Time for a virtual modular standard...?

[dayjob]

How about the euro /frac hardware community build virtual versions of there modules as developers do for VST /AU for starters

not gonna happen. these are very very small operations. some of them do this on the side. sure, some of them do sell 1000s of modules but modeling/developing/maintaining/supporting multiple OSs and plug in formats... that's a completely 'other' business. some of the developers do have computer/code smarts but they are all very busy developing new modules, testing them, building modules of their existing line ups to send to customers and dealers..

what you are suggesting is they all either farm out this programming work for an as yet non-existent software format.. or pause what they are doing to make living and write a bunch of code for a non-existing software format.

as it is now new modules take a lot of tome to develop and manufacture and release. months.. years even. if they suddenly added a new wrinkle to their operations it slow everything way down and they'd just irritate their current customers.

not to mention most of them probably have zero interest in making a software system.. after all.. they do make hardware modular synthesizers.

[bungle]

There are already modular VST plugins (Way too many to list) that actually load VST plugins inside themselves.
You do not need to create a new format, you just need to build some modules that use audio in/outs for event data as well as audio data.

What your propose is nothing more than a bunch of VST modules that can be connected how you like, so you just add all the CV ins/outs as audio ins/outs.

This way nobody has to conform to a new standard, all they have to do is add control inputs to various points in their plugins, plus it is easy for you to pick up Synthedit and go make some modules yourself to get the ball rolling.

[pdxindy]

CPU use would be absurdly high...

[whyterabbyt]

How about the euro /frac hardware community build virtual versions of there modules as developers do for VST /AU for starters

Which part of that community do you expect to have the programming skills, and knowledge of audio DSP required to do that, let alone the inclination to redirect resources from their existing business model (physical sales of short-run boutique analogue hardware) in favour of one pretty much diametrically opposite to it?

[whyterabbyt]

There are already modular VST plugins (Way too many to list) that actually load VST plugins inside themselves.
You do not need to create a new format, you just need to build some modules that use audio in/outs for event data as well as audio data.

Except that VST plugins throughput on a block-by-block basis, not on a sample-by-sample basis. Which makes a significant difference to what you can and cant do.
For example, audio rate modulation cant possibly happen properly. Neither would anything with any kind of feedback loop.
And yes, Im aware that current systems like Bidule let you create systems that look like they're doing these things. But they're doing so within the limitations of block processing, ie not 'properly' for a modular synth.

What your propose is nothing more than a bunch of VST modules that can be connected how you like, so you just add all the CV ins/outs as audio ins/outs.

Well, yeah. Except that the proposal is that they're not VST modules. Because the VST architecture isnt actually suitable enough for what a true modular synth.

[whyterabbyt]

but the idea of inexpensive modular components is very cool.

you get what you pay for...

if you want a cheap software modular, its going to sound cheap

False. The cost of software is dependent on a lot of things, but the quality of software is utterly independent of its final cost.

[Lotuzia]

Hi guys,
In the real-world we have eurorack modules and API format comps and EQs (correct me if I'm wrong, I try to avoid hardware forums!), ....

Isn't it time for something similar in VST land?

Let's say I want to put together a modular synth that has Largo's wavetable osc's, Cytomic's filters, Diva's Moog envelopes, a couple of MSEG LFOs, a distortion module from Amplitube's stomp collection, and a Valhalla LV246 algo to top it off.

..... Or the dev's may see it as an unwanted format which chips away at their main product sales.
Anyway, what say ye? Open for discussion now...

Even if such a format was dvelopped, like in Reason, this would still not garantee you that all developpers would offer what you call their "modules".

Besides that you can already do it, and add a "filter" on whatever you want, and a reverb as well.

Besides that there are some programming difficulties. Wait, not difficulties, walls.

Besides that there are already modular synthesizers, and a lot of semi modular synthesizers. ( Vaz, Xils3 etc etc )

Beside that there are already programming environments, like Reaktor, or Synthedit. You can code your own modules. Wait, its difficult to connect them ? yes and these are easy dedicated more or less integrated environments, wich gives you a glimpse at what it could be in non integrated ones.

Besides that there are already modular hosts.

And besides that, the fact that NI had to abandon Kore because they lacked the needed programming task force and necessary ROI, even if it was only beased on the first level components compatibility, shows the difficulty of all this.

Besides this, and in the end, a "sytnh" is a whole, and its modules interdependency is indeed a part of this. In a synth, every obscure connection is, or can become, precious. This is what can make a synth "an unique and precious" thing. Management of things like Polyphony, True Stereo, Play Modes, Per Voice modules, LFOs ( Poly or Mono, or else), Aftertouch, Midi, Delay lines topology, feedback conception, is different from a synth to another. Wich results in Making eventual modules connections between different systemes/organisations an eventual total nightmare.

So that, ........... I'm not seeing something like that happening in the future. The modular HW thing is limited to certain modules. Its awsome, but limited. Software has it weaknesses, and strenghts, but the field of possible interactions is as wide as your mind can conceive.

Just make me think that some people are already lost in the sea of possibilities offfered "as it" for music making, while some other people want always more, and its a good thing, provided that ...... they have already explored all the possibilities of what exists ( and indeed theres already a lot to explore )

LtZ

[Kriminal]

but the idea of inexpensive modular components is very cool.

you get what you pay for...

if you want a cheap software modular, its going to sound cheap

False. The cost of software is dependent on a lot of things, but the quality of software is utterly independent of its final cost.

It usually isnt.

[toothnclaw]

but the idea of inexpensive modular components is very cool.

you get what you pay for...

if you want a cheap software modular, its going to sound cheap

False. The cost of software is dependent on a lot of things, but the quality of software is utterly independent of its final cost.

It usually isnt.

Ubuntu, Google Chrome, mu torrent, OpenOffice, Jeskola Buzz, Tyrell N6, etc, etc, etc.

[whyterabbyt]

Even if such a format was dvelopped, like in Reason, this would still not garantee you that all developpers would offer what you call their "modules".

So?

Besides that you can already do it, and add a "filter" on whatever you want, and a reverb as well.

No, you cant quite do what he wants.

Besides that there are some programming difficulties. Wait, not difficulties, walls.

No, not really.

Besides that there are already modular synthesizers, and a lot of semi modular synthesizers. ( Vaz, Xils3 etc etc )

So why do XILS do VA synths, when there already are some?

Beside that there are already programming environments, like Reaktor, or Synthedit. You can code your own modules.

Except he's not looking to code his own modules. He's looking for a way to combine other (presumably best-of-class) modules.

Wait, its difficult to connect them ? yes and these are easy dedicated more or less integrated environments, wich gives you a glimpse at what it could be in non integrated ones.

But its not difficult to connect stuff in, say the G2 modular. Or Reason. Which gives you a different glimpse at what it could be; easy.

Besides that there are already modular hosts.

Which dont do what would be needed.

And besides that, the fact that NI had to abandon Kore because they lacked the needed programming task force and necessary ROI, even if it was only beased on the first level components compatibility, shows the difficulty of all this.

And whats the relevance of that, exactly?

Besides this, and in the end, a "sytnh" is a whole, and its modules interdependency is indeed a part of this. In a synth, every obscure connection is, or can become, precious. This is what can make a synth "an unique and precious" thing. Management of things like Polyphony, True Stereo, Play Modes, Per Voice modules, LFOs ( Poly or Mono, or else), Aftertouch, Midi, Delay lines topology, feedback conception, is different from a synth to another. Wich results in Making eventual modules connections between different systemes/organisations an eventual total nightmare.

There's no justification in your statement for your final conclusion.

So that, ........... I'm not seeing something like that happening in the future.

Not based on completely nonsensical arguments like that. There are far more realistic reasons it'd not happen but 'synth architectures are precious so it'll be a nightmare' isnt one of them.

Developers who make a USP of their own 'precious' designs, which only really vary from their competition in minor ways, are the actual isue here, within this context. It gets harder to sell the Nth flavour of multitap delay plugin when people can construct their own out of some other developer's delay line subcomponent. How can you sell your modulated filter delay thingy, when there's a much better, or even just much more flavour-of-the-month, filter module out there someone can plug into their own delay construct.

The modular HW thing is limited to certain modules. Its awsome, but limited. Software has it weaknesses, and strenghts, but the field of possible interactions is as wide as your mind can conceive.

In what way is it 'limited to certain modules'. Do you actually keep up with the developments in Euro modules these days? I suspect you dont have a cue from that statement. The current 'field of possible' interactions there is vast, and constantly expanding.

Just make me think that some people are already lost in the sea of possibilities offfered "as it" for music making, while some other people want always more, and its a good thing, provided that ...... they have already explored all the possibilities of what exists ( and indeed theres already a lot to explore )

So? How is that a reason to dismiss the notion of it. If there were a modular which allowed me to mix and match my choice of subcomponents from the major synths out there, it'd be 'all' I needed.

You're basically arguing in favour of preserving one of the basic architectural compromises of our plugin standards, ie block processing. There is a lot of potential value in a plugin 'subcomponent' without that limitation; the growth of the Euro modular format and the RE format indicate exactly that there's a market for it.

[whyterabbyt]

but the idea of inexpensive modular components is very cool.

you get what you pay for...

if you want a cheap software modular, its going to sound cheap

False. The cost of software is dependent on a lot of things, but the quality of software is utterly independent of its final cost.

It usually isnt.

Lets see your statistics on that, then.

[Kriminal]

but the idea of inexpensive modular components is very cool.

you get what you pay for...

if you want a cheap software modular, its going to sound cheap

False. The cost of software is dependent on a lot of things, but the quality of software is utterly independent of its final cost.

It usually isnt.

Ubuntu, Google Chrome, mu torrent, OpenOffice, Jeskola Buzz, Tyrell N6, etc, etc, etc.

Whats your point....cheap/free is good?

Dont agree and dont use anything on your list.

[Kriminal]

but the idea of inexpensive modular components is very cool.

you get what you pay for...

if you want a cheap software modular, its going to sound cheap

False. The cost of software is dependent on a lot of things, but the quality of software is utterly independent of its final cost.

It usually isnt.

Lets see your statistics on that, then.

What statistics? Where did i mention statistics?

[Ch00rD]

but the idea of inexpensive modular components is very cool.

you get what you pay for...

if you want a cheap software modular, its going to sound cheap

False. The cost of software is dependent on a lot of things, but the quality of software is utterly independent of its final cost.

It usually isnt.

Ubuntu, Google Chrome, mu torrent, OpenOffice, Jeskola Buzz, Tyrell N6, etc, etc, etc.

Those may have a low (zero) price, but not necessarily a low cost.

[toothnclaw]

Whats your point....cheap/free is good?

Dont agree and dont use anything on your list.

Keep paying, Mr. Kapital, if you think you should...