Opcode Studio Vision

[d191f]

Great, another REAPER thread.

[ksandvik]

For example, you could record the final format of the song (chorus, verse, Bridge et rest) by assigning keys to various sub-formats, play back the track and record with the keys what comes next. I don't know if I've seen that in any modern DAWs. Kind of improvising out the final song.

It is like triggering scenes in Maschine, Bitwig or Live.

Yes but the scenes where whole blocks of music rather than clips.

[zvenx]

I tried to look at the video. my god he sure takes long to make his point...I didn't see stuff like what I mean re: segments, but I am going to trust ED that they are indeed the same.....
rsp

[ontrackp]

Part of the magic of Studio Vision was that it was kind of a miracle to have a full featured, powerful, easy to use, and stable environment for midi and digital audio. At the time there had been any number of interesting, but ultimately unreliable, sequencers (anyone remember MidiPaint and the Jambox?) and syncing to audio on tape with SMPTE time code for combining audio and midi was clunky (but worked). Pro Tools was barely starting (I had DECK which was the predecessor to PT -- digi bought their underlying technology for PT). Vision was a great sequencer and adding the digital audio was nothing short of fantastic.

Today, the baseline is full featured DAW's that do way more than Studio Vision could do. There are no new "miracle" technologies, which is kind of a shame. Living thru the miracles was fun.

[Scotty]

Not exactly on point but Metro had (still has) some interesting algorithmic tools for doing pattern based music. I used it along with Deck. I was amazed at how solid Deck and Metro were in terms of stability. They made a powerful combination in the day. Interesting point, ontrackp, I didn't know that Deck was taken up by digi for Pro Tools.

[deastman]

There is nothing Studio Vision did which isn't now replicated elsewhere, but it was great for it's time. Arranging a song was like performing clips in Ableton and then editing that in the arrange view. There was also the ability to trigger transposed versions of a sequence polyphonically from a keyboard. I guess Squareheads Nora is the closest modern equivalent.

[zvenx]

There is nothing Studio Vision did which isn't now replicated elsewhere, but it was great for it's time. Arranging a song was like performing clips in Ableton and then editing that in the arrange view. There was also the ability to trigger transposed versions of a sequence polyphonically from a keyboard. I guess Squareheads Nora is the closest modern equivalent.

Damn I forgot that option, came in very handy when trying out the right key for a singer.

rsp

[machinesworking]

That is definitely THE answer for certain part of userbase. Some people will never be satisfied even if there's a workaroundish way to achieve the feature that's wanted.

Once a script is written (by whoever is willing/has the know-how), implementing it to your workflow takes mere seconds. Not much of a problem if you ask me. Of course, native solutions are better, yes - but that doesn't discount the viability of scripted solutions.

The point is if you're talking about why a product was better, scripts, code etc. is not a valid comparing tool.
Because you can implement it doesn't make it comparable. I would say if it takes you an extra step or two even, it's not comparable. SVP had wait for MIDI built in, Reaper does not.

Workarounds are great, I use third party SysEx editors to store patches to hardware synths when working in Live, in DP I do not have to do that, the SysEx patch is recorded in the Sequence. You have to create dummy tracks for sidechaining in certain VSTs when working in Live, in DP sidechaining is built in to the bus and recognized with no extra track. You sort of have 'scenes' in DP with Chunks, but in no way is it the same as what Live and Maschine do scene wise. They are not comparable, workarounds are never a valid reason to compare two DAWs, except maybe to say you don't miss the feature built in to your DAW because X feature can be implemented with a workaround. Bitwig has better LFO implementation purely by the fact it's in house code and not built in Max.

Specifically it's a weak excuse for stating things like this:

Not much, really. Modern DAWs pretty much surpassed Opcode years ago.

You buried yourself right there, scripting, code etc. is no valid reason to think any DAW is better, unless you're working in Pure Data.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[EvilDragon]

But in reality it is a crap daw that people are only so passionate about because of the price.

And this is where you're horribly wrong. Price is definitely one factor, I am not discounting that, but there are other things about it that appeal to a whole lot of people. You might be oblivious to it, though.

[dsan@mail.com]

Great, another REAPER thread.

of course, typical lol. But you and i know the truth. if it was a $400 daw for *everyone*, priced ie like 90% of daw's on the market, then it would be but dust in the wind. It's because 99% of the world pays $60 for it and many even pay nothing and break the eula, because the dev is so generous with lack of demo restrictions. But in reality it is a crap daw that people are only so passionate about because of the price.

I don't use Reaper myself, but would hardly call it a "crap DAW". I, like many can't get along with the DAW because of the steep learning curve. Too many features is its strength and weakness.

And this thread wasn't about Reaper, until now.

Reaper was included, and rightfully so, as a DAW that has implemented those features often overlooked by other DAW dev's.

Several have made comments about having learned something about Reaper they didn't know.

I thinnk people use Reaper because it happens to work for them. Price may very well be a contributing factor, but TBH, it is a vialble offering if one wants to take the time to learn it.

Making statements that something is "crap" is what gets these threads going the way they go. If you can't get along with something, so be it. But for another it may very well be the cats meow.

[fmr]

Not exactly on point but Metro had (still has) some interesting algorithmic tools for doing pattern based music. I used it along with Deck. I was amazed at how solid Deck and Metro were in terms of stability. They made a powerful combination in the day. Interesting point, ontrack, I didn't know that Deck was taken up by digi for Pro Tools.

Yes, the first Pro Tools was composed of two twin applications: Pro Deck (which was based on Deck technology licensed from OSC) and Pro Edit, based on Sound Designer II, which was the software behind Sound Tools. Only in Pro Tools III did the two applications merged into a single one, AFAIR.

Metro, at the time, was published by OSC too, and Jeremy Sagan was working closely with Mats Myrberg and Josh Rosen to get the two applications running concurrently.

[fmr]

There is nothing Studio Vision did which isn't now replicated elsewhere, but it was great for it's time. Arranging a song was like performing clips in Ableton and then editing that in the arrange view. There was also the ability to trigger transposed versions of a sequence polyphonically from a keyboard. I guess Squareheads Nora is the closest modern equivalent.

You Forget that you could have complete sequences running nested inside other sequences. This way, you can have, for exemple, a sequence, written in 3/8 running inside anotjher sequence that has a base tempo, and tracks, in 4/4. It plays inside the 4/4 but stil in 3/8.

[fmr]

Reaper was included, and rightfully so, as a DAW that has implemented those features often overlooked by other DAW dev's.

Several have made comments about having learned something about Reaper they didn't know.

I thinnk people use Reaper because it happens to work for them. Price may very well be a contributing factor, but TBH, it is a vialble offering if one wants to take the time to learn it.

I'd add to that the fact the Reaper is, from my exprience the DAW that squezes more power fr0om thew computer. I usually can have more plug-ins open and running in it than in any other DAW I know/have worked.

[ls1xxx]

There is nothing Studio Vision did which isn't now replicated elsewhere, but it was great for it's time. Arranging a song was like performing clips in Ableton and then editing that in the arrange view. There was also the ability to trigger transposed versions of a sequence polyphonically from a keyboard. I guess Squareheads Nora is the closest modern equivalent.

I would like to know more about this.