SynthMakerfritzman ·
Hi folks,
the title says it all. What should make the difference in the program when it goes from "beta" to official 1.0? I'm not talking about documentation and tutorials, just the prog itself.
Best wishes, FRitz
What do you expect from version 1.0?
From the original SynthMaker forum (2004–2014), with its members’ names and dates.
infuzion ·
IMHO: * alot discussed in the exported VSTs thread, esp when it comes to memory & CPU usage. Not sure if they can defeat this head-on, or have to do a work-around like green Code componants.... * most of the bugs squashed * (I'd hate to open this can of worms but...) export for OSX VSTs
Shifrin ·
Yeah, this has kind of been discussed before - but if we aren't talking about bugs/docs then I'd say (off the top of my head) these were pretty important :-
* Some sort of optimisation, both in the engine - when using exported VSTs - and in SM itself when working on large schematics.
* Voice management, some way to limit polyphony!
I could write a bunch more but for the initial release I'd say these were needed 😉
Shif.
stefan ·
I'm sorry if this question seems a bit odd or offensive, it's not my intent!
Infuzion, are you _expecting_ OSX VST export for 1.0?
lanrosta ·
Audio Units would be a cool output option too. Hell, even a linux version would be cool. I am sure this will prove about as difficult as an OSX VST due to the platform GUI differences, and the SSE stuff however. Still, would be a great value add to the software and devlopers as it allows them to expand their production market two to threefold (yes, there is still a huge market for audio tools on the mac). True, the only tool available as of yet to do this is C++ with minimum GUI's. It's too bad that we can't just use PNG files for graphics and expect them to behave properly on any platform (after all PNG is supported on both platforms).
lanrosta
sambean ·
Isn't Apple switching to Intel processors next year? May as well wait until they switch is well established then I imagine the porting would be a whole lot easier, no?
Shifrin ·
sambean wrote: Isn't Apple switching to Intel processors next year? May as well wait until they switch is well established then I imagine the porting would be a whole lot easier, no?
That's what I thought too! Time will tell 😉
Shif.
skOre ·
If there was a linux version, I'd be out of this OS in notime!
Still I think that Synthmaker relies heavily on windows programming thingies... true?
lanrosta ·
I'd be willing to bet that once Intel processors hit the mac, the mac won't be the same anymore anyway. I'm sure the architecture OS will change along with it somewhat, rendering anything that worked before useless (much like a Win98 to WinXP driver situation). Ever remember what happened to SGI (Silicon Graphics) when they decided to go Intel over Motorola? Well, IMO it flopped and was born the cheaper (and still overpriced) SGI models that were basically just a somewhat souped up regular PC. Shif maybe right... only time will tell. I still don't think it will make existing mac users happy... and we all know how mac users are so adamant about using thier macs.
My overall point is this. Developers buy an IDE based on it's ability to deliver top-notch software as rapidly as possible to as many platforms as possible. This is how they can make more money off of their software inventions... by being able to sell to any platform market. In SM, you can't do this. It is limiting, but I also understand why and I believe it's a 'platfrom GUI' issue and that has nothing to do with SM itself, but there are ways to design the SM source code to accomodate these various platforms in C code, so it really comes down to SM writing an API type hook into all these various audio SDK's (VST, AU) and platforms along with a really good custom built GUI management system to support all these various platforms GUI/drawing systems (alot of work itself with nothing to do with audio!). Bascally, a command router that addresses as many common properties across platforms as possible. Perhaps I've said too much. But I think this is part of the crux here.
lanrosta
infuzion ·
stefan wrote: Infuzion, are you _expecting_ OSX VST export for 1.0?
Yea.... I know too many people who use Macs for audio. I think Ableton Live smoothed out the brunt of Apple's buying out Logic, but Mac is still the OS of choice for many of them. Also, if you don't support MAC atleast output-wise, it makes developing in C++ (atleast for a final shareware VST product) more sense. IMHO
lanrosta wrote: Audio Units would be a cool output option too. Hell, even a linux version would be cool.
Yea, I was thinking about AU & LADSPA as well (since I might end up using Linux for audio), but I think that would be a SM1.5 or 2.0 thing. Having OSX VST output would be a hassle enough for the devs.
The Sound Scientist ·
Hi 😀 ..... 24 bit sample support
>>>>>>twenty four bit sample support<<<<<<<<<<
I really hope that they do this ASAP but It should be in there at latest version 1 release Peace and Science 😉 😀 🙂
infuzion ·
The Sound Scientist wrote: >>>>>>twenty four bit sample support<<<<<<<<<<
Ah almost forgot about that; good call! 24bits is becomming common in even semi-pro uses. Let's not forget multiple sampling rates!
infuzion ·
infuzion wrote: stefan wrote: Infuzion, are you _expecting_ OSX VST export for 1.0?
Yea.... I know too many people who use Macs for audio. lanrosta wrote: Audio Units would be a cool output option too...
Yea, I was thinking about AU & LADSPA as well (since I might end up using Linux for audio), but I think that would be a SM1.5 or 2.0 thing. Having OSX VST output would be a hassle enough for the devs.
Thinking about this again, perhaps MAC & Linux output could be added as a plug-in? But again, atleast a (non-GUI) beta of OSX VSTs should be available by 1.0.
Shifrin ·
infuzion wrote: But again, atleast a (non-GUI) beta of OSX VSTs should be available by 1.0.
I think that's pretty unrealistic TBH 😉
SM is written using Microsofts MFC and the engine is totally SSE based, that being the case it would require a complete rewrite in order to be ported to OSX. Something I'm sure would take several months and delay the release of 1.0 for a very long time!
Shif.
The Sound Scientist ·
In Response to the "Sample Rates"... I have 96, 48, khz libraries that work great allready.. I have not tried 192khz yet cause my home sound card only supports 96, but so far samplerates are good. lets just make a flawless WAV module that has room for expansion to read other formats as priorities evolve... This Would be the best ever!!! Much Love 😍 Peace and Science 🙂 😀 😉
skOre ·
I'd say, what sample rates are supported really is up to making room for "anything the user likes", as my guess is, that programming such a feature is just up to making room for the any Integrer as a Sample Rate.
infuzion ·
stefan wrote: Infuzion, are you _expecting_ OSX VST export for 1.0?
Not to belate a point:
Someone told me once that it was around 20% of all his sales, and he was a BIG seller, one of the TOP10 of the market. (can't say his name)
Michael Kleps from reFX wrote: Mac is about 45% of our sales. This is because we have AU versions.
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... c&start=15 cheers
stefan ·
I know. But it'd take "ages" to get an OSX version up and running, and even longer to enable AU exports. It's not like it wouldn't be good to have OSX/AU support, it'd increase sales, for sure. But it'd delay version 1.0 a lot. And there's nothing hindering us from adding OSX/AU support further down the line. That's why I was so suprised that someone was _expecting_ this for 1.0.
Maybe we have different understandings of the word "expect" ? For me it means something along the lines of "what one think will happen".
infuzion ·
stefan wrote: Maybe we have different understandings of the word "expect" ? For me it means something along the lines of "what one think will happen".
Most likely. Then again, one's 1.0 is another's 2.0. 🙂
skOre ·
stefan wrote: Maybe we have different understandings of the word "expect" ? For me it means something along the lines of "what one think will happen".
It does mean both.
stefan ·
skOre wrote: stefan wrote: Maybe we have different understandings of the word "expect" ? For me it means something along the lines of "what one think will happen".
It does mean both.
What was the other meaning? 🙂
skOre ·
Heh, either something that somebody wants to happen or thinks will most likely happen.
oddson ·
My mother used to say she "expected" my room to be cleaned but she didn't really 'expect' it was likely... 😉
doug4350 ·
Funny, if you rearrange a couple letters in expect, you get except. I expect there'll be a lot of excepts 🙂 .
Aloha, Doug
infuzion ·
heh, me too. Hopefully, Apple will release a dev kit that will allow rappid re-writing of WinIntel apps into MacIntel.
skOre ·
Now imaging how powerful Synthmaker would be if it had vst hosting and au export...
Nu Audio Science ·
Expect only has one meaning in England, I'm not sure about the other English speaking countries 😉
"To think of something as likely to happen or to suppose something as likely to happen"
V1 I would expect tiddying and filling thats all, By this i mean all the loose ends tidied up and a shitload of new high level stuff and a few new low level items.
infuzion ·
Nu Audio Science wrote: V1 I would expect tiddying and filling thats all, By this i mean all the loose ends tidied up and a shitload of new high level stuff and a few new low level items.
Me too. Actually, the only big things needed (aside from contuning the good progress w/shrinking mem & CPU usage) is voice handling & better sample loading/handling.
jobro ·
About the OSX issue: Let's don't forget that there allready is a software developed on OSX that exports to AU namely Sonic Birth. At least SM should be able to export to Sonic Birth format if possible. That way you could take the generated file to your Mac and generate the AU from it and BOOM! You've made a PC plugin appear on a Mac.
skOre ·
That I would consider very unlikely. Not only are both proprietary licensed software packages, they most likely also have a very different code base and build.
luisi ·
infuzion wrote: heh, me too. Hopefully, Apple will release a dev kit that will allow rappid re-writing of WinIntel apps into MacIntel.
I don't trust that at all, <sigh>
Wrote something here? To have a post removed or your name hidden, write to [email protected].