Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2002-09-03 by jddymackbn@aol.com
Jer wrote: "Emagic is dropping VST support in its OSX development (drama city here we come):" R U Kidding Me?? They must be crazy....... or perhaps LAZY!! B*st%ds!! Sons of B%tch*s!!! }:( Angry J
2002-09-03 by HELP@MusicBootCamp.com
Yup. Not a joke. I have a lot of VST instruments. I sure hope the new technology gets strong support. I know some VST developers are already moving to the new format, so there is hope.
> From: jddymackbn@... > Reply-To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com > Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 11:01:58 EDT > To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [exs] Logic 5.3 in MacOSX > > Jer wrote: > > "Emagic is dropping VST support in its OSX development (drama city here we > come):" > > > R U Kidding Me?? They must be crazy....... or perhaps LAZY!! > > B*st%ds!! Sons of B%tch*s!!! > > }:( > > Angry J
2002-09-04 by Paul Nicholls
I think this is a great idea. If something has to be ported to OS X anyway why do it in VST if it can be done in Audio Units? Once you are in the OS X world the porting has to be done anyway so we should be encouraging people to do it right and get rid of these stupid competing standards. Another reason to encourage Emagic and Apple in this regard is that if everyone is using the same standard plug in, we will o longer have problems such as The Grand not working properly in Logic. It will also encourage multimedia users to use the Mac platform effectively because Video programs will be able to easily use Audio units as well. That includes us if we decide we are interested in branching out into other creative directions. We need a good standard and VST has not really done the job for Logic users in my opinion. Lets be open minded here. Regards Paul Nicholls
> From: HELP@... > Reply-To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com > Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 12:18:38 -0400 > To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [exs] Logic 5.3 in MacOSX > > Yup. Not a joke. I have a lot of VST instruments. I sure hope the new > technology gets strong support. I know some VST developers are already > moving to the new format, so there is hope. > >> From: jddymackbn@... >> Reply-To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com >> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 11:01:58 EDT >> To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: Re: [exs] Logic 5.3 in MacOSX >> >> Jer wrote: >> >> "Emagic is dropping VST support in its OSX development (drama city here we >> come):" >> >> >> R U Kidding Me?? They must be crazy....... or perhaps LAZY!! >> >> B*st%ds!! Sons of B%tch*s!!! >> >> }:( >> >> Angry J > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send a blank email to: > exs-users-unsubscribe@egroups.com > For a list of places to get free samples please see: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exs-users/links/ > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
2002-09-04 by erkdemon
--- In exs-users@y..., Paul Nicholls <paulnicholls@s...> wrote: > I think this is a great idea. If something has to be ported to OS X anyway why do it in VST if it can be done in Audio Units?< The danger here is that since Apple/Emagic are effectively gunning for Steinberg by refusing to include VST support in their sequencer, Steinberg might retaliate by refusing to port their softinstruments to the AU format. If the emagic instruments have all been converted to AU format, that would presumably mean that a future AU-aware version of Cubase could run all the emagic instruments (including EXS24) but logic wouldn't be able to use any Steinberg plugin instruments. Erk
2002-09-04 by HELP@MusicBootCamp.com
Scary stuff.
> From: "erkdemon" <eric_baird@...> > Reply-To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 03:06:20 -0000 > To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [exs] Logic 5.3 in MacOSX > > Steinberg might retaliate by refusing to port their softinstruments > to the AU format.
2002-09-04 by deepermusic
Yeah but then they'll be stuck with what will most likely become a fading standard for the Mac (if apple has anything to say about it). Someone's bound to make a VST wrapper as well. --- In exs-users@y..., <HELP@M...> wrote: > Scary stuff. > > > From: "erkdemon" <eric_baird@c...> > > Reply-To: exs-users@y... > > Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 03:06:20 -0000 > > To: exs-users@y... > > Subject: Re: [exs] Logic 5.3 in MacOSX > > > > Steinberg might retaliate by refusing to port their softinstruments > > to the AU format.
2002-09-04 by Pev
On 3/9/02 4:01 pm, "jddymackbn@..." <jddymackbn@...> wrote: > "Emagic is dropping VST support in its OSX development (drama city here we > come):" > R U Kidding Me?? They must be crazy....... or perhaps LAZY!! > B*st%ds!! Sons of B%tch*s!!! I think that you'll find that this is not nearly as bad as t sounds - even a good thing. Having multiple standards for supporting host based processing is just annoying. Having all plugins as AUs on the Mac can only lead to better things IMO. Read the arguments in the article on their site. ~Pev __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com
2002-09-04 by Ned Bouhalassa
What's so scary about not having access to Steinberg's instruments? IMO,
they haven't made anything spectacular. LM4? I prefer Battery. Virtual
Guitarist? I'll practice a bit more on my guitar.
BTW, I don't know if you've visited Steinberg's new website, but man, I
couldn't even find any mention of VST instruments!!
Now, if Native Instruments refused to go AU, that would be a disaster!
Ned
HELP@... wrote:
> Scary stuff.
>
> > From: "erkdemon" <eric_baird@...>
> > Steinberg might retaliate by refusing to port their softinstruments
> > to the AU format.
http://www.nedfx.com
Ned Bouhalassa
n e d @ n e d f x . c o m2002-09-04 by Malcolm Payne
On 9/4/02 8:12 AM, "Ned Bouhalassa" <ned@...> wrote: > > > Now, if Native Instruments refused to go AU, that would be a disaster! > They've already announced that they will, but you know what their time schedule can be like... Malcolm ----------------- Malcolm Payne Music NYC http://www.malcolmpayne.com
2002-09-04 by Reid Oda
you wouldn't be able to run the exs24 in cubase because the exs24 is not really a plugin. it's a part of logic that is merely activated by key. --------------------------------- brownboy@... 415.377.4056 http://www.orangeage.com/brownboy http://www.orangeage.com/reidoda ---------------------------------
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, erkdemon wrote: > If the emagic instruments have all been converted to AU format, that > would presumably mean that a future AU-aware version of Cubase could > run all the emagic instruments (including EXS24) but logic wouldn't > be able to use any Steinberg plugin instruments. > > Erk >
2002-09-05 by Paul Nicholls
People on this list should look at the discussion on this topic in the LUG. There is much more information there and one thing that has come out is that Waves has committed to making a AU version of all its products soon, Destroy FX too, and that Absynth is being converted soon as well. One developed talked at length about all the advantages of AUs. Its just a new standard, no different from CoreMIDI and CoreAUDIO. There seems to be a general agreement to use these standards instead of FreeMIDI, OMS, MAS, and ASIO. AUs are just part of the process. Lets not forget USB and Firewire too. Regards -- Paul Nicholls New Traditions Media #421-6450 East Boulevard Vancouver BC V6M 3V9 604 269-9202 paulnicholls@...
> From: Ned Bouhalassa <ned@...> > Organization: nedfx.com > Reply-To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 08:12:10 -0400 > To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [exs] Logic 5.3 in MacOSX > > What's so scary about not having access to Steinberg's instruments? IMO, > they haven't made anything spectacular. LM4? I prefer Battery. Virtual > Guitarist? I'll practice a bit more on my guitar. > > BTW, I don't know if you've visited Steinberg's new website, but man, I > couldn't even find any mention of VST instruments!! > > Now, if Native Instruments refused to go AU, that would be a disaster! > > Ned > > HELP@... wrote: > >> Scary stuff. >> >>> From: "erkdemon" <eric_baird@...> >>> Steinberg might retaliate by refusing to port their softinstruments >>> to the AU format. > > > > > > http://www.nedfx.com > > Ned Bouhalassa > > n e d @ n e d f x . c o m > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send a blank email to: > exs-users-unsubscribe@egroups.com > For a list of places to get free samples please see: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exs-users/links/ > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
2002-09-05 by HELP@MusicBootCamp.com
I tend to agree with this. The OSX sound standard will proliferate. There's no question about it. The only question is what companies will develop for it early on. A lot, I would think. But it might be like waiting for Altiverb to support VST; it took a long time... Jer
> From: Pev <no_such_user@...> > Reply-To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 08:55:54 +0100 > To: "exs-users@yahoogroups.com" <exs-users@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re: [exs] Logic 5.3 in MacOSX > > I think that you'll find that this is not nearly as bad as t sounds - even a > good thing. Having multiple standards for supporting host based processing > is just annoying. Having all plugins as AUs on the Mac can only lead to > better things IMO. Read the arguments in the article on their site.
2002-09-05 by HELP@MusicBootCamp.com
> Guitarist? I'll practice a bit more on my guitar. This instrument sucks so bad, it's beyond human description. I don't usually go off like this, but suffice it to say that I'm very glad I got this at a discount. I sold it (thank goodness).
2002-09-05 by HELP@MusicBootCamp.com
I just had a major heart attack when a good music friend of mind brought up my Universal Audio VST card... That put a lump in my throat. What the hell am I to do now? I have just fallen utterly in love with it. Whey they reprogram that to run off of Audio Units, I wonder! (that's funny... will UA run off of AU -- ok, ok, maybe not so funny). -Jer
2002-09-05 by HELP@MusicBootCamp.com
Woops, that's UAD and "mine" not "mind" which I have obviously lost.
> From: <HELP@...> > Reply-To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:07:39 -0400 > To: <exs-users@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re: [exs] Logic 5.3 in MacOSX / AUD > > I just had a major heart attack when a good music friend of mind brought up > my Universal Audio VST card... That put a lump in my throat. What the hell > am I to do now? I have just fallen utterly in love with it. Whey they > reprogram that to run off of Audio Units, I wonder! (that's funny... will UA > run off of AU -- ok, ok, maybe not so funny). -Jer
2002-09-05 by HELP@MusicBootCamp.com
Not to beat a dead horse, but my message looks like I wrote in some other language and then ran it through a language-translation web page. I meant to say, "Will they reprogram..."
> From: <HELP@...> > Reply-To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:07:39 -0400 > To: <exs-users@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re: [exs] Logic 5.3 in MacOSX / AUD > > I just had a major heart attack when a good music friend of mind brought up > my Universal Audio VST card... That put a lump in my throat. What the hell > am I to do now? I have just fallen utterly in love with it. Whey they > reprogram that to run off of Audio Units, I wonder! (that's funny... will UA > run off of AU -- ok, ok, maybe not so funny). -Jer
2002-09-06 by erkdemon
--- In exs-users@y..., Reid Oda <brownboy@o...> wrote: > > you wouldn't be able to run the exs24 in cubase because the exs24 is not > really a plugin. it's a part of logic that is merely activated by key. Well, that's the way that they sell it at the moment, but having written all the difficult stuff to make the EXS work, its presumably not too difficult to embed it into a simple application shell with a bit of logic code, especially since they've already done this with the playback-only version and with the cheaper electric piano instrument. I don't /think/ Apple would have the nerve to tell everyone else that they should use AU as the single open standard for all music software under OSX, then keep their own instruments in an undocumented proprietary format that can't be accessed by any software other than their own sequencer. Especially since they are telling people how easy it'll be to port instruments to AU. That would be just a little bit cheeky. But then, I could be wrong ... Erk
2002-09-06 by HELP@MusicBootCamp.com
Cheaky is what I expect from Apple these days. Anything is possible at this point. But you raise some legitimate points. -Jer
> From: "erkdemon" <eric_baird@...> > Reply-To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com > Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 22:08:53 -0000 > To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [exs] Logic 5.3 in MacOSX > > I don't /think/ Apple would have the nerve to tell everyone else that > they should use AU as the single open standard for all music software > under OSX, then keep their own instruments in an undocumented > proprietary format that can't be accessed by any software other than > their own sequencer. Especially since they are telling people how > easy it'll be to port instruments to AU. > That would be just a little bit cheeky.
2002-09-06 by erkdemon
--- In exs-users@y..., Pev <no_such_user@y...> wrote: > Having multiple standards for supporting host based processing > is just annoying. Having all plugins as AUs on the Mac can only > lead to better things IMO. Provided that they also convert all their /own/ soft-instruments and effects to AU format. Hopefully we'll see them leading by example, otherwise the whole enterprise will have a bit of a credibility problem. Erk
2002-09-06 by erkdemon
--- In exs-users@y..., jddymackbn@a... wrote: > > B*st%ds!! Sons of B%tch*s!!! It's the luxury that comes with owning the operating system as well as the applications: you can declare that everyone else has to toe the line with your favourite format, which you declare to be "standard" (even if its not finished yet and not yet implemented) and you can still get away with telling them to go to hell when they ask you to support theirs. Power! <g>
2002-09-06 by erkdemon
On a more positive note, if emagic /do/ port their existing instruments to OSX Audio Units, I think they'll finally have to cave in to customer demand and support program change commands. Hopefully. Erk
2002-09-06 by splugapass
Erk wrote: > On a more positive note, if emagic /do/ port their existing > instruments to OSX Audio Units, I think they'll finally have to > cave in to customer demand and support program change commands. > Hopefully. Which begs the question: It seems that a fundamental weakness of VST 2.0 is lack of ability to change programs within a MIDI file. Does the "Super Set" called "Audio Units" address this problem? Bob Has anybody seen John Ashcroft and Albert Einstein in a room together?
2002-09-06 by Bill Canty
erkdemon wrote: > > > B*st%ds!! Sons of B%tch*s!!! > > It's the luxury that comes with owning the operating system as well > as the applications: you can declare that everyone else has to toe > the line with your favourite format, which you declare to > be "standard" (even if its not finished yet and not yet implemented) > and you can still get away with telling them to go to hell when they > ask you to support theirs. I think the computer world's VERY accustomed to that situation.
2002-09-06 by erkdemon
I didn't think there were any issues with VST instruments and MIDI program change commands, but emagic's own proprietary-format instruments (as of v5.2) don't seem to respond to the things at all. IMO emagic really need to fix this evetually, and if they don't do it with v5.3, perhaps they might do it when (or if) they port to OSX AU. --- In exs-users@y..., "splugapass" <bobandmaria@i...> wrote: > Erk wrote: > It seems that a fundamental weakness of VST 2.0 is lack of ability to > change programs within a MIDI file. Does the "Super Set" > called "Audio Units" address this problem? > > Bob > > Has anybody seen John Ashcroft and Albert Einstein in a room together?
2002-09-07 by Sascha Franck
erkdemon wrote: > I didn't think there were any issues with VST instruments and MIDI > program change commands, True. Works fine in Cubase since almost ages. > but emagic's own proprietary-format > instruments (as of v5.2) don't seem to respond to the things at all. Not only that, in Logic you can't even use program changes for instruments which are working fine in other programs. The problem here IMO is the different format of presets. In Logic you basically have all your existing presets available through the preset pulldown. This means that MIDI program changes may not be sufficient to adress them all because you can easily have tons more than only 128 patches. In Cubase, before being able to use program changes, you gotta load an FX bank into the synth first - almost like with hardware synths. This means you're limited to 128 available presets at a time. Whether this is an advance or a drawback depends strongly on your working style I think. In Logic you allways have all your presets available, nicely sorted in submenus. In Cubase you have to load banks first (which IMO is a drawback), but after that you can select your patches straight from your MIDI controller, which is nice. And of course Cubase also allows to switch patches during a song. For selecting patches I usually prefer Logics method, especially now that you can setup keycommands to scroll up/down through them. But I can also clearly see the advances of Cubase's handling. Would be the best to have both options I think. > IMO emagic really need to fix this evetually, and if they don't do it > with v5.3, perhaps they might do it when (or if) they port to OSX AU. I don't think that this has got anything to do with AUs vs. VST - as other hosts show, better MIDI handling (both patch and controllerwise) can be implemented right now. But maybe they take this sort of paradigm change as an occasion to integrate a more elegant and flexible method of handling all that. Regards, Sascha
2002-09-07 by erkdemon
--- In exs-users@y..., "Sascha Franck" <saschafranck@s...> wrote: > The problem here IMO is the different format of presets. > In Logic you basically have all your existing presets > available through the preset pulldown. This means that > MIDI program changes may not be sufficient to adress > them all because you can easily have tons more than only > 128 patches. Yep, but I really don't think it should have been a problem. Emagic's own factory presets are already sorted into folders with less than 128 patches in each, and the patches within each folder have already been given sequential number prefixes. So all you'd have to do is have incoming program numbers calling up the appropriately-numbered preset within the current folder. Sorted. If you wanted to change the prog~/patch assignments, you wouldn't have to muck around with any sort of table lookup thing, or any sort of special page within logic, you'd just open Windows Explorer (or the mac equivalent) and rename the relevant patches with different leading numbers. Best of both worlds, you get the flexibility of the file-based approach, but also proper MIDI selection. Perhaps if you then want to be able to go further and use MIDI to switch between folders as well, you could also rename each folder that you want to be able to access over midi with an appropriate number, and those folders then become accessable via MIDI bank-change commands. If you don't want to use bank-changes (or your MIDI keyboard doesn't do them), you just copy up to 128 of your favourite patches into a single folder and prefix that folder with a zero, or give it some other special name to signify that its the default folder for MIDI control. I really don't think that this is a difficult thing to fix, it doesn't even require any changes to the user interface (although that might be nice, too). Erk
2002-09-07 by erkdemon
Really? All my VST instruments seem to respond just fine to program changes inside logic (5.2) when I send prog# commands from my MIDI keyboard (although I haven't tried recording those changes into logic and playing them back). Regards, Erk --- In exs-users@y..., "Sascha Franck" <saschafranck@s...> wrote: > Not only that, in Logic you can't even use program changes for instruments > which are working fine in other programs.
2002-09-07 by Erland Karkoff
Hey, I'm looking for Music Box and Celeste samples for the EXS. Can anyone help? Erland mp3.com/erland
2002-09-27 by Guy Moon
> The danger here is that since Apple/Emagic are effectively gunning > for Steinberg by refusing to include VST support in their sequencer, > Steinberg might retaliate by refusing to port their softinstruments > to the AU format. Good! Steinberg sucks. The Grand still doesn't work in Logic OR on my Powerbook G4 and no update in site. How long have they known about this problem? Also, isn't a gas spending an entire DAY installing the "Virtual Guitar"? When is the last time anybody had to use RESEDIT to install a music program? Steinberg consistently offers VST products that aren't ready, then refuses update support. Great ideas; mediocre implementation. Moon
2002-09-27 by marzzz@aol.com
In a message dated 9/27/02 10:06:30 AM, moonman@... writes: > Good! Steinberg sucks. The Grand still doesn't work in Logic OR on my > Powerbook G4 and no update in site. > I have a PowerBook G4 667 (Rev B) and managed to get all of 8-12 note polyphony, despite maxing out RAM and using a FireWire drive. Steinberg told me it was Apple's problem...... -Marshall [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2002-09-27 by HELP@MusicBootCamp.com
> problem? Also, isn't a gas spending an entire DAY installing the "Virtual > Guitar"? When is the last time anybody had to use RESEDIT to install a music > program? Steinberg consistently offers VST products that aren't ready, then > refuses update support. Great ideas; mediocre implementation. To make matters worse, VG is a totally useless instrument. Glad I sold it. I had to do the RESEDIT trick too. Their site gives you two different futile methods of installation and the RESEDIT trick is buried deep in the site. After a four-hour install, I just about threw up over how simplistic and non-dynamic that instrument (if it can be called that) really is. Any guitar sample kit can do what Virtual Guitarist can, only better. (Sorry everyone, the post above stirred up a lot of painful memories... had to vent.) -Jer
2002-09-28 by technodork_2000
I agree completely that Steinberg totally suck on this one, the instrument can never find its samples......it totally sucks. But for the non-guitarist, it can provide a great inspirational pallete when it does work, or a great way to get down that sketch idea. Just check out the new Justin Timberlake track, all virtual guitarist, not rocket science of course.