How best to denigrate non-modular hosts?

[quincy]

There are just MORE options in most of the mature hosts, hence the added complexity.

This may well be true to an extent, but some hosts make attempt to use the software interface in a better way so as to minimise the number of different screens etc.

I think this is what the tracktion fans are trying to point out. Clever use of software interfaces can result in a more clean interface, and i hope to god more developers figure this out otherwise we'll be forever stuck with multiple window interfaces, which frankly are a relic of the past which needn't be clung onto with bloodied fingernails.

Go get some interface design education all you devs, it aint that complex trust me!!

[shamann]

Strange this all became another episode of Host Wars. Bigger, faster, better, easier. Meh, all a load of arse.

The fact remains that plugins can be designed to function in a certain way with multiple IO ports that won't cause an issue for users of a modular host versus users of a non-modular host. Many cool things can be done with these extra ports, but often they don't get implemented by lots of developers because of the widespread use of the non-modular hosts.

Guess that means that there's little market interest in the grand scheme of things to do those cool things, which is a pity.

[SJ_Digriz]

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

uhm...yeah. And why do you think you can't do this in Cubase easily?

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

hmm...I don't agree with this at all. It all seems to work the same for me. To be honest I found T1 needlessly cluttered. I find Cubase to be very configurable to get a clean, easy to use interface(logic is even better at this). I have work spaces to get all kinds of different views. I have zoom presets to get to specific locations at a click. I have keycommands to do almost any parameter I want without having to have every gadget taking up my screen.

But again, I'm not trying to make this a tracktion cubase war. I'm pointing out the falacy of the original post.

If all this is all about freeform routing then the guy is a TOTAL nutter. I'm not sure it would make my top 100 list of things that matter in a sequencer.

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

Yep, and the SX 3.02 patch that's due out any day has drag and drop inserts.

[IIRs]

Yep, and the SX 3.02 patch that's due out any day has drag and drop inserts.

But still no way to set up any routing that is in any way non-standard or inventive.

[SJ_Digriz]

Yep, and the SX 3.02 patch that's due out any day has drag and drop inserts.

But still no way to set up any routing that is in any way non-standard or inventive.

I can invent all kinds of non-standard routing. even feedback loops. I've posted that setup before. You are only limited by your imagination, not by your tools. I can do true side chaining. I can do split frequency filtering to multiple outputs. AND none of it is hard.

the 3.02 comment was a joke btw. I told him I would make that claim if he continued to talk about features that don't exist in T1. I doubt very seriously if the Borgz have suddenly caved in on this issue.

[quincy]

If all this is all about freeform routing then the guy is a TOTAL nutter. I'm not sure it would make my top 100 list of things that matter in a sequencer.

Fair enough, but i reckon you might be in a minority there.

Some people want more flexibility, and a lot of the linear sequencers just don't have those facilities. This is the original point i think.

[McLilith]

Oh, I didn't know Tracktion 2 was out yet...

...I can only hope the new interface isn't the total eye sore T1 was...

Eye sore?

Tl has an elegant interface. What do you want, phony-looking 3D renderings of non-existant hardware?


take care,
McLilith

[IIRs]

I can invent all kinds of non-standard routing. even feedback loops. I've posted that setup before. You are only limited by your imagination, not by your tools. I can do true side chaining. I can do split frequency filtering to multiple outputs. AND none of it is hard.

How? Genuine question btw, I still have VST..

[SJ_Digriz]

How? Genuine question btw, I still have VST..

Uhm, which how? side chain? feedback loop? frequency splitting?

hmm...when I made the examples I used SX-2. Not sure if they would translate back to VST directly (I doubt it)especially sidechaining as that uses a 4 channel group track.

[Borogove]

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.

Mulch, Bidule, and eXT are free routing. It was an oversight on my part not to make it clearer that this is what I meant by "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?

That post was simply intended to clarify a typical usage, not to define modular per se.

I'm sorry you've misunderstood this.

So in SX2, how would you use a 2-in-6-out frequency splitter with the highpass band going through a gate, a delay, a flanger, then back into the splitter?

[IIRs]

How? Genuine question btw, I still have VST..

Uhm, which how? side chain? feedback loop? frequency splitting?

hmm...when I made the examples I used SX-2. Not sure if they would translate back to VST directly (I doubt it)especially sidechaining as that uses a 4 channel group track.

All of them. Don't worry about relating it to VST, I just use that to create GM files (which it does better than SX )

[SJ_Digriz]

Tl has an elegant interface. What do you want, phony-looking 3D renderings of non-existant hardware?

If by elegant you mean ugly and cluttered I agree. I don't understand why nested boxes=better than floating boxes. There is no difference. You still have the freakin boxes and drop downs.

[IIRs]

Tl has an elegant interface. What do you want, phony-looking 3D renderings of non-existant hardware?

If by elegant you mean ugly and cluttered I agree. I don't understand why nested boxes=better than floating boxes. There is no difference. You still have the freakin boxes and drop downs.

This is exactly the sort of comment that comes from people who have only messed about in T for an hour or two. Write a song with it, and you might understand..

[SJ_Digriz]

lol, so should I de-de-rail my de-railing of the inital thread to post examples of some of these setups?

[quincy]

Tl has an elegant interface. What do you want, phony-looking 3D renderings of non-existant hardware?

If by elegant you mean ugly and cluttered I agree. I don't understand why nested boxes=better than floating boxes. There is no difference. You still have the freakin boxes and drop downs.

This is of course all matter of opinon.

I think you ought to be honest enough to concede that something Like EnergyXT can be WAY WAY more powerful than cubase with its modularity.

In EnergyXT you can have multiple complex modular setups(in XT VST) with endless crazy rotuing, inside another copy of EXT with crazy routings, and so on and so forth.

Quite frankly i'd challenge anyone to emulate that sort of complexity and freedom in Cubase. I'm not denying you can't do clever stuff in cubase, but not to the level of complexity and freedom availabe in Ext or bidule for example.