Why do people buy Receptor?

[VicDiesel]

The hole in the receptor logic is the implicit assumption that software synthesizers are "as good as" hareware synthesisers..

The hole in your logic is the assumption that people care. I've never owned hardware, and I'm ecstatic what I can do with software. It sounds just fine to me, and I don't have the budget to buy hardware that can do the same.

Besides, half of my synthesized sounds are sampled, and can you seriously say that hardware samplers are better than software? You're probably only thinking about analog-style sounds. FM at the most.

[stefancrs]

IF a rack-mount PC was built (easy enough) how would you go about using it in the same way as receptor? Running Linux and VSTs? Would you need to have all the plugs ported?

You can natively run most windows VSTs on a linux x86 system, take a look at for instance "studio...to go!".

[foosnark]

The hole in the receptor logic is the implicit assumption that software synthesizers are "as good as" hareware synthesisers.

Here we go again...

[apflaum]

this is annoying. everyone knows the amount of tinkering with windows you need to get it running cpu intensive stuff at low latencies..... wouldn't it be nice to have something that preforms like a real hardwre synth right out of the box with no setup? and a lot less likely to crash.... plus, sure you can bitch about the price being more than a computer with vst's but still after you load a few vst's in there the price is much lower than past hardware that it is now emulating.

If i had the money i would own one.

[mandolarian]

Well, apflaum, get the money! All of KVR depends upon it.

Hey, what about a Receptor KVR group buy?

[mark77]

i was just thinking the same thing about receptor the other day.. i saw it in all the magazines, but have yet to hear of a single owner, famous or otherwise. Everyone says its a great product but who actually owns one? Would i be ignorant in assuming that noone on kvr (besides the owners) have one in their posession?

Personally what stops me from getting one is this:
1) i love the concept of computer music, i love computers and i love plugins and i love the fact that i'm not in a band and dont need to do 'gigs' i consider myself a producer, not a performer

2) i love graphical interfaces. it's one thing to have hardware crammed full of softsynths but the beauty of softsynths is that you can see what you're doing.. with receptor you cant

3) price. when you can have a notebook pc thats versatile why settle for a one trick pony?

also another concept i'm having difficulty understanding is the whole durability/robust hype. Just what sort of sadistic musician do u have to be not to take care of your gear? i would use a notebook live without question. It's more likely that the computer will malfunction coz of all the crap thats on it rather than because it's sitting on a desk on stage in a club. And if you're careful then you wouldnt drop it anyways. so i just dont get the whole thing. And i dont get it because i see things from a completely different perspective.

also, i assume the person that would be interested in buying a receptor wouldnt be into softsynths but would be a dedicated hardware user. maybe its a good idea, but these days the hardware sceptics are more sceptical of software than ever, especially with all these emulations coming out of practically every type of hardware, this would make the hardware freaks even more freaky and agains software. Maybe in 10 years time hardware freaks will wake up and realise just how good software can be, and then give in to their powers, and then maybe they'll invest in a receptor. The way it stands though.. i highly doubt that the current crop of synthedit plugins is going to wow them away from their hardware moogs and arps.

[grillo]

I suppose if i had a live band, and recorded with a kind of digital portastudio or other multitrack recorder, then i reckon the receptor would be killer to add to the equation.

I could use it to play keys and sequences and samples live, and could come handy when recording to add synths and also to use the processing fx.

Come to think about it, in a studio environment it'd probably be top for the fx processor capabilities that it has, and considering for how much does a powercore or the new waves boxes retail for i've seen worse i mean. Problem is, can receptor be used for vst's? Like a big lexicon unit for example (yeah dont get started on the quality, just as an example of how it can be used) - and how is the editing of the parameters?

All in all i don't know anybody who's got it, but it's not really off the chart, actually a couple of weeks ago a guy i know was thinking of buying a waves l2 hardware, considering he can't get the results he wants from software and hardware supposedly sounds better. Now that is something that made me think.

[mandolarian]

If i had the money i would own one

What if the price of Receptor was slighter higher than a UAD card? Would it be more widely accepted? Did Muse look at the B.O.M. and say: "It's gotta be $1400.00+ or we'll have to shutdown KVR!"

IMO if the Receptor was < $600 it would be wildly successful. Sure, Muse would lose hundreds on each one, but they could make it up on volume!

[coldmachine]

[quote="gordon_freeman"][quote] Professionals never use huge number of effects [/quote]

[Caleb]

There are some well known KvR guys that own Receptors including Tim Conrardy and Scot Solida. They like Receptor for what they're using it for.

It's interesting to think of a rack-mounted computer with Linux installed running the future Linux version of EnergyXT with VSTi included and a reasonably low-latency ASIO sound card.

From what I gather Linux versus Windows is a key argument here.

If it's a ligitimate argument I say roll-on EnergyXT Linux because it would outperform Receptor software in a heartbeat (in flexibility anyway).

If physical durability is a key argument then a rack-mounted computer should be somewhat similar in value I would think.

There is an argument that Receptor is quieter than a rack-mounted PC. This may well be true.

I'm not really against the idea and I think people with money will and probably are buying it anyway. Not everyone wants to fuss around doing it for less, they just want to get the thing, load it up and go.

Alot of people don't care that they can spend time getting it done cheaper and almost as effectively. They either don't have the time to think about things like that or they just want to get the job done without the hassle.

There could well be an argument for Receptor there.

That's just a point of view though. I'm always one who thinks about doing it cheaper so I'm just imagining how the other half lives.

Caleb

[spacefox]

Think about this:
if you see something like Receptor and go "this is nothing bu a rack-mountable PC with Lnux installed", you are FAR more computer literate then most people (read: musicians) are.

For most, Receptor is not a PC since it doesn't look like one, and doesn't feel like one (no screen, keyboard/ mouse). For most, something not being a PC is a good things.
Computers scare people.
This is why musicians tend to buy plugins (if at all) at real world shops and like their GUIs to simulate hardware.


Obviously people at KvR are more rechnically inclined then the avarge musician. They are not afraid of computers, they love them. This is why they shop for plugins online, and don't get Receptor.

[Caleb]

Anyway - it's a bit strange for me to complain since I bought a Pulsar II and a Scope card. Those two combined cost me significantly more than Receptor does, but I guess that's the point - you make your decision and you part with your cash.

I got extremely angry with the light-weight and useless audio card that I was using and decided - do it right, boy! And so I spent a fortune. I don't regret it, but I could have done it for considerably less and got a great sound card.

Caleb

[xander]

It's kinda cool that so far there hasn't been any emotional outbursts, unkind immature remarks or useles flames so far.

One of the devs and I talked at some length about developing a 'Receptor-like' box in China a few months ago. The main problems we were looking at were:

1.) How easy will any number of Taiwanese cloners market the same box at half our cost? DO we then need to write a proprietary shell and if so how about recovery of our R&D costs?

2. Windows requires a liscence fee per box, uses too many DLL hooks to run a stripped down version of the OS, so we need to go with Linux.

3. What incentives do s/w VSTi companies have to invest in making their products Linux-compatible and compatible with our box?

These are just a few of the major considerations one must think about when deciding to go ahead and invest a small fortune in this kind of product -- especially if you don't want all your hard work R&D to get cloned overnight by 'Acer' or somebody (and this is where a significant development cost lies).

That said, Receptor is a remarkable, well-made and well thought-out product and like I said I'd own one in a minute if I had the spare change. It's just too expensive for me when considering cheaper alternatives - pretty simple decision here.

Perhaps if the market share for Receptor increases, we can see some relative price reductions, but this is unlikely.


I have dreamed though of seeing it in my rack next to my Virus and plugged into my imaginary Triton Workstation...

[mandolarian]

I have dreamed though of seeing it in my rack next to my Virus and plugged into my imaginary Triton Workstation...

You have an imaginary Triton Workstation!!!

Most of us can only dream of imagining one of those.

[xander]

I have dreamed though of seeing it in my rack next to my Virus and plugged into my imaginary Triton Workstation...

You have an imaginary Triton Workstation!!!

Most of us can only dream of imagining one of those.

Yeah -- I dream about that thing while drinking my imaginary Dom Perignon and living in my imaginary villa in the South of France with my imaginary Ferrari parked out front while my imaginary girl friend, Gwyneth Paltrow models her new imaginary bikini...