Time for a virtual modular standard...?

[whyterabbyt]

I would have to disagree that there's much point in doing so.

Your inability to see one is irrelevant. Audio software doesnt need to be bound by arbitrary legacy limitations for the sake of it; some people currently see that it useful for those more of those limitations to be removed, and if they were yet more would undoubtedly find value in it.

But the reality is that if you can't match artist-X with the same tools artist-X uses, it's unlikely that building a slightly better mousetrap that gives you more control is going to suddenly put you over the top.

Who the f**k gives a shit about 'matching other artists'? I want tools that suit my mindset and workflow, and I have no interest in what other people do with theirs.

Top artists and sound designers are pretty much achieving everything that could possibly be done (and is worth doing) with today's tools

Ah, the compelling old luddite call of 'what we have is good enough, so nothing can be better'.

Ask any top artist if they feel their music is limited by their DAW and plugins not being "modular" enough, the answer is likely to be "no".

And 15 years ago, if you'd asked any of them whether they thought their music was limited by their Atari and rack mounted hardware, then the answer would have likely to have been 'no' too, and yet vast numbers have decided to subsequently leverage something they wouldnt have predicted they needed.

'Nah, mate, no-one's going to need one of them farncy auto-mobiles, we're all happy with our horses and carts. I mean its not like yer top merchants arent happy with horsedrawn goods, so engines are clearly not going to be an improvment for anyone'

[xalama qo]

So, this group you describe would be like < 1% of the market? What's worse is that the aforementioned < 1% of the market has no chance of ever becoming famous because they never finish any tunes and prefer to turn knobs all day long

Which market are you referring to?

There are many lawyers and financial advisors and doctors out there with lots of disposable cash who still have to scratch their inner-muso itch... they have no desire to sound like whoever's hot right now, or better... but many grew up on BBC Radiophonics and other stuff way before my time and would love to tweak virtual knobs in their retirement, on their expensive iMac, reliving the fascination of their youth, shaking their heads at this new technology and how the future isn't what it used to be...

Surprisingly not everyone wants to be famous, or to even make music or songs for others to enjoy. Some of us just like turning, erm, knobs for the fun of it. The legacy of ReBirth and all its thousands of community 'songs' is testament to that.

The only difference now is that the software sounds astoundingly like the real thing.

[jeffh]

Your inability to see one is irrelevant.

Well, go on and create such a standard then and prove me wrong, or were you hoping to convince others to do it for you?

Who the f**k gives a shit about 'matching other artists'? I want tools that suit my mindset and workflow, and I have no interest in what other people do with theirs.

Then go create one.

Ah, the compelling old luddite call of 'what we have is good enough, so nothing can be better'.

Once again, you must be so much smarter than thousands of developers before you who thought it all suited their needs just fine, so go forth and prove you are the greatest of all time.

And 15 years ago, if you'd asked any of them whether they thought their music was limited by their Atari and rack mounted hardware, then the answer would have likely to have been 'no' too, and yet vast numbers have decided to subsequently leverage something they wouldnt have predicted they needed.

Ummmm.. No, I'm pretty sure that they felt limited by the Atari, but nice try... I think the "not being so limited" part really commenced circa 2007, give or take a few years...

'Nah, mate, no-one's going to need one of them farncy auto-mobiles, we're all happy with our horses and carts. I mean its not like yer top merchants arent happy with horsedrawn goods, so engines are clearly not going to be an improvment for anyone'

Analogy fail.

[whyterabbyt]

Well, go on and create such a standard then and prove me wrong, or were you hoping to convince others to do it for you?

If you dont know the answer to that, then perhaps before you jump into a thread, it would do you good to read it.

Then go create one.

Why exactly would that fall to me, precisely? Merely because I'm discussing its its utility with my peers?

Big whoosh and all that. Try harder.

Once again, you must be so much smarter than thousands of developers before you who thought it all suited their needs just fine, so go forth and prove you are the greatest of all time.

So, we go from 'top artists dont need it so nobody does' to 'top developers didnt do it, so nobody needs it'd. A bit over reliant on the use of the old 'appeal to authority' fallacy, aint yer?

Is that kind of wankhood inherent, or did you just get spanked hard on Slashdot when you were a kid and decided to adopt the cliches instead of making a proper recovery?

'Nah, mate, no-one's going to need one of them farncy auto-mobiles, we're all happy with our horses and carts. I mean its not like yer top merchants arent happy with horsedrawn goods, so engines are clearly not going to be an improvment for anyone'

Analogy fail.

Oh, god, another one who doesnt understand what analogies are. You're definitely roaring through the bible of Slashdot cliches all right.

[jeffh]

Why exactly would that fall to me, precisely? Merely because I'm discussing its its utility with my peers?

Because no developer or major artist cares enough to want this, so it would by default fall to the people discussing it...

It must be nice going through life knowing how other people should be doing their job, while simultaneously feeling no obligation to contribute back any of this ultimate wisdom. Isn't armchair-quarterback-ing on the internet fun?

Is the wankhood inherent, or did you just get spanked hard on Slashdot when you were a kid and failed to recover?

In 5 years somebody will ask the same of you and KVR.

Oh, god, another one who doesnt understand what analogies are.

Christ.

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/
noun
noun: analogy; plural noun: analogies

1.
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification

So the horse vs. car thing you said is an analogy of the Atari vs. Cubase 7 thing.... I bet you feel pretty stupid right now for suggesting that I don't know what an analogy is

[whyterabbyt]

Because no developer or major artist cares enough to want this

Says who? You? Sorry, that's an unsupported assertion, and thus not suitable to draw a conclusion from.

so it would by default fall to the people discussing it...

Well, that's not even the correct logical conclusion from your original assertion.

It must be nice going through life knowing how other people should be doing their job

Except that's not related to the discussion. You're trying to argue 'the people who made this stuff havent made it because its not needed'. Im not saying anything about what they should or should not be doing, Im talking about what I would like to see being done, and explaining why.

If you're unable to tell the difference between those two things you may want to spend some time working it out.

, while simultaneously feeling no obligation to contribute back any of this ultimate wisdom.
Isn't armchair-quarterback-ing on the internet fun?

Is it your contention, then, that noone is allowed to discuss anything unless they're about to design and construct that thing themselves, then?

This is a music site. We discuss music tools, including ones we would like to see. One wonders why you're so incensed by that.
Or did you just think you get to turn up and say 'hey Im the expert on all of this, and my say is final' on the basis of some shaky assertios about 'pro artists'

In 5 years somebody will ask the same of you and KVR.

Really? What's magic about 17 years?

Oh, god, another one who doesnt understand what analogies are.

Christ.

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/
noun
noun: analogy; plural noun: analogies

1.
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification

So the horse vs. car thing you said is an analogy of the Atari vs. Cubase 7 thing.... I bet you feel pretty stupid right now for suggesting that I don't know what an analogy is [/quote]

No, anyone missing the point that analogies are about the comparsons being made, not the items being compared, fails to understand. Quoting a dictionary, and listing the items doesnt mean you understood the analogy I was making.
And for the record, it wasnt about the Atari. Or Cubase.

[xalama qo]

Looks like I created a monster thread! Woohoo! Loving it

[jeffh]

Those replies were far too weak to justify replying item-by-item.

1. Never present a dissenting opinion in somebody else's threads, even if presented in a civil manner. Everybody is always right about everything all the time, and there is no reason to try to persuade anybody of anything unless they are the ones dissenting in your thread(or in a thread that you agree with).
2. Never suggest somebody else doesn't know the meaning of a word without first consulting with Google/Webster's/Wikipedia/etc... to ensure that YOU know the true meaning of the word
3. Never suggest that somebody's armchair-quarterback musings should be their own call-to-action and/or a call-to-action by the person/people who want it. It's always somebody else's job, which they are failing at if not heeding the advice of random internet people with unknown credentials.
4. Never make the mistake of crossing "their" with "they're"

Seeing that we've broken the 3 of the first 4 rules of the internet, there's no logical place for this argument to go, it can only be a paradox of having an endless loop and a deadlock both at the same time.

[whyterabbyt]

Welcome back, xalamo.

Just to recap, here's what I think are the current naysaying arguments.

• 1 Its not possible(*)
  2 You can already do enough of it(**) in existing hosts
  3 I dont understand
  4 Its not needed
  5 it hasnt happened by now, so isnt needed
  6 do the work yourself (:roll:)
  
  (* for varying values of 'possible)
  (** for varying values of 'it')

1. It clearly is possible given the fact that there are modular environments, including some with native APIs that are out there, eg RE plugins, or SynthEdit modules.

2. There are a few fundamentals that are needd that are missing from the existing plugin standards or host implementations, eg sample-by-sample processing, feedback handling, polyphonic signal flow handling

3. That's okay.

4. Once upon a time there was a Top Artist, who did music for lots of films. The Top Artist used a lot of samples, but wanted much more flexibility than he could normally find with a sampler. So he commissioned a set of PCs running the Gigabyte sampler, each of which also had a Creamware modular inside, so that he could modularly process his samples. He needed it. Years later, he commissioned a software developer to take chunks of code, like the filters, out of one of their plugins and put them in one of their other products, so that he had a custom version with extra bits. (The developer now sells that custom version) He needed that too.
Both of these cases are essentially exactly what we're talking about, albeit achieved differently, and as one-offs. If we had what we're talking about, everyone could leverage this sort of thing. Oh, and RE plugins again.

5. The entire history of software development is an evolution, a constantly shifting process of stratching the capabilities of the software as the hardware becomes faster, and requirements more advanced. The argument that particular facets of a class of software has reached its implementational zenith and can not ever be improved, is inherently suspect.

6 Erm, what about a starting point of a quick not-properly-diff file

Code: Select all

+ const char* canDoSingleSampleBlocks = "canDoSingleSampleBlocks"; ///<plugin supports blockless processing
+ const char* canDoPolyphonicInstances = "canDoPolyphonicInstances"; ///<plugin supports N-way polyphony whilst processing 

Of course this can probably be improved upon. As with the original VST spec, working out implementation details is now someone else's problem, though

[xalama qo]

Those replies were far too weak to justify replying item-by-item.

1. Never present a dissenting opinion in somebody else's threads, even if presented in a civil manner. Everybody is always right about everything all the time, and there is no reason to try to persuade anybody of anything unless they are the ones dissenting in your thread(or in a thread that you agree with).
2. Never suggest somebody else doesn't know the meaning of a word without first consulting with Google/Webster's/Wikipedia/etc... to ensure that YOU know the true meaning of the word
3. Never suggest that somebody's armchair-quarterback musings should be their own call-to-action and/or a call-to-action by the person/people who want it. It's always somebody else's job, which they are failing at if not heeding the advice of random internet people with unknown credentials.
4. Never make the mistake of crossing "their" with "they're"

Seeing that we've broken the 3 of the first 4 rules of the internet, there's no logical place for this argument to go, it can only be a paradox of having an endless loop and a deadlock both at the same time.

How about agree to disagree?
That creates a stable status quo without the endless feedback loop...which as we all know from countless open-mic nights, can be a pain in the earhole if the engineer doesn't jump on the mute button in a hurry!
I love mixed analogies. (Where's the tongue in cheek emoticon?)

As you were...


edit: spelllling

[xalama qo]

Welcome back, xalamo.

Just to recap, here's what I think are the current naysaying arguments.

Thanks!
I must admit that I get a bit stumped on the 'if it hasn't happened yet we obviously don't need it' mindset. History has shown, and in very recent times, that 'if you create it, they will come'.

Right now the obstacle is the technology. But that's why this proposal is so cool...technology is getting faster and evolving as we speak. So think ahead, to 5 years or so, and imagine that u-he's Berlin Modular environment is a reality, he's devised a protocol which allows other developers to provide modules which slot into it seamlessly, and a patch of low complexity, lets say = SH-101, will play 8 voices easily, or you could run a few monophonic instances of higher complexity within your DAW. 8 cores, 16 cores, 32? Where will we be in 5 years from now?

Is there a market for native true modular synthesis? I think yes.

[bradleyfilms]

Is there a market for native true modular synthesis? I think yes.

I agree wholeheartedly.
ATM CPUs would struggle, but who knows what's going to be here next year, or a few years hence.
Steve

[xalama qo]

Thanks Steve. Things are moving quite quickly...first ACE as a proof of concept, then Diva which included pre-emptive feedback tech (0dff in layman speak), then...what's next?
The groundwork is being done now, Reason playing nicely with sandboxed 3rd party modules. Unthinkable 5 years ago.
I'm watching NI closely. Monark is laying the foundation for something new brewing there. I remember emailing them when they discontinued Pro-53 and pleading with them to build a Pro-One emu, even if it was monophonic and crippled my PC, but just to build the most authentic sounding analog mono they could possibly do at the time. Took a while, and Monark wasn't really what I had in mind, being wrapped in Reaktor, but things are moving in the right direction.
Nord Modular fans are pleading with Clavia to release/open source the code so indies can add their own modules to it. The G2 demo proved that PCs can handle the code, and the monophonic crippling wasn't due to CPU limitations.

I think we're on the cusp of mind-boggling new innovation, and there's a market to lap it up.

[stk]

(Haven't read the whole thread, stopped at the kids bickering)

As an avid Eurorack user, I think this is an awesome idea (and something I've contemplated myself before tossing it into the utopia basket).

You can get half way there by loading VSTs in something like Audiomulch, but you don't get the other (arguable more important) 50% - interconnectivity of control voltages. You also lose out on the granularity of modular. 12bit wavetables through a Polivoks clone and a Buchla-esque waveshaper? Done.

Those saying things like "over engineered" and "unnecessary" are missing the point of modular.

So, remains in the Utopia basket for now, but I like to dream.

Cheers.

[xalama qo]

(Haven't read the whole thread, stopped at the kids bickering)

As an avid Eurorack user, I think this is an awesome idea (and something I've contemplated myself before tossing it into the utopia basket).

You can get half way there by loading VSTs in something like Audiomulch, but you don't get the other (arguable more important) 50% - interconnectivity of control voltages. You also lose out on the granularity of modular. 12bit wavetables through a Polivoks clone and a Buchla-esque waveshaper? Done.

Those saying things like "over engineered" and "unnecessary" are missing the point of modular.

So, remains in the Utopia basket for now, but I like to dream.

Cheers.

Welcome to the dreamers club, stk! Sometimes they come true!

Was quite interested/amused over on the 'u-he Satin coming 9/9' thread I started that quite soon into the thread one guy was asking for the noise reduction component in Satin to be released as a standalone VST. I wanted to cut and paste it here, but thought it was marginally out of context as it applies more to signal processing than synthesis, but obviously would have its place in a modular synthesis/audio mangling scenario.

Apparently in Satin the noise reduction part can be 'isolated' by setting various parameters to zero, etc, but that's not as straight forward as plug n play, and of course lacks the control voltage part of modular systems.

As I've said before, the market exists, we're even seeing some requests/demands for the same, and Reason's RE format has proven it to a large extent.

So let's dream on