KVR Audio

quincy · Post by **quincy** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:02 pm

After being here for a little over a year, and using music software for 10 years odd, it seems that people always want more and more functionality crammed in to their chosen host.

But is this impractical? Having notation in a studio style host. Having tracker interface in a traditional sequencer style host. And so it goes on.

Is it really so bad to use different software for different tasks? I like using trackers because they're good for drum programming. But i also like a graphical loop editing interface to work with audio, like tracktion or numerous other hosts.

People always seem to moan that this host doesn't have major feature XYZ, but there is almost always something elsewhere that can do the task, so why not use that?

I appreciate that people want a productive and powerful host, but perhaps its asking too much to cram loads of different things into a single program.

For example, instead of trying to get cubase to offer every function under the sun, a person could buy Tracktion, EnergyXT and Renoise for a sum total of less than $200. With this little lot you have arguably the most powerful tracker, arguably the most powerful midi/modular environment and also a pretty reasonable host for working with Audio in the shape of Tracktion. In comination they cover a hell of a lot of ground.

I'd also be willing to bet that if someone had all these 3, they'd get more fun-per-dollar than buying a "larger" host that costs twice that amount.

Anyway just a thought.

SuitcaseOfLizards · Post by **SuitcaseOfLizards** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:08 pm

I have to give a "mea culpa" for whinging about some missing feature in my host - a feature that I'd use once in every 200 years.

I think the problem is in assuming that a feature-packed host would be easier to use than a simple one since "there'd be a function for everything". This is why I keep sticking with Tracktion, it doesn't do everything in the world - even has a couple of things I don't like - but I don't need to dig out the manual or spend 50 hours in front of it before I can get started making music!

After sitting down and thinking about it, I'd have to say that any host that implemented *everything* would be impossible to learn, be impossible to maintain, and be an unstable, buggy mess release after release due to it's insane internal complexity. That said, I'd probably buy, try, and sell off that product anyway.

Chickenman · Post by **Chickenman** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:17 pm

Nuendo is bringing in the loop paint thing (a la acid) for N3 but I really like it as it is, I won't be upgrading just cos they're throwing more gimmicky stuff in it. I think Nuendo has everything you could ever need for both music production and post production for film...

I do remember the days of tracking in Ntrack using soundforge to edit then Ntrack to mix and soundforge again to master

<---wouldn't go back for anything less than Angelina Jolie.

Rabid · Post by **Rabid** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:17 pm

I prefer two hosts, one to start and compose a song and one to finalize. I really like using Sonar, but Orion has turned out to be a great starting host. If a bunch of features were to be added to Orion then it would loose the intamacy and ease of use I find so appealing.

So no, I DON'T want every feature added to every host. I've hardly used FL since I upgraded to FL Studio. For me it lost more than it gained.

Robert

Rellik · Post by **Rellik** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:21 pm

Well, many people prefer the workflow of using one piece of software to having to go back and forth between more than one. Personally, I don't see how anyone can actually work on a song when they have to go back and forth between two interfaces; I mean, I tried this with energyXT and FL as a VSTi, and it was really annoying to try to go inside of FL and change anything when I was working with everything else in eXT.

Then there's the fact that people already have what they have. If somebody has Cubase, you can't blame them for wanting whatever they want in Cubase instead of having to go out and buy and learn other stuff. Granted, Cubase does have an upgrade price, but for example in something like FL. And then there's something like energyXT; why not recommend to Jorgen to put in anything you could ever want? I'm hoping energyXT will grow to be the host of my dreams

just needs a kick in the right direction sometimes.

Rellik · Post by **Rellik** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:24 pm

Rabid wrote:I prefer two hosts, one to start and compose a song and one to finalize. I really like using Sonar, but Orion has turned out to be a great starting host. If a bunch of features were to be added to Orion then it would loose the intamacy and ease of use I find so appealing.

So no, I DON'T want every feature added to every host. I've hardly used FL since I upgraded to FL Studio. For me it lost more than it gained.

Robert

I was incredibly happy with the updates in FL Studio. A mixer? Support for audio? Hey, now I can render things down to wave, so I can have projects with more stuff in them without being limited by CPU! Just another perspective.

quincy · Post by **quincy** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:31 pm

Rellik wrote:Well, many people prefer the workflow of using one piece of software to having to go back and forth between more than one. Personally, I don't see how anyone can actually work on a song when they have to go back and forth between two interfaces; I mean, I tried this with energyXT and FL as a VSTi, and it was really annoying to try to go inside of FL and change anything when I was working with everything else in eXT.

Then there's the fact that people already have what they have. If somebody has Cubase, you can't blame them for wanting whatever they want in Cubase instead of having to go out and buy and learn other stuff. Granted, Cubase does have an upgrade price, but for example in something like FL. And then there's something like energyXT; why not recommend to Jorgen to put in anything you could ever want? I'm hoping energyXT will grow to be the host of my dreams just needs a kick in the right direction sometimes.

I know what you mean about people being comfy in their current environment. In some ways its the attitude with money. So many people will jump on any new VA synth even if its moderately expensive, yet wouldn't be prepared to dish out $45 for renoise to do tracker work for creating drum loops etc.

And again with EnergyXT, despite glowing reviews from about 98% of users, people are stil lreluctant to shell out 39euro, but immediately jump on the bandwagon for a group buy to get their 17th EQ plugin at 3 times that amount.

I guess some people like me are happy to experimment cos its all for fun. If music was my living i might see things differently.

Rabid · Post by **Rabid** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:48 pm

Rellik wrote:... Just another perspective.

That's why we have many hosts to choose from.

But my reasons are very specific and maybe a bit selfish. I seperate the composition and the finalizing process. When composing I want simple work flow and few distractions. Composing for me is more about recording and arranging MIDI. A host designed to help me do that quickly and without distraction may be very different than a host designed for finalizing my songs. Sadly, I have not found any host that can give me all the features needed for finalizing without hurting my workflow in the compasition phase.

Robert

Steven West · Post by **Steven West** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:03 am

The reason I wen with Orion in the first place was it's simple layout - but it's anything but 'simple'.

Yet, there's lots of members who would like it to have this and that added.... Because Traction, or FL, or Cubase has it.

It floors me that they're familiar with all these other hosts and their virtues, but can't seem to see Orion for it's virtues? But Orion has EVERYTHING I need, and for what it doesn't - I go to WaveLab or my other hardware to work it out. No biggie.

All features in a single host - Impractical??