Cool. Will give you something to look forward to when you retire then.liquidsound wrote:Waiting for the VST back panel Standard will give more freedom TO US and that is what it should be. This industry is for US and the profit is for them without getting in the way of free choices.
Musikmesse 2012: Propellerhead to share "exciting news"
-
- KVRAF
- 21348 posts since 26 Jul, 2005 from Gone
-
- KVRian
- 997 posts since 27 Apr, 2005
except that it's not coming, they aren't working on it, it would be an absolute support and host nightmare. the reason that reason's works is because it is a closed system. RE developers only are supplying the dsp code and gui. propellerheads works out all the engine stuff under the hood. You would be asking VST developers to reinvent the wheel, along with companies that program the hosts, just so their products will work with their competitors. not likely. VST's NOW have the ability to host other VST's but how many of them do, even though they are free to do so? not very damn many.
-
- KVRAF
- 5573 posts since 30 May, 2006 from Hollow Earth
So to you when you will want an intelligent upgrade.robojam wrote:Cool. Will give you something to look forward to when you retire then.liquidsound wrote:Waiting for the VST back panel Standard will give more freedom TO US and that is what it should be. This industry is for US and the profit is for them without getting in the way of free choices.
ABEFLGMOPPRRST 
-
- KVRAF
- 5573 posts since 30 May, 2006 from Hollow Earth
Understood. Case closed.ShawnG wrote:except that it's not coming, they aren't working on it, it would be an absolute support and host nightmare. the reason that reason's works is because it is a closed system. RE developers only are supplying the dsp code and gui. propellerheads works out all the engine stuff under the hood. You would be asking VST developers to reinvent the wheel, along with companies that program the hosts, just so their products will work with their competitors. not likely. VST's NOW have the ability to host other VST's but how many of them do, even though they are free to do so? not very damn many.
Thanks for the explanation. I'm not a programmer (only for CAD).
So you think there is not a slim chance for this to happen without Re?
ABEFLGMOPPRRST
-
- KVRian
- 997 posts since 27 Apr, 2005
could see another company maybe developing another closed system to accomplish the same thing (NI maybe, their products are starting to look like their aiming for a "rack" sort of paradigm), but no, I don't see anyone putting in the work o develop an open standard of interoperable parameters for VST's
-
- KVRAF
- 2973 posts since 10 Sep, 2003 from Karlskoga, Stockholm, Sweden
Sometimes i think some of you disappear way too far in the abstract atmosphere ..
The higher the page number goes, the harder it is to follow the argumentation of the people in this thread.
The higher the page number goes, the harder it is to follow the argumentation of the people in this thread.
-
- KVRian
- 668 posts since 28 Sep, 2010
I just skim through it all till I see a link that leads to an update on thisCrackbaby wrote:Sometimes i think some of you disappear way too far in the abstract atmosphere ..
The higher the page number goes, the harder it is to follow the argumentation of the people in this thread.
I've never been one for random speculation.-
- KVRian
- 997 posts since 27 Apr, 2005
[quote="JD Gaffe"][quote="Crackbaby"]Sometimes i think some of you disappear way too far in the abstract atmosphere ..
The higher the page number goes, the harder it is to follow the argumentation of the people in this thread.[/quote]
I just skim through it all till I see a link that leads to an update on this I've never been one for random speculation.[/quote]
aw c'mon, 99.9% of the content of this forum is random speculation. it's why we're here, facts are hard to find, and jealously guarded by those that have them. random speculation is freely given and abundant!
The higher the page number goes, the harder it is to follow the argumentation of the people in this thread.
[/quote]I just skim through it all till I see a link that leads to an update on this
I've never been one for random speculation.[/quote]aw c'mon, 99.9% of the content of this forum is random speculation. it's why we're here, facts are hard to find, and jealously guarded by those that have them. random speculation is freely given and abundant!
-
- KVRAF
- 7489 posts since 6 Jul, 2004
Fun though patching is, I'm struggling to think of a time when I used the patching in Reason to do anything which I couldn't have done without patching in Ableton... (bear in mind I am a musician, not a sound designer though).
For example, free routing, setting up multi-device-chains, using MIDI effects, etc in Live does the stuff I need without flipping a rack. I guess if you are a boffin that likes the old-skool electronics thing, it's all useful though
I guess this illustrates how we have different needs and uses for stuff.
Wanting that sort of patching in a VST host seems to me as pointless as wanting a Session View, clip launch features, etc in Reason. Even if they decided to add that stuff it would be way behind the curve set by Ableton, Buttwig, etc. In the end it nice that these programmes have their own unique flavour, and that's certainly why I love Reason.
For example, free routing, setting up multi-device-chains, using MIDI effects, etc in Live does the stuff I need without flipping a rack. I guess if you are a boffin that likes the old-skool electronics thing, it's all useful though
I guess this illustrates how we have different needs and uses for stuff.
Wanting that sort of patching in a VST host seems to me as pointless as wanting a Session View, clip launch features, etc in Reason. Even if they decided to add that stuff it would be way behind the curve set by Ableton, Buttwig, etc. In the end it nice that these programmes have their own unique flavour, and that's certainly why I love Reason.
-
- KVRian
- 997 posts since 27 Apr, 2005
[quote="headquest"]Fun though patching is, I'm struggling to think of a time when I used the patching in Reason to do anything which I couldn't have done without patching in Ableton... (bear in mind I am a musician, not a sound designer though).
For example, free routing, setting up multi-device-chains, using MIDI effects, etc in Live does the stuff I need without flipping a rack. I guess if you are a boffin that likes the old-skool electronics thing, it's all useful though
I guess this illustrates how we have different needs and uses for stuff.
Wanting that sort of patching in a VST host seems to me as pointless as wanting a Session View, clip launch features, etc in Reason. Even if they decided to add that stuff it would be way behind the curve set by Ableton, Buttwig, etc. In the end it nice that these programmes have their own unique flavour, and that's certainly why I love Reason.[/quote]
totally agreed. reason's patching is fun and can stimulate the creative process, much like reason's devices. there seems to be a little bit of a disconnect in equating all these programs. As much as we would all want the uber-DAW, it is probably better to use different tools for different jobs.
For example, free routing, setting up multi-device-chains, using MIDI effects, etc in Live does the stuff I need without flipping a rack. I guess if you are a boffin that likes the old-skool electronics thing, it's all useful though
I guess this illustrates how we have different needs and uses for stuff.
Wanting that sort of patching in a VST host seems to me as pointless as wanting a Session View, clip launch features, etc in Reason. Even if they decided to add that stuff it would be way behind the curve set by Ableton, Buttwig, etc. In the end it nice that these programmes have their own unique flavour, and that's certainly why I love Reason.[/quote]
totally agreed. reason's patching is fun and can stimulate the creative process, much like reason's devices. there seems to be a little bit of a disconnect in equating all these programs. As much as we would all want the uber-DAW, it is probably better to use different tools for different jobs.
-
- KVRAF
- 5573 posts since 30 May, 2006 from Hollow Earth
Unless the reality will bite into the Balance Sheet... Money Talks and... we know the rest.ShawnG wrote:could see another company maybe developing another closed system to accomplish the same thing (NI maybe, their products are starting to look like their aiming for a "rack" sort of paradigm), but no, I don't see anyone putting in the work o develop an open standard of interoperable parameters for VST's
ABEFLGMOPPRRST
-
- KVRAF
- 2973 posts since 10 Sep, 2003 from Karlskoga, Stockholm, Sweden
I own reason, but only live lite so im probably a bit biased to reason. Though the host im using 99% is EnergyXT.
Yes, we are all different
Maybe i feel Reason routing to be robust. In xt the modular view can sometimes be a bit hard to grasp when you have several things. You move the modules around trying to get a good overview. Maybe it will be better in the next version
Yes, we are all different
Maybe i feel Reason routing to be robust. In xt the modular view can sometimes be a bit hard to grasp when you have several things. You move the modules around trying to get a good overview. Maybe it will be better in the next version
-
- KVRAF
- 9521 posts since 6 Oct, 2004
Meffy wrote:Great, so wait. I wish you much enjoyment using it. Unlike some, I don't care what other people use and have no interest in convincing them they should feel bad about using what they prefer. I'm weird that way.
the world is not so lonely, after all.