|
Subject:4.0 flaw
Posted by: allon
Date:8/2/2002 9:57:37 AM
vst instruments without vst effects? so there will be a different platform for effects automation? hello?what is sf thinking! have they even said what platform the fx will be?(im assuming dxi). i dont think they have come out and said dxi effects, or have they. anyway......... imho to have one platform for synths and another for effects seems really strange. i preffer vst because there are so many more vst products and it easier to share settings with users of other recording systems. ive had bad luck w/ vst wrappers, they tend not be very solid or comsisttent. some vst's wrap ok and other crash my system. -ciao |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: CDM
Date:8/2/2002 10:32:15 AM
the effects automation uses DX automation. and here's a post from Peter Haller about VST: why no VST effects when there is VSTi? Why is it odd? They have a common name, but perform two very different functions. The connection of VSTis to the "engine" is VERY different than how VST Fx would be connected. Two completely different parts of the product. The DX wrappers for VST fx work very well. I just don't understand the huge debate over this... Peter |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: waynegee
Date:8/2/2002 11:04:07 AM
what is IMHO, by the way? I see it a lot. W- |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: CDM
Date:8/2/2002 11:19:12 AM
in my humble opinion. |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: nlamartina
Date:8/2/2002 2:23:21 PM
Allon, To expand on what Peter noted, try and understand that supporting both DX and VST effects would be completely redundant, just as it would be to support both VSTi and DXi. It would be like buying both a Japanese and American Playstation to play games and DVDs from both regions, when a simple modchip installation would allow either one to play both domestic and import games. The DX/VST wrappers out there are affordable, for those who require their use, and not only that, they work extraordinarily well. Hope this helps, Nick LaMartina |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: CDM
Date:8/2/2002 3:05:46 PM
good points, Nick! |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: allon
Date:8/2/2002 6:04:39 PM
i see nothing redundant about supporting both vst and dx effects. in a matter of fact that would be great! its not uncommon to see support for both platforms. there a lot more vst than dx automatable effects, i guess more folks will start making dx automatable versions. what about the dxi synths that arent made in vst format. are there dxi to vsti wrappers? it could also be that ive just had a bad experience with vst wrappers. i get crashes and the such. i guess i should try a new wrapper. what wrappers are people using that get solid results. -a (p.s. puff daddy is not a wrapper) |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: nlamartina
Date:8/2/2002 6:56:10 PM
Allon, I like gum wrappers. They're thin, shiny, fun to play with, and when you take a cinnamon wrapper and lick it and stick on your forhead, it burns really bad, and then your friends can point at you and laugh. But I digress. I've been using Spin Audio's VST Wrapper Lite. You can download it for free off their site, and you can try the pro edition there as well ($40). It's always given me flawless performances, with no crashes or bugs, or anything like that. The nice part is that there's a lot of free VST FX out there, and they're all quite small, so they're quite easy to collect for that "special occasion". FXpansion also has a wrapper, and while it's more expensive, it's also a lot more sophisticated. It adapts VSTi to DXi, as well as VST FX to DX FX, although the former isn't really that helpful. The Lite version would be more up your alley. Those are two I can think off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more out there. I'll keep looking for you. Hope this helps, Nick LaMartina |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: PipelineAudio
Date:8/16/2002 1:26:58 AM
nlamartina you are so far off man. VST fx can report their sample position so therefore can theoretically do plugin delay compensation also, lets see you run a UA card WELL on a dx app |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: ibliss
Date:8/16/2002 2:52:19 AM
Even if Acid were to support VST FX plugs out of the box, they'd still effectively be running in a wrapper - just one that was hidden from the user. The existing VST>DX wrappers work well in my experience; it's not like SOFO users have no possible way to use VST plugs. Mike K |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: PipelineAudio
Date:8/16/2002 1:55:13 PM
wrong again try the ua card also try " VST dynamics" untill the ultrafunk gate came out, the only thing close to a pro gate available on native systems |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: ibliss
Date:8/16/2002 4:01:41 PM
Quote from the Mackie website (now the owners of the UAD-1 technology) "UAD-1 Powered Plug-Ins are fully compatible with the Fxpansion VST-DX adapter. This adapter allows the standard VST UAD-1 Powered Plug-Ins to be used within DirectX host applications such as Cakewalk/Sonar. http://www.fxpansion.com/" Also, don't understand the comment on 'VST Dynamics' - are you talking about the Cubase/Wavelab plugin that won't work outside of those apps? And your point was? There are plenty of decent gates out there. Mike K |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: PipelineAudio
Date:8/16/2002 4:21:38 PM
no name a decent gate and the UA cards are so far latent on dx its not even funny...try it |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: ibliss
Date:8/18/2002 7:55:32 AM
"no name a decent gate" Okay, I'll say instead that there are plenty of gates out there, and you should be able to find a suitable one. What do you define as "pro" anyway? Some of the better ones (IMHO): Waves C1 (DirectX; expensive) Untrafunk (DirectX; keen price! (I'd heard of sonitus, but not checked out their stuff - cheers for pointing me in their direction) Digilogue BlueGate (DirectX, shareware) AnalogX Gate (DirectX, free) multiband noisegate (vst, free - use with Spin Audio VSTwrapper lite (also free)) "and the UA cards are so far latent on dx its not even funny...try it" I think this is what the UAD-1 Delay Compensation plugin is for. I believe Makie/UA are working on DX versions/support of the plugs - but I may be wrong. Mike K |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: PipelineAudio
Date:8/18/2002 1:43:47 PM
"Waves C1 (DirectX; expensive) Attack and release ramps are AWFUL for drums on the waves gates, look ahead doesnt work as shown, the key or (haha)" sidechain " in is a joke Untrafunk (DirectX; keen price! (I'd heard of sonitus, but not checked out their stuff - cheers for pointing me in their direction) Hell yeah! like I said in the other post, until ultrafunk r3 you needed vst for gates. Its still not as good as VST dynamics, but has features that will make it better once they start working Digilogue BlueGate (DirectX, shareware) No key in no hysteresis AnalogX Gate (DirectX, free) No key in , no hysteresis The point is WHY ???? why why why why why ???? WHY should we be limited? Would it in ANY way hurt us to have VST? no it could only help why are people so vehenment about defending LIMITS???? limits suck I can plug any brand of fx into a neve, whats the problem with an IBM ? |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: pwppch
Date:8/18/2002 1:58:27 PM
>>The point is WHY ???? why why why why why ???? WHY should we be limited? Would it in ANY way hurt us to have VST? no it could only help why are people so vehenment about defending LIMITS???? limits suck I can plug any brand of fx into a neve, whats the problem with an IBM ? << You can, with the right "cable". The VST to DX adapters are the right cable. What sense would it make to spend our time on native support when there is a viable mechanism/tool to make this work? Peter |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: chaircrusher
Date:8/18/2002 2:28:25 PM
> What sense would it make to spend our time on native support when there > is a viable mechanism/tool to make this work? 1. Customers would like it; it would enhance the product without complicating it. 2. VST/DX adapters, in my opinion, don't work so hot. Realistically you'd need a copy of all of the big 3, and then try each plugin with each adapter to find the one that it works with. 3. I have to pay for the VST/DX adapter, because unlike a lot of people, I do pay for software. Of course point 2 suggests that the development effort involved in supporting VST fx isn't trivial, though there are several applications that seem to have done it. |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: PipelineAudio
Date:8/18/2002 2:43:20 PM
peter, I really need your help with my RME cards The point is: cant vst plugs report their position in time to end plugin delay? and wouldnt a vst adapter eat up more precious resources than having direct vst support ? |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: pwppch
Date:8/18/2002 3:01:03 PM
>>peter, I really need your help with my RME cards Ok. You have my email, don't you? >>The point is: cant vst plugs report their position in time to end plugin delay? The problem is that DX plugs don't have to do this if properly implemented. My experiances with the FXpansion VST adaptor is that Angus has solved all the problems of VST. I use this adaptor and we test heavily with it. If you are speaking about the UA or other hardware based DSP solutions, then I am an advocate of them developing DX versions of their plugins. They can solve the latency/delay issue with out adding to the complexity or new interfaces to the DX spec. >and wouldnt a vst adapter eat up more precious resources than having direct vst >support ? No more that if we had to do it natively. All of these things are pretty light weight. Once you get past the enumeration and connection of the plugins, the actual streaming overhead - assuming the host does not have to resample or convert from floating point to fixed point - is a wash. Some plugs - regardless of their native interface model - are piggish. Peter |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: pwppch
Date:8/18/2002 3:10:05 PM
I do understand your perspective. We have debated this back and forth for some time. I agree with the Cakewalk approach in that we have tremendous success with the VST wrappers. Angus has done a hell of a job with the his wrapper. It has never failed to work. He has always supported problems, and help in many ways to make sure we were compatible. The VST spec itself is workable - at the fundamental level. Lots of gaping holes, but nothing insurmountable. There are some just plain brain dead things that are part of VST in my opinion. (This begs the question: Then why are we supporting VSTis in ACID? Well, because it was a complete spec when I started this. DXi 2 was not ready for release by CW and I had to make a choice. The VSTi support in ACID is very robust because we had the time to get it right. Having said that, I am sure there will be a plug in that will cause us and users fits. We have a QA guy here that is dilligent in getting me look at every issue he finds with every plugin. He alone has assured the stability of our VSTi support through his dilligence in keeping me digging for solutions.) The problem is the integration into the app. The UI model is very different between DX and VST. It was a bear to get the VSTi UI in place and deal with all of the "undocumented" features of VSTi UI conventions. If you have had some specific bad experiances with the VST wrappers out there, I would like to know the details. This is the cource we have chosen and we will do our best to assure compatability with our apps and these wrappers. Peter |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: PipelineAudio
Date:8/19/2002 12:59:51 AM
Actually Peter, I lost the email I still got the same one though. pipelineaudio@angelfire.com if you could please look at this thread: http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=115762&Replies=34&Page=1 I'll be talking to xvision tomorrow hopefully getting a little closer check out my new place : www.studiozpro.com |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: brittnell
Date:8/21/2002 7:53:31 PM
Hi there, I understand your arguments for not including native support of VSTfx (I do use VST/DX Wrapper), but I have to tell you that I'm seeing this issue come up on more and more external forums. Many users and "potential users" see this as a serious oversight, regardless of the logic behind it and any argument in defense of it. This is a crude example of how I think this makes many feel (sorry, it's the best I can muster at the moment): Imagine being with a hot lover who does it ALL for you, but makes you use your hand at the last second. Sure, it does the trick, but... |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: waynegee
Date:8/22/2002 8:45:57 AM
hot lovers?!?! hands??!? wha...huh? Anyway, yeah...the VSTi support is not as robust as I'd hoped but, to be honest I find the whole VSTi/DXi discussion pointless anyway as I've never been able to run one, hosted by my sequncer, without TOTALLY killing my comptuer performance(I'm using Windows 98 SE, Athlon, CPU 1GB with 1GB of ram and a Soundblaster Audigy soundcard). And that means Sonar, Nuendo, Logic and Fruity...they all turn my computer into my epileptic brother-in-law. I usually just run them standalone, record a part with an external metronome into Sound Forge. I own Reason, FM7, Kontakt, Battery, Lounge Lizard and a bunch of web freebies. I since gone back to using all of my external hardware and synth modules which all run great and zero latency. I know most of the sequencing pkgs have Rewire for my Reason, but Rewire kills my computer as well. So my point is: even though I think the VSTi and MIDI implementation in ACID 4.0 is not great yet they will get it...or at least as good as LogiCubaSonar, which ain't all that hot, either. All IMHO, no flames plz. |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: Feveria
Date:8/22/2002 9:16:38 AM
SonicPCH: Ok. You have my email, don't you? -------------------------------- Maybe he does, however i don't :-) Peter, Frederic (Reflex) of Fruityloops team was trying to contact you guys - can you fire off an email to him reflex@fruityloops.com or to jmc@fruityloops.com letting them know of how they could contact you directly. Thanks in advance. |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: spesimen
Date:8/22/2002 9:50:06 AM
>>I find the whole VSTi/DXi discussion pointless anyway as I've never been >>able to run one, hosted by my sequncer, without TOTALLY killing my comptuer >>performance(I'm using Windows 98 SE, Athlon, CPU 1GB with 1GB of ram and a >>Soundblaster Audigy soundcard). wow man.. maybe something is amiss with your system. i have a 1.3 athlon, and routinely run 3-5 vst instruments in most apps with a tiny latency and still only at 30% of cpu or so. for me it's been the opposite experience where i'm using external synths less and less.. |
|
Subject:wow wayneggeee!
Reply by: Jacose
Date:8/22/2002 10:36:02 AM
I've never been able to run one, hosted by my sequncer, without TOTALLY killing my comptuer performance(I'm using Windows 98 SE, Athlon, CPU 1GB with 1GB of ram and a Soundblaster Audigy soundcard). And that means Sonar, Nuendo, Logic and Fruity...they all turn my computer into my epileptic brother-in-law you have a major problem with your system then, as my friend with a CELERON 700mhz with 512 MB RAM 30 gig 5400 |RPM HDD, generic soundcard can run at least 3 NI synths, Vsti in Fruitylooops, with other samples being used as well.. you should look into optimizing your system m8. your performance is ridiculous ;) maybe its the audigy... |
|
Subject:RE: wow wayneggeee!
Reply by: Spirit
Date:8/22/2002 10:42:22 AM
I've got to add to that as well: your system is completely stuffed. You got something bad happening and need to get it sorted. You've got masses of great software being sabotaged by an abysmal PC configuration. |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: waynegee
Date:8/22/2002 11:52:13 AM
What should I do about that performance, guys? It's like that on BOTH my PC and my laptop. I should also add that the latency problem is also a biggie: with any of the above softsynths, I get about a quarter-note latency so the synths are virtually un-playable. Thoughts...advice? |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: pwppch
Date:8/22/2002 4:13:56 PM
I just fired them off an email. Thanks! Peter |
|
Subject:RE: 4.0 flaw
Reply by: spesimen
Date:8/22/2002 5:13:13 PM
>>What should I do about that performance, guys? It's like that on BOTH >>my PC and my laptop. I should also add that the latency problem is also >>a biggie: with any of the above softsynths, I get about a quarter-note >>latency so the synths are virtually un-playable. Thoughts...advice? do you have the same problems with ASIO? (does the audigy have ASIO drivers even?)you won't get a very nice latency without a program that natively does ASIO or WDM. i never dabbled with softsynths until well after i upgraded to win2k, so i'm not that familar with win98 issues..it doesn't support wdm though and most mid to high level soundcards are getting to using that and/or asio these days.. not sure 'bout the creative stuff.. try googling around for optimization tips. one page i found: http://www.soniccontrol.com/tech/midi/articles/feature/dawtweaking.shtml there's one awesome archive about daw optimization out there but i can't find the bookmark.. |
|
Subject:YO wayneggeeee read dis
Reply by: Jacose
Date:8/22/2002 5:17:17 PM
1st I would recommend backing up all of your setup files and documents on to CD, then REfoRMAT all your hard drives. MAke a clean install of your OS, then go here to find some great tips: http://www.bluelifeaudio.com/~pcconfig/ oh yeah, make sure you take off all of those fancy display features on win XP ; |