SWA Fast Approach to Padshop from Streamworks Audio
Steinberg Padshop
-
- KVRAF
- 5913 posts since 17 Aug, 2004 from Berlin, Germany
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
Thanks, 4damind!4damind wrote:SWA Fast Approach to Padshop from Streamworks Audio
You can see in this video, at least in Cubase, it's using the standard VST3 menu for loading presets.
-
- KVRAF
- 20737 posts since 22 Nov, 2000 from Southern California
Media Bay handles presets similarly to Omnisphere and the Virus TI.SJ_Digriz wrote:DISCLAIMER:: I HATE MEDIA BAY ::DISCLAIMER
-
- KVRAF
- 6097 posts since 5 Jul, 2001 from Just about .... there
I did a quick capture using padshop. Notice I click in the box, then from then on I'm just clicking down arrow to get to the next sound. That's all I was trying to get across. That particular action is similar to the previous fxb list that allowed the left/right button. You still had to click in the box before the left/right worked.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
I totally get it, SJ.SJ_Digriz wrote:I did a quick capture using padshop. Notice I click in the box, then from then on I'm just clicking down arrow to get to the next sound. That's all I was trying to get across. That particular action is similar to the previous fxb list that allowed the left/right button. You still had to click in the box before the left/right worked.
It is quite similar, and Uncle E, I see your point too. I'm just not crazy about Steinberg's implementation. There's something sloppy and overkill-y about Mediabay and the presets, IMHO. Also, it seems to lose content, which hasn't engendered any warm feelings from me.
That being said, I've used Mediabay a lot for auditioning and dragging sound effects into projects. That used to have to be done from the Open dialog, so that's cool.
-
- KVRAF
- 14451 posts since 16 Feb, 2005 from Planet Earth, Somewhere
yep and I am as good as herbie hancock if I play just one hand.....Uncle E wrote:Media Bay handles presets similarly to Omnisphere and the Virus TI.SJ_Digriz wrote:DISCLAIMER:: I HATE MEDIA BAY ::DISCLAIMER
not even close Eric, it may have the same objective.. but implementation and execution aren't even close... and I have been a Cubendo user since 2002.
rsp
-
- KVRAF
- 6097 posts since 5 Jul, 2001 from Just about .... there
One of the disappointing things is that fxp/fxb was almost universally supported and worked very well. When they f**ked up with the awful sound frame concept, then came out with Media Bay to replace the previous abortion, only to have it be such a buggy, bloated, slow, unuseable POS that a lot of the vendors just ditched Steinbergs formats. Now very few vendors support the Media/Patch Implementation. Everyone just rolls their own. Which totally blows. Even though Media Bay itself has come a long way and is on the verge of being pretty darn good. It's still far too many clicks and convoluted in places, but it has improved. I have a large sample collection, so I like it for that. I still don't like it as a patch management/track template system. It's just too clumsy and fiddly.
Just my 2cents.
Just my 2cents.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
Yeah, that sums it up for me, my friend. They just went way too far, fixing something that wasn't broke.SJ_Digriz wrote:One of the disappointing things is that fxp/fxb was almost universally supported and worked very well. When they f**ked up with the awful sound frame concept, then came out with Media Bay to replace the previous abortion, only to have it be such a buggy, bloated, slow, unuseable POS that a lot of the vendors just ditched Steinbergs formats. Now very few vendors support the Media/Patch Implementation. Everyone just rolls their own. Which totally blows. Even though Media Bay itself has come a long way and is on the verge of being pretty darn good. It's still far too many clicks and convoluted in places, but it has improved. I have a large sample collection, so I like it for that. I still don't like it as a patch management/track template system. It's just too clumsy and fiddly.
Just my 2cents.
-
- KVRAF
- 6097 posts since 5 Jul, 2001 from Just about .... there
I'm going to contradict myself just a bit thoughbduffy wrote:Yeah, that sums it up for me, my friend. They just went way too far, fixing something that wasn't broke.
Hope you don't mind.I actually think I understand why they went that way. I also think they had the "right" direction. You can see in a lot of hosts and programs like Big Ticks Zen, that managing the system from the media side or the meta data side instead of the plugin side was coming. I give them credit for seeing it coming. They have to try stuff to keep the product moving ahead. It's just shocking how poorly they implement some things.
On the other hand they have been slowly working their way through note and vst expression. It is working out very nice. But, that happens about the same time they "fixed" comping by completely ruining it, when there are several tremendous implementations already in the market. Of course, they just released a new version that addresses some of the major screw ups of the initial "fix".
So, half of me understands why they have to mess with stuff. I just don't understand how often they completely miss the implementation of a good idea. There is a disconnect somewhere on their dev side. I hope they figure it out, because they actually have some great ideas.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer
-
- KVRAF
- 6097 posts since 5 Jul, 2001 from Just about .... there
Maybe, but it sounds really, really good and it is easy to use. Maybe they'll upgrade it in the future to allow it to be used as an effect and/or allow sample import.Caine123 wrote:again all those nice options and nice GUI but you have the same presets over and over, no sample import, normally it should be given a middlefinger....
It's weird though. They've come out with some really good plug-ins recently .. Portico, Vintage Collection and now padshop. In each case the quality is high, but there are head scratching omissions. Like side chaining on compressors and processors, surround support and in the case of a granular synth sample import. It's just weird. I've posted other places that it surprises me that they don't do more to show off VST3+ capabilities in their own plugs. However, the two new synth do support expression. So, that's something.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
Good points all, SJ. They often seem to fall just short in their innovations. And I'm not wild about this paid .5 update thing...a dangerous precedent. But oh well, love the DAW still. Looking forward to using these new synths!SJ_Digriz wrote:I'm going to contradict myself just a bit thoughbduffy wrote:Yeah, that sums it up for me, my friend. They just went way too far, fixing something that wasn't broke.
I actually think I understand why they went that way. I also think they had the "right" direction. You can see in a lot of hosts and programs like Big Ticks Zen, that managing the system from the media side or the meta data side instead of the plugin side was coming. I give them credit for seeing it coming. They have to try stuff to keep the product moving ahead. It's just shocking how poorly they implement some things.
On the other hand they have been slowly working their way through note and vst expression. It is working out very nice. But, that happens about the same time they "fixed" comping by completely ruining it, when there are several tremendous implementations already in the market. Of course, they just released a new version that addresses some of the major screw ups of the initial "fix".
So, half of me understands why they have to mess with stuff. I just don't understand how often they completely miss the implementation of a good idea. There is a disconnect somewhere on their dev side. I hope they figure it out, because they actually have some great ideas.
And thanks for reminding me the preset menu is basically the same. I must concede.
-
- KVRAF
- 9601 posts since 5 Aug, 2009
the only thing i hate is that it smells like they will release XPs to milk the customer, yeah it's cheap 50 bucks but steinberg hasnt such a granular synthesizer before (i think) and why not have a fully granular synthesizer with all kinds of support than such a half ass thing just to sell XPs and milk the cusomer with cheap tactics..... guess it will be succesful as people think it's cheap... otherwisem, which issue would they have to include it asap?SJ_Digriz wrote:Maybe, but it sounds really, really good and it is easy to use. Maybe they'll upgrade it in the future to allow it to be used as an effect and/or allow sample import.Caine123 wrote:again all those nice options and nice GUI but you have the same presets over and over, no sample import, normally it should be given a middlefinger....
It's weird though. They've come out with some really good plug-ins recently .. Portico, Vintage Collection and now padshop. In each case the quality is high, but there are head scratching omissions. Like side chaining on compressors and processors, surround support and in the case of a granular synth sample import. It's just weird. I've posted other places that it surprises me that they don't do more to show off VST3+ capabilities in their own plugs. However, the two new synth do support expression. So, that's something.
-
- KVRAF
- 20737 posts since 22 Nov, 2000 from Southern California
As a Cubase and a Virus TI user myself, I honestly don't see how the "implementation and execution aren't even close". You open the Media Bay, select the type of sound you want, select its subcategories, and scroll through the list. What's not to like about that?zvenx wrote:not even close Eric, it may have the same objective.. but implementation and execution aren't even close... and I have been a Cubendo user since 2002.
-
- KVRAF
- 20737 posts since 22 Nov, 2000 from Southern California
My perspective from speaking about this subject with software developers years ago is that supporting each different hosts' formats is a major pain, regardless of how good or bad it may be, and that rolling their own system keeps them from having to worry about what directions the host companies choose to take. Personally, I really like the systems NI, Spectrasonics, and Arturia have come up with, and even u-he's system, though not nearly as sexy, is perfectly workable.SJ_Digriz wrote:Now very few vendors support the Media/Patch Implementation. Everyone just rolls their own.