Arturia - WHile I did like their Origin box, and am impressed by the keyboard version, and their *brute units, I'm not sure that they are the best ones to push the Receptor ecsoystem, although if they did take it on I wouldn't be upset.
Behringer - it would be a good investment for them to give them a bit more cred, for a while they were always the poor mans version of stuff. They do have the resources to take this on.
Native Instruments - this just makes sense. With their latest foray into Komplete Kontrol for keyboard integration it would almost be a match made in Synth heaven.. but would it be at the expense of other instrument providers (Spectrasonics, AAS, Gforce etc)?
Peavey - They do have a relationship already with the Musebox, unsure how that will now pan out.
Roland/Korg/Yamaha - I don't think they have this kind of tech on their radars, and it may compete directly with some of their other products.
Alesis - possibly an angle for them, they've made some awesome synths in the past (Andromeda A6, drool) and their new range of controllers aren't too far removed from the NI keyboards with a vst focus.
Another new player? Muse are still offering their software, they just need a suitable hardware host to run it on - it is a quite distinct possibility for something to be formed for this, but then logistics, distribution etc. I'd love to tinker with some ideas in my (limited) spare time but taking a prototype into something with international distribution and support.. ?
A way forward
-
- KVRAF
- 1547 posts since 17 Sep, 2005 from Melbourne, Australia
Don't Tech No for an Answer
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 209 posts since 18 Aug, 2009
To me the Receptor was about being greater than the sum of its parts.
The hardware and software were far from best-of-breed from a computing standpoint, but they functioned together in a way that was useful and "road ready." That's what you were paying for.
Still, Muse couldn't shake many customer expectations that a wider variety of plugins should be supported, or at least run better than they did.
It seems to me that anyone who picks up the business would want to (a) charge to support and/or upgrade existing units and (b) make significant enhancements to the host environment.
My sense is that you could do this without needing a focus on a new hardware package, at least not out of the gate!
The hardware and software were far from best-of-breed from a computing standpoint, but they functioned together in a way that was useful and "road ready." That's what you were paying for.
Still, Muse couldn't shake many customer expectations that a wider variety of plugins should be supported, or at least run better than they did.
It seems to me that anyone who picks up the business would want to (a) charge to support and/or upgrade existing units and (b) make significant enhancements to the host environment.
My sense is that you could do this without needing a focus on a new hardware package, at least not out of the gate!
-
- KVRist
- 229 posts since 6 May, 2014 from New Mexico
This is kind of how I've been feeling for a while. I just didn't have the language to say it. I found myself being the whiney SOB who always wanted more. Host environment. Yeah.hopkihc wrote:It seems to me that anyone who picks up the business would want to (a) charge to support and/or upgrade existing units and (b) make significant enhancements to the host environment.
My sense is that you could do this without needing a focus on a new hardware package, at least not out of the gate!
Fish Out Of Water
Entune Productions
Entune Productions
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 209 posts since 18 Aug, 2009
Ha!
Well, yeah, with awesome software instruments you expected a pretty solid base to run them on.
I never did bite on the 2.0.1 upgrade, so I may be missing some things, but a few desirable features come to mind:
- Return to the 1.9 OS effects architecture. It wasn't broken, was it?
- Better MIDI CC filtering at the patch level (like ignoring channel pressure and pitch bend messages)
- MIDI CC scaling (i.e. mixer receives 0-127 values to adjust channel volume but is scaled so it doesn't drop below or exceed a certain value)
- Some sort of plug-in process firewalling. so if one plugin goes down the host doesn't crash. My assumption is this would be the most technically challenging thing to pull off, but it's a nice confidence booster. The host already recovers automatically and reasonably quickly, which helps.
- Controller abstraction for MIDI mapping, meaning that you define one or more virtual controllers -- basically a list of pads, switches, knobs, sliders, etc. -- and map plugin and host mixer parameters to the virtual controller. Then map your hardware controller(s) to the virtual controller, e.g. physical knob 1 maps to virtual knob 1. Physical knob 1 could send whatever MIDI CC it sends, and the virtual knob will respond, but the virtual knob could use a different CC when connecting to the plugin. That way, if your hardware controllers change, you just update the mapping to the virtual controller. You don't have to reconfigure your hardware controller to send the correct MIDI CCs, nor do you need to touch your presets.
But doing all this AND ensuring wider plugin compatibility is a tall order, and only worthwhile if you can see generating revenue from it, and that would likely require hardware sales.
-John
Well, yeah, with awesome software instruments you expected a pretty solid base to run them on.
I never did bite on the 2.0.1 upgrade, so I may be missing some things, but a few desirable features come to mind:
- Return to the 1.9 OS effects architecture. It wasn't broken, was it?
- Better MIDI CC filtering at the patch level (like ignoring channel pressure and pitch bend messages)
- MIDI CC scaling (i.e. mixer receives 0-127 values to adjust channel volume but is scaled so it doesn't drop below or exceed a certain value)
- Some sort of plug-in process firewalling. so if one plugin goes down the host doesn't crash. My assumption is this would be the most technically challenging thing to pull off, but it's a nice confidence booster. The host already recovers automatically and reasonably quickly, which helps.
- Controller abstraction for MIDI mapping, meaning that you define one or more virtual controllers -- basically a list of pads, switches, knobs, sliders, etc. -- and map plugin and host mixer parameters to the virtual controller. Then map your hardware controller(s) to the virtual controller, e.g. physical knob 1 maps to virtual knob 1. Physical knob 1 could send whatever MIDI CC it sends, and the virtual knob will respond, but the virtual knob could use a different CC when connecting to the plugin. That way, if your hardware controllers change, you just update the mapping to the virtual controller. You don't have to reconfigure your hardware controller to send the correct MIDI CCs, nor do you need to touch your presets.
But doing all this AND ensuring wider plugin compatibility is a tall order, and only worthwhile if you can see generating revenue from it, and that would likely require hardware sales.
-John
-
- KVRist
- 229 posts since 6 May, 2014 from New Mexico
Last edited by Fishoow on Wed May 11, 2016 4:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fish Out Of Water
Entune Productions
Entune Productions
-
- KVRist
- 229 posts since 6 May, 2014 from New Mexico
Seems like Uniwire was the firewall. Just thinking about it now. If I were to run my live show through my DAW, say Studio Live with their DSPs, and each bandmate had a Receptor effect on them like an old Camel Audio plugin, the Receptor could do it's 5-second crash and the music would only briefly sound a little different. I understand you're talking about (in mixer mode) each of the 16 channels having the independent freedom to max out while the others still carry the tune.
Curiously, your controller abstraction idea is exactly what Studio One does. The Learn function connects your controller to a proxy. You can one-click choose which controllers you want to drive the virtual controller.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that another computer take, not the load, but the crash worry away and this also addresses the setup/programming time suck that keeps me from creating.
WIW I have 12 presets in a Rack Mode Tag. They are all set up and balanced to have four other instrumentalists join me. I loop my parts in an off board looper. Inevitably in rehearsal I get switching between presets too quickly and I get the 5-second dropout. It's very much like tilting a pinball machine. I look at it as a limitation of the instrument that I must abide by, like too much pressure on a violin bow. I wonder, though, if that limitation could be scripted away or remedied by a tandem device.
Curiously, your controller abstraction idea is exactly what Studio One does. The Learn function connects your controller to a proxy. You can one-click choose which controllers you want to drive the virtual controller.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that another computer take, not the load, but the crash worry away and this also addresses the setup/programming time suck that keeps me from creating.
WIW I have 12 presets in a Rack Mode Tag. They are all set up and balanced to have four other instrumentalists join me. I loop my parts in an off board looper. Inevitably in rehearsal I get switching between presets too quickly and I get the 5-second dropout. It's very much like tilting a pinball machine. I look at it as a limitation of the instrument that I must abide by, like too much pressure on a violin bow. I wonder, though, if that limitation could be scripted away or remedied by a tandem device.
Fish Out Of Water
Entune Productions
Entune Productions
-
Robert Karasek Robert Karasek https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=42885
- KVRist
- 308 posts since 1 Oct, 2004 from Germany
It's funny that nobody mentions KURZWEIL. 
The KURZWEILs have always been extremely powerful instruments for on-stage.
The MIDI-capabilities are superb.
I would love to see a PC3X (or meanwhile Forte) combined with the MUSE technology...
The KURZWEILs have always been extremely powerful instruments for on-stage.
The MIDI-capabilities are superb.
I would love to see a PC3X (or meanwhile Forte) combined with the MUSE technology...
-
- KVRist
- 79 posts since 25 Apr, 2006 from Stockholm, Sweden
No kidding. I've been using Kurzweils since 2008 and nothing comes close..! I can replace 3 synths with my PC3K7/Receptor rig. I don't see Kurzweil as the company taking on the Receptor concept since they're
A. Not a plugin/computer company
B. Not big. I can't see them venturing into this since they'd need to hire and it's a big gamble. I still believe Behringer is the n:o 1 choice..!
A. Not a plugin/computer company
B. Not big. I can't see them venturing into this since they'd need to hire and it's a big gamble. I still believe Behringer is the n:o 1 choice..!