Acoustica mixcraft ..a lot of ' social media related ' dll's installed

[gentleclockdivider]

I installed acoustica mixcraft , just out of curiosity .( demo version from site )
When going through the install folder , I noticed the following, dare I say dubious .dll files

-Google.Apis.YouTube.v3.dll
-Twitterizer2.dll
-VimeoDontNet.cll
-Facebook.dll (no kidding)
-Google.Apis.dll
-DontPanic.TumblrSharp.dll
and a bunch of other .stuff .




Needless to say , I de-installed the whole lot .
It looked hideous btw.

[fluffy_little_something]

While I liked Mixcraft as such, I was also not amused by all the crap that comes with it. I haven't installed it on my new computer yet and probably never will...

[chk071]

Those DLL's all seem to provide integration of the respective services in the Mixcraft GUI or software. Actually, the ones i checked didn't even come from the companies, but are third party open source libraries.

[jonljacobi]

You'll find those with a lot of programs that connect socially. I've installed it and there's no funny stuff going on as far as I can tell. Yes, it needs a new (scalable) look. None of the cool kids will use it.

[lingyai]

I just shared a link to this thread with an Acoustica employee and forum mod, "Acoustica Eric". He replied that the allegation that there is anything sinister, dangerous, invasive or otherwise dodgy etc about those dlls is "complete nonsense. Those files are for the publishing to social media function. There are no questionable files included in Mixcraft, what point would we have doing that?"

If you're still not satisfied, please contact Acoustica yourself. (I wonder why you didn't to begin with.)

Either way, you might want wish to change the title to your thread as it's misleading and arguably defamatory.

By all means, it's good to point out malware for the benfit of the community -- but real malware only, please, not "I don't know what these do, guess I'll imply they are malware" malware. Clean corporate reputations which take years to build can be felled by just one false, lazy rumour...

[digitalboytn]

Yes, it needs a new (scalable) look. None of the cool kids will use it.

And they need to stop bundling it with all that cheap arse crap

[lingyai]

Yes, it needs a new (scalable) look. None of the cool kids will use it.

And they need to stop bundling it with all that cheap arse crap

Depends.

The bundled plugs (some of which aren't crap; there's stuff from decent names (Izotope, Toneboosters, Voxengo) are for newbies who own no plugs, so they'll have all they need to get started; for that they are certainly "good enough".

At the other end of the spectrum are users who already have their preferred 3rd party plugs and who are looking at a DAW basically as a host+. For these people, the solution is easy -- if you don't care for the bundled plugs, don't use them.

In between are users who choose their DAW for, among other things, the stock plugs. That's not me, but fair enough. These users might well be disapointed.

But then again, I guess you don't know the quality until you actually try. Which of the bundled Mixcraft plugs have you tried and found lacking?

[Giova942]

Clean corporate reputations which take years to build can be felled by just one false, lazy rumour...

Talking about cleanliness, they could start by removing those crappy "Classic" plugins, which were made by a convicted child abuser and child pornography trafficker.

[mcbpete]

Talking about cleanliness, they could start by removing those crappy "Classic" plugins, which were made by a convicted child abuser and child pornography trafficker.

Woah, this is the first time I'd heard about this. For those equally as baffled read this - http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3560649 (post #36)

[lingyai]

Talking about cleanliness, they could start by removing those crappy "Classic" plugins, which were made by a convicted child abuser and child pornography trafficker.

Woah, this is the first time I'd heard about this. For those equally as baffled read this - http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3560649 (post #36)

Ok, well that's unfortunate but it is a stretch to imply anything about Mixcraft and paedophelia ... unless you just like mental wandering

I did hear they worship Satan though. Hell, some might even like that.

[lingyai]

double posted

[mcbpete]

it is a stretch to imply anything about Mixcraft and paedophelia

I don't think that's quite the implication here, just that it's a bit short sighted of Mixcraft to happily list the 'Classic' series of VSTs in the feature list of their products. It's like a new Christmas compilation album happily featuring Glitter's 'Another Rock and Roll Christmas' in the TV advert

[pekbro]

For me, their presentation of this software is just plain horrible, while it might be something
I would consider purchasing for my 12 year old niece, I have never been able to view it
as a professional production tool. As such, I have always seen it squarely as competition for the likes
of music maker or similar, not anywhere near the same league as Cubase, S13 or Live or anything.
It still leaves me with zero interest in even trying it out.

[jonljacobi]

Yes, we've established that the look could use some help, and perhaps some of the plug-ins, but to continually insult it without trying it is less than helpful. It has an s-load of nice features, it sounds fine, the workflow is great, the interface is efficient regardless of appearance, and for $179 it comes with Melodyne.

On the other hand, after that defense, I find the that the web site is down. Sigh.

[pekbro]

I’m not insulting them, I sincerely hope someone from there is reading these threads and taking note of useful feedback so that it can be taken into consideration as they try to gain the market position they clearly desire.

Taking it as an insult is just pure short-sightedness. My comments anyway...

Incidentally I wasn’t referring to the ui at all. The logo looks ridiculous imho, that’s really the only thing that stuck out to me regarding the UI.

-cheers