What is the problem with the reputation of SynthEdit?

[whyterabbyt]

he loves to argue, should have been a lawer instead of a musican. i made some good points, yes, free opensource software lacks serious funding which is why most free software stays in beta or never passes v1.0 like inkscape, still not 1.0 after 8 years, i mean, the dream/passion from the developers are there, but they have jobs and work in there spare time. if there lucky, they will get corporate/private funding like ubuntu and mint. but mostly what happens is the software remains un-finished. he too busy arguing to consider what i said.

i considered exactly what you said. and what you're saying now is a big attempt at moving the goalposts from 'linux users in denial' and 'no money to pay the developers'.
Perhaps you'd like to tell Alan Cox there was actually no money to pay him to work on Linux, for example. Because he seems to have been under a slightly different impression during his employment at RedHat etc.
Oh wait, you're now changing to much smaller projects, my bad. If Nigel Binkworthys SuperTopLAMEFrontEnd doesnt make it to 1.0 then your entire point is proven, yeah?

just as linux users are in denial and think that linux is gaining market share. it wont/its not. and reason why, funding. there's no money in freeware. and theirs no money to pay the developers to develop the software.

now its 'some open source projects dont reach version 1' if they dont 'get corporate funding'. in other words moving the goalposts again.

linux is a big open source project, which is succeeding, and which has a lot of funded developers. you claimed it was failing because it had no funding and that's what I argued against, not this total retcon you're trying to present now.
and, for the record, most open source software stays in beta or never passes 1.0 because meeting an arbitrary numeric version milestone is irrelevant to the developers, not because some influx of money magically makes it more possible to change the version string from 0.99 to 1.0.

[AstralExistence]

he loves to argue, should have been a lawer instead of a musican. i made some good points, yes, free opensource software lacks serious funding which is why most free software stays in beta or never passes v1.0 like inkscape, still not 1.0 after 8 years, i mean, the dream/passion from the developers are there, but they have jobs and work in there spare time. if there lucky, they will get corporate/private funding like ubuntu and mint. but mostly what happens is the software remains un-finished. he too busy arguing to consider what i said.

i considered exactly what you said. and what you're saying now is a big attempt at moving the goalposts from 'linux users in denial' and 'no money to play the developers'.

just as linux users are in denial and think that linux is gaining market share. it wont/its not. and reason why, funding. there's no money in freeware. and theirs no money to pay the developers to develop the software.

now its 'some open source projects dont reach version 1' if they dont 'get corporate funding'. in other words moving the goalposts again.

linux is a big open source project, which is succeeding, and which has a lot of funded developers. you claimed it was failing because it had no funding and that's what I argued against, not this total retcon you're trying to present now.
and, for the record, most open source software stays in beta or never passes 1.0 because meeting an arbitrary numeric version milestone is irrelevant to the developers, not because some influx of money magically makes it more possible to change the version string from 0.99 to 1.0.

why do you talk?

[AstralExistence]

he loves to argue, should have been a lawer instead of a musican. i made some good points, yes, free opensource software lacks serious funding which is why most free software stays in beta or never passes v1.0 like inkscape, still not 1.0 after 8 years, i mean, the dream/passion from the developers are there, but they have jobs and work in there spare time. if there lucky, they will get corporate/private funding like ubuntu and mint. but mostly what happens is the software remains un-finished. he too busy arguing to consider what i said.

i considered exactly what you said. and what you're saying now is a big attempt at moving the goalposts from 'linux users in denial' and 'no money to play the developers'.

just as linux users are in denial and think that linux is gaining market share. it wont/its not. and reason why, funding. there's no money in freeware. and theirs no money to pay the developers to develop the software.

now its 'some open source projects dont reach version 1' if they dont 'get corporate funding'. in other words moving the goalposts again.

linux is a big open source project, which is succeeding, and which has a lot of funded developers. you claimed it was failing because it had no funding and that's what I argued against, not this total retcon you're trying to present now.
and, for the record, most open source software stays in beta or never passes 1.0 because meeting an arbitrary numeric version milestone is irrelevant to the developers, not because some influx of money magically makes it more possible to change the version string from 0.99 to 1.0.

thats correct, linux is not failing, it has failed, because of not enough funding. of course it can be said that it hasnt really failed, to to the majority of windows/mac user it has.

[whyterabbyt]

why do you talk?

it varies, depending on who im talking to. do you specifically mean 'why do you talk to f**king idiots' ?

[AstralExistence]

red hat is corporate funding. it has failed in the home desktop. microsoft and apple will always be ahead due to development funding. as the other guy said, your taking my post out of context to suit you. i don't what to say i really dont feel like arguing. just finish your counter argument then lets drop it. i have better things to do.

[whyterabbyt]

thats correct, linux is not failing, it has failed, because of not enough funding.

ah, yes, the old 'if I repeat my theory often enough it becomes truer' gambit.

of course it can be said that it hasnt really failed, to to the majority of windows/mac user it has.

can i see your references for the statistics on that then?

[AstralExistence]

thats correct, linux is not failing, it has failed, because of not enough funding.

ah, yes, the old 'if I repeat my theory often enough it becomes truer' gambit.

of course it can be said that it hasnt really failed, to to the majority of windows/mac user it has.

can i see your references for the statistics on that then?

now lets mutually drop it.

[whyterabbyt]

red hat is corporate funding. it has failed in the home desktop.

so? you didnt mention 'the home desktop' until you realised you had to move the goalposts. and yes, its corporate funding. funding, that thing you said Linux didnt have. Remember?

theirs no money to pay the developers to develop the software.

microsoft and apple will always be ahead due to development funding.

ahead of what? how come linux is ahead of Windows on mobile phones? doesnt development funding count when its not the desktop?

as the other guy said, your taking my post out of context to suit you.

says the guy who's trying to change the context (from 'linux' to 'linux on the desktop', cough)...

i don't what to say i really dont feel like arguing. just finish your counter argument then lets drop it. i have better things to do.

awwww.

[SODDI]

I do not think that SE plug-ins have a "bad reputation". Back when I was checking a lot of them out, they fell along a pretty standard Bell curve distribution - some truly awful, most workable but ho-hum, and a few absolutely top-notch.

I stopped downloading new ones when my AV software started identifying and quarantining the .SEM and .SEP as malware. I just got paranoid.

Most of the ones that survived haven't survived my transition to win 7 x64/Cubase x64. 32-bit SE plug-ins are as likely to crash as not in my Cubase set-up - and those crashes are usually catastrophic, meaning they lock down Cubase until I reboot. Those plug-ins are then removed permanently from my directory.

But that is just my experience and my set-up. I am a lazy bastard who would prefer not to endlessly tweak my main axe's setting to accomodate a class of plug-ins.

YMMV.

The only value judgement I have made is that Bell curve thing.

[fluffy_little_something]

Strange, crashes have never been an issue in my case. Actually, yesterday was the first time my DAW ever crashed because of an SE plugin. And since it was not a mature, published plugin, but a KVR member's virgin SE synth, it doesn't say anything about SE.

[xhunaudio]

I would like to share my opinion on this intersting thread, about SE 'bad' reputation, or better, the reason for wich a lot of people don't TRUST SE developments.

The Intro:)

Having the possibility to do something is not sufficient to make something good.
There're a lot of C++ experts that made general purpouse software for years, but when they tried to make MULTIMEDIA softs/apps, they defenitely failed, making stuff sensibly worse than the average product/result.

So: to make pro audio stuff, it is important to reserve some years studying pro audio, synthesis systems, audio physics before making something.

When Synthedit was released in a 'stable enough' version (2003) that's what happened. In the period 2003-2004-2005 an incredibly high number of soft-synthesizers were released DAILY. We are talking about something like 20-releases per week, every week! This piece of softwares were VERY often made changing only the 'product name label' and some images on the 'tutorial synth' file that came with synthedit IDE (Jeff made it only to show how to connect modules, and so on...). And in the 99,9% of that released stuff LFO-type oscs were used as audio-oscs, no GUIs, wrong modules in the wrong places,... = a disaster :). Andin addition to that, a LOT of 3rd party modules were compiled using other than MS visual c++ compiler, so generating the multi cpu / multi instance (even with 1 cpu/core) issues, compromising systems stability too.

So we had 10 or 20 plugins released (per week) that:

1)caused systems crashes

2)were made by non-experts, often people at their first approach to synthesis

3)sound VEEERY similar (because 'spin-offs' - sometimes exact replicas:) - of Jeff's tutorial synths)

4)were marked as 'Made with SYNTHEDIT'

The impact on people/users had been the worst possible, and people deeply started to identify systems crashes, bad sounding (and ugly also :)) plugins and what of worst coud happen in the pro audio scenario with the brand 'Synthedit' - totally undeservedly.

Synthedit is an incredibly evoluted and powerful IDE - for professionals.
And it is also an incredibly stable: write modules correctly in C++ and compile with MS Visual C++ and you will have *REALLY* 0% of crashes.

And also Synthedit is a widely diffused IDE with high-end sound quality also using native modules only! Something near the totally of people/users/musicians can't imagine/suspect that a number of their well-known, branded plugins effectively are not made with 'C++ native' programming but using SE...:)

By the way all my best regards are for Jeff's creation and programming capability. And I hope a lot of people will read this post and will start to consider Synthedit for what it REALLY IS and for its real VALUE.

And not only for 'chat rumors' and non-sense prejudices.

PS: About fundings, I agree with some people here, the right money amount is needful for any project (as for an OS, an app, or everything else), I hope Jeff's research will rise the amount required for next steps.

And Jeff, if you're listening: if you don't already know, Kickstarter initiative is now available also for UK citizens, it is a great opportunity!

Bruno

[electro]

Sonic Projects OP-X and Ironaxe are proof Synthedit can deliver just as good quality as any other coding.

The biggest Synthedit problem is the x86 limitation, especially now that it is 2013 and x64 DAW are much more common.

[mztk]

Strange, crashes have never been an issue in my case. Actually, yesterday was the first time my DAW ever crashed because of an SE plugin. And since it was not a mature, published plugin, but a KVR member's virgin SE synth, it doesn't say anything about SE.

it's a very simple plugin from 2008 that has never crashed anything, and
easily runs 4+ instances, so i don't know why your MixCraft crashed.
maybe it says more about the way OS development is taking place if you
simply can't run older software anymore. there's no guarantee anyone is
going to write that software again, and as is being said here, people
haven't got time to hang around waiting for them to do it.

i have no particular longing for the latest Windows or Mac OS, these
platforms are just what you have to put up with to use a computer.
neither has a dedicated mode for using AV products, and they're both
conceived primarily for your average consumer. might be worth considering
that both have been in slow development for twenty years.

might also be worth pointing out that two recent acclaimed coded plugins
just don't work in Orion. they sound great, but the patch selection makes
notes hang. i told the devs ages ago, but it hasn't changed. and they're
payware.

my reason for using synthedit is that sitting in front of lines of C++
doesn't inspire me at all and i haven't got a clue about it. i keep
meaning to learn something, but not much enthusiasm. i am interested
in seeing if i can make a viable instrument, for the challenge. and
once you get into using SE, you start to appreciate how an environment
like that can work for you.

i would also think it is a useful prototyping tool for C++ devs, who
can then transpose their work across, and come up with some more
imaginitive plugins in the process, because right now, everything
looks pretty much the same, and we're watching the wheel being reinvented
over and over again.

[SODDI]

(snip)
2)were made by non-experts, often people at their first approach to synthesis
(snip)

Sorry to subject your well thought out post to so much snippage: there's a lot of good stuff in it.

But this point.

A lot of the best and worst of SE were the plug-ins that were built by amateurs. Amateurs is not a dirty word in my book - the root means "LOVER OF".

SE is a wonderful, long term project that scales itself to the lovers of electronic music. A beginner can build a perfectly adequate little doodad for their personal use; it could be a clunky balls-up that never should have seen the light of day, or rarely it could be something wonderful and new, something that the amateur saw to do that the pros never thought of.

Whe it came out, I was too deep into SynCModular and Reaktor to take on another platform, or else I too could have released some ill-considered clunkers.

[xhunaudio]

(snip)
2)were made by non-experts, often people at their first approach to synthesis
(snip)

Sorry to subject your well thought out post to so much snippage: there's a lot of good stuff in it.

But this point.

A lot of the best and worst of SE were the plug-ins that were built by amateurs. Amateurs is not a dirty word in my book - the root means "LOVER OF".

In any way I did not want to be derogatory of the term 'Amateurs' indeed. 'Amateurs/Entusiasts' buildt HP, Steinberg, Microsoft, etc, etc ... and specially in the Pro Audio scenario it is nearly impossible to be part of it without being a 'pro audio/synthesis lover/entusiast' :)

I do not hate 'tutorials' too, eheh. But there's difference from build something for learning/practice purpouse and something as a Product. You can start making 100's of 'Hello World' programs - for practice/personal use.

But my opinion is that if people never heard about C++, and for a long time period a LOT of 'Hello World', 'Hello World!!','Hi World','Hello planet',... programs were world-wide released - DAILY - with the brand 'Made in C++', the result is that people obviously will start to say 'C++ sucks', with that programming language the only thing you can do is 'Earth greeting', I will never download a program made in C++ anymore...

I greatly appreciate people that are *truly* 'lovers-of-something'. I have nothing against 'Amateurs' in any way (in my previous post I did not use the term at all, if I remember fine), but I simply stated that the *blind desire* to be 'a developer' without something to offer (just by opening Jeff's SE tutorials and clicking on 'build as VST') caused a lack of credit toward Synthedit developments. And this is the main reason for a diffused, undeserved 'problem with SE' that titled this topic too.