Your opinion - hardware VSTi synth...

[bombastique]

I think I have a great idea for a new product and want your opinion.

What I'm thinking about is a hardware synth that is configured to allow you to load, store and playback any standard VSTi synth. The kicker is that it WON'T crash, as the software will be optimized just to play VSTi's.

What do you think - would you buy one?

[Rv-Sound]

Sounds great but what about the GUI's and platforms?

[bombastique]

GUI would be custom-made for the hardware (graphics for each synth would be the same as their PC/Mac counterpart), I'm assuming (built in trackball, possibly some knobs/sliders, etc) and would support the PC versions of the VSTi's (since most PC versions also have a Mac counterpart..). ‡

[Perry Parkas]

How would this be different from what the synths in TC Works PowerCore functions? Will you be able to get the output of the synth in as an audioinstrument without any A/D / D/A-stuff?

[+Erik+]

i think the point of vsti is that there is no hardware involved!

surely its no different from using a DSP card at the end of the day.

[jecahn]

Erik: I think the point of VSTi's is that you can run multiple instances of synth's that would potentially cost you a mint for just a single unit. The fact that there is no hardware involved is an ancillary factor. It's nice but I don't think that it's "the point." That's just what I think though. There's no "right" way of doing things.

Bombastique: Hmm. Sounds like you're thinking for live applications? Like a general-use weighted keyboard with a 6" LCD and maybe "card" versions of the plugins?

I think this is a good idea. However, you'd have to be able to keep the cost way down because the attraction of VSTi's is that I can have as many as I want running on my computer and they only cost about $100-$200 apiece.

I'll tell you what, though, if someone could come up with a nice weighted key non-latency factor keyboard that could go from NI B4 to Absynth to Model E at the flip of a switch, I'd buy it. That's for sure.

This is a good idea, good enough that I bet someone is already working on it. If they are, you should find out and jump on board..

[This message has been edited by jecahn (edited 05-29-2002).]

[Reaktorhead]

Creamware is working on a similar concept called "Noah". It isn't for VSTi's but seems like an extension of a hardware synth for the Pulsar/Scope card.

[bombastique]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Picture your standard hardware synth - let's take a Roland XV-5050 for example. Now imagine that being able to run VSTi's - with a bigger screen, a built in trackball, maybe some knobs/sliders and multiple outs, as well as a FireWire connection for your computer, etc.

The point being - no worries about crashing, fits nicely into a rack and gives you the ultimate flexibility synth-wise.

Does that explain it a bit better?

[Boom]

Brilliant idea, although someone already has it. Theres a company working on one, but I cant remember the name or url. Id buy one!! I found it on the ultrafunk website.

[Boom]

Here it is:
http://www.soundart-hot.com/

[bombastique]

Yeah, I've seen that one already. It's really not the same thing, as you have to develop specifically for the Chameleon, rather than being able to take advantage of the hundreds of VSTi synths already out there.

Not to mention it has a dinky screen - not what I had imagined...

The Creamware Noah is closer, though...

[+Erik+]

@jecahn - the point is that it emulates software in hardware, so no hardware required! I think the fact you can run multiple instances in the ancillary factory.

[+Erik+]

i mean it emulates hardware in software! Whats the point of Gigasampler, or Kontact then? You can have many different synths all controlled by software not taking up physical space in a room. the hardware option is also a good idea because it leaves the processor free of having to process the synths. the fact you can run multiple instances is an ancillary factor because its software. the only way to run mutliple instances of units is to buy another unit. with software, you only run the algorithm twice, so i disagree that thats the point. its a great thing, no doubt.

[Michael Quayle]

+erik+ - and then what happens when you want to take your project out on the road? if you are willing to run a machine full of vsti's in a live environment you are a braver man than me. It surprises me that you can't see the appeal of such a machine. Bombastique I think it is a great idea but I dont think that it would be possible for this hypothetical hardware device to just run existing, non-optimised vsti's, in the same way that cards like the uad-1 or powercore cant run non-optimised vst plugs. To do that you would effectively need to be running a pc using a cusomised version of windows and a specialised input surface (they keyboard). I suppose you could do this and then have a whole bunch of knobs with lcd legends underneath them so that their functions can be understood when synth models are swapped, so that maybe filter cutoff from the pro 52 becomes 16' upper manual on the b4, or something. Weren't Novation working on something similar to what you are talking baout for Reason? I don't know how it's coming along though.

[Michael Quayle]

Apologies for all the typos http://www.audioforums.com/forums/wink.gif

[bombastique]

I didn't mean to imply that the VSTi's wouldn't need to be optimized/modified to work properly - I was imagining having the biggest library of softsynths available with the least amount of effort to make them compatible. VSTi's seemed the most logical - not only that, but they are what most people would want to be using in a live situation anyways.

As far as the knobs/sliders go - the screen would show what they are assigned to, with each one having a 'default' state depending on the synth which you could edit and assign to another parameter if you wish.

keep the ideas coming!

[narcoman]

Hi,
Yeah great idea. Been working on and off on a solution for it for about a year. Do you wanna discuss further and see where we got to ?

cheers

[+Erik+]

@Michael Quayle

if you read my post, the very last sentence says "a great thing, no doubt" or something like that.

I was just responding to the fact that i think the intial idea of VSTi's was to take the hardware to software, which i thought was the intial point. Someone argued that they thought this wasn't the point that the point is you can run multiple instances.

i think its a good idea, but essentially you would need to take an operating system into hardware to create a unit that would support all VSTi's. thats where the feasibilty of it comes in. You need a dedicated system in hardware, like a consol unit to pull this off.

[Michael Quayle]

+Erik+

I honestly think the original idea behind VSTi's, or softsynths in general, was that now that computers are at a stage where they can perform the amount of number crunching that they are capable of, it made sense to start selling software synth algorithms, which can be manufactured and distributed at a much lower cost than their hardware counterparts, thus making the cost to the end user significantly less, in turn increasing volume sales. The fact that there are so many now available is testament to the success of the idea. And yes, it is incredibly convenient to have the synth itself sat within your sequencer, its settings and patches stored with your song information. I wouldn't have it any other way. But I think that the notion that they were designed to be used instead of hardware is a fallacy - just as a more affordable, and, in some ways, more convenient alternative. I would speculate, that, given the choice, if the price was viable, many people would still choose a hardware equivalent over its software counterpart, because of the 2 huge advantages that a hardware unit provides - firstly, that all-important tactile control surface dedicated to the synth it was designed for, and secondly, the ability to take the thing out live with no fear of crashes or file corruption - an enormous consideration for many gigging musicians. If I mis-interpreted you last post then forgive me, I was simply interjecting because it seemed to me the most obvious reason for the existence of soft synths had been overlooked.
Being an owner of more softsynths than hardware synths, and having a mind on live performance, I am still looking to the day when the perfect VSTi control surface becomes available.


With respect,

Mike

[DJ Taos]

I actually think its a good idea assuming it doesn't cost too much....would the synth just be a controler with a PC built into it? Or perhaps would it have its owen Synth engine?


I've been wanting to build a machine to run only fruityloops on with a touch sensative screen....