary routing.

(I understand that the thread has drifted somewhat.)

It's a Kuhnian paradigm shift

[jtxx000]

Oh if you mean the comment on #s of in-outs for VST. That has nothing to do with modular/non-modular. Not sure why you even bring it up.

You're a Cubase user right? Lets say you have a compressor followed by an EQ, but you want to hear them in the opposite order. Care to outline the steps involved?

or maybe you want to move a chorus plugin from one track to another?


i tracktion

[SJ_Digriz]

You're a Cubase user right? Lets say you have a compressor followed by an EQ, but you want to hear them in the opposite order. Care to outline the steps involved?

First EQ goes before the compressor I wouldn't have had it the other way.

heh, you pick like one of the most obvious examples. I won't outline the steps although its really only 2 extra clicks if you use the channel save functions. I'll just concede that this sucks in Cubase.

HOWEVER, every other NON-Modular host worth a damn has this ability. So this has nothing to do with modular/non-modular. This is just the silly Borgz ignoreing common sense. I could give you lots of stuff I don't like about Cubase.

Let me make it clear, I'm not bashing Tracktion in general. If you like it...fine. But to claim it is easier/better is rediculous. To claim that it has some huge feature set via being modular that non-modular hosts are missing is just as rediculous.

Cubase is NOT harder to use than Tracktion. It can't be that hard, my daughter installed SX-1 and configured it and recorded her own songs using a few VSTs and 2 external synths on her own computer without my help(she's 10).

Also telling me I'm ignorant about a program and then quoting features from an unreleased version is a bit silly too. One HUGE difference in the feature examples that we gave is this: Although it is more cumbersome, I CAN move the inserts while you can NOT loop record or comp trimming in T1. Don't tell me it's fixed in T2 or I'll tell you that SX-43 has moveable inserts.

[SJ_Digriz]

or maybe you want to move a chorus plugin from one track to another?

uhmm...this is mega easy to do in cubase. You can even copy it to multiple tracks at the same time.

[jtxx000]

heh, shows what i know... it was a lot harder than it should be in Acid (my old host)...

[SJ_Digriz]

I love humans.

In my vocabulary, and as used in the original post of this thread, the *only* thing modular means to me is supporting arbitrary # of I/O and arbitrary routing.

Well let me quote you from the beggining

I assert that there is no excuse other than a ridiculous poverty of imagination to develop a VST (or other plugin) host which is anything less than fully modular in the way of Audiomulch, EnergyXT, or Plogue Bidule.

I seek a properly degrading term to use to describe other, non-modular, hosts, which will so shame and embarrass the developers of those hosts that they will not allow themselves to ship so much as a bug fix patch until they have rearchitected their software to be completely freeform modular.

Then lets quote you soon after when you try to explain the original rambling nonsense.

I'm looking for a one word adjective that can be applied to the whole lot of 'em.

Like "well, in a modular host, you can do this, but in a ____ host, you're just f**ked."

I don't see any mention of arbitrary IO routing do you?

[IIRs]

First EQ goes before the compressor I wouldn't have had it the other way.

You're still using the voice of ignorance.

I'll just concede that this sucks in Cubase.

To claim that it has some huge feature set via being modular that non-modular hosts are missing is just as rediculous.

Parallel effects routings? Don't tell me this is not useful; compressing a reverb send for example is a well established technique.

Cubase is NOT harder to use than Tracktion.

I also own Cubase. Yes it is harder, mainly because there is no underlying consistency to the layout as there is in Tracktion.

Also telling me I'm ignorant about a program and then quoting features from an unreleased version is a bit silly too.

I was pointing out that most of the things you listed were already possible, and those that aren't will become so within weeks.

[haydxn]

tracktion IS easier/simpler than cubase. yes, my mum would be able to do something in cubase, but only after she'd figured out what all the different screens were, where each menu item was and which menus there were that were relevant. and then she'd have to understand old-fashioned mixer-style concepts. tracktion doesn't require any of that stuff, and is inherently simpler to get to grips with because it's all there.

[SJ_Digriz]

tracktion IS easier/simpler than cubase. yes, my mum would be able to do something in cubase, but only after she'd figured out what all the different screens were, where each menu item was and which menus there were that were relevant. and then she'd have to understand old-fashioned mixer-style concepts. tracktion doesn't require any of that stuff, and is inherently simpler to get to grips with because it's all there.

This is absolute nonsense. You can tell everyone this all you want. There is nothing more "there" or less "there" in the common interface. There is nothing about the menus and options that are available that are easier/harder. There are just MORE options in most of the mature hosts, hence the added complexity.