Bitwig

jbone1313 · Post by **jbone1313** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:03 am

reflex58 wrote:Has input quantize been implemented?

This.

TristanMendoza · Post by **TristanMendoza** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:17 am

Im sure all our questions will be answered soon with maybe a 1.1 video like they did for 1.0? and it'll probably be a public beta soon because I'm sure they wouldn't have let too much word get out if it wasnt ready to be shown to the public yet

TeePee · Post by **TeePee** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:20 am

TeePee wrote:
tor.helge.skei wrote:other: improved sound quality and timing..

u-u-u wrote:
sardaukar wrote:
TeePee wrote:
tor.helge.skei wrote:other: improved sound quality and timing..
yeah, this interests me. In particular the part on timing...
No, also the sound quality ...

Yeah, I suppose I didn't highlight "sound quality" because I haven't got that far yet. Apart from the drums and Polysynth (definitely thumbs up for the latter).

If a DAW doesn't allow me to control timing properly, that DAW doesn't get to do my sound. You can't judge the quality of a sound that doesn't exist.

buhrmi · Post by **buhrmi** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:00 am

Bitwig guys, please be more open about development. I think you could attract a lot more customers if you'd let license holders access early builds (without providing support, of course).

TristanMendoza · Post by **TristanMendoza** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:52 am

buhrmi wrote:Bitwig guys, please be more open about development. I think you could attract a lot more customers if you'd let license holders access early builds (without providing support, of course).

Thats what I was saying a while back, kinda show/ talk about progress and then let licensed users test out the milestones or something like that

TristanMendoza · Post by **TristanMendoza** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:55 am

esn wrote: I'm flattered you'd think so. No hoax, and yes it's beta. But it exists, and so far the stuff we want looks like it's there. The sidechain is a game changer fr me. I'm gonna port some parts and see if it holds up fr a gig on the weekend. Crossfader lurking in here too.

You know one thing I haven't seen on here is questions about stability, how stable is it?

Ogopogo · Post by **Ogopogo** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:00 am

edit. nm

powermat · Post by **powermat** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:45 am

Calm down, fellow primates, for they shall prepare for us a risky beta/RC, the likes, of which, none of us have ever seen ... until we do.

Init Preset · Post by **Init Preset** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:35 am

Will the beta have improved support for Nektar Panoramas? Coming from Cubase the Panorama integration with Bitwig is lacking a bit.

c-wave · Post by **c-wave** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:04 am

Init Preset wrote:Will the beta have improved support for Nektar Panoramas? Coming from Cubase the Panorama integration with Bitwig is lacking a bit.

Tom Helzle says the API in 1.1 is much more expanded. Hope we get from Justin in Nektar to confirm that they would get that Cubase-level integration.

Ybom · Post by **Ybom** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:18 am

thetechnobear wrote:
ThomasHelzle wrote: - No, but you can route a track directly to a VST and select a Midi Channel for it, so you can have 16 Tracks all routed to one instance of for instance Kontakt or Bazille on different Channels.
Not very elegant yet, I know, but it's a first step.
Pretty similar to Ableton then.

What is "Ableton" ?

emef · Post by **emef** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:15 am

reflex58 wrote:Has input quantize been implemented?

i would really like this too, maybe a nice little Q button on the transport so i can quickly decide before recording if i want the notes i'm playing in to be quantized.

TeotiGraphix · Post by **TeotiGraphix** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:58 am

I don't speak for Bitwig but, if any of you are software programmers, you would know that this 1.1 release with multi-outs and all the other things that are implemented is very complicated.

If this was a project I was working on at this release cycle, I would want a private beta, all that means is you have a small test base that can focus on the BIG bugs, instead of chasing around small bugs that only happen on some computers/setups. After the big bugs are killed, you expand to public beta.

Think of it as the release is in Alpha private right now and will be beta when all license holders get to try it.

As far as Bitwig being open about features, they have with 1.1. Again being a software dev, I wouldn't list out "everything" I was adding to the public until it was tested, what if I had to take some of that functionality away before release for various reasons? Do you think then I would want to spend valuable time explaining "why" I did?

Anyway, Bitiwg is actually MORE open that a lot of companies I have worked with developing software. I think we could be thankful for that and that they are smaller right now, they do listen to their customers, but be realistic about how much time they actually have.

Mike

Ybom · Post by **Ybom** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:15 am

Yes Mike.

Moreover, they can change things & plan previously announced, it should not be a problem.

I can witness, as part of the "Public", that we always had a lot of feedback (info) from BW about what's going on at the headquarter.

For instance, track groups are not for 1.1, not a problem, aknowledged.

dom@bitwig · Post by **dom@bitwig** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:12 pm

TeotiGraphix wrote:I don't speak for Bitwig but, if any of you are software programmers, you would know that this 1.1 release with multi-outs and all the other things that are implemented is very complicated.

If this was a project I was working on at this release cycle, I would want a private beta, all that means is you have a small test base that can focus on the BIG bugs, instead of chasing around small bugs that only happen on some computers/setups. After the big bugs are killed, you expand to public beta.

Think of it as the release is in Alpha private right now and will be beta when all license holders get to try it.

As far as Bitwig being open about features, they have with 1.1. Again being a software dev, I wouldn't list out "everything" I was adding to the public until it was tested, what if I had to take some of that functionality away before release for various reasons? Do you think then I would want to spend valuable time explaining "why" I did?

Anyway, Bitiwg is actually MORE open that a lot of companies I have worked with developing software. I think we could be thankful for that and that they are smaller right now, they do listen to their customers, but be realistic about how much time they actually have.

Mike

+1!
That's pretty spot on!

Bitwig

KVR Audio

Bitwig Studio 1.1 life