Time for a virtual modular standard...?

[xalama qo]

I'd much rather you contribute something meaningful to these discussions instead of coming off looking like an obnoxious d*ck just for the sake of it.

But he's fully entitled to act in such manner. In expression of his true self. And I'm fully entitled, but not going to, defend to the death his right to act like one.

You're right, he can act how he likes. It's a pity it's not more constructive.

[trimph1]

I'd actually like to see a standalone version if at all possible...

+11...you'd probably need to have a dedicated comp to run it on initially!

Then all you'd need is something like Bidule to route it to!!

[xalama qo]

That would be the Dunning-Kruger talking.

I had to Google that...worth it! LOL!

[xalama qo]

I'd actually like to see a standalone version if at all possible...

+11...you'd probably need to have a dedicated comp to run it on initially!

Then all you'd need is something like Bidule to route it to!!

Woohoo! Are we there yet?

[risome]

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?

Well it happened with hardware synths by 3rd party developer , why cant it happen with the modular ones?

I never said it cant happen, I said its unlikely that the people who make modules are going to start making plugin versions of their modules. If all along you actually meant 3rd party developers making plugin versions of other companies hardware modules, that's a different case from how it reads. And I can imagine that licensing would be an issue if they're unassociated with the original hardware module developer, as it does with software.

So again, it makes me wonder which part of 'the euro/frac community' you're talking about? Im kind of suggesting that the overlap of people (modular owners/audio software developers) who could do it is microscopic, and the number who would is smaller still.

There are tens of millions more guitar owners in the world than modular synth owners, and yet remarkably few modelled guitars. Why not ask why the guitar community doesnt build more plugins?

I guess there to busy building guitars and yes thats what i meant , software builders making plugins which model modular synth modules and im talking about all the modular builders being open to license there circuits for software modelling .Im puzzled as to how guitars got in there but hey there are plenty of modelled pianos and other acoustic instruments are there not ?
cheers

[Compyfox]

That was my thought long ago. Something like VazModular but open for developers to make there own modules and sell them.

Sorry if this was mentioned already - but isn't this what the TeamDNR Design Desk is actually aiming at?

Propellerheads also has their "RE" modules. And let's not forget SynthEdit / SynthMaker (now Flowstone).

[whyterabbyt]

That was my thought long ago. Something like VazModular but open for developers to make there own modules and sell them.

Sorry if this was mentioned already - but isn't this what the TeamDNR Design Desk is actually aiming at?

No, not at all.

And let's not forget SynthEdit / SynthMaker (now Flowstone).

Neither have an environment where you can actually build interactively in the running plugin. In both cases your useage cycle requires building a new plugin, then inserting that plugin within your DAW.

[xalama qo]

That was my thought long ago. Something like VazModular but open for developers to make there own modules and sell them.

Sorry if this was mentioned already - but isn't this what the TeamDNR Design Desk is actually aiming at?

Propellerheads also has their "RE" modules. And let's not forget SynthEdit / SynthMaker (now Flowstone).

There is a lot of overlap with the RE system. I haven't looked into the TeamDNR Design Desk at all, so it's possible there's overlap there too. But the main distinction is a blank-slate shell which can be populated with components from various developers. I think Synapse Audio made a Moog filter RE, and some other RE modules which were 'traditional' modular components in concept.

The best parallel example I can offer is the Soniccore ModularIV, which isn't blank-slate, as it is a fully fledged modular synth in itself, but 3rd party developers, most notably Adern, developed modules which greatly expanded its sonic footprint/palette.

This post is discussing the possibility of a similar system which doesn't depend on DSP cards, is able to mix and match components from various 3rd party devs, and be used as standalone, VSTi or VST effect, and most probably requiring a standardized format for control messages/mod matrix/etc etc.

In some ways it's a similar idea to the SFZ format. A sample library complies with the SFZ format and then can be played using any SFZ compatible engine, eg: sforzando, cakewalk sfz, etc. as a VST instrument with predictable protocol behaviours.

There could be various shell devs who provide XYZ features to enhance the basic functionality of the module format. It's the host-and-plugin paradigm catering to a modular sound design market, rather than the usual DAW market, but compatible with the existing VST standard as a plugin itself.

Reason will never become a VSTi in all likelihood.

[xalama qo]

I'm actually surprised no-one's mentioned MUX yet.

[jonahs]

Talking about software only, better audio routing is already accomplished by using buses in a DAW. MIDI processing plugins do similar sometimes better sometimes worse things. All the hosts will let you stretch and scale and effect MIDI in various ways.

A DAW should be as modular as a studio and for the most part it is.

If you want modular style oscs, draw a long note and use a plugin to trigger volume automation reduction. (or to lower the actual volume) Sure all synths should have audio input, but we're already spoiled for choice.

If you've used a hardware modular you'd know it's not a fast process, so the occasional bounce is nothing.

There's also a lot of modular methods that don't translate to a purely software system. Feedback is a tricky one. CV - DC bias sounds bad most of the time! So you're limited to using in-accuarate audio amplitude and pitch to MIDI and maybe manually inverting your automation, but that's the trade off for buying into a quantized system like MIDI in the first place. For the most part the trade off is worth it...

Make the current system so it can't crash and you'd have something closer to a hardware modular. I treat my software the same as my hardware and that's the number one difference in terms of results.

The other thing that often seems to be missing is audio rate modulations.

I'd rate Kyma as the software that most keeps with the modular spirit and updates it to the computer age in the way anything can be used to interact with anything else. Also, it can generate OSC - reaktor can read OSC - super collider likes OSC too. Don't upgrade your computer or get new software for a few years and get a used kyma box?

If you care about treating sounds in a modular fashion, I recommend using some of the fantastic tools already available and forget about the DAW-plugin paradigm.

[whyterabbyt]

Talking about software only, better audio routing is already accomplished by using buses in a DAW.

Buses wont let you extract the individual monophonic notes from a synths stereo output for proper polyphonic processing.

[lfm]

Talk to these guys maybe:
http://karmafx.net/

If it's not doable already with your own fx in there.

The base is really, really good - modules just like good old modular hardware synths were in the 70's.

[jeffh]

Talking about software only, better audio routing is already accomplished by using buses in a DAW.

Buses wont let you extract the individual monophonic notes from a synths stereo output for proper polyphonic processing.

I would have to disagree that there's much point in doing so. There is no shortage of modular systems already, and only a small percentage of artists are power users of those systems, and it's not as if they're using it to produce sounds/music that are both good, and couldn't possibly be produced any other way.

I would best describe the mentality (which I was previously a part of) as:
"If only I were able to directly insert 100 instances of [popular distortion plugin] directly after [popular synth's oscillators] all with independent envelopes and LFOs, I would be able to (after 12 hours of creating the patch) create a saw wave more distorted than even Skrillex's!". But the reality is that if you can't match artist-X with the same tools artist-X uses, it's unlikely that building a slightly better mousetrap that gives you more control is going to suddenly put you over the top.

Top artists and sound designers are pretty much achieving everything that could possibly be done (and is worth doing) with today's tools, which must also mean by extension that the plugin/DAW developers didn't do too badly when designing today's plugin standards. Ask any top artist if they feel their music is limited by their DAW and plugins not being "modular" enough, the answer is likely to be "no".

[xalama qo]

Ask any top artist if they feel their music is limited by their DAW and plugins not being "modular" enough, the answer is likely to be "no".

I get where you're coming from, but many of those top artists also have hardware modular systems (deadmau5 et al), so they must feel there's some benefit to having a 'real' modular system. Whether that benefit is real or imagined can only be summed up subjectively (or possibly proven objectively) by the person who owns it and their specific creative needs and workflow. That may even boil down to the tactile-touch aspect of hardware and the interaction with it, regardless of sonics, and who's to say that's an invalid creativity-inducing criteria?

In my original post I stated clearly in the title that the topic concerns a modular plugin format/standard/protocol, and also that it would be aimed squarely at tweakheads, not 'real' musos.(tongue in cheek)

Software emulations are affordable solutions to those of us who either can't afford the original hardware, or the maintenance thereof, or those who can afford vintage Moogs but think that using the hardware is too much hassle given the alternative ITB solutions.
There are far more people in the world who make sounds for fun than those who do so for a living. There are far more people in the world that make music for fun than those who do so for a living. Remember when iPad/iPhone music apps were regarded as toys? Then that dude from the Gorillaz made a whole album on an iPad.

All I'm suggesting is that there's a potentially untapped consumer market, and the current coding techniques and hardware power is ripe for looking into that potential market as a possibility.

I'm not saying it's a gaping oversight, or even a necessity, but from a purely consumerist society point of view, I think the market exists. IMO. If it does exist, a standardized format would help to get it off the ground.

[jeffh]

I get where you're coming from, but many of those top artists also have hardware modular systems (deadmau5 et al),

I think "many" is a bit of a stretch... For quite a few years now people using any hardware at all with their software is more the exception than the norm, and the plummeting hardware prices reflect that... Also, those hardware modular systems have less "modularity" than even something like Massive or Absynth, I would not describe the sonic possibilities as limitless even if you're a millionaire and can buy every module on eBay.

In my original post I stated clearly in the title that the topic concerns a modular plugin format/standard/protocol, and also that it would be aimed squarely at tweakheads, not 'real' musos.(tongue in cheek)

So, this group you describe would be like < 1% of the market? What's worse is that the aforementioned < 1% of the market has no chance of ever becoming famous because they never finish any tunes and prefer to turn knobs all day long

The only logical conclusion for people in that < 1% (like me) is to learn C and/or C++ and start implementing their ideas in real software. Once you learn real programming, you start to realize just how bad modular systems like Reaktor really are, it's just not possible to create a 100% graphical representation of DSP that doesn't limit the things you can do easily and efficiently. With real code you can truly route anything to anywhere at any time without constraints.