What do people dislike with Podium?

[Caleb]

Yeah - but Muzys is an exceptional host. No point using it as an example.

By far the quickest easiest host I've ever used. It also has the feature shared by FLStudio that you can just dump a wav file in as a player and start programming a part straight away with no mess.

On the other hand - quite a large number of people found Muzys' to be unintuitive.

So regardless of the fact that I found it the most logical host in the universe not everyone agrees.

Chances are pretty good that there's some Podium users out there thinking the same.

Caleb

[Zynewave]

Hi all,

Thanks for your comments. I'll try to explain a little about the design decisions behind Podium:

My primary design goal was to make the workflow for arrangement editing and recording as simple and streamlined as possible. To achieve this, an abstraction layer had to be inserted between the user and the underlying MIDI/Audio/VST technology. The abstraction layer consists of mapping, preset and parameter objects which then acts as named handles in the UI and also shields the low-level definitions from the user.

This abstraction layer can be perplexing in your first experience with Podium, so I fully understand why people reject Podium if they cannot get anything going within half an hour. The reward should be that once you have grasped the principles, the real work you do in the arrangement editor is made simpler by working with a set of abstract objects rather than being limited by technology based terminology and constraints.

When working with other hosts I constantly feel frustrated over how simple actions are made complicated by the fact that the UI is more or less modeled around the low-level MIDI and VST technologies. I can give you some random examples of what I dislike about the standard host approach:

If I have a Yamaha DX7 hooked up to my DAW, I want to be able to assign 'Yamaha DX7' to a track from a list of available devices. I do not want to select a MIDI interface called 'HDSP Midi Out(1) blabla' and then select a MIDI channel. I want the same track with the DX7 assigned to handle both MIDI and audio. I do not want to set up a second audio track and select '3 Analog MF(1) blabla' assuming this is the channel the DX7 is hooked up to. I furthermore do not want to juggle with manual latency settings on the tracks to sync the MIDI and audio. I also want the list of devices to contain both plugins and external devices. I do not want to use different UI strategies to work with plugins or external devices, as they basically perform the same function. I say let the host and not the user handle the different ways of communicating with these devices.

If I want to recall 'SomePad' preset on the DX7 I do not want to search the DX7 menus or the printed manual to locate a bank number and a program change number and then enter these values as properties on the track. I want to open a list with presets the device supports and assign it to the track. I don't care if the preset is a simple program change or a SysEx bulk dump or a plugin program or bank file. I also don't want to use different menus or commands to manage my presets depending on whether the device is a plugin or an external device.

I do not want to work with different kinds of automation. Editing MIDI, plugin or mixer engine automation curves should be done with the same editor, and a curve sequence should be assignable to multiple parameter tracks with any type of parameters. When automating MIDI parameters I do not want to open a list of ~120 different controllers and locate a particular controller. I want a list of only the parameters that are supported by the device and with the parameters named according to function. I don't care if the parameter is a MIDI CC, NRPN, dynamic SysEx message or a plugin parameter.

I've had feedback that tells me some people can grasp Podium in no time at all, and others that had to struggle with it for days. Users that have spent the time and understood the Podium workflow, appears to be happy with it. This gives me hope that there is a future for Podium. My problem of course is that since Podium is not the most accessible host for first time users, it is a slow process of getting Podium known in the market. If Podium was a well established host with thousands of users, people would probably be willing to invest more time in learning the tool knowing that what it offers will eventually be rewarding for them.

Thanks,
Frits

[osofaux]

Nicely stated, Frits.

Now the real question is - who would win in a fight, Podium or Count Dracula?

[AD80]

Yeah thanks for the good post Frits. It had some good info. I guess its one of those things, either you get it or you dont . The feature set is very good tho no doubt about that.

[Caleb]

I really do like the philosophy you're using there Frits.

I'm actually now wondering how you manage to achieve that aim.

Are you making the software architecture incredibly complicated trying to rationalise such things for the user? Just curious really.

One day I'll have another play with Podium and I'll make sure I have a look at how this in particular works.

Caleb

[Ja.x]

I guess it's a good explanation, Frits, still the point is why many people doesn't like Podium. And I say it was a good explanation although I haven't got a half of it. So I'll elaborate my point further: when Jo stopped to support Muzys I started looking for another host somewhere else, including Podium. But the closer I found about the ease of use was Tracktion, and even Tracktion doesn't get close: the first time I tried Computer Muzys years ago I just copied the folder from the CM's cover disk, launched it, loaded a synth, and my midi controller actually could produce sounds!!! Just like this! No configuration hassle, no nothing. With most of the hosts I tried (including Podium) I haven't even reached the point to make it produce a sound. So, to be honest I don't care for all the tech bla bla, I want a host to actually play without spending my days bribing it and saying "please play, please will you give me a sign you can actually play?". Call me ignorant, guys, but I just want it to play and make my music hassle free (I'm no music tech geek), and I pointed out Muzys because that's what it actually does. And Podium (together with EnergyXT) stands on the opposite side.

It hasn't really to do with the software itself, it has to do with the user, I know. But the question was why people don't like Podium, wasn't it?

[duncanparsons]

oo.. I missed this 'til now..

I was part of the Beta test of Podium, and registered very early.. I think it's a fantastic bit of kit.

With Tracktion folk rant on about 'Workflow' which if that's for them then fine, but I haven't been tempted to try it again, even for free..

With Podium it's more 'Paradigm'.. As Frits explained, the higher level of abstraction helps alot. You don't need a PhD to handle it, but it can take a minute or two to work out what's going on.
Like stephan, I used the wizard the first time. Once I had a studio setup, and worked out that I can save this as a preset I was away. I now have a few different studios saved for different situations. If you wanted, you could save a studio setup with tracks and plugins ready so that it's a case of loadup, hit record and you're away.

At the end of the day, it's a case of use what works for you. For me, Tracktion ain't it, but Podium is great.

btw, I'm not Tracktion bashing, I think it's a very good piece of software, but doesn't work the way I do. I've used most things through the years from PRO24 onwards, and worked around their various quirks. Podium's quirks I find least irksome...

So there ya go!
DSP

[Zynewave]

Are you making the software architecture incredibly complicated trying to rationalise such things for the user?

Not at all. If you study the properties of the different object types, it pretty much gives away what goes on behind the scenes. It did however take me many years to arrive at the current model. In some of the earlier generations, I had taken the abstraction concept to the extreme and had e.g. implemented dynamic MIDI channel allocation (back in the days when MIDI channels was a limited resource ). I have since simplified the model extensively, and this has also simplified the engine. Things like full latency compensation are still inherently 'incredibly complicated' though. The design of the hierarchical engine was an idea that evolved step by step. As it turned out, I am very pleased with the current state of the Podium engine.

[gizmo]

Very good thread gents! Give and take, no flames. I looked at Podium a couple times in early days and ran into the wall of abstraction: I'm one of those who found Traction well if not easy worth puzzling out. But I really like the look of Podium and I like the attitude shown here so I'm going back for another try!

[AD80]

btw, I'm not Tracktion bashing

Oh really?

[osofaux]

Very good thread gents! Give and take, no flames. I looked at Podium a couple times in early days and ran into the wall of abstraction: I'm one of those who found Traction well if not easy worth puzzling out. But I really like the look of Podium and I like the attitude shown here so I'm going back for another try!

Good luck gizmo, if you run into problems again then check back, help isn't far.

[ModuLR]

I really appreciate your outlook on things fritz...

unfortunately, I am among those who find it still incredibly difficult to setup. In my case, that abstraction layer acts as an obstruction layer. I find defining objects for everything kinda cumbersome.. it's like I understand the basic principles of how a sequencer works, and having to define objects to make what I already underestand "understandable" is counter intuitive.

Like mapping VST's.. I know it was mentioned that one can drag n' drop vsts from explorer but I personally like staying within the program itself vs keeping explorer windows open to make things easier. If I open Podium's browser I don't see unmapped vsts available... so that leads me to believe they must be mapped. I assume there is a way to map all plugs in a directory, but I couldn't find/get that to work... then you have to factor in multi out vst's which are mapped differently. This is painful.

here's a stupid gripe.. heheh, If I add a track I get a menu where I can define stuff... I don't like that. I just want to hit an add track shortcut, and see a new track on the screen. I know that it only requires hitting return, but it's little things like that which do in fact bother me. I also end up accidentally clicking the selection tool, then feel like an idiot when I stumped cos nothing moves. I think there is a way to make the arrange too and selection tool work as one.. without accidentally moving stuff... also I miss being able to rescale midi and audio clips.. and I wish there were a ton of shortcuts. I'm not a big fan of the tool bars either. I think there are so many ways to achieve what toolbars do without needing a toolbar, especially with nice shortcuts (which probably exist I s'pose)

anyway, it's like there is so much attention to defining every little possible thing in the begining that it gets in the way of just really wanting to enjoy it as a sequencer.

All that being said, Frits... I think you've done a wonderful job at acheiving your vision thus far! I don't want you to take this as just pointless criticism.. it's just an answer as to what I find difficult. I will say that I do absolutely LOVE the automation editor, it's exceptional wonderful!

[Zynewave]

Hi ModulR,

Allow me to answer some of your questions

I assume there is a way to map all plugs in a directory, but I couldn't find/get that to work... then you have to factor in multi out vst's which are mapped differently.

If you use the 'Import Plugin' menu, then you can select multiple plugins in the file dialog (Ctrl+A should select all). This won't include plugins in subdirectories though. Multi out vst's should import correctly using this method. If you want to use multitimbral instruments then you have to use the import command in the Wizard window, to get the extra MIDI channel mappings. The recommended way to import a plugin in Podium is to use the library definition files. These files contains all objects normally created by a manual import, but customized according to the plugins specifications. This allows a plugin to be configured in greater detail than what can be obtained through the VST interface. Examples; Naming mappings according to function, sorting VST parameters into subfolders (Osc, Filter, Amp, Effect etc.), deleting unwanted parameters such as 'FileNameDoNotTouch', and fixing incorrectly named parameters (I've encountered quite a few of those).

If I add a track I get a menu where I can define stuff... I don't like that

The track properties dialog pops up if you add a track with the pencil tool. If you create a track by dragging a plugin mapping onto the arrangement, then the dialog will not popup and the track will be named after the plugin.

I also end up accidentally clicking the selection tool, then feel like an idiot when I stumped cos nothing moves. I think there is a way to make the arrange too and selection tool work as one.. without accidentally moving stuff

Some users have told me that they find the non-moving selection tool useful, so that's why it is there. You can remove the tool from the toolbar in the profile setup dialogs.

I will say that I do absolutely LOVE the automation editor, it's exceptional wonderful!

Thanks!

[ModuLR]

thanks for the explinations...

If you want to ease the pain of new users and hopefully convert a few more.. you definately should have a scan vstplugins folder option which will go thru every subdir. This alone can turn away a lot of your potential users. Having to ctrl+a each vstsubdir is not a great long term solution. I'd actually put this at the top of the feature list if you want to attract new users. Ya just gotta make getting plugins to work, and accessable in the sequencer, as EASY as humanly possible.. otherwise you will lose people right off the back.

Regarding mappings: I think your idea of creating custom parameter lists is awesome and very forward thinkling. I will however offer an alternate way of thinking about params. if you make it such that adjusting a parameter on a VST highlights the parameter in the params list.. you would never really need to worry about getting confused with what params are listed. You would id the param based on the actual interface as opposed to a list. Having your method is great, but it still requires building the object. Many users are simply never going to build the objects regardless of their good intent.. so ya gotta make easy for those folks. In most cases, if a newbie moves a knob on a vst and sees the param highlighted in a param list, they will just "get it" ... as opposed having to extract real params from dummy params and figure all of that out... etc..

it's the technical details which is why I have such a deep appreciation for Podium, but I think it's still pretty duanting to a newbie. The way it is now... you have to grasp the concept first, as opposed to just using it and discovering that it's much deeper than it's ease on the surface.


anyway, that's another $.02, hehehe

[Zynewave]

you definately should have a scan vstplugins folder option which will go thru every subdir

Fair enough. Although one of the intentions with the plugin import method, was to allow a project to only contain mappings for the plugins relevant for the project. If a user has several hundred plugins on their harddrive, I would think they did not use all of them in one project. When I work on a project in Podium I start out with a setup that contains a few essential plugins, and then gradually import additional plugins as I go along. That way the device list is not cluttered with hundreds of plugins I don't have a use for. But I accept that people may prefer to import all their plugins in one go, so I'll definitely consider it for a future update.

if you make it such that adjusting a parameter on a VST highlights the parameter in the params list.. you would never really need to worry about getting confused with what params are listed. You would id the param based on the actual interface as opposed to a list

Good idea. I'm currently working on automatic curve recording of parameter changes done within the plugin editor, so there will be less need for locating parameters through the Podium parameter list.

... but it still requires building the object. Many users are simply never going to build the objects regardless of their good intent..

I certainly hope most users never have to worry about this. As I said, they can import device definition files where all this has been done already. Granted, the number of device definitions in the library is currently limited. I don't have the resources to buy all plugins on the market and create definition files for them, but hopefully some users will contribute definitions to the library, which btw. is available online in the Zynewave forum.

Thanks for your input.