EnergyXT to good to be true ? Confused here....

[tjvigil66]

Baxter & Xian

I'm not trying to ask stupid questions here, sorry if I gave this impression.

I have to setup a new laptop for me to take with me on trips (to keep me busy in hotels

After reading the manual of energyXT I really wondered.
- I could install Tracktion on it wich I have.
- I could install Live on it wich I have

But if energyXT does all what those do (and perhaps more) it would allso be a perfect solution.

So I wanted some experience here, before spending the time of learning EnergyXT.

Rony

I think you could definitely do worse than EnergyXT - especially for the price!

EnergyXT is not going to do everything that Tracktion or Live will do...at least not in the same way or as easily in some circumstances. However, EnergyXT does some very cool things that Live & Tracktion can not do! One of the really great things about EnergyXT is that it can also run INSIDE Tracktion & Live as VST. That itself is worth the price of admission when you learn how to harness the strengths of EnergyXT!

[xian]

>But if energyXT does all what those do (and perhaps more)
>it would allso be a perfect solution.

Of course it would. But XT certainly does not 'do all those do'. It can't. It hasn't been under development for long enough to match Tracktion or Live feature for feature. It does do things that Tracktion and Live can't do. But which features you need is unique to you, so we still can't really answer this question.

If we tell you that we have replaced our old sequencers with XT (which some have and some haven't) and you do the same, there's a good chance that you will come back and say, "How do you possibly live without feature X??" So you can ask about our experience, but I don't think it will necessarily help you.

[Bunnyboy]

Hi
I put down "yes" mainly because for me at the moment, it fufills all my requirements:
fully routable
easy to assign CC parameters
CC & midi envelopes (yeah!)
Lots of Midi bits and pieces (mid ch, arp)
Lightweight on the CPU

However, the main reason for putting "yes" is mainly for what it is going to be - the rate at which Jorgen adds/improves features is quite scary , and it for this reason that I think that it could be a serious contender for sound production.
But - the audio side is not what it could be at the moment: it doesnt feel as developed as the midi side yet. All this will probably change though...

[adds2one]

I sold my copy of Cubase SX 2 when I discovered Energy XT. No it doesn't have every single feature that Cubase, Sonar, Logic, Traktion or Live have but it is a fully functional, fully capable music production system and it continues to evolve. I like that it is a much lighter program than Cubase, a blank EXT opens almost instantly on my AMD Athlon 2800+. The only real complaint I have about EXT is that there isn't per channel parametric eq. I think that to be a truly full formed sequencer package that eq is important. Other than that I feel it is only minor things that could use improvement, mostly with audio,like being able to delete all the unused audio files from the record directory and being able to rename those files, better manipulation of the volume envelope in the audio part(I hate that if you click too near the top of the picture that the end markers move to there). Actually I should check if these things are in the FR list. The great thing about EXT is that Jorgen is so fantastic about implementing our ideas. That's my $.02

[SuitcaseOfLizards]

I had to vote "no" based on spending a fair amount of time trying to to in eXT what I do in Tracktion - load it up, turn on my controller keyboard, track in instruments, add vocals, render out. The learning curve for eXT is too great to make it worth (for me) chucking out my existing experience with Tracktion and spending some 'n' amont of time unproductive as I try to switch from one mindset to the other.

As a VST it's great for a lot of things, don't get me wrong, but it's not there yet as a standalone host capable of replacing a modestly comprehensive audio program.

Like everyone else said, though, given the incredible speed of eXTs evolution I'd not be surprised if it didn't become a contender in short order.

[adds2one]

load it up, turn on my controller keyboard, track in instruments, add vocals, render out.

I think it is just as easy to do this in EXT once you have set up a template. All you have to do is set up EXT the way you want it to be each time you load it up and then right click, select file -> set as default. You can have your midi keyboard all set up and all you need to do is select a VSTi, record it and then render by either selecting in the sequencer, file -> render to wave or by right clicking on the master out and recording your project to a wave.

[Jazz Franco]

I voted 'yes' though I don't think XT will replace (meaning 'wipe out from the competition') all other hosts. I think XT is a perfect tool for a) home musos like me who don't want/don't have funds to spend on a hi-end 'do-it-all' thing like Cubase b)anyone already having a setup, just to add new possibilities to it. I thought of buying FL Studio--but it's much more expensive, has features I don't need (bundled FX, Instruments etc) and is less interesting a toy overall (sorry, fruityheads, nothing personal) So I guess XT will stay a perfect choice--among other choices.

[pwdm]

I voted yes. It works for me.
I like the fact its not bogged down with hundreds of tools like the "big boys" hosts/seq. This leaves me time to make music and not wade throught days of learning.

[SuitcaseOfLizards]

load it up, turn on my controller keyboard, track in instruments, add vocals, render out.

I think it is just as easy to do this in EXT once you have set up a template. All you have to do is set up EXT the way you want it to be each time you load it up and then right click, select file -> set as default. You can have your midi keyboard all set up and all you need to do is select a VSTi, record it and then render by either selecting in the sequencer, file -> render to wave or by right clicking on the master out and recording your project to a wave.

My problem: I'm still not to the point where I can get that done! And since I have something that functions *now*, and I can't find a compelling reason to move to eXT as a standalone, I just skip it and go straight to Tracktion. Maybe if T2 takes too long I'll spend however many hours it takes to do that.. but right now.. it's not intuitive enough for me to use as my 'go-to' host.

I'm not slagging eXT, let me make that clear (since I'm sure some zombified bozo will take my comments as that ), it's just not something that I can sit down and use without a long session of RTFM-ing and serious experimentation.. and right now, I'm more interested in playing than tweaking!

[MRT]

A lot of good points have been made, as for me XT has become my main host. It let's me work the way I want to, and I find I'm more productive with it than most. I doubt if any application will ever be perfect for everyone's needs, but XT is more of what I want than what I had.

MRT

[.jon]

Well, I ditched Cubase (VST for years, SX for 1 and half) in favour of Tracktion.

Now that I recently got eXT I'm having uncomfortable second thoughts about Tracktion. I think I'll still be using it for arranging complete songs and "live" recording of parts, but most probably compose the individual sequenced parts in eXT -it's piano roll is the best I've tried.

eXT is bloat free, but IMHO that don't make it incomplete. There's more under the hood than one grasps at first sight, packed in a great-looking interface (yep, I've praised Tracktion UI, but eXT is even clearer, and I _love_ clarity, and there are superb skins available). I find it quite easy to use, even with many features unavailable elsewhere.

Whether used as a building block (comboing VSTis with "the usual suspect fx" makes life a bit easier) or for music creation, it's a true Best Buy- program if there is one.


Sunny days,

Jon


(Sorry if that was a bit ranty, but I wonder if anyone could regret spending euros on this product. )

[headquest]

I think that eXT is little bit "geeky" at present. It offers a new way of doing things, and I suspect its users particularly like the feeling of being involved in an application that is "under development". It is exciting to see something you like go from strength to strength, which is certainly what eXT is currently doing.

As for replacing more conventional hosts, well, I voted "no" and I don;t think that that is Jorgen's aim anyway. The marketing of eXT emphasises the aspect of "expanding" your existing host, and imho this is what eXT is simply great at doing...

[quincy]

I think that eXT is little bit "geeky" at present. It offers a new way of doing things, and I suspect its users particularly like the feeling of being involved in an application that is "under development". It is exciting to see something you like go from strength to strength, which is certainly what eXT is currently doing.

As for replacing more conventional hosts, well, I voted "no" and I don;t think that that is Jorgen's aim anyway. The marketing of eXT emphasises the aspect of "expanding" your existing host, and imho this is what eXT is simply great at doing...

I agree that jorgen probably isn't aiming at replacing other mroe convential hosts.

However, to sell short the use of eXT as a host is a big mistake. The modular aspect is more than a toy, it offers ways of working that simply aren't possible in other hosts, or damn near impossible.

When you begin to think of the many ways different components can be chained together, it opens up some very powerful functionality.

You can chain midi parts and arps etc together to make complex sequences and rhythms very simple to program. And when the live functionality is soon improved, it will be a great live performance tool.

And as a mixing environment its barely matched anywhere else. The flexibility of sound/fx signal flow can be as simple or as complex as you'd like, and with more devs making plugins with multiple ins/outs, you have a system thats every bit as modular as reason, with side-chaining, sub-mixers galore etc.

Just a few more pro points from me, i think its a truly innovative piece of sftware.

[Rozzer]

I'd have to say no on this one. Not to belittle eXT in any way, but there are certain features I need of a host that eXT doesn't do (yet!). Here's a few things I can't live without. Of course, your requirements are bound to be different:

- multiple midi outs
- midi clock/mtc
- midi sysex/nrpn
- video
- integrated mixer (at least one a little more advanced than eXT's)
- time signatures

There's probably others too. On top of this I find eXT's sequencer to be a little basic. Whilst all the basic features are there, most of the big hosts have a large selection of workflow tools that make sequencing easy and fast.


Having said all that, you *can* believe what you read... eXT *is* amazing and it can do some things that more rigid hosts like Cubase and Sonar can't. For me, its the perfect sidekick to cubase, and I use it in every project.

[Beardedone]

I'm very confused. I want to love XT but I get stumped each time I attempt to use it. I think my Ph.D. has finally expired!