From the original SynthMaker forum (2004–2014), with its members’ names and dates.
lanrosta ·
I hate to ask this question again, but I don't think we are getting a realistic/solid answer here and it is rather important to me...
Malc stated in a post last August that they plan on adding a Sysex module to SM in the near future. That was a few months back. Now, I know the SM team has alot on their plate to get the release done, but I (and a few others here) really need to know if this Sysex functionality will ever be in SM and if it will, then a realistic time frame would be appreciated. I want to buy SM, but this is the one portion of the app that is hindering my decision because without it my SM designs are limited to making only good Synth/Effects VSTs and not so good to so/so MIDi VSTs. The MIDI spec is important to me as it opens the door to work with analog and other MIDI hardware gear. I know, I know, VST's are supposed to be software synths, but they don't have to be and there is still a huge demand for the 'hardware synth' sound, especially in the professional music industry.
The way I see it the VST synth/effect market is saturated and it is only going to get worse. True, they are powerful and inexpensive tools for creating music, but damn, do we really need 80,000 vst's that do the same thing? This in itself is going to make it harder to actually sell those type of VSTs. On the other hand, selling MIDI controllers doesn't offer a huge reward either because the buyer (and developer) actually has to own the hardware that the CP is made for and that itself will reduce some sales potential, but I still see a decent demand for new tools that interface with older MIDI gear. Anyways, I only point this out to demonstrate the importance of a solid MIDI implementation in SM. I do believe it will open the door to selling more copies of SM as well as giving them a step-up in the industry.
Anyone else here feel the same and want this functionilty sooner than later?
Kara ·
I do understand your what you want. Basicly because I use a lot of hardware too. Having said this I am an early adaptor, which means I bought the software in his beta stage.
Why?
Because I believe it has a very big potential, and the only way to make it a great product is to support the developpers. You know this guys have to live too...
Does that sound logic to you ?
Rony
lalo ·
i think that VST SDK doesn't support Sys-Ex..
in order to get an SM compiled VST with Sys-Ex capabilities...
we'd need
1. obviously Sys-Ex SM modules or code
2. but more important the ability to access midi ins and outs drivers from the VST wich afaik can be done
lalo
lanrosta ·
Kara, I see the potential as well, I really like the GUI and the concept of this app and see tons of potential for new creations. With that in mind I am really close to becoming an EA. But, I also can't ignore the fact that I/we need this functionality and there are many things that still need to be addressed in the application. I do think the EA fee is quite fair.
My post is mainly to get a decent answer on whether or not this functionality will surface in SM or if it's a lost cause for me to hope for it. Why, because it is extremely important to be able to build software that can take full advantage of legacy protocols in a modern UI.
lalo, you are absolutely right that the Steinberg VST SDK does not implement Sysex. The entire reason for this is that the VST SDK is built upon the Windows Direct Music (DM... part of DirectX) API, which for some reason does not support Sysex (ie. the developers of the API were focused on getting the 3-D gaming, video, General MIDI crap done so the API could support the latest PC Games - instead of building a complete Standard MIDI Implementation like it's predecessor Windows MultiMedia API. Which is why all the old Win3x and Win95/98 applications DO support SysEx.... and almost none of the new ones do. It's a real pisser! And yes, it would be nice to be able to select the MIDI I/O ports in the VST itself (i know SE can via DHaupts modules, but I haven't seen this in SM yet).
But, hey, what's from stopping anyone from building a wrapper around the WMM API upon compilation? I have to assume that this is what all the major VST host's do (like say Cubase SX). Why else does it offer you the WMM, DX and ASIO drivers? because it supports all those API's and technologies. So, in a sense, we need SM to be able to compile to not just the VST SDK (ie. DX API) but also the WMM API for SysEx. It's all a big mess, I know. I just can't believe that the ball got dropped on SyseX implementation in the DM API. It really hurt the concept of supporting legacy code and systems, especially in regards to professional musicians using hardware.
lanrosta
skOre ·
To be honest, I doubt that this will come before version one, except it is easy to do.
lanrosta ·
Care to elaborate a little on that Skore? Is it something that can be done within the current SM modules? Because I've tested the MIDI modules and they don't seem to capture sysex and other (poly pressure) MIDI messages at all. I am aware of the MIDI buffer module, and the concept of building a hexadecimal/value array converter, string concatenation, et al to build the messages, but this is useless if the MIDI I/O modules can't accept or return the messages. Care to shed some light on this?
Thanks,
lanrosta
skOre ·
No, I meant if this is easy to implement for the devs it might come before version 1. But unless that is the case, I guess sysex is not high priority at the moment, which is what malc&jorge are focussing now aiming for starting Synthmaker into the market.
malc ·
Hi lanrosta,
Wow, was it really last August when I said that?
I feel a bit bad now about mentioning it and then it not happening. I think at the time higher priority issues came up and sysex got pushed into the background.
This is something we do want to add. It isn't likely to be added for v1 but I would hope that we can add it after then. There are many features that have been requested that we'd love to put into the software but it's sometimes difficult to prioritise these.
Given what's happened before I wouldn't like to make any promises about timescales because I don't think it's fair to say something and not deliver. I would hope this would be something we'd add in the months following the v1 release but as I say please don't rely on that.
I know this isn't a great answer but I hope you understand.
oddson ·
malc wrote: ...I know this isn't a great answer but I hope you understand.
Actually Malc, if it's the truth, it's a great answer.
I think the hints you gave in August that it might be much sooner were less great...
...stay focused on v1
dugbert ·
ahhhhhh
When I bought SM I made the assumption that there was SysEx support. I didn't realize it wasn't going to implemented for a long time. I hope this happens really soon so I can use my drum machine and my Juno-106 =[
lanrosta ·
lalo wrote: i think that VST SDK doesn't support Sys-Ex..
Wrong! it most certainly does... take a look at the VST SDK (VstMidiSysexEvent Struct). it's there in 2.3, it's there in 2.4. and we hope that steinberg keeps it alive in 3.0.
Wow, was it really last August when I said that?
Yep! and now it's been a year and a half later after that, and it's still not there. rather disappointing, escpecially since others are/have been complaining about the same sysex needs....
[old link]
Resurrect the SysEx component please.
No SysEx, any work around ? Malc, Stefan, Jorge, anyone
When will we see Sysex functionality?
It's been stated that "we had that functionality, we just need to migrate it over". It's been requested numerous times. And still nothing. C'mon dev's this is a feature us early adopters really friggin want! Please put the time into just doing it and lets get on with it. The other SM acheivements are great, but we want the 'full' VST SDK support here. And we want the same respect from VST Host developers too. Legacy data is important in the music world, and it's something many software devs out there tend to ignore. End rant!
lanrosta
husker ·
+1
the projects I had in mind when I became an EA were on the assumption that sysex would be there as promised...but still nothing
Sysex in standalone mode would be fine for my needs.
Please?
oddson ·
I don't understand why this is such a difficult thing for the devs to add. Don't you just have to expose the data from the sysex as a string of ASCII characters?
A MIDI input and a string output with a trigger that fires when each separate sysex message is completed.
If there were an SDK it would have been done by someone already.
jobro ·
Nothing I really need so bloody badly, but this is my thoughts. SYS EX can be useful when it comes to programing synths from external applications, If I made synths aiming to emulate hardware then SYS EX could be useful.
infuzion ·
oddson wrote: If there were an SDK it would have been done by someone already.
Or atleast we could tell lanrosta to "Quit whining & do it yourself!"
Wrote something here? To have a post removed or your name hidden, write to [email protected].
SynthMaker