Zynewave's Forum Page
Forum Replies Created
-
ZynewaveKeymaster@bladerunner wrote:
i’m pretty much with trancit too. i follow a number of blogs ie. synthtopia, createdigitalmusic etc. and it’s dismaying to see the amount of ipad, iphone, mobile phone etc. apps filling up it’s pages. it’s all catering for what i call the short attention span/disposable culture. if a person is going to do some serious audio work they are not going to sit on a train with a pair of headphones and a device no bigger than the palm of a your hand surely?
anyway, rant over – i think, as development is already fairly slow (not a criticism) this would only serve to impede the main apps development.
in a way though i can fully understand that you may want to develop in this direction as you need to put food on the table after all. it seems like there is a lot of development and interest in this direction generally but i think once the novelty factor has worn off in a couple of years few truly useful apps/devices will remain in the marketplace.
I also have noticed the increased exposure that mobile apps are getting on many audio sites, but I think it is more than just a novelty factor. I agree that an iPhone on a train is never going to replace professional production in a studio, but for the creative tunemakers, it is a revelation to be able to grab your mobile device and record/compose when inspiration strikes you. I think mobile music creation is going to cannibalize the traditional PC/Mac DAWS in the years to come. In 5 years time I expect more than 95% of all music-creators will be using a mobile device as their primary way to record and arrange compositions. Those that are serious about their music will then have their work finalized on a traditional DAW in a studio setting with studio monitors.
The latest 4.2 iOS update added support for external MIDI devices. It is likely that a future iOS update will add support for external USB audio interfaces as well. Compared to a PC DAW, the main limiting factor of an iPad based studio is the CPU processing power. Assuming that in a couple of years we will have quad-core tablets, this will eventually be enough to satisfy the majority of users that just need to record a few tracks of vocal and guitar, and layer some synth and drum tracks.
No matter how good I make Podium, professional studios will never dare taking the risk of using a one-man created DAW as the cornerstone software of their studio. That means my main target are the creative musicians, and they are going towards mobile as I see it. If I stay committed to writing Windows-only software, I don’t see a great future for Podium. But I am not porting Podium to mobile devices because I think I have to, in order to stay in business. I happen to be thrilled about the possibilities that the mobile devices offer.
ZynewaveKeymaster@H-man wrote:
I am intrigued buy the multi-touch aspect tho, and would be pretty enthusiastic about a remote-control capability for the “full-version”. Given the challenges of instruments etc, could this be a half-way step to full mobility?
If you mean an app that can show and control the UI of Podium running on your PC, then that is an entirely different app that would require extensive coding. For that purpose I would suggest trying some of the many available remote-desktop connection apps.
ZynewaveKeymaster@Lion wrote:
I’m confused why you would need multitouch in a program like this though.
The multitouch support is essential in order to recognize gestures such as pinch-to-zoom. You’ll be able to place two fingers on the timeline and drag each anchor point in order to slide and zoom in/out. Specialized support for multitouch can be useful in some areas of the UI. Such as for dragging multiple faders simultaneously, just like on a real world mixer.
ZynewaveKeymasterYou don’t need to create the MIDI parameters for each track. The MIDI parameters are created for the device, so they will be available on all tracks that use that device. If you save the track as a track template, the MIDI parameters you create are saved in the template as well. You can use that template in future projects, and not have to create the parameters again.
ZynewaveKeymaster@ronin wrote:
Well, I could help testing those builds if you like.
At the time I think Conquistador tested the x64 build I made, and it didn’t work. So I left it there. I need to run it in a debugger to find where it goes wrong.
ZynewaveKeymasterA while back I managed to compile a x64 version of Podium, but I have not had an opportunity to test and debug this on an x64 OS. I need to purchase a new PC with Windows 7 x64 before I can go further with this.
When Podium x64 is made available, it will only support x64 plugins. I don’t plan to implement my own 32/64 bit bridge system. For that purpose, you can use third-party plugins, such as:
ZynewaveKeymasterHi,
The reason only a few basic MIDI messages are created by default, is to avoid polluting the parameter list with unused MIDI messages. You can add extra MIDI messages that you require for certain plugins using the “New MIDI Parameter” submenu in the inspector parameter panel.
Frits
ZynewaveKeymaster@batman42ca wrote:
I think one solution to my problem might be to connect the output of my sound card to the input of my sound card. Podium could output on midi port 10 and record from the audio in. I was just hoping there was some internal way to do that.
That may be the only solution, if you want to record the audio output of the synthesis engine on your soundcard. Some soundcards expose an alternative “loopback” audio input that you can assign to an audio track. This audio input will then record the synthesis output before it goes to the physical audio output. My old Yamaha soundcard supported this. I don’t know if soundblaster cards support it.
ZynewaveKeymasterBeta2 is up, with a fix for the zPEQ display bug.
ZynewaveKeymaster@thcilnnahoj wrote:
It seems zPEQ got under the wheels during the restructuring:
Ouch 😯
I’ll look at that right away. I recommend everyone else wait with testing until I have beta2 ready in a few hours.
ZynewaveKeymaster2.40 beta1 is available with fixes for rendering latency-compensated plugins. Please post your test results in the 2.40 preview topic in the future forum. Sorry it took so long. I had started on some code restructuring that I needed to finish before I could make a release build.
ZynewaveKeymasterHi Mike,
I agree that the Podium guide is written more as a reference guide than an introduction for newbies. Writing it as a reference is the quickest way for me to document features, so that at least I’m not the only one in the world that are aware of how to use certain features. If you want to change something in the Podium guide, you can do that on the wiki site. The Podium pdf guide is printed from the wiki pages. If you have suggestions for major changes or additional chapters, I suggest you post your ideas on the forum first for discussion.
Frits
ZynewaveKeymasterWell, I agree this may be confusing. Podium tries to make the intelligent decision, that the input selector should be hidden from all tracks in the bus return section, since having an input assigned in the return section is useful only in rare cases. When you assign a child track as a bus return, the entire group under the master track will become part of the bus return section. Perhaps it would be less confusing if the input selector always remain visible?
November 30, 2010 at 18:41 in reply to: Initialisation problem with Alesis MultiMix 16 Firewire #19894ZynewaveKeymasterFrom your report: ASIOStart error: -1000
-1000 is an error code for “hardware input or output is not present or available”.
So it’s not certain that the problem can be fixed by simply not setting the sample rate. Since your report does not show errors for “ASIOSetSampleRate” or “ASIOGetSampleRate”, it would appear that the driver did not report problems when setting up the sample rate.