Opcode Studio Vision

[memyselfandus]

Question. What was and is the current alternative to OMS then?

OMS info
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug02/a ... rkshop.asp

[memyselfandus]

Version 4 was fine, it was version 4.5 that had issues. If I remember correctly it was rushed out the door around the Gibson acquisition and Opcode tried to fix some of the bugs and got a cease and desist from Gibson from doing so.
To this day I still have on an old 'mac', SVP 4.2 I believe which and 4.5.. 4.2 from memory being the far more stabler one.

rsp

cease and desist from Gibson for trying to fix bugs for people who bought studio vision?
They must of had a reason for wanting the software gone? weird

There was something strange in all the Opcode buyout process. Gibson buried the software, and even refused some propositions to buy it. They even refused to release OMS code to allow further development of OMS by independent developers (led by former Opcode developer and alleged OMS creator Doug Wyatt - you can read more here. http://www.sonosphere.com/saveoms/). There was a public petition going on about this. It seemed like it was some sort of personal vendetta, and Gibson only wanted to make sure Opcode legacy would vanish from the face of the earth.

Such a waste

Looks like Opcode was starting to branch more into the PC market at the time.

http://www.sonosphere.com/saveoms/NAMM2000/


No Valentines From Nashville
---A Post-NAMM Report on the SaveOMS/SOS Vision Campaign---

"In a plot that would be more at home in a John Grisham novel than the music industry, Gibson Guitars looks set to kill off all Opcode products."
-- "Gibson Strangles Opcode," The Mix UK, March 2000

Cyberspace (14 February 2000) -- Supporters of OMS and Opcode's Vision attended the NAMM 2000 show in Los Angeles February 4-6. Many wore Save OMS buttons; some also wore SOS Vision buttons, including employees of major companies and distributors, users, and a number of well-known musicians. Many people at NAMM were concerned about the future of OMS. Among developers there was significant interest in ensuring OMS continues to work with Apple's recently announced OS X for Macintosh. The vast majority of companies in the music industry are using OMS in some way or another. According to informed industry sources at the show, many, including Yamaha and Digidesign, are very worried about the future development of OMS and Vision.

Henry Juszkiewicz, CEO, Gibson Musical Instruments, met with at least one distributor and one major manufacturer at the show to discuss the future of Opcode products. But reportedly there was no change in Gibson's position -- no announcements were made about either OMS or Vision, leaving the question of future development unanswered.

At the same time, Gibson turned away a large number of distributors, companies, reporters and users who wanted to meet with Juszkiewicz. Many industry people were left wondering what was going on, especially with OMS, but also with Vision.

"Although Opcode have traditionally majored on Mac software, they do have PC software and have produced hardware for the PC. This could all be in jeopardy." -- "Gibson Guts Opcode," The Mix UK, March 2000

On February 1, articles appeared in the online editions of MacWorld UK, MacWeek, and AudioMIDI. The story also has been reported in the March issue of The Mix (UK), several times on MacInTouch and updates on the situation have been included in MacCentral's "Musical Macs" column. Editorial letters have been published in Keyboard and other music magazines around the world (12 to-date), and the story has been translated for distribution in seven languages.

In the first 24 hours after news stories began appearing, the OMS petition gained more than 200 user signatures. Since 1 February , nearly 600 people have signed the petition (http://www.saveoms.org), bringing the grand total to 3,628 signatures, including 174 developer signatures. The amount of developer support is ironic, given Gibson's interest in promoting GMICS as an industry standard. By the company's actions, it is ignoring not only a strongly supported current industry standard -- OMS -- but also it is affecting the very developers who would support GMICS.

Petition supporters represent organizations and individuals as diverse as NBC, Red Hat Software, Blue Oyster Cult, GVOX, Digidesign, Emagic and the Glasgow City Council Education Committee, along with countless universities, a multitude of music, video and production studio representatives, musician Larry Fast (Synergy, Peter Gabriel) and Craig Anderton, technology editor for EQ magazine, contributor to Keyboard and author of Home Recording for Musicians. Signatures are coming in from all over the world -- Japan, France, Spain, the United States, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc.

David Leishman, whose weekly "Musical Macs" column appears online at MacCentral (http://www.maccentral.com), has reported that Gypsy Carns, head of customer support at Gibson -- and by extension, Opcode -- is committed to getting the patches that are missing from the Opcode site back up (http://www.opcode.com).

Supporters of OMS and Vision will be attending MusikMesse in Frankfurt next month. None of this would be possible without the continued support and assistance from the musicians and composers who use Vision and OMS. Special thanks to the F.O.E.s, Christopher C., Danny D., Gunnar E., DBL, Fred M. (for the "bug" reports), Christian McC., Davor P., Dave S. (a survivor), Ward van G., Jochen W. -- and the countless others whose voices have been instrumental in keeping this issue alive."

[memyselfandus]

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.

THIS

[memyselfandus]

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.

Vision had a window where we could have several sequences open at the same time, and all active. Each sequence had a letter assigned to it. Also, the sequences could be triggered by MIDI. Each sequence could be triggered at the original pitch from the computer keyboard (by pressing the letter assigned to it) or could be "played" from the MIDI keyboard, if it was assigned to it.

You could also create a "sequence of sequences", which has its own master tempo, but each nested sequence runs as a "block" nested in the main sequence, but still has its own tempo track, etc. With that feature, you could create arrangements where you quickly drag entire sequences, one for the chorus, one or more for the bridges, one for the verses, one for the solos, and you could rearrange that very fast by drag and drop each "block". DP chunks work more or less the same way, but you cannot have more than one block active, while in SV these could be layered,

That's where people started to mess around, and sometimes created really crazy things.

The window where we had all the sequences opened at the same time is something that, AFAIK, still no other sequencer has, as of today. The closest thing to that is the "chunks" window in Digital Performer, but the way DP deals with "chunks" (a "chunk" can be an entire sequence) is not as advanced as Studio Vision (see above).

[memyselfandus]

The beauty of the nested sequences in SVP was being able to 'expand' them (forget the word they used) into a linear sequence and then you could edit, re-nest, etc.... Was a lot of fun to experiment this way with arrangements and then regain total control over a linear sequence.

[memyselfandus]

[memyselfandus]

Performed by Neil Rolnick April 9, 1988 at Real Art Ways, Hartford, CT. Gear includes an original Mac Plus running OpCode Sequencer software (the precursor to OpCode Vision & Studio Vision), a Prophet 2002 Sampler, a Yamaha TX816 rack and Yamaha KX88 keyboard.

https://vimeo.com/84642741

San Francisco Synthesizer Ensemble 1987 “Entertainment Tonight”

https://vimeo.com/40432610

[memyselfandus]

Version 2.5 1995

About


The Transport









Transpose



Menus

File



Edit



Do





Setups


Options









Windows



Generated Sequence Order


Generated Sequence Rhythm Duration


Generated Sequence Rhythm


Generated Sequence


Keyboard Shortcuts




MIDI Data Flow


MIDI Instruments


Sequence Files


Subsequences 2.5


Sequence A


Sequencer Meter Track





All from version 2.5 in 1995.. they ended on version 4.5 around 1999 so there were lots of updates after these pics

[memyselfandus]

I have a friend who has a setup with sv. Trying out in a bit here.

[Numanoid]

Just in a couple of days I have stumbled upon Studio Vision several times.

Reading Deee-Lite feature in latest FM, and watching Gareth Jones features with u-he (video)

[woggle]

The big difference (as far as design impetus goes) between something like Opcode Vision and Reaper is that the programmers for Opcode Vision had strong music backgrounds and links into various academic and contemporary classical/experimental studios and thought. I don't want to be too unfair on Reaper though as is it amazing value for money, but it comes across to me as designed by computer programmers who are musically influenced by a user base that is more mixer/engineer or mainstream pop/metal/rock musicians than influenced by composers with a strong background in the contemporary classical academic tradition.

Reaper seems to me from what I gather in forums to have a fair and influential component of its userbase that likes tweaking with Reaper as much as they like making music. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it does lead to the sorts of design decisions (eg the interface) that make Reaper frustrating to some people

[sprnva]

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/ ... -interview

An alternative view has been provided by Chater himself, who has described Wildflower’s making, with admirable Aussie bluntness, as “seven shades of shit”, variously involving financial meltdown, serious illness, experimentation with powerful hallucinogenic drugs, the departure of band members, the collapse of their record label and Chater’s insistence on using the same equipment that they’d made Since I Left You with, on which he’d stored umpteen musical ideas. “He had all this music recorded using a program called StudioVision,” sighs Di Blasi. “They stopped making the software in 1998. You can only run it on one of those old beige Mac computers, from before they’d invented the iMac. We literally had to carry it from studio to studio wrapped in towels and blankets because it was so ancient and fragile and about to break, plus the only monitor it would work with was this old thing that, no shit, weighed 30 kilograms. So we’d have to lug that up and down stairs. It was horrible.”

[supernova777]

Applications first released between the release of Mac os 7 (May 1991) & the release of Mac os 8 (Jul 1997)
Notator Logic v1.2 (5/1/1993)
Opcode Vision 1.4 (01/01/1993)
Opcode MusicShop 1.0 (1993)
MOTU Digital Performer 1.4 (1/1/1994)
MOTU Performer 4.2 (1/1/1994)
Recycle 1.0 (6/1/1994)
Opcode Vision 2.0.3 (06/01/1994)
Cubase Audio 2.0 (?) http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1994_ar ... sedae.html
Studio Vision Pro 2.08 (12/01/1994)
Recycle 1.5 (5/1/1995)
Logic v2.0 (8/1/1995)
Logic v2.5 (10/1/1995)
Opcode Studio Vision Pro 3.0 (12/1/1995) http://www.pcmuseum.ca/details.asp?id=3 ... e=Software
Logic Audio v2.5 (2/1/1996)
Cubase VST Macintosh 3.0 (May 1996) http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1996_ar ... base3.html
Recycle v1.6 (8/1/1996)
Cubase VST Macintosh 3.02 (Dec 1996)
Rebirth v1 (12/1/1996)
Digital Performer v2.0 (1/16/1997)
Opcode Studio Vision 3.5 (1/16/1997)

come on man i msged u privately asking why you were copying directly my hardearned & original content u didnt even respond.. so i have to post myself this post originates on my website http://www.oldschooldaw.com http://www.oldschooldaw.com/forums/inde ... opic=156.0 part of an interactive series post i made for myself to absorb all those facts.. anyway.. dont do this.. if u copy content on the internet.. at least put a link to where u TOOK THE ORIGINAL CONTENT FROM much like i do on my site oldschooldaw.com - when i post something i always link to the SOURCE so that someone else can investigate further if needed

dont try to pass it off as something u wrote yourself.. because i did not figure all of these dates + shit out easily.. i checked hundreds of different articles.. meticulously.. it was a labour of love + obsession to gather this information! (not just this page but the other 6000+ posts on both my site oldschooldaw.com + the mac daw site www.macos9lives.com - anyway.. give credit where credit is due.. be real.. be legit.. peace

[supernova777]

for anyone interested - ive set up a public opcode file repository here: http://www.oldschooldaw.com/opcode
feel free to download 1 or 2 or ALL the files

[supernova777]

Just was reading that the Windows Version can run on XP Sp3. I came across a site that had a download link but can't find it anymore. Anyone?

this is incorrect the windows version will only run on windows versions prior to win98se...
ie: win3.11 or win95 .. on which it works fabulously + flawlessly..
theres comments from the origijnal software developers on my site that did the windows port from the mac code theyt used a third party translation library to port the code to windows. its not going to be compatible with any + eveyr version of windows..

i would use a vanilla win95 or vanilla win98 install cd if u want to run vision for windows 2.5
if its possible to make it work on XP i challenge someone to prove it. i know there were drivers for the opcode HARDWARE that worked on xp.. but not the software.. not the windows version of vision anyway.