post-Muzys: Jo's three questions

[lepwisk]

For the record, I listed Logic *Express*, not Logic. My point was really just to show that there are plenty of choices on the OSX platform already, and the market is much, much smaller and as such untenable for a one-man operation.

I think the market *is* too competitive - if you add Garageband, for example, into the mix (or even Audacity while we're at it) there isn't that much of a market left. But - I am ignorant of the amount of pre-OSX people who actually use Muzys so take my analysis with a huge pinch of salt.

I am a PC DAW/Mac laptop user so I tend to use tools that are available for both platforms.

Hi kovacs,

I realize that you mentioned Logic Express, rather than Logic, and I apologize for conflating them. But I'm not sure it really makes a difference other than to help define a market by price point. My general argument here is that it might not be useful to compare all these apps, and thus lump them into the same market, because their intended functionality (other than their general purpose to create music) is quite different. An analogy is this: would it be fair to compare ProTools with Cubase simply because they both have audio editing capabilities? Or can we really compare Live to Garageband? I'm not so sure. They are all very different apps with different capabilities, and are geared at different segments of the market. This latter point could also be interpreted as meaning these various apps are actually aimed at different markets.

Thus I think a crucial question for Jo - presuming he wants to develop a sequencer-host - is what segment of the market should he aim for. Answering this might help narrow down the potential competition, as well as suggest which features would be valuable, and (as the previous Muzys-related thread noted) which would just contribute to bloat.

As for the pre-OSX users that use Muzys, this group is likely shrinking as the only effective way to run it is to boot into OS9. Current Macs (G5s, AlBooks) can't do this. But there are some of us still floating around!

Which raises another question: since Apple will soon be switching to an Intel-based architecture, what effect might this have on post-Muzys's development? Does it even make sense for Jo to code for the PowerPC architecture given its imminent demise?

cheers, Lewis

[kovacs]

The original question was does it make sense to create a new sequencer app, and specifically the aspect of Mac was raised. That is what I have responded to...

As I implied, I think the most sensible thing to do would be to go the way of Energy XT - that is, build something that can work both as a standalone host but also work within a host to expand it's capabilities. That opens the market up tremendously. I am not aware of good alternatives to Energy XT for OSX. One feature of particular interest could be to include the functionality of Wormhole so that the program could link PCs and Macs.

The Intel issue is not a big deal in this regard, IMHO. We're still talking two different OS-es. Linux on a PC still doesn't run Windows apps (no matter how much the linux peeps wants us to think it does...).

[lepwisk]

As I implied, I think the most sensible thing to do would be to go the way of Energy XT - that is, build something that can work both as a standalone host but also work within a host to expand it's capabilities.

A most sensible suggestion indeed.

The Intel issue is not a big deal in this regard, IMHO. We're still talking two different OS-es. Linux on a PC still doesn't run Windows apps (no matter how much the linux peeps wants us to think it does...).

The only reason I mentioned this is that as I understand it all OSX apps will eventually have to be rewritten for this new architecture. Apple has already started shipping Intel-based Macs to select developers. So I was just wondering if it made sense for Jo to code for the PowerPC when he'll just have to rewrite the code in a year or so. I guess Jo's development timeline will dictate this.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[Caleb]

I would have thought a FlipFlopper like yourself could appreciate multiple changes of direction.

It would be nice if supporters of Muzys from the start get an advantage if Jo starts on a new host, but on the other hand - he'll be doing it from scratch in many ways.

I don't think in that situation I'd be too upset in paying full price all over again, even though it's a bit of a bugger.

Anyway - we'll see what happens I guess.

Caleb

[dee ess pee]

mutools? website? What? where?

[lepwisk]

mutools? website? What? where?

http://www.mutools.com/

[bambooman]

yeah, the endless quest .. for the perfect host *g*
never found one, yet..
i tend to cross-work alot,
even as it is a complicated and time consuming process,
but gives very creative results.

i use muzys, audacity, AudioCutterCinema, OrDrumbox, Syntrax, Caotica, and sometimes FL, and very seldom
a older version of cubasis.

but it is true that Muzys is pretty good,
for being really tight+straight up...
very simple+minimalistic, but good... etc.
instead of heavily overloaded like cubase (yikes!)

and i also love Audacity for the same fact.
but also FL Studio has some good aspects...

for me the best host..
would be a mixture between,
Muzys, Audacity, FL...

all melted together as one program,
so whenever i feel ...
i should be able to switch the "view-mode"
of a in progress track..

imagine that,
having a host sequencer..
that would have 3-view-modes...
and you could switch it,
similar to firefox "tabbed-browsing"

view-1 would be muzys like.. for the midi-patterns,
view-2 would be FL-like view, for drums+sf2+samples,
as it works best for doing rhytms on the fly.
view-3 would be a Audacity-view mode,
best for recordings+wav-samples editing.

the best thing is,
there is already an existing project,
that comes very close to this type of host.
but it is for Linux only...

check out the screenshots of this host:
called LMMS

http://lmms.sourceforge.net/

cheers, just my 2cents

[YBaCuO]

The host/synth/effect market is pretty saturated - new products have to offer something very special to have any hope for success ...

I would recommend a developement approach similar to what URS has taken: URS "quickly" developed Filterscape to generate interest/income/tools while Zebra 2 was put on temporary hold. For Jo, developing a suped-up Muzynth vst would be comparable, or some other vst synth/effect that is a step towards a more ultimate product. But defining what that ultimate product is presents the big challenge. Certainly something different. Many people have talked about integration: an all in one synth/effect/host/programming/audio mangling enviroment. That seems too ambitious. But what important part of that goal is missing and is it easy to fill?

Another approach would be to avoid any kind of independent development and instead work for (contract for) established developers. For example, I know that Garritan is having difficulty finishing the solo-strad product (which last mentioned was a crazy hodge-podge of processed samples, Kontakt 2, synthedit and who knows what else ...) This was just screaming for programming help. But is giving up independence worth the financial rewards?

Also, everyone has been screaming for a Yamaha PM VL-70 (??-like synth vst.

Yet another approach is to take a kvr (or other) poll. What do people want??

I simply want Muzys with freeze and dfd for audio.

Good luck,
YBaCuO

[pljones]

Actually, if Jo could hit Cakewalk over the head a few times and let him finish P5v2 properly, that would be fantastic...

I'm sure there are radical approaches that are still open. Maybe I should take more of a look at things like Csound before I spout off but I'm starting to get a vision of small, script-based modules with simple UIs and plugable framework. Something you could basically build to look like Muzys -- or whatever!

So: Simple UI toolkit, low-level MIDI message handling, low-level audio handling, sequence handling tools, generic plugin support, a way of co-ordinating control between these components and a library of pre-scripted routines to achieve common tasks... All of the above to be kept simple with rigorous unit and intergration test suites!

This is something that could start small, with pre-alpha releases having very little in the way of useful function, slowly developing until it was something that could be released. (Yes, similar to how eXT evolved.)

Of course, I'm suggesting a lot of the feature set be in openly-readable text files, which may not appeal. But there would still be a substatial support framework that would constitute the "core value" of the product. Encouraging contributions to the scripted feature set would also help get customers more involved.

So I guess I'm suggesting a "better" eXT with a scripting language (as well as a GUI builder). And I was trying to be more radical than that! I guess that does show how busy the marketplace is.

I simply want Muzys with freeze and dfd for audio.

Me too. (Plus confirmation of whether my only "Muzys bug" is actually Muzys or sfz...) But it's not going to happen

I think "streaming audio" is possibly an area that needs some investigation. René (rgcaudio) says there are potential patent potholes to avoid, which have stopped his further development in that area. I would like to think we (humanity) have not yet found (and patented) the final answer to streaming audio and that someone (Jo ) might just be able to come up with something clearly innovative.

[muzycian]

Thus I think a crucial question for Jo - presuming he wants to develop a sequencer-host - is what segment of the market should he aim for. Answering this might help narrow down the potential competition, as well as suggest which features would be valuable, and (as the previous Muzys-related thread noted) which would just contribute to bloat.

Ultimately, i think there should be no difference between a DAW and Virtual Studio and DJ/Live App.

It should be blended all together!

Music is created as follows:

1) Jaming
2) Finetuning
3) PROduction

repeat 1/2/3 until satisfied.

Then you can do

4) Live performances

Of course, one can use different apps to reach the goal, and sometimes, in a good setup, this might be a good solution.

Otherwise, "integration is all" some say.

Conclusion: I can't answer the question yet.

I surely want to explore todays seq-hosts even more, especially also Live 5!

I would be an idiot to ignore Live (among others).

As for the pre-OSX users that use Muzys, this group is likely shrinking as the only effective way to run it is to boot into OS9. Current Macs (G5s, AlBooks) can't do this. But there are some of us still floating around!

Any new products will be Windows and OSX compatible.
OS9 won't be supported anymore.

Cheers,

Jo

[muzycian]

As I implied, I think the most sensible thing to do would be to go the way of Energy XT - that is, build something that can work both as a standalone host but also work within a host to expand it's capabilities.

A most sensible suggestion indeed.

Yes, i agree with this too.

The only reason I mentioned this is that as I understand it all OSX apps will eventually have to be rewritten for this new architecture. Apple has already started shipping Intel-based Macs to select developers. So I was just wondering if it made sense for Jo to code for the PowerPC when he'll just have to rewrite the code in a year or so. I guess Jo's development timeline will dictate this.

Don't worry about this too much. The processor specific code is only a very small portion of the full code.

Cheers,

Jo

[muzycian]

...This is something that could start small, with pre-alpha releases having very little in the way of useful function, slowly developing until it was something that could be released. (Yes, similar to how eXT evolved.)

Indeed an interesting approach!

(Plus confirmation of whether my only "Muzys bug" is actually Muzys or sfz...) But it's not going to happen

What bug do you mean?

Cheers,

Jo

[Caleb]

Ultimately, i think there should be no difference between a DAW and Virtual Studio and DJ/Live App.

It should be blended all together!

Music is created as follows:

1) Jaming
2) Finetuning
3) PROduction

repeat 1/2/3 until satisfied.

Then you can do

4) Live performances

I agree. At the start a sequencer should be the musical instrument that a composer plays with. It should be full of live/jamming ergonomics that make it as natural as sitting at a piano and beginning to play (within the current limitations of what a sequencer is of course).

Then you record what you've got either from constructing it, or from jamming.

Then you use the more advanced editing tools to create touch-ups all over the place until you're convinced that the piece is ready for a final mixdown/render.

And the device should cater to the dance loop-based composition as well as the progression-based composition styles.

Anyway - that's my dream machine.

Caleb

[lepwisk]

Ultimately, i think there should be no difference between a DAW and Virtual Studio and DJ/Live App.

It should be blended all together!

I agree. At the start a sequencer should be the musical instrument that a composer plays with. It should be full of live/jamming ergonomics that make it as natural as sitting at a piano and beginning to play (within the current limitations of what a sequencer is of course).

Then you record what you've got either from constructing it, or from jamming.

Then you use the more advanced editing tools to create touch-ups all over the place until you're convinced that the piece is ready for a final mixdown/render.

And the device should cater to the dance loop-based composition as well as the progression-based composition styles.

Anyway - that's my dream machine.

Caleb

Caleb, I share your dreams! But doesn't this describe the process Muzys already facilitates well?

In fact, this flexibility is what attracted me to it in the first place, and what has kept me using it over the years. I've used Muzys as a MIDI scratchpad, in loop sequencer mode on stage, as a standalone audio file processor a la Metasynth (Muzynth + VSTs = loads of fun!), and to create tracks through both internal mixdown and external recording of live jam sessions. I really enjoy the multiplicity of ways I can use the app, and the ability to choose a particular mode of working that best suits a particular project.

But one could argue that such an integrated approach is in fact tailored to a specific market niche -- those that want an integrated DAW/Virtual Studio/DJ-Live app. But enough semantics. If this integrated approach is the way you choose to go, I think you'd be creating a very valuable and unique tool. And Jo, if Muzys is any indication, it is obvious to me that you'd be very good at this sort of development.

Cheers, Lewis