Mac OS 9 Lives
Digital Audio Workstation & MIDI => Digital Audio Workstations & MIDI Applications => Vision & Studio Vision by Opcode => Topic started by: supernova777 on July 14, 2014, 04:06:13 AM
-
(http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1384.0;attach=515;image)
(http://vision.agektmr.com/images/Title.jpg)
-
I've read people raving about it. It's a little different from other DAWs... maybe that's why I didn't mesh with it too well.
-
Yes I have tried it, but I don't like it.
Because it lacks VST instruments support and audio rendering to a file
I feel irritating his alien windows (like Logic and Performer)
Why so many DAW has to be so weird alien windows?
-
That's a good way to put it, MacTron. I wish the windows would be more integrated. DP is sort of the same but less so.
-
i think vision is only really usefull if u have alot of midi instruments wired up to your mac..
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwfX0k-fqK0[/youtube]
have you guys seent his video? its pretty cool , the video flys by very fast tho
hardly have time to read any of the titles on screen and he talks too fast
+ flys thru the info too fast.. but its very informative + showcases alot of the ways
in which the program works that is different from other apps..
i really think this app was light years ahead and that alot of these newer apps like A
ableton + reason stole alot of ideas from here for their programs!!!!!!!
i first became very interested in learning more about this
after seeing the ways in which vision incorporated alot of the same sort of non-linear techniques
+ loop/segment sequencing found in ableton live...
also its funny that opcode vision dissappeared around the same time that live came out for sale
i wonder if these germans paid off Gibson guitars to put opcode to death;) LOL
regardless, vision had some very cool tricks up its sleeve for composer/MIDI based studios
the type of studio that would have networked midi interfaces + many many different synths all
powered on + plugged in simultaneously thats the key to seeing what makes this different from cubase..
that this is a midi composer / arranger tool... with a splash of digital audio + vst effects.. but mostly focused
on midi composing and arranging
im very much interested in becoming familiar with it some more.
-
Yes I have tried it, but I don't like it.
Because it lacks VST instruments support and audio rendering to a file
I feel irritating his alien windows (like Logic and Performer)
Why so many DAW has to be so weird alien windows?
i think audio rendering to file could easily be accomplished via an actual "loop back" wiring an output to an input on a multioutput sound card
the windows have a different structure with a reason,
while it could be confusing at first,
once u become familiar with it..
it then may become more clear the benefit of it's different abstraction from the linear layout
ie: segments/sequences and its layered approach to "do onces/affect many" functions
its definately has differences that make it a challenge to get familiar with + master
this is exactl what is intriguing me about it! and im by no means a master of it yet
im just an outsider loooking into a window;) saying ok that looks cool;) i wish to know this better
but yes vst lack of VST instrument support is a big fat (-)
but for working with hardware/gear/gm sound modules workstations like the motif/triton/proteus/jv etc this thing could be the bomb!
-
quick look at the windows pulldown: (very different & unfamiliar from other apps)
(http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1406.0;attach=576;image)
-
i think audio rendering to file could easily be accomplished via an actual "loop back" wiring an output to an input on a multioutput sound card
Import, export, and bouncing are all very easy in SVP. Most tasks are accomplished via the File menu. SVP's media management window is also very useful.
The manual covers import/export/bounce options in great detail. Check the "Audio" manual (not the "MIDI" manual) and also (I think) the 4.5 addendum.
-
I'm all MIDI at my house, no VST things, I seem to be more aware of timing. I've noticed midi sequencing on Win never sounds tight, when I use older Mac, timing is tight. The little 68k Macs and Cubase = very tight but a faff, the 9500 with Vision seems good, although the system might lack in audio recording dept, but for tight midi sequences Vision/Mac seems good for me.
I know to tighten up XP various tweeks can be made, but still, with no tweeks the old Macs are tight.
-
I think my opinion of Vision is changing after using it for a bit. It actually IS a cool program. I remember recently trashing Vision's piano roll, but after using it for a while, I think I actually like it better than in Logic. With Vision you get the actual note names on the left side. That keeps me from guessing like in Logic. I'm gonna keep using it and see how it turns out.
One thing is for sure though... nothing can beat Logic for all the hardware synth integration. I have SoundDiver linked up and it's a breeze to go back and forth.
I also like how when you click with the drum stick in the piano roll, you can immediately move the note up and down and get it just right. You can't do that in Logic.
-
From this SOS article...
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct98/articles/studiovision.html
...the jewel in the crown is still featured only in Studio Vision Pro: Audio-MIDI conversions. Opcode got a US patent for this earlier this year, and it's probably one of the most powerful features of the software if you really want to get deeply into working with MIDI and audio, beyond just recording and playing back. At first sight, it's all very simple. You select a monophonic audio track, and you can convert this into a MIDI track. You can then edit the MIDI information, and convert it back to audio again. One use for this is to correct singers whose pitching is less than perfect, but there are lots of other uses for it
So obviously, as far as advanced features, SV was ahead of its time; however, it never really became as popular in project studios as PT or Cubase. The interface, unfortunately, stacks way too many windows IMO; yes it has some great features...
...killer MIDI sequencer that had a track list, fully editable by region selection, along with a miniature graphic representation. Just double-click any given track and voila' into editing mode, optionally selectable in preferences whether you liked a giant graphic or event list window. Want to edit another track along? Double-click that and edit the 2 (or more) tracks alongside. Want to solo (or mute) that track while in the edit window? Click Solo (or Mute). How about record-enable? Same thing. This last one took Motu 12 years before they finally added it to the event list window...
When I tried it, I should have put more time into it. It is one of those programs that is hard to just dive into. I could never find what I wanted quickly when testing it out and I was unwilling to put in the time necessary. The Mixer and Track view felt very 2 dimensional to me and had too many windows on top of each other after a few clicks, but looking back I never tested it on a dual display setup or larger that a 20" monitor; I am sure this is where it shines... like earlier Logic, if you pay your dues, you can layout the UI as you want it, instead of just learning what they gave you. This "un-anchored" approach may leave the beginner a little dazed, but it is clear SVP had some very devoted users, and Gibson obviously did not know WTF they were doing by killing it.
I may put some time into 4.5.1 in the next few months, but most of my outboard gear is packed away. SVP is a great piece of software to compliment a Studio with legacy MIDI gear, but my stuff is made "in the box" these days, so I may not be able to do much without the softsynths I am used to.
I did find this...
I use a program called Ugly VSTi to run softsynths and some stubborn plug ins with Vision. It's free.
Not sure if that is for VSTi 1 or 2 compatible stuff, but maybe someone has tried it with Vision.
Chris also mentioned it here...
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=1370.msg5603#msg5603
Does anyone know if ugly can be used in OS9 with SVP to load VST version2 plugins ?
-
The layout/window thing is what deterred me as well. I spent more time trying to find stuff than actually doing stuff.
I'm 100% outboard over here. No VSTis or plugins. Logic and SVP for midi, and Pro Tools for mixing. I guess that's why I choose them over Cubase or DP. I was on Cubase for over a decade though, and Cakewalk in before that in the late 90s.
Hey DH, what kind of outboard do you have stored away?
-
(4) Roland jv-880s (Had 5, gave 1 to Chris)
(1) Roland D-100
(1) Roland U-200
(2) Roland 1080s
(1) Panasonic SV3800 DAT
(5) Motu 1224s
(2) MOTU 24i
(2) Audiophile 2496 FireWire
(2) Spare Mindprint TRIO SDIFF
(2) Backup Alesis HD24 Units (still use one live from Time to Time, I like the converters)
(3) Tascam DA-38
(2) Tascam DA-88
(1) Tascam HD-78
(2) Soundcraft Studio Spirit 32 Channel Boards
(3) 5' Racks of other stuff that I have not removes the covers off since I moved to CA in 2004
Diehard=Hoarder (See me on my new reality show)
-
I've got a bunch of those myself. I've got 4x DA-38 machines and I track to them. I've always wanted an HD24 but don't wanna cough up $$$ for it just yet.
-
bravo syntho... its a very fucking cool program.. with very forward thinking light years ahead of anything else in its time frame!!!!!!!! ive been waiting for the day when i would see a post like this.. from either you or mactron! lol ;D
i was more hoping for:
'holy shit!! i get it! it rocks!! wow wtf!!'
:D
i honestly havent fully figured out / experienced the program yet
but from the insights from a few of the videos.. it looks to me to be the best for midi... hands down.. especially on an old 9600 mac.. its said to be more stable on the older os 7 + 8 rather then 9..
my plan to use vision is to use hardware + also a 2ndary machine for VSTs with a bazillion outputs.. and then route everything to a 3rd machine for protools or logic recording...... switching between them both.
i kind of associate vision + live together in my mind, not because they are similar in any way but because they brought a new way of thinking.. and unique workflow + user interface breakthroughs. i would categorize them as being out of the box in terms of their programming + approach...
honestly tho vision - i think is the epic pinnacle of "macintosh" type os9 ui.. put to its best use.. im really surprised that mactron isnt 100% into vision... vision has some serious advantages + user interface workflow for composing.. using it to control a 2ndary vst rig would be a great "best of both worlds" scenario
it reminds me alot of 'macromedia' software.. their software was pure genius.. innovative thinking..they made flash, freehand, director, they transformed the internet from 1997-2004 into the coolest shit ever by their authoring tools.. (god i miss the old indepedant pre-facebook internet!!) using their software taught me, that usually if something is "alien" (as mactron would put it) its usually because u dont understand teh thinking or workflow..but once u learn it. u learn WHY its setup the way it is.. and u have that Eureeka AHA I GET IT moment and everything falls into place.
diehard.. sell me your motu 24i ;)
-
The thing though is that Vision is more of a loop or pattern based sequencer. It's perfect for electronic and pop musicians, but my own personal stuff is more linear and progressive. Not that Vision can't do that, it can, but Logic seems the better sequencer for more advanced and detailed stuff all around.
I like how 'fast' Vision seems with programming but like how Logic lets me fine-tune at a ridiculous level of detail. I wish I could make the two have a child.
-
the secret to vision is the same as most mac related programs..
knowing the keyboard shortcuts + modifiers and how they affect the ui to do exactly what u want to do ..
this is crucial with any app u use..
we really should be focusing some more effort on documenting
these types of crucial information that turn a novice to an expert over night
-
I downloaded the manual pack. I don't know what is what. Is the midi manual + audio manual the 'manual'?
-
The thing though is that Vision is more of a loop or pattern based sequencer. It's perfect for electronic and pop musicians, but my own personal stuff is more linear and progressive. Not that Vision can't do that, it can, but Logic seems the better sequencer for more advanced and detailed stuff all around.
Wow… there's so much mistaken assumption and jumping to conclusions here I don't even know where to start.
I've used Vision, StudioVision and Galaxy for years, years, and more years. It is NOT loop/pattern based - unless you want it to be. It is also NOT linear - unless you want it to be.
It will work well either way - that's one of the unique cool things about it. My thing is blues and jazz - definitely NOT pattern based.
I think the problem here is just that years of working on other DAWs have some of us expecting to be able to just jump to another and have everything be familiar. I've heard the exact same complaint from folks going FROM Vision TO Logic; that Logic was obtuse and (pun) illogical to them.
I too, use hardware mostly and IMO the functionality and flow with Vision and Galaxy is as smooth and efficient as you could ever ask for.
I also like how when you click with the drum stick in the piano roll, you can immediately move the note up and down and get it just right. You can't do that in Logic.
That's just ONE of the MANY things you "can't do in Logic" but you can in Vision. You can drag pitch, duration, velocity up and down, duplicate notes, etc too.
Back then there was really only Opcode and MOTU… they invented just about all of the basics we enjoy today. OMS alone (still working well) was vital in enabling the MIDI spec to evolve into more than just playing one hardware kbd from another.
The "too many windows" issue can be turned from an annoyance into a feature by simply adding another monitor then sizing and arranging them as you like. Then iit's a GOOD thing!
"Audio rendering to a file" is accomplished with the "Capture Seq > Seq" command. You select the tracks you want and one click dumps it all to a new sequence file with all EQs, plugins and automation.
The app predates VSTi. If your stuff depends on lots of VST instruments you should use something else.
If your stuff depends on mixing down 75 tracks with effects you should just take out a 2nd mortgage and fill up the room with TDM. (You DO get free heat that way…)
Note: after years of trying, Dave Oppenheimer is finally getting Avid to incorporate some of Vision's MIDI routines into PT - that's what…only PT ELEVEN!
Seriously, I've created entire albums in StudioVision alone using Sonicworx or Amadeus for tweaking and I'm starting another right now.
I will get around the VSTi issue using the Ugly wrapper (if I can make it work reliably) and by using my dual-boot MDD to track an occasional instrument in OSX using…wait for it… LOGIC!
Any questions, just ask.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnQ1vu-omKY[/youtube]
did u happen to catch both of these videos? (part 1 was embedded above..)
this video shows just how flexible and Programmatic the user interface is..
and can be incredibly time saving by applying the same action to multiple tracks.. these types of do-once-apply-to-all user interface possibilities in vision are mind blowing if u can learn to 'Speak the language" and use it to its full "hidden" potential.
-
(http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1406.0;attach=2646;image)
im not sure it would have ever been the best DAW but it was the first!!!...
"Studio Vision -The first application to integrate Audio and MIDI Recording and Editing" opcode were the innovators that combined the two technologies :D
im not sure if MOTU performer came before OPCODE vision..
i think performer was first... then vision... but OPCODE was founded in 1985.. the same year performer v1.0 came out..
http://www.kvraudio.com/focus/the_early_days_of_software_sequencers_15670
this article claims :
Gerhard Behles (founder of Ableton) will tell you that Opcode's Players feature was an important influence when he designed Ableton Live.
this is totally apparent to me from my research on all of the above.. also the midi event mapping to program functions.
the article also claims that at first performer + mastertracks pro software were ahead of opcode.. in features.
its funny because there are many things that studio vision + live can do that cubase STILL cant do.. !!!!!!!
the birth of DAW: Feb 11th 1990
http://www.kvraudio.com/focus/it_was_21_years_ago_today_how_the_first_software_daw_came_about_15898
-
Opcode Players? What's that?
im not sure.. but i think that, while the article mentions this one feature, it goes alot further indepth than just that..
if i was to guess i would guess that it is a reference to being able to trigger looping sequences (like the pt2 tour video here shows)
from mapped midi keys on a midi controller
-
the loop/segment portion of SVP is similar to cubase ghost copies.. were ghost copies were introduced in cubase VST 5?
i dont remember seeing it in 4.1
this article comes to mind to:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/nov10/articles/25-milestone-products.htm
heres the list altered to be in chronological order:
25 Products That Changed Recording
1985 atari ST
1986 akai s900
1987 roland d50
1987 sony r-dat format
1988 korg m1
1989 emu proteus
1989 tascam msr24
1990 opcode studio vision
1991 digidesign pro tools
1991 genelec 1031A speakers
1991 mackie cr1604
1992 alesis adat
1995 Yamaha o2r
1995 fostex dmt8
1996 TC electronic finalizer
1997 antares autotune
1997 rebirth rb338
1997 steinberg vst SDK
1998 line 6 pod
1998 gigasampler
2001 motu 828
2001 ableton live
2004 SSL AWS900
2004 focusrite liquid channel
2009 celemony melodyne
interesting that ableton live / studio vision pro / pro tools are on this list
but cubase + logic are omited??
at least they mention the VST SDK....
but im still surprised they dont see cubase as a revolutionary product.
-
"Players" is simple. If you're working pattern-based, players are just segments of your song - you record pieces, as in verse, chor, bridge yada yada, looping or non-looping. They're assigned letters A,B,C etc, and listed in the sequence menu. Then you just open a new sequence and punch in the letters in the order you want, thereby assembling the song.
The relationship to Live is that you can also trigger these segments (formerly called subsequences) in real time, either from the kbd or from mapped MIDI notes. Typically, you set the function so that each player finishes before the next one you just punched starts -alá Live. You can also make new players from other players, add / subtract elements from the other players etc. etc. This also eliminates "ghost copies". Since your constructing the song from independent players, any change to the original player automatically appears wherever and whenever that player is used. If you only want the change to happen say, once, you just duplicate the player and give it a new letter - exactly as you would on say, a pattern-based drum machine like a Roland 909. This overall concept was what inspired Live - the idea that you could construct "pieces" and later spit them out in real-time in any order to reconstruct songs on the fly.
-
I think we need GaryN to do a post on how to use vst effects plugins in vision. (without rewire) this would be a good first step in sparking interest;)
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan99/articles/opcode477.htm
this article also says that its compatible with adobe premeire plugins?
New To v4.1 - Nevertheless, some features that users of Vision and Studio Vision Pro were anticipating in version 4.0 have only just materialised in version 4.1. With the adoption by Opcode of the ASIO driver standard and VST plug-in architecture (as used in Steinberg's Cubase VST), it has at last become possible
so 4.1+ have ASIO support + VST support
also it says it was bundled with a limited version of bias peak, Peak SE audio editor and opcode's own Galaxy librarian.
Each Acadia channel can manage four VST plug-ins and a real-time EQ with four separate bands (of which more later).
-
I've a few things to add. ;)
It was said somewhere in here that Galaxy and SV weren't closely tied together. Actually they were exceedingly so. For instance if you employed Galaxy with one of your synths then all of the patch names would show up in a popup menu within SV for your selection. This was very useful.
Performer was out before Vision, but MidiMac the precursor to Vision was out first. There was also a really neat app out back then called Midi Paint--this would be a great app to track down for the Garden.
Because StudioVison was the first "DAW" not counting things like the Firelight, or the Synclaver, it by definition was (at least at one point in time) the best. ;)
One of the reasons that SV is so tight is that Opcode put a lot of effort into that area. Once you became aware of the differences of loose timing and tight timing you understand its importance. Opcode had on the Mac one of the tightest sequencers around. I don't remember the specifics, but the disparity was pretty big.
The Atari sequencers Cubase and eMagics were really tight on the Atari. When they moved to the Mac it loosened up a bit. I don't know if they ever got that back up to spec. But this is the main reason that the Atari was so loved by the techno crowd.
Vision did have some really neat uses of patterns though, and you could trigger them with a midi event. This meant in a live situation you could control not only your music gear, but lights too. It was pretty wonderful stuff. It looks like Gary mention this feature. :)
Blaming Gibson for Opcode's demise is only part of the story. You really have to know about how Gibson was able to buy Opcode. Even then Opcode probably would have survived the Gibson affair if Guitar center didn't go to war with Gibson. All of that happening at the same time is what took out Opcode. It's really sad. But two of the main driving forces for Opcode, Dave O, and David W, are now developing PT. So really if you think about it that way Opcode did take over PT. :P
Addressing the number of windows. It's a little bit difficult today to remember that people were still using computer with displays well under a 1,024 pixels wide. Some folks were still sequencing with 512 pixels of width. To even be able to get that much information out to the user it had to be done with a number of windows. The consolidation technology didn't become viable until just recently. Think of it this way DP didn't do it until DP8!
-
As usually... we stray, but all these stories are related and mold the overall view of the landscape at the time... I would like to thank you, Chokobo, as always for your insights into what was going on behind the scenes; it really helps fill in the gaps for me.
I had some personal insights into the "German" camp during the 2nd wave of their assault (circa 1996 thru 2000). And was interesting to see companies like Steinberg and RME introduce products that could produce material at the semi-pro level without the need for tons of outboard gear... hence the real "Project Virtual Studio" on a budget was born. This second wave was no more important than the groundwork that was laid down by genius minds like Dave Oppenheim; but it did mark the beginning of what we see today... Self contained studios in the box, complete with virtual instruments, MIDI, Audio, and effects all living side by side.
Please don't misunderstand me, this new wave of studios surely did not sound as good as their analogue counterparts; there are no substitutes for a real Pultec EQ, LA compressors, or API mixer, but they did put things in economical reach for the aspiring musician/producer... and that was the real game changer. Suddenly, in 1998, even the cheap 8/16 Track reel to reel studios (that were charging $35 to $45 per hour at the time in NY) had no work. The working musician, who was use to paying $1500 to $2000 for a single piece of MIDI gear, could now save up for a quality Mic, a Mac computer, and an interface. Who cared it you had to make 15 passes of a song, time was now free, and it was fun :)
-
I've a few things to add. ;)
It was said somewhere in here that Galaxy and SV weren't closely tied together. Actually they were exceedingly so. For instance if you employed Galaxy with one of your synths then all of the patch names would show up in a popup menu within SV for your selection. This was very useful.
Not just patch names but note names as well! My drum tracks, for example, show up with their actual drum names, not notes. Plus, I have multiple drum mods and they all just pop up so that I can make a drum kit out of 2 or 3 mods and they just come together as one instrument. I keep Galaxy open so I can just hop over to tweak whatever needs it (retune the snare etc.). Change a bank of synth patches in Galaxy and Vision instantly 'subscribes" to the change and show the new patches. The two apps integrate just as Logic and Soundiver do. Hell, I've even got a Galaxy editor for my Lexicon Reflex reverb…
Blaming Gibson for Opcode's demise is only part of the story. You really have to know about how Gibson was able to buy Opcode. Even then Opcode probably would have survived the Gibson affair if Guitar center didn't go to war with Gibson.
This story, like most, changes a lot depending on who you're talking to. I think the most telling fact however, is that all Henry had to do was complete the deal that was going to spin off Opcode into the new company to be named Zero Crossing, then just walk away. There are horrendous stories of pissing matches between supposedly mature adults that tanked the deal that can be discussed in another thread…
Please don't misunderstand me, this new wave of studios surely did not sound as good as their analogue counterparts; there are no substitutes for a real Pultec EQ, LA compressors, or API mixer, but they did put things in economical reach for the aspiring musician/producer... and that was the real game changer.
Amen to that sir! I would observe however, that the differences between the new digital rigs and their semi-pro counterparts were not quite so great. I thought the results with my Mac and cheap AD/DA (can't remember - Delta 44 or such maybe) were superior to pushing audio through my previous Teac Model Two mixers into my Teac 3440 4-track hands down! Plus, I didn't have to depend on dbx to squelch the tape hiss…
Heaven!
-
I would observe however, that the differences between the new digital rigs and their semi-pro counterparts were not quite so great.
Very true, on an eight core mac pro with 32GB of RAM (my favorite ML Config.); Virtual instruments and effects come very close to the real world counterparts; I paid less for (2) entire studios (1 at work and 1 home), than the cost of a single 16-channel pro mixer back in 1987.
If the cost of a Pro studio includes... Mixers, Amps, Effects, Mics, Drums, etc.... and it is equivalent to a loaf of bread; then is a very easy decision... would you buy a load of bread for $80,000... or buy a loaf (minus one slice) for $4000; these days I pick the later since it is almost as filling :)