A VST adapter for Fusion Platform. What about that?

Hi!

Anobody knows about an VST wrapper for the scope fusion platform? A device that lets you load any VSTi or effect inside the project window and route audio in and out from it...
Would that be possible to develop?

Black.

On 2006-04-21 04:47, black_chungo wrote:
Hi!

Anobody knows about an VST wrapper for the scope fusion platform? A device that lets you load any VSTi or effect inside the project window and route audio in and out from it...
Would that be possible to develop?

Black.

Vst is something that CPU has to calculate, it would be out of the card anyway and it should communicate through asio...this already exists in various forms, what's the need to see it in Scope? you can always send a VST channel to Scope.

I agree with Alfonso.
I think a VST wrapping AU plug-in for OSX is much more desirable.

I just thought one could save some latency and manage everythign from within the fusion project window... But I guess you're right Alfonso....


by the way, There is a VST to AU wrapper, from fxpansion....

Yeh, I've seen a couple, but they weren't free. That sort of software should be free & open source, not $$$ orientated.

i like free stuff too, but are you saying that a programmer doesn't have the right to earn a living?(just checking)

No, not at all. My point is Gary, that the only way these compatabilities can be cross-platform developed is by opening up the code (same with SFP). Getting the apps or devices for free is just a mega bonus. They don't even have to be free. Developers can sell their plugs for whatever they want, but the point is whether they're in it for the money or in it for the love.

On 2006-04-22 11:39, Shroomz wrote:
... or in it for the love.

yeah, like those open sourcers who do it just to prepare for the right job one day - like Linus Thorwalds for example...

Whatever

FWIW I think we're really lucky to have so many developers working on SFP who ARE in it for the love rather than the money. It amazes me to see the amount of devices the likes of Celmo (for example) has given away for free, even if they were not all have originally free. It would seem as if SFP developers make the decision at some point whether or not to release a device as a free one based on whether they are selling enough of them to warrant it just sitting there. Interestingly, the more advanced, complex & time consuming the free device was to develope, the more respectable it is IMO for it to be given away freely as not much more than a good will gesture aimed at getting as many people using the device as possible. Call it the gathering of disciples if you like

yes, we are lucky. we also need to spend money once in a while as repect pays no bills....

I agree Gary, but most people have a limit to the depth of their pocket. All of our spare money has been spent on 3 x 3DSP cards, 1 x 6 DSP card, a NoahEX, Various CW upgrades, a S&S pack, a M&M pack, some 3rd party stuff and about 10 grands worth of hardware.

You know the score Gary, studios aren't cheap to buy or maintain, so I don't really see your point. We all know that 100 euro notes don't grow on trees after all.

That's only one teeny weeny little part of the argument for free software being a worthwhile venture.

Take solaris core, take some features out of it, call it Solaris core Lite & give it away.
That's just an example (no offence meant John)

it's a really bad example, as any version of Solaris represents (kind of) the essence of John's experience in synth design.
nevertheless I DO understand that you didn't refer to John personally but as representing the group of developers.

GaryB wrote 'once in a while' and not 'you have to buy everything' - and obviously it's not even this 'once in a while', that's working.
For none of the CWA 3rd parties - ALL developers have other jobs that pay their bills.

They already DO develope free software, essentially - the fee is a fee for respect.

life is expensive, but not that expensive that whoever can afford a humble DAW cannot afford one or the other extra device.
The point has never been ALL - just some occasionally

cheers, Tom

I once told a veteran synth developer (who can remain nameless) who was devoting huge amounts of time to creating a unique software synth that I'd be willing to pay a small fee for it as I was sure others would. He responded with a comment like this:-

"If I wanted money to pay the bills I'd go get a job stacking shelves in the supermarket, as I would most certainly make more money doing that."

Like you say Astro, synth devs are mostly not making synths for the money as that would be foolish.

I have to say that I think it would be a good idea to have VST hosting within scope. It would hardly be the first scope device to run on cpu. Reckon sometimes I would like to be able to call up VST's in my scope system without having to involve a cumbersome VST host... Especially when using VDAT for example. Would definitely be more use around here than XTC

Maybe an update of one of the asio source modules could support this? Then you could simply toggle ASIO channels between VST's and external ASIO.

On 2006-04-23 13:37, Shroomz wrote:
I agree Gary, but most people have a limit to the depth of their pocket.

Since when is THAT a logical or moral fundament for ANY price determing strategy...?

well, a practical concern, anyway.
i guess i'll have to limit the price....

buy scope plugins, they're cheaper than hardware. if i had more to spend on plugins, i'd buy a lot more. i like that the developer gets paid. i like to pay them. i like free plugins too. reasonable limits to most everything is good....

getting to zer's territory...

On 2006-04-26 17:08, hubird wrote:
Since when is THAT a logical or moral fundament for ANY price determing strategy...?

Since we realised that we don't need much more gear (hardware or software) & that buying any more would make us consumeristic sheep. We've got synths coming out of our ears, but who doesn't on SFP. There will be others on Z who feel the same. I've seen it said dozens of times here on Z. People asking themselves if they need another synth etc. So when a new synth comes out it probably doesn't get the sales & immediate mass use that it deserves due to people either not having 150 euro or whatever to buy it or due to them feeling that their current mountain of synths is already largely & shamefully idle. That's not to say that it's morally or logically wrong to sell them & 'right' to give them away free. I'm simply saying that if advanced devices are given away free occassionally, everyone will have the chance to use them without money being part of the equation. Doing this obviously requires tremendous committment on the part of the developer/s, as giving devices away for free won't pay short term wage bills.

Want to talk about logic?
Where's the logic in someone bringing out a new Scope device & pricing it WAY outside the range of 97% of Scope users budgets as has happenned in recent months with BX-Dig'? How many of those do we think will sell for 600 euro? I'd personally be surprised if 3% of Scope users buy it at that price. Meanwhile there's hundreds maybe even thousands of users who could potentially have been made into brainworx deciples by simply giving them the device for free with the promise to develope more high end mastering tools to be sold at reasonable & normal prices for SFP. Again, it wouldn't pay wage bills & that's the main hurdle. Do we think BX-Dig' would be cheapened if given away & not be regarded as the high end mastering tool it's being sold as? I don't. A high end mastering tool (as will any other device) will always be the same tool & should in theory command the same respect for it's abilities & uniqueness if it's free as it would if sold for 600 euro.

On 2006-04-26 19:23, garyb wrote:
well, a practical concern, anyway.
i guess i'll have to limit the price....

What do you mean when you say you guess you'll have to limit the price?

buy scope plugins, they're cheaper than hardware.

Scope plug-ins are fantastic (we have many), but they are not tangable in their own right & devalue faster than most hardware.

if i had more to spend on plugins, i'd buy a lot more.

I think that's most people's sentiment & also the spanner in the works unfortunately. New developement's inebvitably pass most SFP users by, as they can't all afford to buy new plug-ins regularly. The result is time consuming developement of new devices which shamefully only end up in 100-200 SFP boxes at most.

i like that the developer gets paid. i like to pay them. i like free plugins too. reasonable limits to most everything is good....

Very true

getting to zer's territory...

Very true

On 2006-04-27 02:30, Shroomz wrote:

On 2006-04-26 19:23, garyb wrote:
well, a practical concern, anyway.
i guess i'll have to limit the price....

What do you mean when you say you guess you'll have to limit the price?

rhetorical.
i'm very funny.

Ah!

If I could buy each pluing at 20 euros, I would probably end spending lot of money on lots of plugins.
Since now, on tools or plugins about 150 euros each, I´m really spent time thinking on which one would buy. I often come to conclusion that I should better reserve the money for a vacation, then wasting money on devices for make a song that nobody will ear.
I think that the number of amateur musicians with low money are so high that I really think that any of you would win much more money selling a plugin at 5 euros that at 50 euros.
Just think on a music cd. You can get an old Michael Jackson cd for some euros, and he wins millions, just because there are lot of people who buy it.
I think that there are lots of creamware users. If tools were very cheap, every pulsar one would want to have lot of stuff, or even all avaiable. What happens is that just we cannot access to it.
Here, the vst platform has one advantage, wazered versions are used so much that everybody end using it, and finally in most cases buying what really are useful for own requirements.
As an example, for the near future, I´m thinking about buying Dynatube, don´t sure yet. It costs 180 euros. I would probably forget about looking for any other pluing to buy for a while.
If I could buy Dynatube for 30 euros, I would just have it, and would be thinking about what more to buy, and I think as me, lots and lots of guys.
Of course, just an opinion.

it definetely doesn't work this way.
Wavelength once offered all his devices for that price and only a small fraction of those who downloaded actually paid.
Warp69's first release of the P100 was 99 Euro which is a joke for that class of device, even more as it was spiced with a chorus delay that's worth easily the same amount.
The price of Flexor was set with '... so that everyone can afford it...' in mind, sales were neglectible, considering the quality gain the package brought to Modular users.

While Scope devices are true hardware, the product is considered software - and obviously that's considered a common good.
Free, stolen, downloaded, whatever you like...

cheers, tom

I would LIKE to pay for OS9 support...and when an external Scope box, for OSX.
yeah, off topic, right, but speaking about software...

Would much prefer Rewire!

On 2006-04-21 04:47, black_chungo wrote:
Hi!

Anobody knows about an VST wrapper for the scope fusion platform? A device that lets you load any VSTi or effect inside the project window and route audio in and out from it...
Would that be possible to develop?

Black.

yep rewire module would be so cool....

If it's the load your worried about when using vst's in lets say cubase sx and you don't really need all the features why not use V-stack ?
It's cheap and it has a clock for sync.

The way I imagine it, it would be invisible and running in the background like it does in Reason. You wouldn't have a module for it as it would be a part of every module. Then you would not need an ASIO module.

On 2006-05-02 22:39, marcuspocus wrote:
yep rewire module would be so cool....

bump

could be a vst host running with sx3 sequencer?
how to you use my Valvetone Colortone vst plugin (master insert stm 2448mixer)or a convolution reverb vst in scope project (aux/rt) with sx3 sequencer running audio tracks.
do we need multi asio client driver for this?

nope,
it is possible with scope multichannel asio

if you're running cubase, just use that as the vst host.
or use a simple stand alone host, either way, there's already an external device plugin that alllows for easy routing and that works in insert slots.

there's no problem using vsts if you really want to. in any case, you will get 2x ulli latency. i usually use vsts in the sequncer doing the play back for that reason. if it is a send effect, i just use the send in say, cubase, and then give that bus it's own output. anything inserted on a single channel gets inserted on that channel before the channel goes out it's own output. that way i get PDC and the best of both worlds........

@Dj micron

which routing i must do it for use for example colortone vst plugin like a master insert in stm2448 runnin cubasesx

you can insert in the stm channel the "external effect " module and assign as inputs and outputs the corresponding asio channels of the vst effect.

The cubase sx channel where you have insterted the colortone vst, must have the monitor button enabled.

hi
the external effect device doesn't works in master,,
for insert in master section of stm2448, you need the master external effect device,with this device you can listen and see a sound activity from the routin,
anyway,the vst plugin in sx channel doesn't works at all, you can only monitor the signal in the inspector but in any plugin you don't see signal passing through.
The delay compensation in the master effect external devices isn't workable



ciao

it worked on my system,
to have the lowest latency, you should use the asio 2 modules.
I think there is something wrong in your routing, because i have done it.
Best Regards

Sal

p.s. the difference between external effect and external master effect is about the available settings and the level meter, but you can use both in master section too.