New Propellorheads DAW [Archive]

daveporter

05-11-2009, 03:39 PM

I don't know how many of you have seen this:

http://www.propellerheads.se/products/record/index.cfm

but the prop heads have what looks like some real competition for existing DAWs. Its too early to tell exactly what will and will not be in the final product but what I see so far looks very good.

Given the prop head's software quality and value for the money this could spell real trouble for Steinberg and other DAW developers in certain segments of the market. Steinberg better start worrying about the quality of their products and their relationship with customers.

Dave

Captain Caveman

05-11-2009, 03:45 PM

What will be in - another bog standard "modelling" of SSL EQ and compressor characteristics via otherwise generic DSP. What won't be in - 3rd party VST(i) plugin compatibility.

daveporter

05-11-2009, 04:47 PM

Your correct, it appears to be a closed system. However, it supports Rewire and has a number of export features that supposedly allows you get around this problem to some extent.

As I said in my first post, I expect that this product will appeal to certain segments of the market that now would purchase Logic or Cubase but not everyone. Musicians who are more concerned with getting down inspirational moments then creating large works appear to be the target market.

Dave

MattiasNYC

05-11-2009, 05:02 PM

Threads merged!

(the three preceding posts were from a different thread....)

nikki-k

05-11-2009, 06:05 PM

At least they were polite and used an "Ignition Key" instead of a dongle :icon_redface: :icon_rolleyes:

Jonesy

05-11-2009, 06:06 PM

What is amazing is their dongle implementation - you will never be stuck, even if you lose the dongle or leave it at home. The program has 3 running modes, even if you run it in demo mode you can still have full functionality including saving projects, you just cannot open a saved project. If you don't have your dongle with you you can log into their website and net-launch the program from your account, and it will stay launched even if the internet connection drops out.

If you lose your dongle it can be replaced for a nominal fee, and you can net launch the application while you wait for the replacement.

Finally someone does the right thing by their paying customers.

Daryl

05-11-2009, 06:07 PM

Softy

05-11-2009, 06:07 PM

Yeah, at $299 (RETAIL) it has to be the cheapest thing of its kind out there. That means dealers will be paying about $200 for it. So for the cost of an hour or two's time, anybody can try it out (and keep it). If it does anything useful (quickly sketching out ideas being one of 'em), it'll be easily worth it. What I think is most appealing about it is the idea that it could be rewired to Reason, and serve as said scratchpad for very little money. I'm sure that it and Reason & Recycle will find a useful and permanent place here, in addition to whatever else we have.

Captain Caveman

05-11-2009, 06:22 PM

Musicians who are more concerned with getting down inspirational moments then creating large works appear to be the target market.

Dave

That's the impression I got from the video, but it looked like the same type of fast workflow could be achieved with track presets in Cubase. It looks like all marketing and no substance - apart from the way it timestretches where it apparently uses realtime timestretching algorithms when applied and works away on timestretching with a quality algorithm in the background until it is processed and seemlessly switches the audio events when finished processing.

'part from that it doesn't look like it's up to anything new.

TAFKAT

05-11-2009, 06:25 PM

Cannot... resist... bringing "instant million dollar sheen" to my tracks....

... the term polishing a turd comes to mind... :eusa_whistle:

Another thing to remember is that to be using the amp sims , the roundtrip latency required will need to be pretty impressive , and I really can't imagine the target market grasping the actual mechanics involved there too easily.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall on the support call room when the inevitable calls start flowing ..

Softy

05-11-2009, 09:15 PM

... the term polishing a turd comes to mind... :eusa_whistle:

Another thing to remember is that to be using the amp sims , the roundtrip latency required will need to be pretty impressive , and I really can't imagine the target market grasping the actual mechanics involved there too easily.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall on the support call room when the inevitable calls start flowing ..

Yes, I can just imagine what life in the support department will be like. But I wouldn't be surprised if this could be useful anyway. It's cheap. And if it works for putting some inspirational ideas down quickly (without bombing), I could definitely see some uses for it. I don't mean to infer that it will ever be a replacement for Nuendo, Cubase, PT, DP, Logic or anything else. But hey, for a couple of hundred bucks, I'd like to have something like that, that I could use to quickly and reliably get down some musical thoughts. Something that wouldn't require a lot of tool-oriented thought would be nice.

kdm

05-11-2009, 09:42 PM

TAFKAT

05-12-2009, 01:25 AM

I can already see a lot of people on GS wow'ed by the "faithfully modelled after* the legendary SSL 9000k" claims.... uh...yeah, right, your getting a UAD or Waves quality emulation (much less true SSL9000 analog...) on a mixer with no extra latency, 0 cpu hit, and for $299. Right. Similar graphics apparently... but sound? lol .

Whats sound, performance, expandability, etc, when you have a nice GUI.. :eusa_whistle:

Its interesting reading in on the inane ramblings and afterglow, but lets look at this seriously, it has No Third Party VST Plugin support, NO MIDI, come on guys, is it only me or is this beyond ridiculous.. ?

This whole line about it being aimed at musicians and not audio engineers is an insult to the intelligence.. , so "musicians" are not in need of MIDI , or plugin support.. ??

I'll be interested where the dust settles, but to be honest, I have personally placed this in the hyperbole bin until further notice... :D

Sam

05-12-2009, 02:34 AM

No midi?
No VST/AU?

Great marketing line...

"Record, now with less functionality than Garage band!"

kdm

05-12-2009, 02:36 AM

Reason is cool for what it is, and Record fills the recording gap for people who never figured out they could use Cubendo, Sonar, Logic, or Protools to do just that... record. ;-)

For everyone else, well, this one sums it up.... :sleeping:

Captain Caveman

05-12-2009, 06:29 AM

your getting a UAD or Waves quality emulation

Sorry kdm, I can't let that one slide - UA emulate the circuits in their emulations whereas Waves don't and just model the characteristics. Sonnox model the characteristics of various EQs with Sonnox EQ too and they are upfront about the methods used, as are Algorithmix.

Waves SSL EQ nuls out with any generic EQ and is really just a vintage GUI over freeware DSP with a big price tag. It's hard to tell with compressors because the response curve can be as "wavy" as you want, but if they put as little effort into the compressors as the EQ its probably just a Waves compressor with a different response curve.

But like I say, Waves must have sold a few millions worth of these plugins so who can blame Propellerheads for regurgitating the same BS to the herd.

UA model at least the individual circuits that make up a piece of vintage gear and I know that fxpansion have modelled the individual components within the circuits for their new synths (and possibly the FX in BFD2 - don't know for sure). That's where the quality - or at the very least, the difference - lies IMO.

Captain Caveman

05-12-2009, 06:30 AM

is it only me or is this beyond ridiculous.. ?

I wouldn't say it is beyond rediculous, but it is certainly rediculous. :)

Andrew J

05-12-2009, 11:16 AM

That's where the quality - or at the very least, the difference - lies IMO.

Glad you added that last bit! Good "quality" is certainly achievable without doing component modelling, it just might not be the flavour you're after.

TAFKAT

05-12-2009, 11:27 AM

UA emulate the circuits in their emulations whereas Waves don't and just model the characteristics.

Right, must be the one of the reason why the algo's can't be run efficiently natively , or so they have us believe .., BTW, a large bridge for sale in Sydney , if anyone is interested... :eusa_whistle:

05-12-2009, 11:34 AM

I actually possess a small piece of the Brooklyn Bridge...but I'm always looking to add to my collection.

Softy

05-12-2009, 11:53 AM

Right, must be the one of the reason why the algo's can't be run efficiently natively , or so they have us believe .., BTW, a large bridge for sale in Sydney , if anyone is interested... :eusa_whistle:

How much do you want for it? I may eventually need a place to sleep underneath, in my retirement. There's apparently some problem with disputed multiple ownership of the bridge that my ancestors bought back east.

OpenMind

05-12-2009, 11:57 AM

Waves SSL EQ nuls out with any generic EQ and is really just a vintage GUI over freeware DSP with a big price tag.
Not true...
These plug-ins sound so close to the original consoles, even experts who work with SSL boards day in and day out can’t tell the difference.

Measurements reveal a 'null-out' with the original G4000 hardware to -30dB.

As I told before.. About 15 years ago I've worked with a 4000... and I couldn't tell the difference either when testing the Waves SSL-collection 2 years ago.... but I admit that a time gap of 10-15 years might be a lot when comparing the sound.

At least I'm a very happy Waves-SSL user since I tested... And I enjoy the channel strips and the compressor in almost every project.

TAFKAT

05-12-2009, 12:26 PM

How much do you want for it? I may eventually need a place to sleep underneath, in my retirement. There's apparently some problem with disputed multiple ownership of the bridge that my ancestors bought back east.

Oh O.K, just needing to dot a few i's and I'll get back to you..

I also have this adjoining building right at the mouth of the bridge if you are interested, has a really unique roof design.. , reasonable acoustics, and could be quite cosy to sleep in.. :D

Heres a snap of the bridge and building ..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Sydney_Harbour_Bridge_and_Opera_House.jpg

Location, location, location....

kdm

05-12-2009, 01:37 PM

Sorry kdm, I can't let that one slide - UA emulate the circuits in their emulations whereas Waves don't and just model the characteristics. Sonnox model the characteristics of various EQs with Sonnox EQ too and they are upfront about the methods used, as are Algorithmix.

No need to let it slide - I simply included Waves in my generalized "emulation" comparison because I thought only listing UAD would elicite a reaction from Waves users. I don't own the Waves SSL, or use Waves plugins in any form or fashion for various reasons. As far as Algorithmix.... well....without a doubt they cost more than most.

Waves SSL EQ nuls out with any generic EQ and is really just a vintage GUI over freeware DSP with a big price tag.

I don't know how or where Waves compares, but most digital EQs aren't rocket science, regardless of what developers "sell" us on. Emulating an analog circuit takes quite a bit more than I suspect even UA has put into theirs, or could feasibly, though I do believe they have put more true "emulation" into theirs than most.

There are only a few ways to vary a digital EQ without eating up serious cpu cycles to make any noticeable improvement. There aren't many EQs on the market that provide anything significant over less expensive alternatives unless you compare linear phase to non-linear. If an "analog" EQ isn't killing your cpu, it probably is just masking the output response to "sound" analogish, or adding some mild harmonic distortion.

I've compared many EQ plugins including the non-Waves plugins mentioned above, and was able to null quite a few with each other to -80 or -90db or more (the lack of complete null can easily be attributed to differences in the Q curve, or simply Q value settings not being accurate enough to exactly reproduce the response of one with another). I did my tests at different frequencies, with boosts of 15 db so the results would be quite obvious if there were differences, even in curves.

Even the more expensive EQs (esp. linear phase EQs) can be nulled with a less expensive alternative, but those companies have been known to express their disapproval of that information being made public.

Refined Audiometrix's high end 10-band at quality level 10 might be the one exception (I don't own the 10-band - just the 3 band, that only goes to 5).

I seriously doubt Record's "SSL" mixer will sound even as good as Nuendo 4's stock EQs and comps. It's just too easy to simply match the output response curve of an EQ rather than actually model it. Marketing, marketing, marketing.

Captain Caveman

05-12-2009, 06:54 PM

Not true...

Measurements reveal a 'null-out' with the original G4000 hardware to -30dB.

As I told before.. About 15 years ago I've worked with a 4000... and I couldn't tell the difference either when testing the Waves SSL-collection 2 years ago.... but I admit that a time gap of 10-15 years might be a lot when comparing the sound.

At least I'm a very happy Waves-SSL user since I tested... And I enjoy the channel strips and the compressor in almost every project.
Sorry, but Waves SSL EQ nulls out with the Tracktion built-in EQ (the first and last one I tried for obvious reasons) when you reduce the Q on the Tracktion one (because Waves SSL reduces Q as it increases gain). It's the exact same way that Sonnox model their different EQ settings, only they don't stick a vintage GUI on their response models.

TAFKAT

05-12-2009, 07:07 PM

.. Yeh, but do the Waves emulation plugs "sound" good, couldn't care less about the mechanics in the end if the end result is achievable..

There are enough names sticking their mugs on the Waves site claiming the emulations are anything but lame , not only the SSL btw, so either they are all industry whores pimping themselves out for some quick $, or to some the emulations do "sound" like they are delivering..

I have a very hard time accepting that UAD have a monopoly on vintage modeling /emulation.

So what were we talking about again, oh yeh, the SSL Modeling in Props new ground breaker.., yeh, I bet its stellar... :D

Captain Caveman

05-12-2009, 07:12 PM

Right, must be the one of the reason why the algo's can't be run efficiently natively , or so they have us believe .., BTW, a large bridge for sale in Sydney , if anyone is interested... :eusa_whistle:
I hear what you are saying about the processing power thang, but those guys are bona fidi boffins and I don't think they'd publish untruths about the methodology in how they do their circuit emulations.

On the same subject, watching the video from Synth Squad from fxpansion they say that they modelled the individual components to make their synths. It's something they have clearly been working on for years, seeing as the free synth Orca was a prototype.

All I'm sure of is that UA don't a use variation of this for their compressors...

void compress
(
float* wav_in, // signal
int n, // N samples
double threshold, // threshold (percents)
double slope, // slope angle (percents)
int sr, // sample rate (smp/sec)
double tla, // lookahead (ms)
double twnd, // window time (ms)
double tatt, // attack time (ms)
double trel // release time (ms)
)
{
typedef float stereodata[2];
stereodata* wav = (stereodata*) wav_in; // our stereo signal
threshold *= 0.01; // threshold to unity (0...1)
slope *= 0.01; // slope to unity
tla *= 1e-3; // lookahead time to seconds
twnd *= 1e-3; // window time to seconds
tatt *= 1e-3; // attack time to seconds
trel *= 1e-3; // release time to seconds

// attack and release "per sample decay"
double att = (tatt == 0.0) ? (0.0) : exp (-1.0 / (sr * tatt));
double rel = (trel == 0.0) ? (0.0) : exp (-1.0 / (sr * trel));

// envelope
double env = 0.0;

// sample offset to lookahead wnd start
int lhsmp = (int) (sr * tla);

// samples count in lookahead window
int nrms = (int) (sr * twnd);

// for each sample...
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
// now compute RMS
double summ = 0;

// for each sample in window
for (int j = 0; j < nrms; ++j)
{
int lki = i + j + lhsmp;
double smp;

// if we in bounds of signal?
// if so, convert to mono
if (lki < n)
smp = 0.5 * wav[lki][0] + 0.5 * wav[lki][1];
else
smp = 0.0; // if we out of bounds we just get zero in smp

summ += smp * smp; // square em..
}

double rms = sqrt (summ / nrms); // root-mean-square

// dynamic selection: attack or release?
double theta = rms > env ? att : rel;

// smoothing with capacitor, envelope extraction...
// here be aware of pIV denormal numbers glitch
env = (1.0 - theta) * rms + theta * env;

// the very easy hard knee 1:N compressor
double gain = 1.0;
if (env > threshold)
gain = gain - (env - threshold) * slope;

// result - two hard kneed compressed channels...
float leftchannel = wav[i][0] * gain;
float rightchannel = wav[i][1] * gain;
}
}... but I'm not so sure about Waves.

:)

OpenMind

05-12-2009, 07:15 PM

Sorry, but Waves SSL EQ nulls out with the Tracktion built-in EQ (the first and last one I tried for obvious reasons) when you reduce the Q on the Tracktion one (because Waves SSL reduces Q as it increases gain). It's the exact same way that Sonnox model their different EQ settings, only they don't stick a vintage GUI on their response models.
I get the impression that your conclusions are based on EQ-curves only? :eusa_eh:
What about the harmonic distortions? What about the minor differences at different frequencies?

I have been searching to see if I could still find the original texts that where on waves.com in 2005/2006, but wasn't succesfull in that... but I think this review starts with about the same words;
http://remixmag.com/tech/studio_tools/remix_waves_ssl_collection/

With 4000-series hardware reference components directly from SSL, Waves engineers spent more than a year analyzing, modeling and measuring every behavior and distinctive sonic characteristic, including harmonic distortion and time constants in an effort to achieve exact emulation. According to Waves, in many cases the plug-ins produced an impressive -35dB of phase cancellation when put side by side with the SSL hardware. The numbers can often look great on paper; how it sounds is what's important.

Captain Caveman

05-12-2009, 07:19 PM

I get the impression that your conclusions are based on EQ-curves only? :eusa_eh:

Nope, my conclusions are based on tests I did myself. By the way, the bolded quote is very, very vague and could mean anything in english. It's a well written piece of text that means both anything and nothing.

And the fact that they measured everything doesn't mean anything either in the actual implementation.

Captain Caveman

05-12-2009, 07:33 PM

There are enough names sticking their mugs on the Waves site claiming the emulations are anything but lame , not only the SSL btw, so either they are all industry whores pimping themselves out for some quick $, or to some the emulations do "sound" like they are delivering..

I have a very hard time accepting that UAD have a monopoly on vintage modeling /emulation.

I always hark back to the excellent book Fooled by Randomness when confronted with arguments involving "names". :icon_yes:

I was going to write a very long post there, but the book is well worth reading.

:)

OpenMind

05-12-2009, 07:38 PM

Nope, my conclusions are based on tests I did myself. By the way, the bolded quote is very, very vague and could mean anything in english.

Well... to me as a not native english speaker it's very understandable.
They worked together with SSL who provided some of their reference modules, which normally might be used for in-house comparisons, so Waves would be able to build an as good as possible emulation :D

Captain Caveman

05-12-2009, 07:50 PM

Well... to me as a not native english speaker it's very understandable.
The thing with the english language is that you can be very vague whilst saying something fairly definate to people that aren't reading "between the lines".

I can assure you that "With 4000-series hardware reference components directly from SSL, Waves engineers spent more than a year analyzing, modeling and measuring every behavior and distinctive sonic characteristic, including harmonic distortion and time constants in an effort to achieve exact emulation." only means that they looked at it very closely "in an effort to..."

Effort, try, attempt - nothing definate and certainly no statement that they actually included any of that stuff, only that they looked into it.

TAFKAT

05-12-2009, 07:52 PM

I always hark back to the excellent book Fooled by Randomness when confronted with arguments involving "names". :icon_yes:

I was going to write a very long post there, but the book is well worth reading.

:)

Oh, I am not arguing for or against the "Names" , I usually switch off at the name game being used to alter an opinion, my point being that either these guys have little to no integrity in regards to their opinions expressed, or that the plugs actually do sound good to some, while you seem to be implying they are being fooled by some randomness in the universe.... ?

Same can be said for the UAD stalwarts then , I suppose.. :wink:

I'll check out the book..

:009:

Sam

05-12-2009, 08:09 PM

Might be an interesting read for some UA insight....a discussion with a UA DSP guru

http://www.uaudio.com/about/_pdf/TapeOp_Berners.pdf

TAFKAT

05-12-2009, 08:20 PM

Sam,

What genius typeset that page..

Good grief, I haven't seen anything that lame since high school... LOL

I'll get around to reading it after I recover from the mixed fonts and crappy layout , and whats with the lines on the paper like its been typed on a pad.. ??

Am I missing something here.. ?

Sorry for the digression..

Where were we, oh yeh , that Props SSL emulation.. :D

OpenMind

05-12-2009, 08:25 PM

Effort, try, attempt - nothing definate and certainly no statement that they actually included any of that stuff, only that they looked into it.

Well... that must have been very boring... just looking at each other for over a year :icon_lol:

Waves and SSL engineers have worked together for over a year
http://www.waves.com/Manuals/Plugins/SSLEQ.pdf

Captain Caveman

05-12-2009, 08:32 PM

Oh, I am not arguing for or against the "Names" , I usually switch off at the name game being used to alter an opinion, my point being that either these guys have little to no integrity in regards to their opinions expressed, or that the plugs actually do sound good to some, while you seem to be implying they are being fooled by some randomness in the universe.... ?

Same can be said for the UAD stalwarts then , I suppose.. :wink:

I'll check out the book..

:009:
Nope, I'm just saying that their opinions aren't any more valid than mine or yours and their intelligence and ability to rise above the placebo effect shouldn't be measured by the fact they happened to do the right thing in the right place and the right time with a lucky or genetic connection to the right people.

One of the most successful mix engineers around at the moment, Chris Lord Alge, uses digital tape instead of ProTools because it sounds like vintage analogue tape (http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may07/articles/cla.htm) for example.

It's a great book btw, a little bit focused on market trading but relevant in all walks of life.

:eusa_angel:

Captain Caveman

05-12-2009, 08:39 PM

Well... that must have been very boring... just looking at each other for over a year :icon_lol:

http://www.waves.com/Manuals/Plugins/SSLEQ.pdf

The important word in that document is "characteristics" after the "faithfully reproduce" bit.

What is a "characteristic"? A mannerism, an expression, something that reminds you of something or someone? A better word would be circuits or components. Characteristics means no more than a modelling of the general effect of something. Wishy washy clap-trap. :)

Captain Caveman

05-12-2009, 08:44 PM

OpenMind

05-12-2009, 08:45 PM

What is a "characteristic"? A mannerism, an expression, something that reminds you of something or someone? A better word would be circuits or components. Characteristics means no more than a modelling of the general effect of something.

:eusa_eh: Explain me how you want to build transistors, capacitors, resistors, diodes etc. in ones and zeros? You can't! You can only recreate their mathematical characteristics.

It's ALL about characteristics when you're converting from one medium (analog) to another (digital), isnt it?

Captain Caveman

05-12-2009, 09:00 PM

:eusa_eh: Explain me how you want to build transistors, capacitors, resistors, diodes etc. in ones and zeros? You can't! You can only recreate their mathematical characteristics.

It's ALL about characteristics when you're converting from one medium (analog) to another (digital), isnt it?

Sorry, I think I got sidetracked somewhere, I am not saying that it isn't all mathematics I am just saying that putting a fancy GUI on something that models the EQ/Gain relationship or compressor curve doesn't make it an emulation - no matter what the marketing says.

Obviously without any quality control or criteria anything can be an inaccurate emulation of anything else, but without the modelling of individual circuits and anomilies of hardware it is downright fraud to suggest that product X is an emulation of product Y when it cancels out 100% with freeware EQ. Even if you include an analogue button to introduce white noise into the plugin.

So, to take the words out of Vins mouth - back to the Proppelerheads new "host".

:)

Captain Caveman

05-12-2009, 09:01 PM

Btw, and last post for the night - I'm not a UAD guy, I'm an acusticaudio guy.

:)

OpenMind

05-12-2009, 09:22 PM

I am just saying that putting a fancy GUI on something that models the EQ/Gain relationship or compressor curve doesn't make it an emulation - no matter what the marketing says.
I always looked through fancy UI... software and hardware. I'm not influenced by marketing... but I am very please by my ears sometimes. :D
This pleasement made me even buy API, Neve, Fairchild and Pultec... the Waves version of course :D

it is downright fraud to suggest that product X is an emulation of product Y when it cancels out 100% with freeware EQ. Not when the "cheating" pleased my ears as promised. Freeware never does that... but I don't mind, because I don't expect that... so that may give a big surprise sometimes.

Even if you include an analogue button to introduce white noiseNoise with specific frequency characteristics... and various harmonic distortions at various frequencies and/or levels... and microscopic changes because of temperature variations in time... To be short; Anything that might give analog SSL its sound character.

So, to take the words out of Vins mouth - back to the Proppelerheads new "host".
Good proposal :icon_cool:

BTW... I'm just a guy who's intentions are good... oh lord, please don't let me be misunderstood :D

OpenMind

05-12-2009, 09:36 PM

To get back to topic...

I like the propellorheads UI much more than any of the big-boy plug-ins I've seen before. :icon_cool:
http://www.propellerheads.se/products/record/img/slideshow/mixer_slide1.jpg

I always wished for some "container window" in Cubase, where one could create some kind of desk lay-out containing al the used plug-ins in a vertical channel lay-out.... using the scroll-bars to scan over the controls... and maximizing that window over all monitors in use. Would be much better compared to opening and closing all those seperate plug-ins during mixing... :icon_cool:

UntamedSpirit

05-12-2009, 10:21 PM

shaking my head smiling here....

I can't believe people here seriously think this is marketed at anyone other than existing Reason users as the audio extension they have wanted for years.

This thing plays nicely with no one other than who the propheads decide.
It may as well be in a proprietary box!

What, I'm supposed to retire my vst and vsti's?

Just another toy for the indulgent to buy and find it has no innovative features
apart from working with Reason without needing rewire.
I guess shiny colorful knobs still generate $$$

Retro consoles on an lcd screen are the dumbest thing in the world to me
and the sooner we lose all pots on audio software the better (unless they are being rotated by a real hardware pot).

And another dongle for free........

:sleeping:

05-13-2009, 03:38 AM

I guess shiny colorful knobs still generate $$$

After viewing the screenshot above, those were my exact thoughts.

Truthfully though, that is about the most dreadful interface I've ever seen. Rotary knobs can all go away, please, PLEASE! Give me box where I can enter a value and a slider, and I will be happy and efficient.

Please let me change every color in the program, I'm blue'd out.

05-13-2009, 03:55 AM

What genius typeset that page..

Wile E. Coyote

BTW, that Dr Berners guy is definitely wasted in that picture. Probably some top quality NorCal sens. :icon_cool:

Andrew J

05-13-2009, 04:46 AM

Retro consoles on an lcd screen are the dumbest thing in the world to me
and the sooner we lose all pots on audio software the better (unless they are being rotated by a real hardware pot).

Problem is that developers can't afford to ignore the fact that there aren't enough people who aren't influenced by eye candy.

OpenMind

05-13-2009, 07:58 AM

Rotary knobs can all go away, please, PLEASE! Give me box where I can enter a value and a slider, and I will be happy and efficient.

Rotaries still take a smaller foot print on your screen... and if the developer did his/her work, you can simply double-click a rotary to see the box you want. :icon_cool:

Animus

05-13-2009, 10:36 AM

Rotaries are fine when using the scroll wheel, and especially when using a control surface. If you had sliders all over it would take up to much real estate.

05-13-2009, 10:59 AM

Rotaries still take a smaller foot print on your screen... and if the developer did his/her work, you can simply double-click a rotary to see the box you want. :icon_cool:

I have a 30" screen running at 2560 x 1600 for my DAW. I don't care. :wink:

05-13-2009, 11:02 AM

Rotaries are fine when using the scroll wheel, and especially when using a control surface. If you had sliders all over it would take up to much real estate.

I have a control surface, the Tascam FW-1884. This real estate argument is nonsense. Pull up your Pultec Pro, look at those knobs. No, sliders do not necessarily take up more SRE. :wink:

Softy

05-13-2009, 11:05 AM

Rotaries are fine when using the scroll wheel, and especially when using a control surface. If you had sliders all over it would take up to much real estate.

My thoughts exactly. Now I won't have to say that. As for all the discussion about lame products being sold to people because of reasons like the fact that they enjoy eye candy, one should keep in mind that for one thing, great results (by several definitions including profits generated) are sometimes attained while using all kinds of "inferior" things. And besides, what's wrong with liking eye candy?

To each his own, I say. If someone starts making an eye candy device that sells for a couple of hundred bucks and puts out no sound whatsoever, and a gigantic number of people buy it because they want to, it doesn't mean they're all stupid. It's more likely that those who think those folks are stupid are on the wrong track as far as understanding what's going on is concerned.

Keep in mind that the number of people (buyers) who are just paying to enjoy the fantasy of all this, is HUGE compared to the relatively tiny number of people who buy things based on an actual need or desire to record or produce music that is technically or artistically great.

Back when I was a kid reading things like dB Magazine, and wishing he could get on the inside of the industry, the idea that by 2009 we'd have access to any of these things (like the Internet, home recording equipment, computers, software, all the boutique guitars, amps, synths, VSTs, control surfaces, etc., etc.) would have been more than unbelievable. I think it's important to pull one's nose out of the details every once in awhile, and notice the horizon, wake up and smell the coffee, or whatever.

OpenMind

05-13-2009, 01:15 PM

I have a 30" screen running at 2560 x 1600 for my DAW. I don't care. :wink:

I have two 24 inch screens... 3840 x 1200... but it's never enough :D

TAFKAT

05-13-2009, 06:24 PM

Might be an interesting read for some UA insight....a discussion with a UA DSP guru

http://www.uaudio.com/about/_pdf/TapeOp_Berners.pdf

O.K,

Finally managed to get past the typesetting and layout to actually read the article, not that it actually said anything to convince me or further any argument about UAD having some monopoly on accurately modelling anything better than anyone else due to the usage of DSP's.

My first thought was its the exact same rhetoric in regards to using DSP's that I heard a decade ago when Hyperactive Audio first pitched these things, and I was under an NDA about the supposed storm that was to about to be unleashed that would revolutionise the audio world and wrestle the crown from PT TDM.. :icon_rolleyes:

But thats a whole other thread... :wink:

I digress,

Where were we again, oh yeh, bloody eye candy...

:pop_corn:

UntamedSpirit

05-13-2009, 11:58 PM

Rotaries are fine when using the scroll wheel, and especially when using a control surface. If you had sliders all over it would take up to much real estate.

come on now, don't be stupid :sulkoff:

Just because you're old and grumpy doesn't mean you can't embrace a better way of doing things.

The point being made is that a computer screen is not limited to the same restrictions physical hardware is.

Why emulate an archaic method of displaying values (rotary knobs) that is unnecessary and clutters my workspace.

Let me reiterate, I don't NEED a knob to change my values on an lcd screen.

and I don't NEED a knob to see what those values are if they are displayed in a more intuitive fashion eg. 3 dimensional space bubbles.

I want more x y z controllers with graphic displays!

Anyway, I'm an artist not an engineer type like yourself ,so I wouldn't expect you to UNDERSTAND ME. :098:

oh yeah, it's your honeymoon, leave the rotary knobs alone for awhile :)

Animus

05-14-2009, 01:13 AM

come on now, don't be stupid :sulkoff:

Just because you're old and grumpy doesn't mean you can't embrace a better way of doing things.

The point being made is that a computer screen is not limited to the same restrictions physical hardware is.

Why emulate an archaic method of displaying values (rotary knobs) that is unnecessary and clutters my workspace.

Let me reiterate, I don't NEED a knob to change my values on an lcd screen.

and I don't NEED a knob to see what those values are if they are displayed in a more intuitive fashion eg. 3 dimensional space bubbles.

I want more x y z controllers with graphic displays!

Anyway, I'm an artist not an engineer type like yourself ,so I wouldn't expect you to UNDERSTAND ME. :098:

oh yeah, it's your honeymoon, leave the rotary knobs alone for awhile :)

I can see I am going to have to bitchslap you now. Leave my knobs out of it!
:smash::eusa_think::eusa_snooty:

Sam

05-14-2009, 03:19 AM

alright, alright...that about enough...everyone put their knobs (and other various encoders) away right now...it's for the best.

TAFKAT

05-26-2009, 09:14 PM

New Record Videos Part 1, 2, 3 Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYE5gX7hN80&feature=related)

:pop_corn:

Gary Glitter

05-30-2009, 03:38 PM

Well, I just wanted to say that whilst you all laugh at the new RECORD software and its ssl emulations, let me tell you all something. In the 80s I had a Roland SH-101 synthesizer. It was the cheapest you could buy. The so-called 'Professionals" and other keyboard players would laugh at it and call it a toy and scoff in the way most of you have towards the RECORD software. Anyway, I could play that synth really well. I would run it through an old flanger with an analogue delay pedal and it would sound wicked. I played on records, played live, got to shag groupies, got free drinks at every venue I played at and made a little bit of money too. All playing my cheap toy non-professional SH-101 synth.

So, the moral of the story is this......

It's all very well being a "Pro" and having expensive gear but if you just look at it and wank over it in your bedroom whilst others are actually making hit records with cheap sofware, then you are ..........a wanker.

TAFKAT

05-30-2009, 07:28 PM

I hate analogies at the best of times, and I don't think yours is hitting its mark in regards to what is being discussed here, who exactly are you referring to in this thread to having pro gear and simply staring at it with cock in hand ?

I think the the points being made are more to do with the amount of hysteria some rampant fanbois are already claiming that this application has reinvented the wheel with its "SSL emulation" and will start some revolution , there are also some points being made that for many of us who need some form of the 3rd part expandability, its a no go..

What I am laughing at most tho, is the amount of hyperbole and emotion this has generated , and its still miles from release. I am predicting it will be an absolute non event for many when it does, a welcome addition to some who currently use Reason and need some recording capability, and of course plenty in between..

Heres (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/4223345-post190.html) a perfect example of the gene pool this thing is attracting that has me already switching off..

:icon_rolleyes:

Gary Glitter

05-31-2009, 03:44 AM

Whilst the post you link to seems to be written by a total tosser, I actually see his point. He is saying to the naysayers that he can give them a kicking with his cheap-ass software RECORD and put forward a mix that will rival anything. This is indeed the spirit I admire. I'm convinced that it will happen too. I have vintage synths, fx and toilet Nuendo. I use REASON loads. It is just fast to pull sounds out and contemporary sounds at that. I like propellorheads forward thinking innovation as opposed to lame duck steinberg.

I am Elvis Presley.

kdm

05-31-2009, 04:18 AM

Gary, we aren't thumbing our noses at people who use inexpensive gear to create something interesting, creative, or high quality... just people who use inexpensive gear and insist vehemently it is as good as or better than gear 100x the price and capabilities, but present nothing to back it up.

I listened to the GS poster's wav file from Record (for some unknown reason).... told me everything I already knew... :icon_rolleyes:

TAFKAT

05-31-2009, 06:29 PM

Gary,

..as Dedric has mentioned,

This is not about being able to get great results from cheaper gear, Hell, I have heard superior stuff done on Cubase/SONAR and a $500 Audio card, than what some have managed with a gear list longer than my arm , my point was that there is just way, way too much hysteria over this thing because of the supposed SSL implementation at the price point..

RE the genius on the G.S thread, LOL, well I think Dedric summed it up perfectly , I seriously doubt he could deliver anything to back up his "challenge".., I am glad you admire his spirit tho... :wink:

I think Props are a great company, and are especially talented at designing GUI's that make working with the applications very easy on the eye and mind, , and to me , that is exactly what this continues to deliver, but its far from revolutionary, and anything that it does can be easily configured in any DAW - which will also have 3rd party expandability.

In my opinion its just a little too closed shop for my liking for it to be a serious contender against the other DAW's, but it will no doubt have its market.., question remains what that will exactly entail..

Softy

06-01-2009, 12:38 AM

Wow, eight pages (so far) on this one.

TAFKAT

10-01-2009, 08:04 PM

Just had a first peak at this app..

I installed it on a clients system and quickly found out just how convoluted the copy protection is. There is absolutely no offline method to authorise the Ignition key.

The authorisation application needed could easily be a separate package, like Steinis LCC, but is only available on a full install.

Talk about PITA.

This was an older system with no NIC, has never been on the net nor will it ever will be.

I needed to install the application on one of my business systems, and then complete the authorisation and licence transfers for the client to his ignition key. Stupid , stupid idea for those that choose to not have the DAWs web enabled.

Anyhow, I now have the thing running as a demo on my business system, a Pentium D Extreme Edition Dualcore 3.46 HT, not exactly top of the line, but you would think would be O.K to run the demos. No cigar.

( Yeh I have an Extreme Edition as a business /office system, sad eh )

Haven't had a good poke around just yet, but forget about trying to navigate around on one screen, there is shite crammed everywhere, and I did not find it easy to find my way around, unlike my experience with StudioOne.

I'll keep poking when I get some clear air ..