Why do people still code their synths with SynthEdit or Flowstone...

[chk071]

... when there is this available: https://github.com/olilarkin/wdl-ol

As far as i understood it (correct me if i'm wrong, i'm by no means an expert, or even very knowledged in either of these things), it allows the development of free OR commercial products with this framework, the only thing you'll have to do, referring to the license, is to mention that you used WDL-OL for your plugin. Did i not get something? Is there a fly in the ointment? I do get that software development is a difficult task, and if you're used to using a framework you're familiar with, it will take some time to adjust to a new framework, and seeing how things work there, but, isn't that a really cool thing? You won't be restricted to the output of 32-bit only VST2's also, as, if i saw it right, you're also able to output 32-bit and 64-bit VST2, VST3, AAX, and RTAS with it. I know that Martin uses it for his PG-8X plugin, i wonder why it's not getting used more widely. But, as i mentioned, i sure could have missed something, i don't really have a clue about those things. Enlighten me.

[Jace-BeOS]

Totally different way of developing. SynthEdit and Flowstone are visual tools that let you drag and drop to build signal flows and GUI. Not "coding".

That Oli Larkin thing is a C++ framework, which means programming.

[chk071]

Ok. So it's rather comparable with JUCE? Or is that yet another thing again?

[DJ Warmonger]

Ok. So it's rather comparable with JUCE? Or is that yet another thing again?

A bit. It's more like LabView. Very graphical-oriented, you can do the stuff without a single line of code.

Also, I find SynthMaker the very best piece of software ever made. Make template modules on the fly and add them to library... what could be better? Too bad it's no longer supported, at least from VST point of view.

[whyterabbyt]

Totally different way of developing. SynthEdit and Flowstone are visual tools that let you drag and drop to build signal flows and GUI. Not "coding".

Well, strictly speaking, they're legitimately describable as visual programming languages, or (a much older term) Rapid Application Development tools, and they're capable of compiling and generating software applications.

FWIW, as a programmer, I'd dispute that 'coding' is inherently text-based.

That Oli Larkin thing is a C++ framework, which means programming.

More importantly its a framework, which means its basically a whole load of prewritten code libraries. But as its only code, it (a) generally wont do anything without other bits of code written around it and (b) needs an actual compiler toolchain to turn it, and that other code, into a working software application.

To analogise clumsily, Synthedit and Synthmaker are to C++ as CNC machines are to the lathe and milling machine an engineering toolmaker might use (ie related in function, but simpler to use) whereas WDL-OL is a set of plans for reusable parts (nuts, bolts, flanges and widgets, right up to complex parts) that you might make a machine out of.

[chk071]

Thanks guys. Slowly, but steadily, a picture forms in my head. I guess that some prefer to work in an environment, which lets them code custom modules, without the hassle of having to care about the lots of other things, which are needed to actually put all the stuff together. Or, they simply prefer something "visual", so they can see what they're doing, instead of, simplified said, having to do it all in text form. Sort of like a WYSIWYG editor, compared against coding in a text editor.

[cron]

I'm sure I've seen at least one dev here say that they code everything from scratch and then wrap it in Synthedit because it makes creating the GUI easy. This may have been ages ago though. Guessing some Synthedit devs will pop up in this thread to confirm/refute.

I've think I've also seen Synthedit devs claim some optimisation in assembler was done in their products, which is about as low-level, as in "close to the hardware", and difficult (is saying difficult a fair assessment?) as programming gets.

[whyterabbyt]

I'm sure I've seen at least one dev here say that they code everything from scratch and then wrap it in Synthedit because it makes creating the GUI easy. This may have been ages ago though. Guessing some Synthedit devs will pop up in this thread to confirm/refute.

The original version of Sylenth was done this way, I believe.

I've think I've also seen Synthedit devs claim some optimisation in assembler was done in their products, which is about as low-level, as in "close to the hardware", and difficult (is saying difficult a fair assessment?) as programming gets.

Yup.

[nix808]

Heya,
I was an early adopter of SynthMaker in 2005, and I have been using it's progeny Flowstone still, for around 10 hours in the last 2 days for example.
Flowstone has a sleek UI for graphical programming, but if you like to code, you can get pretty code based. It supports Ruby, and custom DSP and .dll code.
On ASM, if you want to learn it- you can use the sample accurate DSP code, then output that to ASM with a link. This way it can be broken down in blocks, so it doesn't get confusing. The ASM can then be edited and deployed. The guys used to compete at optimizing in cycles.
Maybe I can answer FS questions or find the answers.
Cheers 8D

Personally I use it because I am not a genius hehe, I don't feel inhibited by it at all.
My favourite project, a guitar audio to MIDI program is only compromised by format compatibility, minimal CPU overhead for a performance instrument and a conversion from audio to event which is 5ms and at CPU push could be 1ms.

Enjoy the tek!

[ghettosynth]

Creating a synth with SynthEdit is on the same level of understanding as creating one with Reaktor. Creating even a simple program in C++ requires learning something rather different. It's not that hard really, but it's alien to people coming from a different mindset.

[KuTron]

Long time lurker, first time poster...

As a "creative" coder (and for many other reasons) I find myself most attracted to graphical based object oriented virtual modular programming environments such as FlowStone, SynthEdit, Tassman, probably a few others I'm forgetting. My personal favorite is MaxMSP and it's free cousins PD and vvvv. I have a somewhat extensive background in coding, but I find traditional text-based coding a supreme bore!! Nothing like your own programs putting you to sleep...

Oli Larkin's pack ^^^ is simple a collection library for use in other IDE's correct? Most of this hard coding for audio is way over my head, I need to learn more....

[whyterabbyt]

Oli Larkin's pack ^^^ is simple a collection library for use in other IDE's correct? Most of this hard coding for audio is way over my head, I need to learn more....

Think of it as providing prewritten code for the bones of the same sort of 'skeleton' for the plugin functionality (ie talking to the host, passing in parameters/automation/audio/MIDI etc, drawing the UI etc) as Synthedit and the like wrap around the audio/MIDI functionality you design yourself visually.

[camsr]

I like Reaktor (which is what I use) because I can experiment faster with iterations and hear the results instantly. It saves a lot of time. If something deserves to be compiled as a plugin, it should be.

[GaryG]

I have a somewhat extensive background in coding, but I find traditional text-based coding a supreme bore!!

+1



IT is my job and, though I don't do C++, I've used enough languages over the years to be sure I could pick it up if I wanted too. But, messing with plugins is ultimately a hobby and Synthmaker (in my case) was a lot more fun (I say was because I mainly play with Reaktor now). I've come up with a couple of cool plugs that I still use, would never have taken the time to develop them in C++.

That's not to say SE or SM creations are necessarily 'amateur' (some are evidently not) though lack of formats can cause them to be seen that way.

[kirsty roland]

I'm sure I've seen at least one dev here say that they code everything from scratch and then wrap it in Synthedit because it makes creating the GUI easy. This may have been ages ago though. Guessing some Synthedit devs will pop up in this thread to confirm/refute.

I've think I've also seen Synthedit devs claim some optimisation in assembler was done in their products, which is about as low-level, as in "close to the hardware", and difficult (is saying difficult a fair assessment?) as programming gets.

I did that with Patchwork. All the DSP is custom coded into a single module.
Eventually I even ditched Synthedit's graphics and made a single GUI module.
The only thing left for SE to do was handle MIDI and polyphony.