Version 1.8 System Software Update for Receptor 1 users ?

[richwhite9]

yawn. I'm not going to go through the years 2005-2007 and all the work Ogg and many others did in creating a helpful user base here where the hardware specs were discussed openly on the forum and at private user groups and FTP sites including Muse Research's. Many were interested in mods and back ups.

I purchased in 2007 and I knew the specs before I bought. Period. No problems getting them from reading the forums then when there were more helpful people around. I work in IT too and did my homework.




http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... te&start=0

[richwhite9]

yawn. I'm not going to go through the years 2005-2007 and all the work Ogg and many others did in creating a helpful user base here where the hardware specs were discussed openly on the forum and at private user groups and FTP sites including Muse Research's. Many were interested in mods and back ups.

I purchased in 2007 and I knew the specs before I bought. Period. No problems getting them from reading the forums then when there were more helpful people around. I work in IT too and did my homework.


http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... te&start=0

Stuff like this were floating around and there were informal updates floating around


http://ogg.kicks-ass.net/receptor/index.php


There were no big secrets kept from you.

[richwhite9]

My point: Had you asked anyone for the specs on this forum before you bought you likely would get a precise answer. People here WERE helpful. They'd open one up and tell you--although most knew the upgrade from specs Rev B to C to a pro if someone cared to ask.

Then again you don't seem to be the type to ask questions about IT things.

[johnrule]

yawn

better get some sleep there rich...

My point: Had you asked anyone for the specs on this forum before you bought you likely would get a precise answer. People here WERE helpful. They'd open one up and tell you--although most knew the upgrade from specs Rev B to C to a pro if someone cared to ask.

Hindsight is 20/20...I guess I should have purchased more Apple stock at $90 per share too.

It's funny, I demoed the Receptor a year prior to purchase and I thought it was underpowered, so I returned it. Hardware changed considerably in the following year, and I did assume that the Receptor would be at least comparable to what was on the market. However, I never would have imagined that it was hardware/software from 2004-2005.

Then again you don't seem to be the type to ask questions about IT things.

Yeah...what's a hard drive? That was a senseless comment.

There were no big secrets kept from you.

My point was that the current specs for the Receptor 2 are plainly advertised, and the Receptor 1 specs were not. I called it a bit of subterfuge because I would not have purchased the Receptor 1 if the specs were obvious. I didn't say anyone was "keeping secrets from me"...you did.

As I stated, the hardware specs were not the point of contention. I upgraded my Receptor 1 for cheap, wrote software to make it more useful for everyone, and moved on. I think Muse handled this badly, and that's it. This thread was resurrected because someone asked me if I did "extensive testing" on the installation of a SATA drive, and I gave some history.

You and "buscemi" have one point...I am not contributing anything positive here. I will try to stay away. I was watching this thread for any developments in the subject of "Version 1.8 System Software Update for Receptor 1 users". It seems unlikely that anything is going to happen in this regard, so I will delete my watch. If you really want me to respond to something you will have to PM.

Enjoy your Receptor(s) any way you can, and good luck.

[tim miskimon]

Enjoy your Receptor(s) any way you can, and good luck.[/quote]

The biggest disappointment is the fact that there are just too many great plugins that will not work on the Receptor - 1 or 2.
Even if I upgraded my Receptor I'd still be disappointed that many of my favorite plugins that work on Windows XP just don't work on the Receptor.
That's the main reason why most of the top keyboard players are still using computers and not the Receptor.
Great Idea - just not handled correctly.

[Jace-BeOS]

How the hell did i miss THIS thread?

Here i sit, with my rev b Receptor refusing to work with networking. Of any kind. i've been pissed about the fact that Muse refused to provide an iso image upgrade for those of us with the older machines. They NEVER answered why the SATA drives were the argument. IDE works fine. Just give us the damned OS. And so i try to use the Receptor for SOMETHING... but now it does nothing in terms of networking. No reason i can see. Gives itself a self-assigned IP. It's not like i've ever taken this thing out that it could be damaged. It just sits in a rack all year long, every year. i used it a few times to find it provided nothing to me that a DAW didn't do better. When i wanted to use it for old 32-bit VSTs that i can't use in 64-bit Sonar, i found that Uniwire sucks and many plugins aren't compatible. When i wanted to use it for Windows-only VSTs that i'll never have on my Mac when i switched to Logic, i found that Receptor doesn't handle mono VSTs. WTF??

What a waste of money this thing was.

EDIT: Removing the power connection from the Receptor (power cable out) and plugging it back in again solved the networking problem. WHY?