My statement is based on actual testing. The realtime performance is better than any xp or mac computer I have tested and I have tested a bunch with various Audio/midi interfaces and it is comparable to good hardware. This is verifiable. The hardware it has only partly defines performance. How the OS is optimized to the hardware can make a big difference in the consistency of realtime response. How the OS is designed period can make a big difference in realtime performance. A Mac or XP computer may give quicker response at a given moment but it can't maintain that level consistently and fluctuates over a fairly wide margin and with a specific pattern (as opposed to random which is better). The Receptor can be very quick and maintain it much like a good hardware synth. Hardware synths can be quicker though (and slower depending on the model) and hardware can be very inconsistent in response as well like the Casio VZ for example or the Ensoniq ASR10 (don't get me started on that) or the Roland XP10 or the Korg DW8000 and on and on. A dual core Receptor would be great but that also means an OS optimized for the new hardware which takes alot of time to do.
Jon
Direct Install? Still waiting.
-
- KVRAF
- 4071 posts since 4 Mar, 2008 from Near Pittsburgh
Good points since the OS, soundcard, etc, are obviously optimized specifically. Unfortunately hardware being a bit "behind" even though optimized was only part of my decision not to buy one (at this point). Seems they are not too keen on getting things developed and getting the Kore5 install sorted, etc, problems sorted out or those problems are too much of a challenge at this point. Didn't mean to sound harsh or to seem like hardware was the only beef I had. I'm sure once things are more sorted out it will be on my short list, I am actually impressed at the specific optimization and handling certain plugin authorization schemes as I'd figure the latter would be the one of the biggest PITAs of something like the Receptor.
-
- KVRAF
- 6323 posts since 30 Dec, 2004 from London uk
You are wrong about PCs not being able to maintain latency. There is a test tool for checking it. Its called DPC latency checker. On my P4 3.2, it shows a latency of 29 microseconds constantly under XP. Being a proper test tool, this is verifiable. I dont do many tweaks on XP and I dont strip it down. I doubt Receptor could better that. I would be interested to see your test methodology. Which PCS and Macs specifically? Without using DPC - how did you determine latency over time? .jeamsler wrote:My statement is based on actual testing. The realtime performance is better than any xp or mac computer I have tested and I have tested a bunch with various Audio/midi interfaces and it is comparable to good hardware. This is verifiable. The hardware it has only partly defines performance. How the OS is optimized to the hardware can make a big difference in the consistency of realtime response. How the OS is designed period can make a big difference in realtime performance. A Mac or XP computer may give quicker response at a given moment but it can't maintain that level consistently and fluctuates over a fairly wide margin and with a specific pattern (as opposed to random which is better). The Receptor can be very quick and maintain it much like a good hardware synth. Hardware synths can be quicker though (and slower depending on the model) and hardware can be very inconsistent in response as well like the Casio VZ for example or the Ensoniq ASR10 (don't get me started on that) or the Roland XP10 or the Korg DW8000 and on and on. A dual core Receptor would be great but that also means an OS optimized for the new hardware which takes alot of time to do.
Jon
Your statement "The realtime performance is better than any xp or mac computer I have tested and I have tested a bunch with various Audio/midi interfaces and it is comparable to good hardware" is a sweeping one unless it betters 29 microseconds. Ive seen people here quote 19 microseconds for thier PC systems also using this tool. You cant run it on Receptor though. If you base your tests purely on the interface, youre not seeing the usable latency of the PC. If you were right, companies like Carillon and Red Submarine wouldnt be able to sell audio specific PCs.
http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml
-
- KVRist
- 230 posts since 29 Jan, 2003
In other posts I commented on my tests which were specifically to determine the time (latency) from midi in to audio out. So I am not talking at all about audio in to audio out. I should have said that clearly in my post in this thread. The DPC latency checker is doing audio in to out. You are right; sweeping statements should be looked at suspiciously. So I should say more correctly that only based on my own testing I believe what I have said. As far as my tests are concerned I take a midi event at a steady pulse and record digitally the bare midi signal straight from the cable as well as the midi output of the synth in question (preferably something simple and percussive) as a stereo signal. I then go through each pulse and determine the offset. I do this for single notes as well as measuring latency under loads for specific notes of a group. The latter test is more relavent for hardware synths than software. Among the audio interfaces I have used on computer are various SB cards, RME Fireface & hdsp, emu 0202, Lynx One and 22. I've tested a bunch of midi interfaces as well. I've tested on win 3.1, 95,98,xp and on mac os 7-9.21, osx.1 - x.3. I've also tested a bunch of hardware synths which is where all of this started way before desktop computers could be used for instruments. I have to qualify that last statement since the old Amiga computer could be used as an instrument even with a processor no better than an intel 386 so it goes to show you it is not all about the horsepower. In any event I won't propose to know definitively what is best but will say only what I have found in my own testing and use.
Jon
Jon
-
- KVRist
- 230 posts since 29 Jan, 2003
I looked at DPC again and I remembered it wrong. It does not check any real world latency per se. It tests the procedure used to deal with real time data in the given system namely DPC or deferred procedure calls which are kernal level. This is all from their website. Although it can point out if you have issues with drivers not doing their job quickly or hanging on too long the number given should not be seen as an actual real world latency value for any application. So it may say 29 microseconds but don't assume that means it takes 29 microseconds for audio to go through your application and out again. It really is a tool to determine if os calls are running as they should and not being held up which would indeed be a bad thing for realtime operations. It is in truth the DPC latency as the name says meaning the time it takes for DPCs to complete.
Jon
Jon
-
- KVRist
- 225 posts since 12 Sep, 2006 from Amsterdam, The Netherlands
This is all non-practical utopian babble if you ask me. My audio pc, which isn't anywhere up to date (it uses the first AMD dual core, 3800+) let's me host as many and probably more instruments and effects as the receptor does, and let's me use them without any glitches through my motu 828mkII at a latency of 3 ms, which is inaudible for practical purposes. It does so consistenly over a long timespan when needed. Sure, you can get the receptor to lower latencies, sure I can't carry my audio pc anywhere. But lower latencies make moot point in the situations where you'd use a receptor, and a laptor is portable, and surely current laptops can easily keep up with my old AMD audio pc.
So to summarize, a normal laptop does everything the receptor does, as good as the receptor does it, and is more flexible on stage. (If you haven't programmed your receptor well beforehand, chancing stuff on stage without screen and such is a pain in the ass). This is the point where you all go "Why don't you buy a laptop and shut up!"
Well, I bought a receptor rev B a long time ago based on the promises and stories by Muse. I am disappointed. Looking back, I SHOULD have bought a laptop. We can all keep telling stories about how receptor works for one person and not for the other just like a Roland synth works for one person and a Yamaha for the other, but that doesn't take away the fact that those brands make synths that do what they are promised and supposed to do, whereas receptor doesn't. It doesn't live up to the promises and is still pretty much in beta after all those years.
My experience last sunday can backup those claims: I was playing in a band that was put together by a singer for her CD presentation. We played about 10 songs of which I only played in about 4 if you add it all up. My receptor/axiom stopped working all the time. That made me reset a bunch of times mid-song, which wasn't pretty. At some point I resorted to playbacking on the keys :S
For you information: I tested the setup thoroughly before going on stage. I even toured the theaters with the receptor for the last 9 months without problems, but with a simpeler multi loaded and with a real piano to back me up. I suspect the trouble is the faulty usb-midi implementation because I could still change patches on the receptor itself. Why can't I unplug and replug my axiom usb cable and get it working again? Surely even linux can be programmed to do so.
So to summarize, a normal laptop does everything the receptor does, as good as the receptor does it, and is more flexible on stage. (If you haven't programmed your receptor well beforehand, chancing stuff on stage without screen and such is a pain in the ass). This is the point where you all go "Why don't you buy a laptop and shut up!"
Well, I bought a receptor rev B a long time ago based on the promises and stories by Muse. I am disappointed. Looking back, I SHOULD have bought a laptop. We can all keep telling stories about how receptor works for one person and not for the other just like a Roland synth works for one person and a Yamaha for the other, but that doesn't take away the fact that those brands make synths that do what they are promised and supposed to do, whereas receptor doesn't. It doesn't live up to the promises and is still pretty much in beta after all those years.
My experience last sunday can backup those claims: I was playing in a band that was put together by a singer for her CD presentation. We played about 10 songs of which I only played in about 4 if you add it all up. My receptor/axiom stopped working all the time. That made me reset a bunch of times mid-song, which wasn't pretty. At some point I resorted to playbacking on the keys :S
For you information: I tested the setup thoroughly before going on stage. I even toured the theaters with the receptor for the last 9 months without problems, but with a simpeler multi loaded and with a real piano to back me up. I suspect the trouble is the faulty usb-midi implementation because I could still change patches on the receptor itself. Why can't I unplug and replug my axiom usb cable and get it working again? Surely even linux can be programmed to do so.
-
- KVRist
- 230 posts since 29 Jan, 2003
Curois: One point to be aware of is that what your audio interface says as to latency is generally wrong in real world terms. You mention the Receptor can get lower than 3ms. Well actually I have yet to measure it lower than 4-5ms. And if your soundcard is saying 3 it probably is more like 5-6. It doesn't by itself minimize what you are saying but I point it out so that you are not deceived into thinking your computer is doing better than it is. As has been pointed out by myself and others if a standard computer works for you adequetely then you are right; why buy a receptor? There is no reason. I wish I could say the same thing. I would have saved a bunch of money and time. Unfortunately I can tell the difference when I play and it bothers my playing. As for Roland, Yamaha, etc. doing what they say the history of synths is littered with machines that came up short on what was advertised or did what was advertised in a very compromised way. The Ensoniq ASR10(which is quite popular these days on the used market) is a great case in point. The ASR10 is also a great example of something that ended up really compromised and yet people make great use of it and don't care at all about the problems. For me Receptor still is a niche product unfortunately until Muse can make good on the promises made (if they ever will). The only reasons to get a Receptor at this point is if the timing of a computer playing vsti bothers you or you need something portable and more robust than a laptop to take your sounds on the road. I believe those are its current real strengths. Beyond that there really is nothing it does that a computer can't and there is alot that a computer does that a Receptor never will.
Jon
Jon
-
- KVRist
- 225 posts since 12 Sep, 2006 from Amsterdam, The Netherlands
I don't want to offend you or anything, but you are fooling yourself. You're probably right concerning the real world latency of a computer+soundcard vs the reported latency, but I can and will not believe that you or any other person will be bothered by a latency of 4-5 ms (as on my motu and my computer) and not be bothered by a latency of 1 ms less (as the receptor might be able to give you). Sound travels roughly at 300 m/s. That equals around 3ms for the sound to travel 1 m. Let's say your stage monitor is standing 1m away from you. That already gives you 3ms latency right there!
Now, about the history of handicapped hardware synths. All those synths that did have serious drawbacks, had one thing that a receptor does not really have to stand out: serious character in sound and method of sythesis. People are still going back to unreliable analog hardware synths that are seriously "outdated" because it gives them sounds that are not to be gotten from more modern and more reliable hardware.
The receptor on the other hand does sound exactly the same as a computer and a decent soundcard. That is not a bad thing in my opinion. Because it's what it was made for. But the problem is that most computers nowadays, be it mac or windows machines, can do the same thing better and more flexible and more efficiently.
Sure, now you all go talk about how great and unique the receptor sounds in terms of converters and stuff. And I even agree with you. You can search back and find a post in which I tell everyone how great I think the receptor sounds. But if you take time to choose your soundcard - and thus converters - you can get the same great sound or any other "flavour" in sound that you like from your converters.
Now, about the history of handicapped hardware synths. All those synths that did have serious drawbacks, had one thing that a receptor does not really have to stand out: serious character in sound and method of sythesis. People are still going back to unreliable analog hardware synths that are seriously "outdated" because it gives them sounds that are not to be gotten from more modern and more reliable hardware.
The receptor on the other hand does sound exactly the same as a computer and a decent soundcard. That is not a bad thing in my opinion. Because it's what it was made for. But the problem is that most computers nowadays, be it mac or windows machines, can do the same thing better and more flexible and more efficiently.
Sure, now you all go talk about how great and unique the receptor sounds in terms of converters and stuff. And I even agree with you. You can search back and find a post in which I tell everyone how great I think the receptor sounds. But if you take time to choose your soundcard - and thus converters - you can get the same great sound or any other "flavour" in sound that you like from your converters.
-
- KVRist
- 230 posts since 29 Jan, 2003
I agree as to handicapped hardware. People make good use of something that was seen at one time as a failure. After all it is not about the hardware it is about the creativity of a musician using what they have at hand.
Maybe you are correct and I am fooling myself(and no offense taken). Yes I know the speed of sound, the elasticity of air as a medium, the psychoacoustics involved in temporal determinations, and on and on... I do alot of testing myself but in the end I don't believe it because of how it tests I believe it because of how I play and what I perceive. In fact I only started testing hardware 20+ years ago because I found I could not keep my playing of a synth in rhythm but had no problem with my baby grand. My baby grand actually has a greater latency than most synths but it is a constant latency (as the latency is from sound sources, etc.) whereas most if not all synths hard or soft are not constant but constantly changing. Some change more some less. For this reason I believe a flat latency is not as important as the latency pattern. But rather than go on and on and bore people I'm not going to argue about whether any of this is objectively true for anyone but myself. For me it makes a difference that I can readily identify. If you don't believe it or think I'm deceiving myself then that's fine. Let's hope whatever equipment and instruments we use we can create some meaningful music.
Jon
Maybe you are correct and I am fooling myself(and no offense taken). Yes I know the speed of sound, the elasticity of air as a medium, the psychoacoustics involved in temporal determinations, and on and on... I do alot of testing myself but in the end I don't believe it because of how it tests I believe it because of how I play and what I perceive. In fact I only started testing hardware 20+ years ago because I found I could not keep my playing of a synth in rhythm but had no problem with my baby grand. My baby grand actually has a greater latency than most synths but it is a constant latency (as the latency is from sound sources, etc.) whereas most if not all synths hard or soft are not constant but constantly changing. Some change more some less. For this reason I believe a flat latency is not as important as the latency pattern. But rather than go on and on and bore people I'm not going to argue about whether any of this is objectively true for anyone but myself. For me it makes a difference that I can readily identify. If you don't believe it or think I'm deceiving myself then that's fine. Let's hope whatever equipment and instruments we use we can create some meaningful music.
Jon
-
- KVRist
- 49 posts since 23 Sep, 2007
hey jeamsler, you are right, i agree. MIDI jitter as i think some people call it; a deviation in timing in MIDI is much worse then just a bit of latency. Dance producers also seem to have a lot of complaints about this; small deviations in a groove which are just audible, they can really kill the groove!
-
- KVRer
- 10 posts since 22 Nov, 2007 from 52403
Sounds like they're on it guys...Version 1.7 software with Direct Install
You thought we were kidding, didn't you? Okay, so we haven't delivered Direct Install quite as quickly as we hoped, but I'm pleased to share with you that we are in final testing and the results are very promising indeed. The initial release of Direct Install software will allow you to install Komplete 5 as well as pretty much any Native Instrument Kompakt, Kontakt, or Intakt-based sample library, which means hundreds of sample libraries will now be usable on Receptor.
But wait, there's more! The release of Direct Install also gives you a brand new Receptor Remote Control application (for Mac or PC) that makes it as simple as can be to launch the Receptor Remote viewer, get help on various topics, or view your Receptor's hard drive. We think you'll all really appreciate how easy we've made it to control your Receptor from your desktop.
Please be patient with us, you should be able to download the new Direct Install update in a week or two. It will be worth the wait, we promise!
-
- KVRist
- 173 posts since 3 Sep, 2007 from CT
From Yesterday's Muse Newsletter:
Version 1.7 software with Direct Install
You thought we were kidding, didn't you? Okay, so we haven't delivered Direct Install quite as quickly as we hoped, but I'm pleased to share with you that we are in final testing and the results are very promising indeed. The initial release of Direct Install software will allow you to install Komplete 5 as well as pretty much any Native Instrument Kompakt, Kontakt, or Intakt-based sample library, which means hundreds of sample libraries will now be usable on Receptor.
But wait, there's more! The release of Direct Install also gives you a brand new Receptor Remote Control application (for Mac or PC) that makes it as simple as can be to launch the Receptor Remote viewer, get help on various topics, or view your Receptor's hard drive. We think you'll all really appreciate how easy we've made it to control your Receptor from your desktop.
Please be patient with us, you should be able to download the new Direct Install update in a week or two. It will be worth the wait, we promise!
Version 1.7 software with Direct Install
You thought we were kidding, didn't you? Okay, so we haven't delivered Direct Install quite as quickly as we hoped, but I'm pleased to share with you that we are in final testing and the results are very promising indeed. The initial release of Direct Install software will allow you to install Komplete 5 as well as pretty much any Native Instrument Kompakt, Kontakt, or Intakt-based sample library, which means hundreds of sample libraries will now be usable on Receptor.
But wait, there's more! The release of Direct Install also gives you a brand new Receptor Remote Control application (for Mac or PC) that makes it as simple as can be to launch the Receptor Remote viewer, get help on various topics, or view your Receptor's hard drive. We think you'll all really appreciate how easy we've made it to control your Receptor from your desktop.
Please be patient with us, you should be able to download the new Direct Install update in a week or two. It will be worth the wait, we promise!
-
- KVRist
- 106 posts since 1 Jun, 2004
i forgot about this a few months back .. but i got that email yesterday .. and gotta say, that 'sneak peek' screen shot of the new user interface gets a big 
maybe 2.0 will have something interesting to think about, but for now my receptor is what it is. The only thing left for me to install is Arturia stuff, which I doubt is being addressed with Direct Install.
maybe 2.0 will have something interesting to think about, but for now my receptor is what it is. The only thing left for me to install is Arturia stuff, which I doubt is being addressed with Direct Install.
-
- KVRer
- 25 posts since 9 Jan, 2008
If what I'm about to ask is stupid, then please enlighten me:
Doesn't Direct Install mean that you should be able to install a vst on your receptor directly by running exe's, similar to the way you'd install them on your pc??? AT least that's what I understood from the presentation, that DI is a shell of some sort that allows one to run installation programs on the REceptor, .exe installation programs that came from the vst's programmer... and this does not neccesitate Muse to keep building individual installers???
I'm asking because some people post stuff which makes it sound as if DI is not a general shell for running installers, but a specific shell for ONLY certain application... For example it would run only NI stuff....
In the original release it seems DI is a shell for all installers. In the email yesterday it talks only about NI stuff... Am I missing something here?
Doesn't Direct Install mean that you should be able to install a vst on your receptor directly by running exe's, similar to the way you'd install them on your pc??? AT least that's what I understood from the presentation, that DI is a shell of some sort that allows one to run installation programs on the REceptor, .exe installation programs that came from the vst's programmer... and this does not neccesitate Muse to keep building individual installers???
I'm asking because some people post stuff which makes it sound as if DI is not a general shell for running installers, but a specific shell for ONLY certain application... For example it would run only NI stuff....
In the original release it seems DI is a shell for all installers. In the email yesterday it talks only about NI stuff... Am I missing something here?