Hi everyone. What are the system requirements for OpenMPT_1.17RC2_generic????? I am looking at buying a laptop computer, and the last thing I want is it to glitch during playback of a song. I have searched the forums, but I haven't been able to come up with anything. I can't see it being that much different than Modplug 1.16. Of course, I will be taking into account the use of vst and vsti cpu ussage when I buy one, but I just need the program stats. Any help would be great.
Thanks.
Vst and VSTi usage and chainer VSTs can slow down my puter to a crawl. I'd definetly want a fast CPU n lot's of fast RAM. The faster the better. This of course doesn't tell you anything new or anwser your question but since the requirements change with the plugins you got running there may not be a clear anwser.
A side question: Could you run mpt form a 486? I think so... :?:
I can only second that, when I used MPT a few years back I noticed how little resources it took on my P4 1.7 GHz (yep, the first P4!).
Of course, as pointed out by georg, with VSTs you're totally in the dark regarding CPU and Mem usage. It all depends on the plugin and it's sound quality. And not to mention the amount of plugins you use.
When you get a laptop, be sure to check out ASIO4ALL (http://www.asio4all.com/). Those are ASIO drivers meant to be used with soundcards that have them natively, and they might boost the performance just enough. Other than that, get the fastest you can afford if you intend on using plugins.
I don't use Midi or Vst, so I can't tell about those requirements. Handling samples is enough for me to compose.
But I recently installed RC2 generic on an 'old' laptop with W98, for live-performance purposes, and so far, it all functions properly.
This is one of the advantages of using a module tracker only as it was meant : a sample-based editor.
The efficiency of this concept proves to be very high in this way. FastTracker II on a Dos-machine was able to produce almost cd-quality.
So it's not so much about the system requirements, but about your own requirements.
It's easy to advice, to look for the fastest and biggest system available, but that's not my style.
QuoteThis is one of the advantages of using a module tracker only as it was meant : a sample-based editor.
The efficiency of this concept proves to be very high in this way. FastTracker II on a Dos-machine was able to produce almost cd-quality
Sam, I'm not entirely sure there was a set intent in the designing of the tracker , other than the tools and technology that were available at the time.
I strongly beleive (because almost every tracker now offers it) that had Steinberg had the VST/VSTi technology available at the time the tracker was being developed, the programmer would have considered coding for the plug-in from the onset.
I don't think the tracker was meant to be a bare bones tool. I think it began that way because of the dictates and practices of technology of the day.
Most people don't set goals for half success.
Having said all this, VST technology is absolutely great. According to your preference, there are some really amazing and useful plug-ins.
If you haven't invested any time to experiment with them, I strongly recommend it.
In fact, just 1 year ago, I rarely touched VST instruments. I even built a very extensive .IT instrument library which a lot of the instruments from it are circulating around the web.
However, now, because of the obvious advantages, I can't live without great VSTi. Keeping in mind some are more desirable than others.
Allow me to break it down:
With a sample, you have what you have. A sampled .wav of a synth or instrument.
With a VST instrument (VSTi) you can have a complete real time synth. Besides the obvious increase in use and control, the sound quality tends to be significantly better.
Some plug-ins feature multi-layered sampled instruments coupled with sound filtering control for complete variation and precise control/modulation, such as SampleTank.
To the main questioner:In order to make use of this technology in the tracker, you will need a pretty beefy machine. Some plug ins really soak up your CPU and can bring your machine to a complete crawl.
I've experienced this on occasion on my P4 2.4 GHz, 500 Front side bus, running 256 video and 512 ram.
I also do recommend using ASIO drivers. It can mean the difference of a very stuttering playback and a smooth playback when using CPU intensive plug-ins.
Anyone running a Xeon? Curious.
Please, no antiPentium hate mail. As long as a processor doesn't burn out, it's useful in my opinion, regardless of what label it carries.
Matt,
Good arguments about the plugins and the introduction of them in the trackers.
Besides that I have a plain reason for not using them, you mentioned it, the power taken from the processor.
I have to make my compo's on a 640 MHz clocked W2K machine, I tested vst's, noticed stutters and made the
logical decision not to use them.
This lead to the conclusion that I have to focus more on the samples themselves. And regarding the fact that a sample doesn't have to be a recording of a single note of a single instrument all the time.
A sample can have 3 instruments plus a voice at the same time, or a sequence of 6 notes by some instrument.
Or a complete rhythmic pattern played by a drummer and the base-guitar.
Liberal use of VSTs will certainly sap away CPU power. I cannot play most of my current personal projects in realtime, because my Athlon XP 3200+ (1 GiB RAM) cannot quickly process some of the rather ugly/insane effect chains I use.
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"This lead to the conclusion that I have to focus more on the samples themselves. And regarding the fact that a sample doesn't have to be a recording of a single note of a single instrument all the time.
A sample can have 3 instruments plus a voice at the same time, or a sequence of 6 notes by some instrument.
Or a complete rhythmic pattern played by a drummer and the base-guitar.
Yeah. This is something I'm starting to do more and more--I render one section to a sample, and include it in the main mix. It eats a lot of space, but does save CPU time.
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"I have to make my compo's on a 640 MHz clocked W2K machine, I tested vst's, noticed stutters and made the
logical decision not to use them.
All due respect my friend,
But I think it's high time you invest in something more substantial if you are serious about your art.
Take a second job if you have to just long enough to afford something better.
640 MHz is bad news considering today's musical technology. I'm sure I'm not saying anything you don't already realize.
But because your machine is under par according to today's standards, you are truly missing out on some great technological advancements in music.
You really owe it to yourself to find a way to make it happen. I can certainly understand when times get tough in the money area, but there always seems to be a way if you look hard enough and are willing to put the effort into it.
You really can't go wrong with this type of investment.
Don't let circumstance control your life. You can choose to take full control over it and have your cake too.
Edit: Also, try using ASIO drivers (free/google search)
Even on a slow machine you may notice a considerable difference in playback. Even in your non plug-in material.
One thing I noticed about VSTi is that is always sounds synthetic. The advantage of XI instruments is they are usually live recordings of the instrument, and they are easier to work with
sam_zen's argument is pretty keen to me, vst instruments can be very cool if you are into that sort of thing, but the only deciding factor is what your style is. i personally miss the adlib synth that came with scream tracker. there is nothing more substantial to me than lean and mean. besides, arguing about personal preferences is teh pointless. go tell a painter to buy photoshop or go back in time and tell buddy rich he should have invested in some $500 AXIS drum pedals if he really wanted to be serious ;-)
Squirrel & habys:
When speaking in terms of VSTi, style or preference are a void argument because I can honestly assure you there's at least one VSTi plug in that would suit everyone taste.
They're not all synths. Some are complete packages containing very comprehensive multisamples with velocity control of real instruments, additionally adding real time modulation controls that marvel closely to the real thing.
You can hear a great example of what I'm saying by my latest release,
1873 (http://artman-dg.com/1873.mp3). I used Sampletank with a Steinway Grand piano patch. You'll be able to recognize that this obviously has several advantages as far as sound quality and expression.
As for the argument of telling a painter to get photoshop, I don't follow that logic. A painter and a graphic designer are totally different occupations, requiring a completely different set of tools.
In this case, because we are talking about a digital composer getting better tools to create more comprehensive digital music, it's far more relative and valid in my opinion.
In fact, since Sam seems to be an avid lover of Jazz, I have a couple VSTi plug-ins that would probably blow his socks off, it would probably take him an hour to calm down and decide what to do with it.
Synth technology is not an exact science, but I grant you this; give it a few more years and even seasoned musicians will have a hard time determining whether what they are hearing is "real" or "fake". It's already very close and some plug-ins are already there.
You all may want to be a part of that. It's your choice.
I obviously hit a nerve here.
Quote from: "xaimus"It eats a lot of space, but does save CPU time.
It shouldn't eat significantly more space, because 3 seconds of sound is 3 seconds, with one or with 15 instruments.
Quote from: "Matt Hartman"it's high time you invest in something more substantial if you are serious about your art.
.. you are truly missing out on some great technological advancements in music.
I'm very serious about my art, so that's why I monitor the developments, related to the things I want to achieve.
As soon as I reach the point, where all functions I want to control, run smoothly, regarding my goals about
construction, expression and quality, why should I strive for better, higher, faster etc. ?
Besides that, I have always found it a challenge, from the beginning with microprocessors, to find the way to get the max out of very little. A matter of finetuning. Efficiency, logic.
If you have a set like mine, it would be very stupid to have several extra unrelated processes running in the background from the taskbar at the same time, with their own interrupt sequences, while playing or editing a sound-file. It's asking for trouble. A stream of calculations is going on, so the system should be as relaxed as possible.
2 habys
It's not a matter of style, but of choosing your own toolkit.
2 Squirrel Havoc
Nice point about the xi-format. I must admit that I neglected it so far, but I will study it now.
Quote from: "Matt Hartman"A painter and a graphic designer are totally different occupations, requiring a completely different set of tools.
You're right. That's why I question 'electronic music' still belonging to 'music' in the classical way.
On the other hand, the differences in doing the work are not as big as they seem.
Some functions are automated, but other fields are added to the workshop : the resolution for example.
As with images, sound can be edited on a very fine scale, never possible before. I call this the nano-field.
Quote from: "Matt Hartman"will have a hard time determining whether what they are hearing is "real" or "fake"
This is more a matter of : is the quality of the suggestion good enough to fool the average listener.
I never cared about "real" or "fake" (unless intended), because I'm not busy with imitating existing acoustical instruments in the first place. I just use some sound samples and try to make the best of it.
How many human related instruments exist ? Maybe 4000. With electronics, this is a very minor part of the 9 million possibilities. So it would be a waste to ignore, or not to explore.
There are no nerves hit here. I'm just honest to the point that a lot of people have trouble distinguishing between blunt honesty and insensitivity.
I a nice guy (see: :P ) and don't intend to step on anyone's nature or their choices and opinions.
Yet, at the same time, I lack some patience and tend to be very opinionated myself. Literally, I spent most of my adolescence in practically complete silence. I guess my outwardly approach has been a product of storing all my thoughts up without giving myself an outlet to relate my views to others.
I'm almost 33 now, I'm getting older and I'm beginning to see reasoning's that are generally accepted as legit but really make real awful sense when digging into it a little bit further. I see these pitfalls for myself and with others.
Is it my job to correct these observations? Only for myself. As far as others, I take it upon myself to bring them to light without their consent.
It's to be expected in a format setting such as this message board. Besides, I enjoy stimulating and thought inducing discussion. Sometimes, I like to hear myself speak but I think I do it rather well. This doesn't mean I'm full of myself. There is a difference.
Because this is a message board and I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head, I figure either people will agree and take a second look or they'll simply not agree and disregard. All is well.
Sam, if you are comfortable with the way you do things concerning your art then I'm totally in accordance with your views for yourself at the end of the day. You know you the best. Hopefully. :wink:
I guess I mainly wanted to inform you that there is some great technology out there that's really worth the look. There's so much of it now that you're bound to find some of it quite useful and simplistic. I beleive despite the fact that you seem pretty well settled into your musical cubby, there yonder spans a whole new world of experimentation out there waiting for you, ripe for the picking. That is, if you are so inclined.
Most importantly, when I speak I talk in very general terms. I don't assume to know anyone on a personal level. I do assume that we all operate the same on a very basic human level.
I'd like to quickly throw in that i've nearly completely stopped tracking because i don't have the equipment that can make my wishes and ideas a reality.
I wasn't picky in the beggining and i've done a lot of work with samples alone, usually recording them as i go along and passing them through filters or effects. Rarely have i used more than 3-4 plugins in a song. And while is still belive that sample-driven music can be beautifull my own feeling towards the music i want to make have changed.
With the exception of the specialised OVC or the occasiaonal OHC i find it difficult and unappealing to even try to make music without tweikng, polishing and perfecting it with the use of VSTs/VSTis. Sample by sample, sound by sound, everything must be analy perfectified, and of course it must also come out of a "sweeeet" pair of headphones otherwise where's the beauty? Or the fun? I can't imagine making a piece of music without mastering it. Tho my skills at that are not l33t, i'm still the first demanding audience member i have to please.
Maybe someday i will refuse to play the game without hardware toys, but for now the software can do wonders. All this software does require a strong machine, perhaps even stronger than a gaming machine, and of course nice phones or speakers to complete the picture.
np - Abba - Money, money, money
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"I obviously hit a nerve here.
Quote from: "xaimus"It eats a lot of space, but does save CPU time.
It shouldn't eat significantly more space, because 3 seconds of sound is 3 seconds, with one or with 15 instruments.
With a VSTi, I can control any number of parameters in realtime. If I want to emulate this using only samples, I'd need to sample the output of every combination of parameter change I need. I did this a little bit on another track I'm working on (removing VSTis, converting to samples)--the filesize jumped up from about 1 MiB to 40 MiB after I did the conversion.
2 Matt Hartman
I was just joking about that nerve.
Quote from: "Matt Hartman"I guess I mainly wanted to inform you that there is some great technology out there that's really worth the look. There's so much of it now that you're bound to find some of it quite useful and simplistic. I beleive despite the fact that you seem pretty well settled into your musical cubby, there yonder spans a whole new world of experimentation out there waiting for you, ripe for the picking. That is, if you are so inclined.
Now, the joking is over. This is really pathetic. You don't assume to know anyone on a personal level, well then it would be a good advice to follow your youth habit : saying nothing. Let me give you the facts :
(I don't like this, but sometimes it is necessary)
I'm 61 years old, I'm working about 40 years now with electronic devices to produce sound. I experienced the change from analog to digital. I started tracking in the pre-windows age on a Dos 6.2 machine. I'm allowed to call myself a studio- and a computer-engineer. I give courses to fellow artist about how to deal with the XP-system..
And you tell me to come out of my 'musical cubby' to find out about the latest wonders of technology ??
Or you must have a kind of humour, unfamiliar to me.
I just wanted to question the hypes about 'faster' and 'bigger'. If one would follow this blindly, then one would end up fetching the shoppings with a Ferrari to the grocery just around the corner.
Besides that, the goal to keep a program running with as little power as possible is also a social one :
Poor people have 'older' computers, so it would be nice if they still can enjoy it too.
2 georg
Your fun in tracking is obviously spoiled. But I have a guess about the reason :
You made a wrong start by including vst-plugins immediately. Not for nothing they are called 'plugins', so meaning 'external extra's'. As you say, samples are the basic, so that's where you better begin. Extra's coming later.
So learn how to deal with a wav-editor to make your samples as good as they should be. And get acquainted with the tools to express yourself.
Another guess of course could be that you want to have a big success with as little work as possible ;)
I actually worked without VSTs for 2 years. I created samples by modifying existing ones, recording sounds with a mic, or recording via MPT, then there was Orangator and other various sources of sounds. When i began to use VSTs i primarily used them as filters to create new and different samples. Psycle was my favorite tool for sample creation which is ironic as it is a tracker/sequencer.
Samples r teh fun! Making music with them r teh pisshard.
QuoteNow, the joking is over. This is really pathetic. You don't assume to know anyone on a personal level, well then it would be a good advice to follow your youth habit : saying nothing. Let me give you the facts :
(I don't like this, but sometimes it is necessary)
Sam, I realize I'm almost directly half your physical age. But guess what. That really means nothing when we speak in terms of music making. Because music is a universal language not subject to physical age, but experience and the quality of that experience as well.
QuoteI'm 61 years old, I'm working about 40 years now with electronic devices to produce sound. I experienced the change from analog to digital. I started tracking in the pre-windows age on a Dos 6.2 machine. I'm allowed to call myself a studio- and a computer-engineer.I give courses to fellow artist about how to deal with the XP-system..
No debate here. You are truly "allowed" to see yourself any way you desire. 40 years is a respectful career track. I'm sure you can bring a lot to the table. Please feel free to share your knowledge.
QuoteAnd you tell me to come out of my 'musical cubby' to find out about the latest wonders of technology ?? Or you must have a kind of humour, unfamiliar to me.
There was no humor intended. I said this to benefit you, not me. I'm already know the wonders of technology, I employ them every day as well.
By musical cubby, I meant the tight niche YOU choose to place yourself in. Which makes my point even that much greater if you are aware of this technology as you've stated, yet choose not to use it. Like it or not, in my book that's called a shell. Yet, it's just a simple term without a negative connotation which means that one freely and intelligently chooses to scale back on technology in their approach.
QuoteI just wanted to question the hypes about 'faster' and 'bigger'. If one would follow this blindly, then one would end up fetching the shoppings with a Ferrari to the grocery just around the corner.
If you had hit me with that before I had four children to feed I probably would have felt it in my crotch. Instead, it's more like a distant itch that slightly nags at me but is manageable to ignore.
QuoteBesides that, the goal to keep a program running with as little power as possible is also a social one :Poor people have 'older' computers, so it would be nice if they still can enjoy it too.
I fully agree, everyone is entitled to have happiness in their lives regardless of how society classifies them.
But who dictates you must poor or because you may be poor that you can't acquire a better machine? I'm poor, but I worked hard to get the machine I have now. So I know it's not impossible, more of a cop out really.
I never said you should scrap the whole gig because you can't stand up to technology did I? All I simply ever said was that there's some amazing tech out there that YOU (a serious DIGITAL musician and fair patriot of life) May be interested in. And it would be worth it for YOU to INVEST in a better machine that would ALLOW YOU to reap the REWARDS.
I had no idea I was going to touch upon a obviously touchy subject.
I apologize I tried to spread the word in the hopes that other would benefit from the advice. Of course, the term benefit and its meaning is obviously relative to the person reading it.
Quote from: "Matt Hartman"if you are aware of this technology as you've stated, yet choose not to use it.
Choice ? The explanation is plain. I live on welfare and simply cannot afford a new system.
You call it a shell. Fine by me. But it is based on the same reason why I don't buy dishwash-fluid with a scent of lemons, because it doesn't make the things any cleaner. As long as it doesn't stink, it's ok.
I agree about the age-thing. It's about quality not quantity of time.
'Nuff said.
Sam,
Though we may not always agree (really who on Earth does?)
I know your intentions are of the highest regards.
You say you're on welfare. From what I've gathered about your personality so far, I must say you're quite an interesting character. And I don't say this to belittle you at all.
Do you have a website? Something that I can learn more about you?
I'm not a freak or anything, it's just that sometimes my curiosity is peeked when people's paths cross my own.
In my humble 32 years here, I've learned the very valueable lesson that everthing happens for a reason even if I don't understand it now.
Personally, if I were a person of wealth you'd have a new machine at your doorstep when you wake up in the morning. What you do with that is totally your choice.
Follow?
Thanks.
I would like to say that i wanted to moderate, but i find myself coming out on the side of our older speaker. I may only be 40, but i think like i'm 80, even tho i still have the "inspirability" of a 20-year-old.
One thing i've recognized as i've gotten older is that young people (or should i say, "young-thinking" people) tend to want to want to change their environment, even if that environment includes other souls. As you get older, however, you come to realize that you can actually effect, no matter how hard you try, very LITTLE change, except for your own psychology, if so inclined.
I can understand Sam_Zen's shortness with someone half his age telling him in effect he should keep up with the new technology, especially when he's learned (as i have) to live within his means. When you're young, there's is a natural inclination to believe that someone can better their situation. Ah, the hope of Youth...
But Sam_Zen can't exactly come out and say, "Well, wait until you're my age," because that's completely ineffectual, and wastes time in just thinking it. Old man, i have learned that there is no way to teach the young your wisdom, UNLESS they show a willingness and openness to learn or otherwise accomodate it -- WHICH Hartman seems ready to do. He seems willing to entertain the idea that, with you, he may have put his toe across a line he didn't know was there. I'm sure he understands that a proud man does not want to admit his financial limitations, no matter how justifiable.
Both of you have shown your respectability, to me at least, in the few posts i've exchanged with you or else read. I wish to learn from both of you, and contribute what i can -- which i will do here, since we are talking about MPT specs:
I'm using MPT on a 267mHz PowerMac G3 under OS8.6, emulating with Virtual PC 3.0. Now this is the same as running Windows 98, but emulation cuts my clock speed to about 150mHz. I've learned that THAT is way too slow. If the sound layers become too thick, the patterns stutter and skip. Fortunately i can record to .mp3 just fine no problems; it's just the playback.
There are a few things i've learned that help a little:
1. Put VPC on a full screen -- not in a mac window.
2. Wherever possible change Note-Offs to Note-Cuts when an instrument with NNAs.
3. Use mono samples instead of stereo when acceptable.
4. Turn off Surround Sound when composing, and turn it on for testing or recording.
I would like to know, if changing the sampling playback type (Linear, spline, XMMS, etc), if that affects the speed. Anyone know?
Quote from: "Matt Hartman"Though we may not always agree (really who on Earth does?)
Many disagreements are quite trivial. But I think there is a global consensus among humans about a majority of things.
I don't need somebody to tell me with some 10 commandments about how to behave. My own common sense told me enough already.
Website can normally be found by using the www-button.
Quote from: "Matt Hartman"if I were a person of wealth you'd have a new machine at your doorstep when you wake up in the morning. What you do with that is totally your choice.
I don't agree about the second issue. I would be pissed if somebody used my gift for a stupid goal. And tell so.
If this gift would happen, one thing is sure. I would not 'replace my system', but add a new one to those in my studio.
If it works, any system has its values and efficiency. I still have an old AT-machine running (with Norton Commander and FastTracker on it), to play some vintage Dos-games the easiest way. No need for Win-emulators, etc.
I follow.
Quote from: "Harbinger"tend to want to change their environment, even if that environment includes other souls
Changing the environment is ok, if there's a reason for it of course. But one sees after some time, apart from realising the little influence one can achieve, that 'the solution' is often too much related to 'speed', 'size', or 'new', instead of enhancing the quality of the existing things by 'finetuning' the process.
And quick solutions on the short term often have unnecessary victims along the way.
Quote from: "Harbinger"Sam_Zen can't exactly come out and say, "Well, wait until you're my age," because that's completely ineffectual
So it is and so I didn't come out. A paternalistic "C'mon son, I know better" is not my style.
I just wanted to say, that all those years, I have tried not to fall into the several traps of 'common' or 'commercial' goals, which I should follow. Being older also means having been more subject to efforts of brainwashing, to resist to.
So I keep on following the 'state of the art' developments, but with a critical eye.
Quote from: "Harbinger"clock speed to about 150mHz. I've learned that THAT is way too slow. If the sound layers become too thick, the patterns stutter and skip
Right. Let's get back to the main subject again.
0. In this situation, the first thing to do is, to make sure that as less apps as possible are running along in the background. Many programs and hardware have their regular interrupts going on, which could disturb the streaming of the playback, or even burning a cd.
1. I don't know what VPC means
2. More efficient coding could be of help
3. Good point. Half the memory-size. Besides channels, there can be experimented with resolution, because sometimes you can achieve almost the same with a sample of 22 kHz instead of one of 44kHz.
4. Extra effects should be as minimised as possible as a start. Then search for the max addition.
For playback I mean. Don't forget that adding setup-settings like 'surround' or 'bass expansion' while saving as a wav-file still should work fine.
Quote from: "Harbinger"I would like to know, if changing the sampling playback type (Linear, spline, XMMS, etc), if that affects the speed.
A nice point, I never payed much attention to this, but I would say : If you like to know, think of a test where you don't destroy the original, change the settings and analyse what happens.
Although I'm a bit younger than Sam_Zen and Matt Hartman, I can see both views with their pros. and cons.
In fact, I think I'm a little bit like Sam_Zen, except that I did bough a fast system, but that was because of gaming related issues, not tracking.
I don't use VSTi's that often (actually only to experiment, but not for real production). They're usually samples and instruments.
I do use VST effects for mixing/mastering purposes, but most effects I first try to archieve in the pattern editor (with exception from equalising)
My system is fast enough to run several VST's in a song. I guess that I haven't really found the max yet. In an earlier setup, where I dealth with VSTi's, I came to a limit of 9. That song was having some difficulties if a few songs were open and I played it. Now, I can have alot of songs open, inclusive VST's etc, and it plays fine.
So I guess the question remains: How much are you willing to taste VSTi's, and is it your "thing"? I can say that mine isn't using VSTi's, merelly because of the limitations I run across. You can't control it as much as a sample, and tweaking the sound untill you got what you want can be time consuming. The few times I was dealing with VSTi's I occasionally had an idea for a song. I loaded in the VSTi, started to tweak the parameters to get that sound I was after, and when I finally got it like that, I forgot what I wanted to make... :lol: Yeah, that sucks... I don't really like to use preset sounds, but making your own is often quite difficult, cus you tend to get back to the same sound.
I think there's some misunderstandings happening here. Perhaps it's my approach, I really couldn't tell you. Perhaps it's my hindering youth.
I think my main point (which I probably should have simply stated)
is that it's not the quantity of technology, rather the quality that clinches the puppy scruff on the back of my neck.
The technology I'm speaking of has come a very long way dating back to when sound first began to be synthesized, easily when Sam was in his own youth.
What we are truly talking about is sound that can be shaped rather than using static samples. What this implies is that you have greater control of that sound. This also means you can articulate that sound based off your internal expression, VERY much like a "analog" instrument, rather then being left with a sample that naively has just one true articulation.
Now, I may be closed minded on this, but I personally think having this capability is far superior to that of a static sample. And I've used static samples for most of my career in tracking.
I would assume, (perhaps based off my inability to see the bigger picture at my youthful and inexperienced age of 32) that this would NATURALLY be more attractive to any musician/composer, regardless of what style he or she employs. Obviously if you enjoy using low grade samples and that's part of your art, then simply disregard what I'm preaching.
I don't approach most of the VSti's I use with an association that this one is for Trance, or this one is for Ambient, etc. There are certain VSTi's designed specifically for a predetermined genre, but there is no rule stating that it must be used for such. Again, the advantage is the ability to shape and articulate the sound to your heart's desire and particular style or direction you choose.
I know there's a lot of bare bone users here. I know many of you like to keep it simple. Which is totally fine, I have no real issues with that.
Yet, it IS possible that some of you are simply ignoring an overall advantage here, either because of your means which you feel are being dictated to you or your possible prejudices without truly giving it a chance to snag you.
I don't beleive in taking the same approach to every song I write. And that can go for both sides of the token. Some do, that's their forte. Okay, I can accept that and move on. It doesn't mean I have to agree however. And it doesn't mean I should close my mouth on the topic either.
Not to step on anyone's toes, but I honestly feel that some people write literal garbage around here that they are absolutely proud of and if they gave themselves the chance to see past themselves, they would see it as an obvious weaknesses. If by saying this I'm a real jerk, that's fine. I'd rather be an honest jerk than a dishonest friend.
I AM NOT implying that Sam writes horrible music. I've listened to a few of his tracks and even though I hear some sound quality issue's as well and notice some technical inabilities, I can hear his musical achievement nonetheless. I read it as "I'm breaking away from Westernized music", and I can totally respect that effort. Because I think we all should globalize our musical awareness, it's healthy and downright fun, obviously Sam's way ahead on this effort.
Again, as usual, I'm speaking in general terms. If I come off as offensive, I apologize. Sometimes it's hard to be honest and for people not to feel like their feelings are being trampled.
As far as the comment about how youth are naturally more inclined to have a belief that they can change their surroundings. Well, those feelings are in place for a pretty universal reason. Without thought projection, we could truly never change anything, let alone anything within ourselves.
Though youth may not always carry the wisdom that comes from the type of experience that comes with time, you can't get wise without experiencing that youthful drive and ambition either. There's no one without the other.
One could look at accepting and settling in life as a way of not accepting the privlige and power that free will gives to us all, regardless of age.
I don't know where India would have been if Gandhi suddenly decided he was too old to make a difference in the lives of millions, let alone his own.
Or the Pope, or even the Dali Lama.
When I was in Pakistan, I saw very old men carrying very large loads on their backs and children that were hard and weathered in the eyes.
Age is only relative to ones perspective. You are never too old or too younger to stop making conscious choices instead of letting life dish out your dirty dealings. Take control. That's not youth, that's how consciousness works.
Now, I may be forceful in my opinions, and this is something I probably should look at and take responsibility for if I come to that conclusion. And I will.
But I think overall, I'm truly trying to be helpful in the end. Take it or leave it. Life.
Quote from: "Matt Hartman"I can hear his musical achievement nonetheless. I read it as "I'm breaking away from Westernized music"
Almost right. I didn't 'break away from it', but I don't start with it in the first place. It's just one of those choices.
I thought I made my indifference about the matter of age-number already clear.
I don't have any objection against the term 'horrible music' by the way, as long as it was my intention
to make that compo sound 'horrible'.
...and all I asked for was the specs on the tracker program....lol...but since we're waxing philosophical....what is music? You can't taste it, touch it, see it, or smell it....you can only hear it. It pretty much is pure emotion; it evokes feelings within us. Chances are, what you write musically will be both liked and hated by lots and lots of people. So it doesn't really matter what style of music you write, and what you use to write it. Preferences are personal. Writing a drum pattern with a garbage can is no more right than writing with a full professional kit, or a set of spoons and pots, or a computer, using samples as opposed to vsts....it's all preference.
By the way, I'm just going to get the fastest cpu I can buy and hope for the best. I actually do have the program stored on a 486, but it has no sound card, so it doesn't set up properly..lol...I'm sure whatever I buy will be fine.
i use PIII 1200/512 mb - pretty fast, but i don`t use vst and vsti - pure tracking.
but automation (when drawing envolope curve) somtimes may be slow. i dont know why...