Podium - Impressive looking host

[AD80]

but the heirarchical mixing engine really strikes me as an outstanding idea.

I'm curious about Podium but I'm not sure how its different than other hosts . If somebody could give me a couple of key things it does differently it would help a lot. Or maybe some more online movies.

[kagemusha]

....
I'm curious about Podium but I'm not sure how its different than other hosts . If somebody could give me a couple of key things it does differently it would help a lot. Or maybe some more online movies.

Well the biggest difference is that Podium is not hard-wired and completely modular but without the patch cords like energyXT.

The result of it's construction is that you can see/read your complete signal flow in 'one blink' because every thing is reflected in the tracklist. You don't have to go to a mixer or open other windows to see the flow or what is happening.
f.e the rackfilters in Tracktion are also modular but they are still a separate entity. In podium everything reflects in the tracklist. You can read the audio streams, send, busses from the tracklist >> which is called the hierarchic track view. On top is the master out and every thing streams up to the master out. You have to place every object in the right hierarchic level to make it stream to the appropriate object or to bypass it >> see it as a foldertree with subfolder etc

You can see everything in Podium as an object which you give a function and add to the interface. f.e. if you need a volume parameter you have to add it to the track and it will be reflected in the mixer view >> a volume knob will be added to your "channel strip".
Perhaps this doesn't seems very usefull but in fact it is. because you can set-up a structure which is in harmony with how you work or a certain project function.

So you don't have a mixer with 4 or 8 predefined inserts, sends etc but instead you have to add them. So there is no restriction how you're rout your audio stream and you can make it as 'personal' as you like.
For me Podium is completely in symbioses with computer semantics because there is no hardware reference or simulation.

Also it's organisation is better then most hosts. you have the project browser in which you can organize your material in a very detailed and efficient way.

Some feature seems strange at first. F.e. Also presets are an object so you have ad a preset bank object to your VSTi so that it will store it's settings and patches. Mostly host just store every setting by default which can make it's project files ver big. In podium you can decide what is saved (just one preset you made and not a whole default bank.

In the beginning it can be daunting to adapt and assimilate it's structure but once you see it, it's very fast and logical. I never had any problem with because it's just logical; You just have to let go other ways of working and see/accept how podium does it.

-Midi editing is very good, you don't have all the detailed functions like Cubase does but it has everything you need and is certainly better then Tracktion's midi editing.
-The audio editor is also very functional without all the the very specific function you could find in Audtion etc
-64floating point internal audio engine
-Great organisation and very fast to brows/drag and drop in your projects
-bounce is very specific and has some refreshing possibilities >> you can decide what is bounced because you draw the objects which will hold you bounced files. So you can bounce little bits everywhere on many different tracks in one go.
-Drum editor (very adaptable)
-unrivalled automation with spline curves
-It's very stable and very clean coded (as far as my experience can tell)

The Wizard will help you to make a functional project ready to use without having to creat all the objects yourself.

Well there is so much to it you have to try it yourself.

[quincy]

Nice to see that another thread started in good faith (by me) has turned into a slagging match.

I haven't had time to try podium yet, spent the weekeed visiting my girlfriend, going to the pub, having sex etc.

I found that the standard interface to my girlfriend was very easy to understand, although some parts were a bit sloppy. However, after some work i managed to easily slide into a rhythm of working, and very satisfying results were to be had

I can understand why some people don't like the hierarchical way podium does things, but i think if it was given time it would make perfect sense. But i guess only time will tell. I think some people are just f**king lazy if they pass judgement after only a quick try, and dismiss it immediately because it doesn't look like a hardware and all that crap. Like thats ever made things intuitive

Each to their own i guess

[SecondSkin]

I found that the standard interface to my girlfriend was very easy to understand,

You haven't been with your girlfriend for very long, have you?

[quincy]

I found that the standard interface to my girlfriend was very easy to understand,

You haven't been with your girlfriend for very long, have you?

3 and a half years smart-ass

But if i unsserstand you correctly you are referring to the fact that women make about as much sense as a japanese VCR manual most of the time. Which is true.

[SecondSkin]

My Korean VCR manual is far more understandable than the one that I live with...

[AD80]

........

Hay thats real interesting. Thanks for the detailed info!

[Scotrick]

and, I've got to add that I'm tired of people who jump on software that doesn't replicate a standard physical mixer arrangement... a knob? on a computer? moved with a mouse? most people I know have switched their knobs to linear motion... hah, that makes the knob just an imagistic place holder for slider/fader... and in that function, it's fine... but to complain about something not looking like an actual physical mixer... that seems plain small minded...

I know such looks (G.U.I borrowed from actual world) are common now because we're still really in the infancy of the computer music world, so many many people are still moving over... but I look forward to the day when computers won't be forced to mimick a physical device on the screen just because that's the expected users have come from the hardware world...

and if you ask me what's wrong with that? well, I'd say I fall on the side of the people who think there could be a better way to organize the information on the screen, and route the audio, than a physical system that was constrained by 'real,' hardware space and components

[quincy]

and, I've got to add that I'm tired of people who jump on software that doesn't replicate a standard physical mixer arrangement... a knob? on a computer? moved with a mouse? most people I know have switched their knobs to linear motion... hah, that makes the knob just an imagistic place holder for slider/fader... and in that function, it's fine... but to complain about something not looking like an actual physical mixer... that seems plain small minded...

I know such looks (G.U.I borrowed from actual world) are common now because we're still really in the infancy of the computer music world, so many many people are still moving over... but I look forward to the day when computers won't be forced to mimick a physical device on the screen just because that's the expected users have come from the hardware world...

and if you ask me what's wrong with that? well, I'd say I fall on the side of the people who think there could be a better way to organize the information on the screen, and route the audio, than a physical system that was constrained by 'real,' hardware space and components

The man's got a point.

I mean, anyone who has ever studied interface design or usability knows that imitating a physical device isn't exactly forward thinking. If you have the truly elastic capabilities of computer interfaces at your disposal, then why not use them.

Don't get me wrong - I understand why people love some of the hardware-alike stuff, i do too, but its not the pinnacle of software design that some people seem to think.

Give it a few years and the top devs will truly realise the possibilities of computer interfaces. In fairness, computer interface design is in its intimacy, and i'm sure hardware fans would tell you (i'm guessing) that hardware interfaces came on leaps and bounds over the yeras.

After 30 years of music software interfaces, we ought to have some very clever and intuitive designs.

All in good time

[BONES]

Anyone who cares to postulate on a more efficient way of controlling effects and EQ, I would love to hear it.
alabamian, I didn't complain about it not looking like a physical mixer but about it lacking the features of a physical mixer.
Here are a few good reasons to stick with sliders and knobs:

- When you see one, you intuitively know how to use it, whether you are familiar with hardware or not.

- Either gives you a good idea of the current value with respect to the maximum and minimum possible values which is usually more informative than a straight numerical value.

- Both are space-efficient and your eye can easily gain an informed overview of a whole bunch of 'em in one glance.

[ModuLR]

There is enough software that does exactly what you describe, so who gives a bleeeep if there are a few that slightly go against the grain. Let the more adventurous enjoy their poorly implemented and ultimately clearly inferior software, while you enjoy the fast lane and utter benefits of a uber intuitive hardware based design.

Personally, I don't use the visual cues of a hardware setup for much of anything. I usually do it all thru automation and listening. So I look at a track, and the lines in a linear fashion. It completely goes against the way you work... but I personally don't need software that works your way. As a matter of fact, ORION is particularly shitty in that way of working.. but since it emulates hardware, it's gotta be the best right? whatever...

Podium can be grasped my mearly taking a look at the tutorials. Once beyond that, it's actually pretty easy to understand. It's a very interesting program... and I'm so happy it's does things it's own way! Consider the initial difficulty somewhat of an IQ test to weed out the kids that like pouding the square pegs into the round holes...

[BONES]

There is enough software that does exactly what you describe, so who gives a bleeeep if there are a few that slightly go against the grain.

I do. Despite the fact that you are able to read whatever you like into what I say, I'd be more than interested in a better way of working. So I ask questions in the hope of getting answers. With your expressed attitude I wonder why you would bother coming here at all.

Reading kagemusha's detailed and interesting description I fail to see why its better to have to add a separate module when you want to save a patch when 80Gb hardrives cost less than a good night out. I can certainly see the attraction but I fail to see the benefit in the long run of such a disconnected workflow.

Personally, I don't use the visual cues of a hardware setup for much of anything. I usually do it all thru automation and listening.

So do I but when I hear something that needs changing its never more than a single mouse-click away and I can find it in a heartbeat. The flexibility described by kagemusha might give greater flexibility but would make it much harder to work with when different tracks have different numbers of inserts and some have EQ whilst others don't, etc.

[ModuLR]

sorry, I was feeling a bit testy..

anyway... isn't it fair to say that this falls under the term workflow... and is thus purely dependent on what you are doing, and the method by which you do things. Some people might require greater flexibility even if it sacrifices a degree of simplicity. For such individuals, it's an improvement in their workflow.. but not yours necessarily.

[AD80]

Consider the initial difficulty somewhat of an IQ test to weed out the kids that like pouding the square pegs into the round holes...

Hay!!!!

[headquest]

Consider the initial difficulty somewhat of an IQ test to weed out the kids that like pouding the square pegs into the round holes...

So hang on... let me get this right now...

Are you saying that square pegs don't fit into round holes??