KVR Audio

diverdee · Post by **diverdee** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:22 pm

nuffink wrote:
diverdee wrote:The custom code that Dave Haupt & others create to (how should I put this) overcome SE's limitations / expand SE's capabilities - are these snippets of code themselves programmed using SE, or are they pieces of clever C++ etc. that are integrated into SE?
Just wondering, because if the second option (C++) that seems to indicate (functionally) that the 'better' SE built synths actually have to go beyond SE itself, to overcome it's limitations etc.
So the argument that 'SE built synths etc. are just as good as C++ built ones' seems a little redundant in that case, as in order to approach the level of custom coded (C++ etc.) synths & effects the SE ones have to (in effect) be at least partially custom coded themselves.
Strange argument.
They're coded in C++. SE has an API for this. And yeah they are designed to overcome SE's limitations. That's how programming works, you extend and improve the basic framework.

Weird argument.

Ok - that's what I thought.
So in essence 'basic' SE is somewhat limited, but has the ability to at least partially overcome this by utilizing custom code, either pre built modules or the programmers own creations.

DrNo · Post by **DrNo** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:23 pm

Are you playin' dumb, Nuffy?..... I thought you GOT my little joke

(it's SQUID, boy... Do you know wot that is worth????

)

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:23 pm

"Spare a talent for a poor ex GPL thief"

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:24 pm

diverdee wrote:Ok - that's what I thought.
So in essence 'basic' SE is somewhat limited, but has the ability to at least partially overcome this by utilizing custom code, either pre built modules or the programmers own creations.

Absolutely.

DrNo · Post by **DrNo** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:24 pm

nuffink wrote:

"Spare a talent for a poor ex GPL thief"

and .... Quote... #2...

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:44 pm

diverdee wrote: The custom code that Dave Haupt & others create to (how should I put this) overcome SE's limitations / expand SE's capabilities - are these snippets of code themselves programmed using SE, or are they pieces of clever C++ etc. that are integrated into SE?

SynthEdit, like a large number of other programs, from Word to Photoshop to Apache, has an API; a defined interface for authoring software to in such a fashion that it extends the functionality of the application.

Just wondering, because if the second option (C++) that seems to indicate (functionally) that the 'better' SE built synths actually have to go beyond SE itself, to overcome it's limitations etc.

Not necessarily.

So the argument that 'SE built synths etc. are just as good as C++ built ones' seems a little redundant in that case, as in order to approach the level of custom coded (C++ etc.) synths & effects the SE ones have to (in effect) be at least partially custom coded themselves.

Not necessarily. In the case of this thread, custom components can be used to replace the user interface elements that conform to the assumption of how an SE-built synth' always looks. But that would have nothing to do with the sound/capabilities of the synth.

Strange argument.

Its the converse of 'SE synths can never be as good as natively coded C++ ones', which is what got typically gets thrown up first.

diverdee · Post by **diverdee** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:54 pm

I understand APi's & such, but i've no real knowledge of how SE works.
Can/is custom code also used for sound generation, the oscillators, filters & envelopes etc. also - or is mainly GUI & routing stuff?
I'm genuinely interested (although apologetic that I may be derailing this thread).
See i've tried 'vanilla' SE synths that sounded (imo) not too good, yet others (which where touted as using lots of 'custom' code) sounded excellent - i'm just wondering what the relationship is.
It effects the SE vs. Custom code argument that is pretty much ongoing also, as there must be a point where the distinction starts to blur.
I must admit I generally prefer the custom coded 'from scratch' synths & effects (although I recognise that these synths will likely also use plenty of pre-existing modules) as i've had 'issues' with some SE creations - which isn't to knock SE or some of the developers who do amazing stuff.
I hope that all came out right, still feeling a bit rough from a 60th Birthday piss up on Saturday

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:59 pm

diverdee · Post by **diverdee** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:08 pm

Nah - it's not a popcorn moment is it?
I really am interested, as I feel that the 'SE vs. non SE' argument is (in many cases certainly) presented in an almost cartesian dualistic Black or White manner, when in reality if SE creations use varying elements/amounts of the 'custom' C++ code there are in fact many shades of gray.

eduardo_b · Post by **eduardo_b** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:10 pm

bduffy wrote:<grabs popcorn>

Ah, the smell of popcorn early in the morning.

eduardo_b · Post by **eduardo_b** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:14 pm

diverdee wrote:Nah - it's not a popcorn moment is it?
I really am interested, as I feel that the 'SE vs. non SE' argument is (in many cases certainly) presented in an almost cartesian dualistic Black or White manner, when in reality if SE creations use varying elements/amounts of the 'custom' C++ code there are in fact many shades of gray.

Of course there's many shades of grey, but true believers (regardless of what their belief is about) are not interested in this. They deem such realistic subtlety to be unworthy...and unacceptable.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:51 pm

diverdee wrote:I understand APi's & such, but i've no real knowledge of how SE works.
Can/is custom code also used for sound generation, the oscillators, filters & envelopes etc. also - or is mainly GUI & routing stuff?

both; sound/signal processing and UI modules are possible; many examples of both exist, by David Haupt, Chris Kerry and various other module developers.

diverdee · Post by **diverdee** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:55 pm

whyterabbyt wrote:
diverdee wrote:I understand APi's & such, but i've no real knowledge of how SE works.
Can/is custom code also used for sound generation, the oscillators, filters & envelopes etc. also - or is mainly GUI & routing stuff?
both; sound/signal processing and UI modules are possible; many examples of both exist, by David Haupt, Chris Kerry and various other module developers.

Thanks, that's what I thought (from a little perusing).

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:08 pm

diverdee wrote:Thanks, that's what I thought (from a little perusing).

one thing thats kinda interesting (to me) is that the next version of the SE API will actually be a subset of the mooted GMPI standard, an attempt by the MIDI Manufacturer's Association to establish a universal framework for plugins that would simplify development across multiple flavours of host implementation. (ie you'd write a GMPI plugin and then compile it as VST, RTAS, AU, etc with minimal changes). As far as I can work it out it seems to be the first practical implementation of GMPI.
http://www.kvraudio.com/news/857.html

bootsie · Post by **bootsie** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:45 pm

stefancrs wrote:
Poor Bootsie Smile

He's gettin' free ads, don't pity him Laughing

Indeed, excellent thread performance, marketing dep. over here will throw a party, fo shure

peace,
bootsie

Update 1.2.1: Rescue, now includes Rescue Anniversary Edtion