Poly-Ana 1.0 New VA softsynth. 1 week full functioning demo

[AdmiralQuality]

People may jump down my throat, but this sure isn't an analog synth. It's software. While it's nice to take what's great from the past, also remember that it's 2007. I'd apprecate this GUI if it were just a UI. Make a clickable drop down menu that lets you select your source and be done with it. Urs' stuff uses this. Now that man can make a synth and an interface.

Shhhh, don't tell anyone but it's really digital. Glad you like the sound though. Thanks.

You know you can replace the mod selector dials with dropdown menus, right? In the Options Dialog.



Aside from the mod source selector dials, the other knobs are just like in most any other GUI, they only look 3D. It IS "just a UI".

They're big to help with the most tedious part, that first click on the control you want to select. After that it's all in your mouse hand and ear, most of the eye-hand cordination (which is the really fatiguing part) is just in finding the knob you want. So bigger knobs help there. There's something like 185 controls, I'm not sure pushing them closer together will improve anything.

But I think there's a good liklihood there'll be another GUI option someday, I get enough comments about it.

[bduffy]

zerocrossing, you can change the knobs to dropdowns in the Options.

EDIT: I see the Admiral beat me; never mind!

Funny, maybe I'm crazy, but I get more of an 80's vibe from this synth...I want to make big Canadian New Wave rock on this...

[AdmiralQuality]

I want to make big Canadian New Wave rock on this...

*Removes hat and does the secret Canadian handshake with bduffy.*

[bduffy]

I want to make big Canadian New Wave rock on this...

*Removes hat and does the secret Canadian handshake with bduffy.*

*fumbles with beer, spills on keyboard, makes the shake!*

I have a sudden urge to listen to Chalk Circle...

[AdmiralQuality]

[Morgaxx]

*fumbles with beer, spills on keyboard, makes the shake!*

I have a sudden urge to listen to Chalk Circle...

Not In My Backyard you dont!

@AQ... I hadnt realized you were local. I will have to try your synth for sure now...

[bduffy]

*fumbles with beer, spills on keyboard, makes the shake!*

I have a sudden urge to listen to Chalk Circle...

Not In My Backyard you dont!

@AQ... I hadnt realized you were local. I will have to try your synth for sure now...

Do it! It's amazing, and is a much better excuse for patriotism than anything those yahoos on Parliament Hill can come up with.

Nice on the N.I.M.B.Y., btw.

[Morgaxx]

Ah the good old days.

[redshift factor]

Has anyone had any difficulty loading Poly-Ana in Cubase 4? I've got a Cubase 4 user who says he can load and play the effect version normally (Poly-AnaFX), but the instrument version (Poly-Ana) doesn't appear in his Instruments list.



The plot thickens... He sees BOTH the synth and effect versions of Poly-Ana listed as effects, and can load and run both as effects (you can play the synth as an effect, it just ignores any audio that might be being input and outputs synth sounds as normal.)

But in the instruments list, there's no synth version showing up. (Both are checked enabled in the VST Plugins list.)

He does see other VST 2.3 plugin instruments in the list.

Can anybody on Cubase 4 verify this?

This probably goes without saying, but you really need to make all of your plugins VST 2.4 compliant. Being that the VST 2.4 standard has been out for nearly a year and a half, there's no real good reason that Poly-Ana wasn't developed as a VST 2.4 plugin from the start. As I'm sure you know, there are going to be VST 2.3 and earlier plugins which will work fine within Cubase 4, but not all will. Obviously, Poly-Ana is one of those plugins which doesn't fully work with VST 2.4+ hosts. There is also no guarantee that plugins prior to VST 2.4 that currently work in Cubase 4 will continue to work in the next update, since it only supports VST 2.4 and 3.0. This is because VST 2.4 and later enables 64-bit support.

[AdmiralQuality]

Has anyone had any difficulty loading Poly-Ana in Cubase 4? I've got a Cubase 4 user who says he can load and play the effect version normally (Poly-AnaFX), but the instrument version (Poly-Ana) doesn't appear in his Instruments list.



The plot thickens... He sees BOTH the synth and effect versions of Poly-Ana listed as effects, and can load and run both as effects (you can play the synth as an effect, it just ignores any audio that might be being input and outputs synth sounds as normal.)

But in the instruments list, there's no synth version showing up. (Both are checked enabled in the VST Plugins list.)

He does see other VST 2.3 plugin instruments in the list.

Can anybody on Cubase 4 verify this?

This probably goes without saying, but you really need to make all of your plugins VST 2.4 compliant. Being that the VST 2.4 standard has been out for nearly a year and a half, there's no real good reason that Poly-Ana wasn't developed as a VST 2.4 plugin from the start. As I'm sure you know, there are going to be VST 2.3 and earlier plugins which will work fine within Cubase 4, but not all will. Obviously, Poly-Ana is one of those plugins which doesn't fully work with VST 2.4+ hosts. There is also no guarantee that plugins prior to VST 2.4 that currently work in Cubase 4 will continue to work in the next update, since it only supports VST 2.4 and 3.0. This is because VST 2.4 and later enables 64-bit support.

It doesn't "go without saying". You're completely wrong-minded on this issue.

Do you have C4 and are volunteering to help? Or are you just being an asshole? Do you LIKE spending money on purchasing the same things again? Do you own Poly-Ana? If you did, how would you feel if I released Poly-Ana 2.0 next week and charged for the upgrade like your corporate masters do?

VST 2.4 wasn't out when I started Poly-Ana's development (it appeared a few months into it) and I wasn't about to tear up a working, well tested codebase just because Steinberg wants to trick people into buying the same software yet again.

It's not MY fault that there's some backward compatibility issues in C4. (And yet, of course, I'm trying to fix it... and you have the nerve to give me shit about it?) Are you seriously suggesting that it's the plugin developers fault that Steinberg released a host that has problems with the majority of existing plugins? It's their own f**king standard, if they had competent programmers working for them they'd not have broken it. (Or the other posibility is they have competent programmers but evil management. I suspect it's both.)

VST 2.4 was buggy, I refused (and still refuse) to use it. They put it on us 3rd party developers to fix their shoddy work for them and took several revs to fix (yet it has the exact same version number to obfuscate to you end-users how badly they were f**king up). AND 2.4 is soon to be usurped by VST 3 (if they ever release it). NOTHING new was added in either of these new VST versions that couldn't have been accomplished before -- they say there's new features but all the "new" stuff could have been done transparently to the plugin -- anything new is a host-side feature and there's absolutely no justification to any of it. It's just Steinberg's way of forcing everyone buy the same thing yet again, and I don't and won't EVER play that game. Its sleezy and disgusting.

Anyway, 2.3 plugins are SUPPOSED to run fine in C4. And many do. There's just something special about this one, amd that's what I'm trying to determine. As many other 2.3 plugins are apparently OK in C4, I just want to find out what's different about mine that's causing the problem.

So, since you like spending money so much, how about spend some on my product then maybe I can afford to waste 3 months making a bunch of changes that will add ZERO new functionality. And I'M not going to charge MY customers again for the same product, like those other bastards do, so there's nothing in it for me to jump on the unnecessary-change-bandwagon. It doesn't help you, it doesn't help me. It helps Yamaberg, and those in the industry who play along with this game. Frankly, it makes me f**king sick.

(Sorry to everyone else here for my language. This is a very touchy subject for me, I think this trend is reprehensible, and as consumers you should appreciate what I'm trying to do for YOU. For ALL of you, including the 99% of you who are still running 2.3 hosts.)

Cheers!

[Edit: And don't even get me started on 64 bit audio. You really have to be a sucker to think that will make any audible difference or to believe that they couldn't make the host just convert to 32 bit for older plugs. 64 bit mix engine, sure, maybe. But 64 bit signal path? It's a sick joke. And the joke is on YOU, Moneybags.]

[tech44]

Two things:
1 I would pay for a different GUI.
2 AM, you might consider being less aggressive in your responses. The attitude and foul language seem very unprofessional IMO.

Other than that the synth is great...carry on

[redshift factor]

I only recently heard about Poly-Ana and wanted to check out the buzz a bit more. That's how and why I found this thread. I don't own it and I don't own Cubase 4. I'm sort of waiting on the 64-bit version and the plugins I use or may want to use to work within Cubase 4 (64-bit) before I get either. That's sort of the reason I responded. I don't see it as an unnecessary change if changing it makes it work. Steinberg says nothing about VST 2.3 plugins supposed to be working in Cubase 4. They don't quite say the opposite, but come fairly close. They state quite plainly that plugins prior to VST 2.4 may not be 100% compatible with Cubase 4.

As for 64-bit audio, the point is not about internal signal paths or even the mix engine. Its about working natively within a 64-bit DAW on a 64-bit operating system. And going to a 64-bit OS is all about increasing addressable system RAM for large sample sets. I think Steinberg wants to require native 64-bit capability for all plugins in Cubase 4 for this reason, and that's the primary reason support for VST 2.3 and earlier was dropped. I commend them for doing their utmost to push the industry in the direction of 64-bit computing. I assume the delay on the VST 3 SDK is because they don't want 3rd party developers releasing VST 3 plugins before Nuendo can support them.

Anyways, it's too bad you have such a chip on your shoulder, because I thought Poly-Ana was pretty nice from what I've seen of it so far.

[AdmiralQuality]

redshift and tech,

64 bit audio has nothing to do with 64 bit O/S. You can have 64 bit audio on a 32 bit O/S. (You can have 1024 bit audio if you want!) You can have 32 bit audio on a 64 bit O/S. (Or you can have 1 bit audio!) If you don't own a 64 bit CPU (and you probably don't) then you can't address more than 4 Gig. So isn't that great, yet more money for you to spend! You can be first on your block to have a DAW with almost no software available to plug into it.

Furthermore, there is no reason a host using 64 bit audio couldn't convert that to 32 bit before passing it to older plugins. It's seriously 2 lines of code. Like I've been saying, all these supposed "new features" could all be done transparently to legacy plugins. The reason they don't is 1. They're lazy and not particularly good coders. 2. They sell plugins too and want to trick/force you into buying as much new software as they can.

I'll never understand you people who seem to think that just because I have something to sell, that it's my obligation to kiss your asses regardless of how wrong or insulting you are to me. Telling me what to do is insulting. Especially when you clearly misunderstand the issue.

If you're wrong, I'm going to tell you. It's my job to be RIGHT, not nice. Nice doesn't make the synth sound good. My "attitude" is good for the products.

And I'm nice to my customers, just ask them. Indeed, it's them I'm trying to DEFEND from this bullshit. And this is the thanks I get. Misinformed idiots bossing me around.

Do you not understand that "They state quite plainly that plugins prior to VST 2.4 may not be 100% compatible" is their way of writing off their responsibility to maintain backwards compatibility? Not because they couldn't... because they don't think they OWE IT TO YOU. And they're giving every other company who wants to play along (not I!) a big kickstart too. Oops, looks like you have to re-buy EVERY PLUGIN YOU FORMERLY OWNED when you upgrade to your (I still don't know if you want 64 bit audio, or address space. And speaking of address space, who really needs more than 4 GB of samples? Especially with every decent sampler having direct from disk features these days.)

You have to pay to upgrade to the new Cubase (and I like how it's out, but there's major features still pending. Yes, I did that too, but I was honest enough to call it a Beta and I gave it away for half price during that period). So buy Poly-Ana now and I'll let you pay me for it again when I eventually migrate it to VST 3. (Just redshift, all my other customers can expect free updates. If I ever do a Poly-Ana 2.x, it will be because I started over from scratch and you're actually buying a NEW product.) Hell, you can pay me for minor updates too, since you seem to like it so much.

Sorry, nobody likes to hear they're wrong. Especially people who have the nerve to go bossing around developers of products they don't even own. If you want a vote, buy the product. If you don't care for it, great, f**k off. "No soup for you!"

But if you don't like the product because you don't like ME? I'm sure you must be great pals with the president of Yamaha then (you certainly act like it).

[diverdee]

Whilst you do come over somewhat aggressive there AQ, I must admit that I find (IMO) you make a lot of pertinent points.

[tech44]

redshift and tech,

64 bit audio has nothing to do with 64 bit O/S. You can have 64 bit audio on a 32 bit O/S. (You can have 1024 bit audio if you want!) You can have 32 bit audio on a 64 bit O/S. (Or you can have 1 bit audio!) If you don't own a 64 bit CPU (and you probably don't) then you can't address more than 4 Gig. So isn't that great, yet more money for you to spend! You can be first on your block to have a DAW with almost no software available to plug into it.

Furthermore, there is no reason a host using 64 bit audio couldn't convert that to 32 bit before passing it to older plugins. It's seriously 2 lines of code. Like I've been saying, all these supposed "new features" could all be done transparently to legacy plugins. The reason they don't is 1. They're lazy and not particularly good coders. 2. They sell plugins too and want to trick/force you into buying as much new software as they can.

I'll never understand you people who seem to think that just because I have something to sell, that it's my obligation to kiss your asses regardless of how wrong or insulting you are to me. Telling me what to do is insulting. Especially when you clearly misunderstand the issue.

If you're wrong, I'm going to tell you. It's my job to be RIGHT, not nice. Nice doesn't make the synth sound good. My "attitude" is good for the products.

And I'm nice to my customers, just ask them. Indeed, it's them I'm trying to DEFEND from this bullshit. And this is the thanks I get. Misinformed idiots bossing me around.

Do you not understand that "They state quite plainly that plugins prior to VST 2.4 may not be 100% compatible" is their way of writing off their responsibility to maintain backwards compatibility? Not because they couldn't... because they don't think they OWE IT TO YOU. And they're giving every other company who wants to play along (not I!) a big kickstart too. Oops, looks like you have to re-buy EVERY PLUGIN YOU FORMERLY OWNED when you upgrade to your (I still don't know if you want 64 bit audio, or address space. And speaking of address space, who really needs more than 4 GB of samples? Especially with every decent sampler having direct from disk features these days.)

You have to pay to upgrade to the new Cubase (and I like how it's out, but there's major features still pending. Yes, I did that too, but I was honest enough to call it a Beta and I gave it away for half price during that period). So buy Poly-Ana now and I'll let you pay me for it again when I eventually migrate it to VST 3. (Just redshift, all my other customers can expect free updates. If I ever do a Poly-Ana 2.x, it will be because I started over from scratch and you're actually buying a NEW product.) Hell, you can pay me for minor updates too, since you seem to like it so much.

Sorry, nobody likes to hear they're wrong. Especially people who have the nerve to go bossing around developers of products they don't even own. If you want a vote, buy the product. If you don't care for it, great, f**k off. "No soup for you!"

But if you don't like the product because you don't like ME? I'm sure you must be great pals with the president of Yamaha then (you certainly act like it).

I'm not arguing your points, but your delivery. I'm not agreeing with Redshift and I don't give a crap about vst 2.4 or 64-bit (right now). All I was saying is that I read your response and it sounded unprofessional. You are the face of your company and you are the customer service dept. If I called Yamaha and the service rep told me to 'f**k off', I would sell all my Yamaha gear ASAP. Do you not see this, or do you just not care?

And I'm nice to my customers, just ask them.

I AM one of your customers....and no, you're not being nice.