Why can't Receptor play all VSTi's like any normal PC?

[Viva Las Vegas]

I'm still a bit confused why Receptor can only play certain VSTi's and plug-ins. Why did they build it that way?

Thanks!

[aciddose]

you'll have to wait on one of the mods to get a real answer, but it is related to the fact that if a receptor were to run all the available software, it would need to basically be a pc in a rackmount chassis. think about all the variables involved. just running specifically designed software is an incredible accomplishment from an engineering point of view.

[Viva Las Vegas]

Thanks Aciddose. Makes sense, but I would still love to hear one of the Muse guys explain.

[Bryan@MuseResearch]

This is a good question, and my colleagues will probably have a slightly different perspective, but here's mine:

Receptor runs Windows VSTs, assuming they are compatible. The main thing that determines compatibility is the ability to install the software on Receptor, and the thing that most affects the ability to install software on Receptor is the particular copy protection technology used by the plug-in and the specific installer routines used by the plug-in. Certain installer routines and copy protection technologies are simply not supported by Receptor's Linux underpinnings, (at least for today!).

Aciddose is completely correct, the only way Receptor would run all plug-ins would be if it were just a repackaged PC. Anyone who has used a Receptor will tell you it is definitely NOT a PC in a fancy housing, its really a very special instrument. If it were just a repackaged PC, more software might run on it, but it would also mean that the performance would not be optimized the way Receptor has been.

Everything about Receptor's design is optimized for one thing: running plug-ins. Contrast that with a PC, that was designed for maximum flexibility, general and legacy compatibility, and the ability to do anything from making music to doing your taxes to playing games, and you get the drift of how the fundamental approaches are different.

Not only is Receptor designed to run plug-ins, it was designed to run them as efficiently and reliably as possible. Part of the aspect of running a plug-in "as reliably as possible" is the fact that we don't say that everything runs on Receptor, and we are very careful to release installers or "installer helper" files only after we have carefully tested and evaluated a plug-in on Receptor. That ensure that the plug-ins you run on Receptor run well by themselves as well as getting along well with others, you might say... Imagine how much better the world would be if MS tested very piece of software that was released for the PC to ensure it worked reliably. Hmmm... sounds a bit like a John Lennon song, eh?

Having said all that, we announced two dozen new plug-ins for Receptor, and we are working on tons more which will be released over the next few months. So in terms of what runs on Receptor, chances are that the stuff you really want to run does run on Receptor, but far more importantly, it runs really well!

Hope that helps...

Cheers

Bryan

[CrownRoyal]

Receptor runs Windows VSTs, assuming they are compatible. The main thing that determines compatibility is the ability to install the software on Receptor, and the thing that most affects the ability to install software on Receptor is the particular copy protection technology used by the plug-in and the specific installer routines used by the plug-in. Certain installer routines and copy protection technologies are simply not supported by Receptor's Linux underpinnings, (at least for today!).

I think that the way that Receptor/Plugorama does the licensing is fantastic. You'd think that more developers would be jumping onboard with "Receptorized" VSTs and just use Plugorama to distribute them. What Receptor needs is a way to access an iLok account directly. I dread the idea of losing my iLok. I've installed it in the case but if I want to add a license, I need to open the case and put it in a PC or Mac to get the licenses on the iLok. You may think it's lazy of me to want that but I can't keep the iLok sticking out of the front of the box when I perform. That's the only gripe I have about it. Otherwise, it's great. Love it.

Having said all that, we announced two dozen new plug-ins for Receptor, and we are working on tons more which will be released over the next few months. So in terms of what runs on Receptor, chances are that the stuff you really want to run does run on Receptor, but far more importantly, it runs really well!

Hope that helps...

Cheers

Bryan

Where's the announcement for the two dozen new plug-ins? I didn't see that on Plugo.

Cheers!

[Ben [KVR]]

Having said all that, we announced two dozen new plug-ins for Receptor, and we are working on tons more which will be released over the next few months. So in terms of what runs on Receptor, chances are that the stuff you really want to run does run on Receptor, but far more importantly, it runs really well!

Hope that helps...

Cheers

Bryan

Where's the announcement for the two dozen new plug-ins? I didn't see that on Plugo.

Cheers!

The press releases from AES: http://www.museresearch.com/news.php

Some of them are already available on Plugorama, although we haven't yet announced them on the front page (or at KVR) - we will soon. The rest of them should come very soon.

BFD Lite, the Vanguard, Slayer and Discovery updates are live, as are the Sonalkis plug-ins

[Bryan@MuseResearch]

Hi...

The announcement came in our AES press release, and we are releasing them as soon as they get through QA. Several should become available this week... As for why more developers haven't jumped on board, I find it hard to figure out as well. We offer FREE Pace encryption services to any developer who wants their plugins Receptorized, as well as more revenue then the normally make through the channel, but new ways of doing things take a while to get used to. Glad you like the experience though, I think its really cool to be able to buy what you need or want at any time, day or night, and not have to worry about all the fuss and bother of wondering whether or not it will actually run well on your systeml

Congrats on solving the problem of your iLok sticking out. We now offer an optional internal USB connector as part of the "touring package". It is available at a nominal cost ($10) to any Receptor owner and mounts the iLok inside the unit, away from curious roadies or fans looking for souvenirs!.

You are right, mounting the iLok inside does cause some problems when you want to add licenses. You could always buy a second iLok and use that one externally for your new stuff, and we have talked about being able to access the iLok over Ethernet, but it is a definitely non-trivial task.

Getting back around to your original comment about Receptorized plug-ins alot of developers are preferring to go with the "installer helper" routine to get their stuff installed on Receptor, which bypasses the iLok thing, but it is definitely less convenient for the customer. What can I say, the market speaks, and we listen!

Cheers

Bryan

[CrownRoyal]

Having said all that, we announced two dozen new plug-ins for Receptor, and we are working on tons more which will be released over the next few months. So in terms of what runs on Receptor, chances are that the stuff you really want to run does run on Receptor, but far more importantly, it runs really well!

Hope that helps...

Cheers

Bryan

Where's the announcement for the two dozen new plug-ins? I didn't see that on Plugo.

Cheers!

The press releases from AES: http://www.museresearch.com/news.php

Some of them are already available on Plugorama, although we haven't yet announced them on the front page (or at KVR) - we will soon. The rest of them should come very soon.

BFD Lite, the Vanguard, Slayer and Discovery updates are live, as are the Sonalkis plug-ins

Oh! I thought there was a newer news release. Sorry. My bad. I saw that earlier release... yeah, I've tried BFD Lite and now I'm waiting for the user-installer version for the full version that I have, same for SampleTank. I bought a license for Vertigo and Phanthom. It's too bad there's not package price for the discoDSP products like they have on their website. TC got me hooked on Nebula and got that this morning...

You know what would be a good thing to market? A nice travel case for the Receptor. Something with a nice Muse logo on it..... hmmm....

[DanTimis]

I have to disagree. Most developers do opt for the iLok protection. The "big" names like NI and IK opted for the "user installed" method. Those companies have a lot of very popular plug-ins.

So if you look at the most popular plug-ins, you will find that a lot of them use the "user installed" method. If you look at the number of developers, you will find that a larger number of small developers opted for the iLok.

[CrownRoyal]

I have to disagree. Most developers do opt for the iLok protection. The "big" names like NI and IK opted for the "user installed" method. Those companies have a lot of very popular plug-ins.

So if you look at the most popular plug-ins, you will find that a lot of them use the "user installed" method. If you look at the number of developers, you will find that a larger number of small developers opted for the iLok.

Hi... um, disagree with who?

Is Bryan a Muse employee? It sounds like it but there's no signature.

I like the iLok/Plugo deal. One-stop shopping, download the known good versions, no viruses to worry about and I can concentrate on what I bought the thing for... to make music. Love it!

[DanTimis]

Of course Bryan is a Muse employee. We agree most of the time, and when we do disagree we often manage to agree in the end after a friendly debate. We do debate in private, usually.

I might have read this thread too quickly. My impression was that you too (I mean CrownRoyal) said that not enough developers opt for the iLok. So I was disagreeing with both of you, not with Bryan alone.

Maybe starting this way was not the best choice. My point was that it may seem that not enough developers opt for the iLok because a lot of the more popular plug-ins use the "user installed" method. If you look at the list of developers, not at the list of plug-ins, you will find that most of them opted for the iLok and seem very happy with the choice.

Actually, I'm sure Bryan agrees that most developers opted for the iLok. The reality is that many customers want Colossus, Kontakt, Absynth, Guitar Rig, Sample Tank, Amplitube, Atmosphere, Trylogy, or Stylus, and none of these uses the iLok. So from a practical point of view, it does not look like enough developers are adopting the iLok.

[DanTimis]

You'd think that more developers would be jumping onboard with "Receptorized" VSTs and just use Plugorama to distribute them.

That was the part I was mainly disagreeing with. As I said it already too many times , you are actually right from a practical point of view. A lot of the most desiarable plug-in do not use the iLok.

[Bryan@MuseResearch]

Didn't I say in my original post that my colleagues might have a different perspective? No "group think" around here!

:wink:

Bryan, a Muse Employee.

[CrownRoyal]

You'd think that more developers would be jumping onboard with "Receptorized" VSTs and just use Plugorama to distribute them.

That was the part I was mainly disagreeing with. As I said it already too many times , you are actually right from a practical point of view. A lot of the most desiarable plug-in do not use the iLok.

Okay, that's cool.

Ah yes, desirable. I get it. A lot of people opt out for plugins that use iLoks, making them less desirable, in that way, but that has nothing to do with the quality of the plugin. Oui?

For me, I like the idea of having one place for all my licenses. One method. Done.

Well, I'm going to take a break from posting for a while. I look forward to UniWire.

Have a great week!