where next with software instruments?

[kuniklo]

Regarding GUIs (which I think could and should be massively improved), there's a new plugin coming (can't tell right now) which tackles the approach of quick, easy and more or less intuitive changes while still being able to manipulate about each and every parameter quite perfectly.

If it's the same one I've been betatesting then that's the one that got me thinking about all this in the first place. Like I said, all it takes is *one* smart programmer with some guts to change the whole game.

People with more than meat between their ears are going to have their heads turned around by this one.

[Trusty]

Regarding GUIs (which I think could and should be massively improved), there's a new plugin coming (can't tell right now) which tackles the approach of quick, easy and more or less intuitive changes while still being able to manipulate about each and every parameter quite perfectly.

If it's the same one I've been betatesting then that's the one that got me thinking about all this in the first place. Like I said, all it takes is *one* smart programmer with some guts to change the whole game.

People with more than meat between their ears are going to have their heads turned around by this one.

Yeah, and if it is the same one I am betatesting, then you are correct...not to mention, sonically, it sounds absolutely fantastic...which helps as well.

[BONES]

by your reckoning, I can then say my iPod is way better than all your synths combined. It can do everything your synths can do and is much easier to play...

No, it cannot. It can only replay what you put into it. I'd say that sounds a lot more like the inflexible nature of a "real" instrument to me, wouldn't you? i.e. Limited by its nature.

[aciddose]

your synth can also only replay what you put into it, you're just putting the stuff in through the keys and other controls.

[BONES]

[Now you're just playing semantics, and poorly. I can affect what I put into it on the way out in any number of ways I like. i.e. I put one thing in and get something else entirely out. OK, that sounds suspiciously like a flute - bad breath in, pretty tunes out - but I was thinking more about how similarly limited each is, in its own way.
quote="Lunatique"]It would be delusional to think that nothing will change in the next few decades--things always evolve, whether you like it or not.[/quote]
Things do indeed evolve, that's my point. But there is no great revolution coming, which is what I've been saying all along. Although, 30 years ago the MiniMoog [physical object or sound, whichever you prefer] was probably no more or less sought-after than it is today. The only thing that's changed is the motivation behind the desire. And, to revert to my favourite car analogies, in the 60s everyone figured we'd be getting around in flying cars and monorails by the turn of the century, yet here we are, still firmly routed to the ground for the foreseeable future. In fact look at any old sci-fi movie that's set in the first decade of the 21st Century and even the later ones, Strange Days comes to mind, are way off the mark. Everyone thinks that some massive change is just around the corner but those days are over, unless you think of the internet as a revolution. [I think mobile phones have changed us more as a society, but few seemed to have noticed.]

When the massive hardware samplers and modulars where popular back in the day, some people probably thought that was it--they have everything now.

Not really. Samplers were 8 and 10-bit and didn't have enough memory. Modulars were cumbersome and not suited to touring, etc. People saw potential but knew they had to evolve before they would be really useful. They have, of course, but they are still recognisably the same things they were back then, just more powerful, much cheaper and [sometimes] easier to use.

Looking forward does not mean we can't see what we have today or know how to utilize what we have today.

Really? There are plenty of examples in this thread alone of people whose understanding/attitude clearly limits their ability to get the most out of what's in front of them.

There are probably members in this thread who are more knowledgeable and talented and skilled than you are in many ways, including working with synths and sequencers, yet obviously some of them do not agree there's no room for improvement, and they do not agree that the synth and its controllers are the end all, be all, or are superior to acoustic instrument in every way imaginable.

Yes, I call them idiots. It seems fitting as they are unable to provide any logic to their discussion.

yours is NOT the correct one or the best one--it's simply yours.

Of course it is. I choose my opinions very, very carefully after great deliberation. I find it insulting that you would consider them anything less than the absolute truth of the matter. After all, I take the time to back them up with logical argument and the fact that those arguments are rarely disproven lends even more weight to them.

[Benedict]

Hey Bones, a slight derail here but I know you love Orion...

I was looking at Orion out of interest. It has come a long way and now seems quite interesting (except for limited pattern structure - I like more linear). ReWire is pretty open - basic but open. I still think it would be nice to have a Multi-Core host with ReWire - come on E-XT - so I can use both Thor and my SSP synths/fx at once.

Can Orion record MIDI? Seems silly but I tried and got nothing. I then RTFM and got nothing.



BTW, most of the time I think your logic is just fine. Most people wouldn't know logic if it rolled up and introduced itself.

[BONES]

You can always run eXT as a VSTi inside your host - a much better solution than ReWire to my mind. ORION can record MIDI, but you'll get different results in Pattern and Song modes. e.g. If you want to record mixer events, you can only do that in Song mode. You can use your controller to change values in either mode, just not record.

[Benedict]

I like the idea (if not entirely the reality ) of ReWire because I really like Reason and only wish it allowed me to have my VST on board.
Hence the desire to have a ReWire host. I need Multi-Core because VST are not the most efficient and I can't abide recording to audio part way through. Never could.

Maybe I didn't make it obvious before but how would I record MIDI Notes to a track?

Thanks Bones

[dover666]

reaper, orion, and probably any decent host will have rewire... i know reaper and orion both have it. (and reaper has a rewire slave mode) - i've never used the rewire function... but i know it exists...

[hakey]

I take the time to back them up with logical argument and the fact that those arguments are rarely disproven lends even more weight to them.

Firstly arguments aren't for proving or disproving, using logic or whatever (unless we're talking about maths, then arguments can be absolutely proven using logical deduction). And your method certainly isn't one of logical deduction, rather it is to make a series of value judgements, which, when challenged, you attempt to 'prove' by redefining the argument within your own terms - another set of value judgements.

An example:

Statement of 'fact' - digital synthesizers are superior to acoustic instruments.

The 'proof' - digital synthesizers are capable of a much broader range of timbre and pitch than any one acoustic instrument.

Both 'fact' and 'proof' are value judgements. The choice of terms within the proof is a value judgement i.e. the choice of range of timbre and pitch as the measure of a musical instrument.

(I can conceive of a digital synthesizer with a huge timbral range, yet one which sounds awful throughout all of that range. Is that still a superior instrument to a piano with it's very narrow, but pleasing to my ear, range of timbre? I don't think so, but that's my opinion - I can't prove it.)

You also have a tendency toward exaggerated figures of speach:

An example is the use of the word 'infinitely' here:

flying is something computers can do infinitely better than people

It's unnecessary, imprecise and ultimately meaningless - how can something be infinitely better? If you had just said that computers can fly better than humans I could then have asked you what you meant by that, you could have defined your terms (rather narrowly I suspect) and I would have argued that, as someone who flies paragliders, I'm pretty sure that no computer right now can do all of the things that I need to do in order to be able to fly cross country (assessing ground features, looking for thermal triggers, cloud development, thermaling birds, etc.). BTW deosn't this 'disprove' your statement that we're all still 'routed to the ground'? Some of us are clearly one evolutionary step ahead of you.

You say that all of your opinions are carefully considered, well if you spent a little more time considering how to carefully and precisely frame your arguments and if you then also demonstrated a willingness to consider other people's points of view and to accept some level of equivalence between your opinions and those of others as being just that, opinions (and not necessarily right or wrong), then maybe people might be more recepetive to what you have to say.

As it is you reinforce the worst negative stereotypes of Ozzyness, the hectoring, belligerent bore with a mighty chip on his shoulder born, one suspects, of over-compensation for some grievously felt and long nursed sense of Australian cultural inferiority.

[BONES]

Statement of 'fact' - digital synthesizers are superior to acoustic instruments.

I don't recall when that was ever the argument. The argument was about how expressive each were and I jusst pointed out how many more possibilities a synth had to offer in that particular area. If you're not going to take the time to read and understand, you're just going to make yourself look stupid when you join in.

(I can conceive of a digital synthesizer with a huge timbral range, yet one which sounds awful throughout all of that range. Is that still a superior instrument to a piano with it's very narrow, but pleasing to my ear, range of timbre? I don't think so, but that's my opinion - I can't prove it.)

II reckon I could easily find a piano that was worse than any synth you can find. You can't say that because it is theoretically possible to create an awful synth that all synths are therefore intrinsically inferior. Again, that sort of thing tends to make you look stupid.

You also have a tendency toward exaggerated figures of speach:
"flying is something computers can do infinitely better than people"
It's unnecessary, imprecise and ultimately meaningless - how can something be infinitely better?

I chose that one very specifically, because it is completely an utterly true [not to overstate the situation]. Did you know that modern fighter aircraft are all designed to be aerodynamically unstable? Unassisted, a human pilot would simply not be able to fly them. Computers interpret the pilot's input and cause the aircraft to respond appropriately, but they are doing all of the flying. So in this instance, because they are doing 100% of the flying and the pilot is doing 0%, they are doing infinitely more. Sorry if I didn't bother explaining that earlier, it seemed a little inappropriate at the time.

If you had just said that computers can fly better than humans I could then have asked you what you meant by that, you could have defined your terms (rather narrowly I suspect) and I would have argued that, as someone who flies paragliders, I'm pretty sure that no computer right now can do all of the things that I need to do in order to be able to fly cross country (assessing ground features, looking for thermal triggers, cloud development, thermaling birds, etc.). BTW deosn't this 'disprove' your statement that we're all still 'routed to the ground'? Some of us are clearly one evolutionary step ahead of you.

Although clearly not up on the latest technology. Interesting paradox. Although your point is moot as what you are doing was also being done when those books were written, hang-gliding anyway, so it hardly matters. When you start paragliding to work every day and notice that the skies are more crowded than the freeways, we can revisit.

You say that all of your opinions are carefully considered, well if you spent a little more time considering how to carefully and precisely frame your arguments and if you then also demonstrated a willingness to consider other people's points of view and to accept some level of equivalence between your opinions and those of others as being just that, opinions (and not necessarily right or wrong), then maybe people might be more recepetive to what you have to say.

I'm sorry but if you can't be receptive to teh truth, then why would I waste my breath [or fingers, as it were]?

As it is you reinforce the worst negative stereotypes of Ozzyness, the hectoring, belligerent bore with a mighty chip on his shoulder born, one suspects, of over-compensation for some grievously felt and long nursed sense of Australian cultural inferiority.

Or maybe you just take everything too seriously and, in reality, I just have a lot of time on my hands at work at the moment? Makes you think, dunnit? [Or in your case, maybe not.]

[hakey]

Statement of 'fact' - digital synthesizers are superior to acoustic instruments.

I don't recall when that was ever the argument.

OK, I wasn't claiming that it was your precise POV (f**k knows what that is, your posts are such meandering rambles it's often difficult to work out what you are trying to say), rather it was meant as an illustration of the defficiencies of your style of argument - namely the presentation of your value judgements and opinions as indisputable fact.

That said you seem to be agreeing that that is your position here:

There are probably members in this thread who are more knowledgeable and talented and skilled than you are in many ways, including working with synths and sequencers, yet obviously some of them do not agree there's no room for improvement, and they do not agree that the synth and its controllers are the end all, be all, or are superior to acoustic instrument in every way imaginable.

Yes, I call them idiots.

[mcnoone]

Bones is cool. He's just misunderstood. The world needs angry, judgemental, egotistical rat bastards to make the world a better place,...and he's funny too.
Back to the topic thou...
I believe we will be able to control our computers, with any software, only using our eyes in the near future. Although only government has the money to afford this technology now.(used mostly by the airforce). This technology will eventually make it's way to the general public. I think using our eyes would be better than a mouse or pen tablet, maybe even a keyboard.

[zerocrossing]

Everyone thinks that some massive change is just around the corner but those days are over, unless you think of the internet as a revolution. [I think mobile phones have changed us more as a society, but few seemed to have noticed.

Now this is where you get to be called an idiot BONES! You're an idiot if you think that the internet has not completely changed the world. Sure, cell phones have also changed things a lot but if you took your ridiculous Borgesque Oakley glasses off and took a look at the world as it is now compared to pre internet days you'd see things have massively changed.

First of all, look at what you're doing right now. You're a major poster here... what would you be doing if you couldn't post? This kind of dialog would be impossible pre internet. Also, pre internet we had a narrow channel of how we got news and entertainment, but now I can bypass all that and find my entertainment and art from almost anyone. My work as massively changed. I just helped someone here out with a VST UI and I have no idea where that person even is geographically. More importantly, it doesn't matter where we are. 20 years ago I could never have found an overweight guy dressed like an extra from Star Trek TNG's poorly produced and composed music or boring virtual synths. Now they're at my fingertips!

Unlike the much predicted flying car, we were mostly blind-sighted by the internet. Few predicted it and those who did were fairly recent. My point is that development can sometimes be a long arduous process but sometimes there are those "leaps" like the internet (that are part of the process, but unique in how they fit in our culture) that change everything. No one thinks of it, but the one invention that changed us the most in the 20th century was the refrigerator.

Now here's the part I hate. I kind of agree with you, though I hope we're wrong. I don't think we'll find some amazingly new electronic instrument any time soon. I think it because as humans we like a certain "form" and familiarity with our instruments which is why the modern midi controller looks suspiciously like a pipe organ. But who knows. We may be totally blind-sighted again.

[mcnoone]

Cool I guess the future is already here. The link below is to a new eyesight controller, for the PC.
http://pcworld.about.com/news/Apr172001id47604.htm

not quite, but a step in the right direction.