Roland now into VSTi development, beginning with SH-101

[fmr]

Had a look at Music Store here in germany. Price for System-1 should be 599 € (incl. VAT):
http://www.musicstore.de/de_DE/EUR/Rola ... 004461-000
Ingo

Hooray. If this was the right price contest, I would be a winner I said 600 euros including VAT

no you wouldnt be a winner, sorry its closest without going over.

heres what you could have won

[sexy assistant wheels out washing machine]

That's not fair

[fmr]

Also do we know what is powering these yet? Would it have the grunt to run something like Diva?

It's own synth engine is just 4-voice, so, I think that answers your question

it's own synth engine is 'just' running circuit modelling code at 32bit, 96hz ... and no limitations on patch complexity, so consider long release times with plenty of modulation... pads and the like.

circuit modelling code at 32bit, 96hz? WOW

You know nothing about modern VSTi instruments, do you? Or digital audio, for that matter.

And you even know nothing about "patch complexity", apparently?

[Numanoid]

TB-3 is 299 €, expexted delivery next month:
http://www.musicstore.de/de_DE/EUR/Rola ... 004463-000

That design is challenging...

I wonder if it could be the same person who designed Tyrell V2 skin ?

[VitaminD]

Had a look at Music Store here in germany. Price for System-1 should be 599 € (incl. VAT):
http://www.musicstore.de/de_DE/EUR/Rola ... 004461-000
Ingo

Hooray. If this was the right price contest, I would be a winner I said 600 euros including VAT

no you wouldnt be a winner, sorry its closest without going over.

heres what you could have won

[sexy assistant wheels out washing machine]

That's not fair

Nonsense. He can still sample the washing machine and make techno... just add a kick drum and voila.

[ChiTown24]

VST is a commn denominator. I hope you are right, but I don't take Roland Reps very seriously, since usually they know little about what they are talking about (just what their marketing department told them).

as far as 'VST is a common denominator'... what are you blithering on about ? 'VST' isn't as broad as you are suggesting. In fact it isn't broad at all. Maybe you use the term in a broad sense, but that doesn't make it so. "Virtual Studio Technology (VST) is a software interface that integrates software audio synthesizer and effect plugins with audio editors and hard-disk recording systems."

VST is a format developed by Steinberg. Currently, we are changing paradigms, and the question that arises is for how long can the VST format subsist. Steinberg no longer supports it, and no longer releases the SDK. What they support and promote is VST3, which is a diferent thing (since you are not involved in this, you don't know, of course). Besides, there is the paradigm shift from 32-bit to 64-bit. In a couple of years, all hosts will be just 64-bit, and using 32-bit plug-ins will be an headache. And there is the problem of supporting Mac OS X platform, where there is no major host that uses VST as it's primary format anymore. Cubase is already commited to VST3, and VST is supported in a kind of "compatible" platform (still well supported though), Logic Pro is AU only, and Digital Performer was AU only for several version and only now reintroduced support for VST as an option, mainly because of the launching of a Windows version.

Did you catch it now?

well done, you've strung together some disparate facts in the hope that put together they will amount to some kind of cogent and relevant point. you have failed miserably. Great, Steinberg developed VST. They are pushing the VST3 SDK. thank you for pointing these things out, that does not change the landscape of what's being discussed here: if, by virtue of the fact the system-1 may very well serve as dsp or a glorified dongle, it's fair for them to call their upcoming VSTs VSTs. Should we deny, for example, that Xils-lab synths are vsts ? ... do you show up in a U-HE thread to say "hey, VST is a format developed by Steinberg. Currently, we are changing paradigms' ...blah blah blah '32 bit to 64 bit' ...blah blah blah ...' in a couple of years, all hosts will be just 64-bit'.... blah blah blah... 'supporting Mac OSX'... yawn. If this means that the Roland VSTs, tied in with system-1 or not, are not VSTs it means the same for every other VST on the market too. So congratulations for exposing yourself as a bullshitter.

What the VST benefits is depending on the specific VST - and for what I already read, these will be limited VSTs, at most.

Please elaborate.

OK, here it is. When we are using "real" VSTs (like software only), the only limitation we have is the CPU capacity. Every time we upgrade our computer, we gain more CPU power, and are able to run more instances. Typically (you can check for the demos created for promoting the VST instruments) we create tracks with 8, 10 and more instances of the same VST.
With hardware based VSTs we are entirely dependant on the capacity of the DSP platform in use (which are way below the capacity of modern CPUs). The System-1, for example, is only able to run 4 voices of it's own synth engine, which means that, using the "plug-outs" (I will not call them VSTs for the moment), we would be able to run, at most, 4 instances of the SH-101 "plug-out", but I suspect we will be able to run just a single instance (if it will be polyphonic even is something that remains to be seen).

So, there is no advantage of this running as a VST except for the fact we have a control panel in our DAW and have total recall (hopefully - let's see if things will work, since until now we just saw "announcements" and nothing is working yet). That is something we already had in things like the Virus TI, for example, years ago, and with a much more powerful synth engine. And I saw noone posting here crying "hey, Access is doing VSTs", because it would be ridiculous.

BTW - Roland didn't even create a "VST" for the System-1 itself - why?

thanks for explaining how computers work. as with your previous statement, stating some obvious facts and chucking them together does not make a cogent point or reply. What your mess of words boils down to is: if the system-1 is DSP for the Roland VSTs {which is a likely scenario, conceded from the beginning}... they are not 'real' VSTs. That's horseshit. Granted there is a caveat to contend with, but they are unequivocally VSTs whether you like to admit it or not. Oodles of VST plugins come with some form of caveat or another, from platform dependancy to host incompatibilities to dongles - VSTs one and all. I suppose the Madronalabs VSTs aren't 'real' VSTs either because they have a 4 voice limitation, regardless of your CPU capabilities ? The ability to load multiple instances not withstanding - you can't build a singular patch without doing so within a voice limitation. If you want to argue that a dsp powered VST isn't a VST, or a 'real' VST or an 'actual' VST... off with you. You won't be the first person acting like a pedant on the internet, but usually pedants are at least technically correct. The same can not be said of you. If these plugins load in VST hosts {albeit with a system-1 providing the power, and/or at the very least serving as a dongle} then a VST is exactly what they are. You don't win any medals for pointing out the obvious... that it would be nice if the VST wasn't tied in to the system-1 hardware, or in the worst case scenario, limited by the power of the DSP in comparison to the host's available CPU. derp derp.

Also do we know what is powering these yet? Would it have the grunt to run something like Diva?

It's own synth engine is just 4-voice, so, I think that answers your question

it's own synth engine is 'just' running circuit modelling code at 32bit, 96hz ... and no limitations on patch complexity, so consider long release times with plenty of modulation... pads and the like.

circuit modelling code at 32bit, 96hz? WOW

You know nothing about modern VSTi instruments, do you? Or digital audio, for that matter.

And you even know nothing about "patch complexity", apparently?

I know nothing ? If you say so. Unlike you, I certainly don't try to pretend to know more than I do. Your answer to aMUSEd was ill-conceived nonsense, you somehow feel comfortable to speculate that there isn't enough grunt power in the system-1 to run Diva, because of it's 4 voice limitation... with patently no concern for the bit depth or sample rate it's running at, or the complexity of the code it is running {and implying I'm a fool for thinking that their circuit modelling is an intensive process ? cute. though, of course, backed up with no elaboration as to why that's foolish of me} - or even stipulations like, for the sake of comparison, what bit depth & sample rate a typical Diva user - aMUSEd in this case - might have in mind when thinking about what kind of 'grunt' is under the system-1 hood. if you feel comfortable offering such spurious ill-informed answers, more power to you, the internet is awash with misinformation.... and if you know something that hasn't been explicitly stated, please deign to elaborate. otherwise you're just pulling more disparate bits & pieces out of your poop-chute in the vain hope to look more knowledgeable about the system-1's technical capabilities than you actually are.

oh, and as far as 'guessing' the price goes. Congrats. you managed to guess what all the blogs & production publications have themselves been stating from the launch. Enjoy your prize - well earned

[fmr]

well done, you've strung together some disparate facts in the hope that put together they will amount to some kind of cogent and relevant point. you have failed miserably. Great, Steinberg developed VST. They are pushing the VST3 SDK. thank you for pointing these things out, that does not change the landscape of what's being discussed here: if, by virtue of the fact the system-1 may very well serve as dsp or a glorified dongle, it's fair for them to call their upcoming VSTs VSTs. Should we deny, for example, that Xils-lab synths are vsts ? ... do you show up in a U-HE thread to say "hey, VST is a format developed by Steinberg. Currently, we are changing paradigms' ...blah blah blah '32 bit to 64 bit' ...blah blah blah ...' in a couple of years, all hosts will be just 64-bit'.... blah blah blah... 'supporting Mac OSX'... yawn. If this means that the Roland VSTs, tied in with system-1 or not, are not VSTs it means the same for every other VST on the market too. So congratulations for exposing yourself as a bullshitter.

This is the last time I am answering you, since you are acting like a complete moron, and not wanting to discuss the matters (seems like you are taking things personally, and reacting childishly). It was you who jumped shouting about "Roland now into VSTi development", when there is just an announcement for one "plug-out" and we even know nothing about it yet, besides that it will be an emulation of the SH-101.

Here are the specs of DIVA:
On Mac: VST2, VST3 or AU compatible host software
On PC: VST2 or VST3 compatible host software
supports 32bit and 64bit in all formats
NEW: AAX support for Pro Tools 10 & 11

Here for Xils-Lab Synthix:
The Synthix is available with the following formats :
Mac OSX 10.3.9 and later: VST, Audio Unit, RTAS (Protools 7.0 and later),AAX (32&64 bits, native)
Windows XP, Vista and 7: VST, RTAS (Protools 7.0 and later),AAX (32&64 bits, native)
the Synthix is a 32 and 64 bits plug-in.

I think this says everything. I'm not even bothering answering the rest of your post. It pretty much speaks for itself, and I don't like to talk in these terms, specially with blind fanboys. If you put things in a more polite and conversational way, I will gladly expose my POV (which may or not be wrong, since we are all basically speculating).

[ChiTown24]

well done, you've strung together some disparate facts in the hope that put together they will amount to some kind of cogent and relevant point. you have failed miserably. Great, Steinberg developed VST. They are pushing the VST3 SDK. thank you for pointing these things out, that does not change the landscape of what's being discussed here: if, by virtue of the fact the system-1 may very well serve as dsp or a glorified dongle, it's fair for them to call their upcoming VSTs VSTs. Should we deny, for example, that Xils-lab synths are vsts ? ... do you show up in a U-HE thread to say "hey, VST is a format developed by Steinberg. Currently, we are changing paradigms' ...blah blah blah '32 bit to 64 bit' ...blah blah blah ...' in a couple of years, all hosts will be just 64-bit'.... blah blah blah... 'supporting Mac OSX'... yawn. If this means that the Roland VSTs, tied in with system-1 or not, are not VSTs it means the same for every other VST on the market too. So congratulations for exposing yourself as a bullshitter.

This is the last time I am answering you

except that you're not really answering me at all.

, since you are acting like a complete moron,

pot, kettle...

and not wanting to discuss the matters (seems like you are taking things personally, and reacting childishly).

au contraire, I'm happy to 'discuss' the matters. essentially you've made some fallacious, overwrought posts stating that a VST is not a VST, or a 'real' VST, or an 'actual' VST, if it is DSP powered. that's quite simply: horseshit.

the latest post is to call me an idiot for taking issue with your presumptuous, totally ill-informed answer to aMUSEd about the 'grunt' power of the system-1. You are incapable to elaborate on why I'm an idiot for doing so - and in the manner in which I did. Incapable. NOT unwilling. You are a bluffer.

It was you who jumped shouting about "Roland now into VSTi development", when there is just an announcement for one "plug-out" and we even know nothing about it yet, besides that it will be an emulation of the SH-101.

it's called a "plug-out" when it is loaded onto the system-1. it's called a 'VST' when it is running in your VST daw of choice. Really, not that hard to follow. Of course, you think the official Roland representative is full of shit, or somehow not as 'understanding' of the term VST as you are. Or that he's using it in some 'common denominator' sense {lol, whatever the hell that is supposed to actually mean - presumably VST is just some generic term for 'software what does noises' that mere mortals, unlike yourself, misuse} Talk about a gargantuan sense of, from what I can see, totally unjustified self importance.

Of course, the system-1's attributes are almost insignificant at this stage, you're making the argument that Roland VSTs will not be VSTs - 'real' VSTs {lol}, 'actual' VSTs {lol}, despite being VSTs, if they are DSP powered.

Here are the specs of DIVA:
On Mac: VST2, VST3 or AU compatible host software
On PC: VST2 or VST3 compatible host software
supports 32bit and 64bit in all formats
NEW: AAX support for Pro Tools 10 & 11

Here for Xils-Lab Synthix:
The Synthix is available with the following formats :
Mac OSX 10.3.9 and later : VST, Audio Unit, RTAS (Protools 7.0 and later),AAX (32&64 bits, native)
Windows XP, Vista and 7 ; VST, RTAS (Protools 7.0 and later),AAX (32&64 bits, native)
the Synthix is a 32 and 64 bits plug-in.

I think this says everything.

it says...uh.... nothing ? or maybe something, something obvious ? not sure how it's supposed to mean a dsp powered VST - presuming that's what Roland VSTs will be - isn't 'actually' a VST, or how it's supposed to prop up any of the completely fallacious arguments you have made to that ends.

I'm not even bothering answering the rest of your post. It pretty much speaks for itself, and I don't like to talk in these terms, specially with blind fanboys.

You didn't even bother to answer any of the post to begin with. You don't answer anything. You just vomit words up on the screen, in the hope that if you vomit enough of them, something will land, and somehow dsp powered VSTs won't actually be VSTs at all. Or that your ill-informed, spurious statements on the 'grunt' power of the system-1 will somehow ring true if you suggest the person who scrutinizes those statements is a moron. Bluffer.

[Numanoid]

I wonder about something...



























Was the V-Synth, Rolands first "plugout" synth, in the sense that it with the D-50 card, you got more or less a D-50 at your fingertips?

http://www.roland.com/V-Synth/

[Kriminal]

I havent read anywhere that the 'plugouts' will run inside a host as a vst instrument...anyone got a link?

[fmr]

I wonder about something...
Was the V-Synth, Rolands first "plugout" synth, in the sense that it with the D-50 card, you got more or less a D-50 at your fingertips?

http://www.roland.com/V-Synth/

Actually, it was supposed to be the VariOS (2003): http://www.roland.com/products/en/VariOS/
Unfortunately, it didn't live up to the purpose
Quoting: "- Future-ready with Open System Architecture, supporting V-Producer, various vintage synthesizer emulations, and whatever the future holds"
Yeah... right

[fmr]

I havent read anywhere that the 'plugouts' will run inside a host as a vst instrument...anyone got a link?

Maybe ChiTown24 does

[ChiTown24]

Of course I do fmr. and you do too. You're the one who thinks the official Roland Representative doesn't know how to properly use the term VST. You can't help but be disingenuous, unless you are now going to claim you haven't watched the video in the original post ?

I havent read anywhere that the 'plugouts' will run inside a host as a vst instrument...anyone got a link?

check out the video posted in the original post. Official Roland Representative pointedly refers to the VST capability several times, and illustrates that the novelty is in the fact these VSTs can be loaded into the hardware as 'plug-outs' to be used independently of the computer.

[PAK]

If these plugins load in VST hosts then a VST is exactly what they are.

Then it's also fair to call the Access Virus TI, or even the Moog Sub Phatty, a VST. Indeed, let's just take any old hardware, which offers a VST front end, and call them a VST? If that is your definition then lots of things, people don't regard as VST's, qualify.

The standard way to refer to a VST DSP front-end is "DAW integration with hosts supporting xyz plugins". Hardware companies don't normally refer to the actual product as a "VST" precisely because they know it has the potential to confuse and mislead customers, particularly younger and less computer literate ones.

Running on a $30 DSP (given the price point, the DSP is unlikely to cost a whole lot more) brings many more negatives beyond just the usual dongle annoyances. It's not merely that the polyphony nor modeling detail will be curtailed due to limited resources. It has the potential to bring many more hardware, driver, and latency annoyances which are not uncommon to such products.

So, sure, you can call it a VST if you want. But hopefully, if it is DSP-tied, Roland will have the common sense not to do likewise.

[Numanoid]

"- Future-ready with Open System Architecture, supporting V-Producer, various vintage synthesizer emulations, and whatever the future holds"
Yeah... right

Well, at least the V-Synth has served as a design standard for Tube-Ohm's GUI's

[ChiTown24]

If these plugins load in VST hosts then a VST is exactly what they are.

Then it's also fair to call the Access Virus TI, or even the Moog Sub Phatty, a VST. Indeed, let's just take any old hardware, which offers a VST front end, and call them a VST? If that is your definition then lots of things, people don't regard as VST's, qualify.

The standard way to refer to a VST DSP front-end is "DAW integration with hosts supporting xyz plugins". Hardware companies don't normally refer to the actual product as a "VST" precisely because they know it has the potential to confuse and mislead customers, particularly younger and less computer literate ones.

Running on a $30 DSP (given the price point, the DSP is unlikely to cost a whole lot more) brings many more negatives beyond just the usual dongle annoyances. It's not merely that the polyphony nor modeling detail will be curtailed due to limited resources. It has the potential to bring many more hardware, driver, and latency annoyances which are not uncommon to such products.

So, sure, you can call it a VST if you want. But hopefully, if it is DSP-tied, Roland will have the common sense not to do likewise.

Right. except it's not me who decided to suggest [a] that Roland will be offering a front end to integrate into your DAW, and that I think that's enough to call it a VST.

Rather, Roland themselves have pointedly referred to them as VSTs. From there, two potential, even likely, though still speculative caveats have emerged. 1; that the system-1 keyboard will be needed to serve as a glorified dongle. 2; that it will serve as dsp. In either case, academic though it may be until we're all actually using Roland's SH-101 in our DAWs, I stand by the fact that a VST is a VST regardless of if it's dsp powered, or tied to a dongle {glorified though it may be}. The argument has evolved independent of what the actual facts will turn out to be - with some tangental nonsense added for good measure.

Disregarding the above...I wouldn't be so foolish as to argue that a simple midi/audio pipe is a VST, or likewise some kind of flashy GUI for patch dumping or tying patches to projects. But I will also place a modicum of faith in the Roland Rep, who so repeatedly and pointedly referred to these emulations as 'VSTs', that he knows how to correctly use the term.