Modular software options?

[zerocrossing]

I ended up buying modular hardware to start a small modular setup. One of the best decisions ever. Hardware is an entirely different ballgame, I did not expect the basic physical interaction and usability to make that much of a difference.

Usability is subjective. I can’t stand the hardware modular work flow. Softube Modular isn’t great in this regard, but for me, it’s way better than the alternative. I’ve never had problems with MIDI. I have developed a way of using it where I build a patch and then build presets off of it, as if it was just a bespoke instrument. If you dig the hardware modular thing, good for you, but it’s not for everyone.

I was a little surprised at how much I liked the hardware workflow myself...

I completely agree with you - everyone figures out what works for them, and uses that.

FWIW, the MIDI issues with Softube Modular were reproducible, and I reported them to Softube support, who were genuinely trying to be helpful.

I thought it was fun when I got to mess with it in the 80s in a synthesis class, but I wasn’t really using it to make music. I kept seeing videos that looked really interesting and fun, so I started making a little setup, and it turned out to not be for me. I do hope that Softube is working on a v2 of Modular. If they could get a better UI and offer more modules, it might become the best software solution available.

[bermudagold]

I think one of the big problems going on now is that “AI” as a term is getting used to describe a lot of very different things that are all really different flavors of machine learning. Machine vision is different than ChatGPT. Voice synthesis is different than machine vision.

Anyway, I’m sure that when the dust settles, some things will stick and some will fail. Remember, one of these “geniuses” thought that people would flock to hang out in a low poly 3d space that requires a heavy and uncomfortable headset. These are not really smart people, though they sometimes have smart people who work for them. That metaverse folly employed me for years. Who knows? All I know is that, it’s silly to dismiss all this technology, just like it’s silly to think it is universally good.

buzzword marketing to manipulate the masses...they are calling any use of heuristics AI today, even though heuristics based automation has been all around you for decades
And zuckerberg is not THAT dumb...he wasn't big on augmented reality...he just made the splashy pivot to Meta to protect his fortune when all the obstacles were put up forcing him to sideline libra...that was the pivot he really wanted to make...AR was out of desperation and everyone knew it

[stratology]

I think one of the big problems going on now is that “AI” as a term is getting used to describe a lot of very different things that are all really different flavors of machine learning. Machine vision is different than ChatGPT.

You're making one of the most important points here. There is pre-hype ML based technologies like Face ID that I use every day and absolutely love. Developing tech like stem separation is fantastic.

The AI-bro-crappy-chatbot-hype crowd is trying to pretend that these two types of technologies are in the same category, to legitimize the crap they are trying to sell.


Adam Neely is pretty good at providing a clear perspective, from a musician's point of view:

[stratology]

Another thought: maybe it's a good idea to let the tech be true to itself.

On an actual, physical modular system, it makes sense to have physical modules that can be swapped around, and cables that can be plugged in.

On the software side, maybe it's a better idea to aim for software that is capable of doing things similar to a modular setup, but does not try to copy all the idiosyncrasies.



Meaning: maybe something like Zebra 3 is a better solution when it comes to software.

[audiojunkie]

VCV Rack and Cardinal showed some odd, buggy behaviors

I suppose you never considered that you might report these issues so that they can be fixed?

Afaict we never received anything on our (Cardinal) end anyway ..

My objective when trying out software is not to be a beta tester, but to figure out what's good, and not waste time with the things that aren't.

Agreed. Moreover, I think that open source software often has some level of entitlement here in that authors think that because they are giving the software away that it is "fair" for users to report bugs.

I don't agree. Open source has specific value to stakeholders, e.g., themselves, other authors, potential licensing, etc. However, the end user being your tester is not really one of them beyond a general sense of feedback like is being provided here. I'm not saying don't report bugs, but I am saying don't expect end users to report bugs. This is especially the case when you expect them to fill out bug reports and search for existing bugs that match etc.

It's a simple choice. Do you want your problems fixed or not. A developer can only find so much by himself. If you don't report problems in a way that the developer can find them, don't expect your problems to get fixed--whether commercial or open source. It's as simple as that. I hope you don't find any bugs in your software.

[ghettosynth]

VCV Rack and Cardinal showed some odd, buggy behaviors

I suppose you never considered that you might report these issues so that they can be fixed?

Afaict we never received anything on our (Cardinal) end anyway ..

My objective when trying out software is not to be a beta tester, but to figure out what's good, and not waste time with the things that aren't.

Agreed. Moreover, I think that open source software often has some level of entitlement here in that authors think that because they are giving the software away that it is "fair" for users to report bugs.

I don't agree. Open source has specific value to stakeholders, e.g., themselves, other authors, potential licensing, etc. However, the end user being your tester is not really one of them beyond a general sense of feedback like is being provided here. I'm not saying don't report bugs, but I am saying don't expect end users to report bugs. This is especially the case when you expect them to fill out bug reports and search for existing bugs that match etc.

It's a simple choice. Do you want your problems fixed or not. A developer can only find so much by himself. If you don't report problems in a way that the developer can find them, don't expect your problems to get fixed--whether commercial or open source. It's as simple as that. I hope you don't find any bugs in your software.

No, it's not that simple. Problems won't necessarily be fixed by reporting, ask me how I know? Developers on serious software seldom work "by themselves", third, if the developer isn't finding and fixing problems, then I'm not sure that I want their software.

Let me be very clear so that there's no confusion. I'm not coming from a place of ignorance here. I have been developing software for decades. I regularly add features myself if a piece of software fits a certain niche, e.g., I developed a custom version of the ninjam server that added features that we needed for a live performance. It took a day or so. I'm not going to do that for most things, it's not worth my time.

What I'm trying to say is that open source doesn't get a pass on doing their own testing because it's open source.

[zerocrossing]

Another thought: maybe it's a good idea to let the tech be true to itself.

On an actual, physical modular system, it makes sense to have physical modules that can be swapped around, and cables that can be plugged in.

On the software side, maybe it's a better idea to aim for software that is capable of doing things similar to a modular setup, but does not try to copy all the idiosyncrasies.



Meaning: maybe something like Zebra 3 is a better solution when it comes to software.

I sort of feel like the idiosyncrasies are such a big part of it, though. All the weird little developers making their odd stuff. That's what I love about VCV Rack, even though sometimes the general quality isn't great. I did pay for some of the premium Vult stuff, and a few others. Zebra is great, but it's a totally different animal. I don't really think of it as a modular. To me, you really need to be able to have everything, or at least most things, be modulation sources, which Zebra definitely does not.

[stratology]

No, it's not that simple. Problems won't necessarily be fixed by reporting, ask me how I know? Developers on serious software seldom work "by themselves", third, if the developer isn't finding and fixing problems, then I'm not sure that I want their software.

Let me be very clear so that there's no confusion. I'm not coming from a place of ignorance here. I have been developing software for decades. I regularly add features myself if a piece of software fits a certain niche, e.g., I developed a custom version of the ninjam server that added features that we needed for a live performance. It took a day or so. I'm not going to do that for most things, it's not worth my time.

What I'm trying to say is that open source doesn't get a pass on doing their own testing because it's open source.

Yes, there is a schedule, especially among larger developers, of when (and if) a bug gets fixed. Devs are often already aware of bugs, because they had to release on a scheduled day, before they had time to fix the bug.


There is another dimension as well. I worked in tech support for many years, and about 95% of the issues that users reported as bugs were not actually bugs, but things that were fixable over the phone.


There is also a, much smaller, percentage of user errors that are reported as bugs.

Just last week, I was absolutely convinced I had encountered a bug, only to figure out, after receiving some knowledgeable support (and a good night's sleep) that it was not a bug, and also not user error - just a very specific way that the software behaved that I did not expect or understand in the first place...

[Shabdahbriah]

Another thought: maybe it's a good idea to let the tech be true to itself.

On an actual, physical modular system, it makes sense to have physical modules that can be swapped around, and cables that can be plugged in.

On the software side, maybe it's a better idea to aim for software that is capable of doing things similar to a modular setup, but does not try to copy all the idiosyncrasies.



Meaning: maybe something like Zebra 3 is a better solution when it comes to software.

I sort of feel like the idiosyncrasies are such a big part of it, though. All the weird little developers making their odd stuff. That's what I love about VCV Rack, even though sometimes the general quality isn't great. I did pay for some of the premium Vult stuff, and a few others.

Zebra is great, but it's a totally different animal. I don't really think of it as a modular. To me, you really need to be able to have everything, or at least most things, be modulation sources, which Zebra definitely does not.

Having a fairly substantial amount of modular hardware (and software), I don't think of Zebra as "modular" in the strictest sense, either. Unless one assumes/defines that to mean/include having its various components/functions (i.e. oscillators, filters, envelopes, etc) framed with a line on the interface, to make it a functionally individual 'box'.

But then, can that 'box' be moved and placed into different positions within the flow one desires (which I prefer), like truly "modular" hardware can? In that sense, then even regular rack-mounted gear qualifies as 'modular', given that particular facility.

[Shabdahbriah]

I think one of the big problems going on now is that “AI” as a term is getting used to describe a lot of very different things that are all really different flavors of machine learning. Machine vision is different than ChatGPT.

You're making one of the most important points here. There is pre-hype ML based technologies like Face ID that I use every day and absolutely love. Developing tech like stem separation is fantastic.

The AI-bro-crappy-chatbot-hype crowd is trying to pretend that these two types of technologies are in the same category, to legitimize the crap they are trying to sell.


Adam Neely is pretty good at providing a clear perspective, from a musician's point of view:

Fascinating. Rather sad about that teachers lack of integrity, but nonetheless... fascinating.

[DRMR]

My objective when trying out software is not to be a beta tester

Sorry, but this is a ridiculous statement. All software has bugs, if these bugs don't get reported then they won't get fixed.

So considering your statement _all_ software is beta.


Since you didn't report the bug and nobody else found it, the bug doesn't exist as far as anyone is concerned.

[stratology]

My objective when trying out software is not to be a beta tester

Sorry, but this is a ridiculous statement. All software has bugs, if these bugs don't get reported then they won't get fixed.

So considering your statement _all_ software is beta.


Since you didn't report the bug and nobody else found it, the bug doesn't exist as far as anyone is concerned.

Schroedinger's bug??

Nothing you say makes sense. There is a reason why devs label software alpha, beta, and release.

Unreported bugs get fixed all the time. Devs are often aware of them before they get reported.

There are actual, real world differences in software quality. Dismissing software due to its quality, like I did with VCV Rack and Cardinal, is not down to one single bug.

It is down to my own, personal quality standards.
FWIW, whenever I encounter computer running Windows, my reaction within 5 minutes is 'this was written by idiots'.
When I first saw all the idiotic minuscule icons added to every menu item in macOS Tahoe, I thought - for the first time on a Mac - 'this was written by idiots'.
When I encounter a dialogue box in an app that has buttons labelled 'Yes' and 'No', I immediately know that the UI designer is clueless.
None of these are bugs.
This is also subjective, some users would not even notice details that I find completely unacceptable in software.

At the same time, when software does really well in UI design, like, say, Goodhertz plugins, I can be enthusiastic bordering on being unreasonable.


Good bug reporting is also time intensive. It requires to establish the exact steps to take to reliably reproduce the issue, and document them meticulously, along with all details of the hardware and software that is involved in any shape or form. Then put them into a bug report that is so detailed that a 6 year old could reliably reproduce the issue. Bug reports that lack detail don't lead to bug fixes, because the issue can't be reproduced.


I found general software quality on both Cardinal and VCVRack so low that I wouldn't bother with trying to single out any single bug, or UI issue, to report it.
(This does not, by any means, mean the software is non-functional or unusable, just that finding higher quality software is easy..)

With Softube, I had already paid for Console and several modules, so I did get in touch with their support, for an issue that was reproducible across different computers, OSs, and DAWs. The support from the company was really good, I did truly appreciate it, even though they could not fix the issue, and I ultimately decided to not use their software.
The software quality of Console is much higher than VCV Rack and Cardinal, IMHO, even though Softube has only a handful of modules, and UI design is really not great...

[DRMR]

Well, I can only say that to us the bug doesn't exist, because of the thousands of users nobody reported it.
And we cannot fix a bug that we don't know about. It is very silly to expect us to do so ..

To me it sounds like you maybe have some very unique system configuration that is prone to bad experiences.

Or perhaps you mistook a feature to be a "bug" because you have very different expectations to how software "should" behave. Not every tool is right for every person of course, but claiming something is a "bug" when it possibly isn't seems like something I might call entitled ..

[stratology]

One single bug never makes or breaks software. There is a much bigger picture.

Case in point:
One of my absolute favourite pieces of software that I recently started using is Triaz. Fantastic software, extremely well designed. Great sounds, great features, great usability.

I did encounter a reproducible bug in Triaz just yesterday. This makes no difference whatsoever in my opinion that Triaz is truly great software.

[zerocrossing]

The software quality of Console is much higher than VCV Rack and Cardinal, IMHO, even though Softube has only a handful of modules, and UI design is really not great...

This is a weird take, because you are comparing a fully commercial product with an open source project. Yes, I know there’s a version of VCV that is a paid tier, and I imagine that if you constrained yourself to only using the VCV modules included with the paid version, you’d have a very stable product. That said, you’d be missing the point of VCV, which you seem to not care about, which is fine. I love it. It’s not always the best sounding. A lot of the 3rd party modules are UI nightmares, buggy, and poorly documented. But it’s like a Star Wars cantina of characters, some with a death sentence on 12 systems, some Jedi in hiding. It’s easy enough to weed out the scum and villainy.