The Hobbit Surrenders

Tritonemusic · Post by **Tritonemusic** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:51 am

Timeline wrote:Frodo,

Writing with pen worked for the masters and it's a brilliant way to get back the soul of why you are here.

Change out that machine in your spare time and keep crankin out the parts.

Word.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:05 pm

Timeline wrote:Frodo,

Writing with pen worked for the masters and it's a brilliant way to get back the soul of why you are here.

Change out that machine in your spare time and keep crankin out the parts.

Cheers,
G

Yup. I always start with pencil and paper. The computer enters the picture later in the game. DP is involved just because it's easier and faster for me to play in notes with DP than it is in Finale.

But, I've got a wad of scores and parts shipping out on Monday, so things are coming along.

stephen1212b · Post by **stephen1212b** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:45 pm

You know this raises a very real question. The eternal chase between software and hardware means that we will never find nirvana, or anything close to the stability of the hardware solutions of yesteryear.

Would there be any interest in, or value to, or willingness to accept a fixed Mac system software rev and of corse fixed hardware rev so that the software could catch up "PERFECTLY"? No new features just continual bug fixes on a known platform until a similar level of consistency could be accomplished with a later rev.

In other words have a legacy group perfecting DP 3.9XXX on System 9.9XXX until it all works, and by now maybe another group perfecting DP 4.9XXX on System 10.3.9XXX until that all works and not yet, but someday DP 5.9XXX on system 10.4.XXX etc etc.

As it now stands the rate of system software revisions and hardware advancements means that 3rd party developers such as MOTU will never be able to catch up. Heck Apple cant even keep up with itself. When the software functionality is just one of many computer uses this may be an acceptable model, but when the software in question is the prime and even perhaps only dedicated use of the computer it almost seems imperative that the 3rd party i.e. MOTU qualify its work by testing and specifying a specific system revision.

Minimal hardware requirements are a step in the right direction, but the system software is equally in need of stabilization. The pace of change is itself increasingly becoming the problem instead of the solution. Why should I phone security concerns cause my DAW to suffer needlessly?

Frodo - imagine if the Unicorn Nation demanded MOTU to fix DP in addition to moving on. We don't buy the update until the promise has been fulfilled. Similarly we don't pull the rug out from under the DAW by changing the system until the change is warranted, tested and approved.

I know I would gladly dedicate a computer to DP alone in exchange for a tested working platform. The computer that surfs the web can be expected to wipe out on the next wave, but the computer that is an indispensable tool for our creativity and possibly even our livelihoods requires that we demand more, and smart awake companies recognizing this need will rise to the occasion out of self interest and necessity, . . . or not.

daniel.sneed · Post by **daniel.sneed** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:50 am

Hey stephen1212b, perhaps you're ready to take the plunge to a hardware or semi-hardware DAW.
I hope your'e rich by the moment !

I personnely can bring serious musical work out of DP5.12 / 10.4.10, even with some occasional weird behaviors. But I know for shure that some very wise guys among DP users can't reach that point. Dear Frodo, I feel your pain. And, yes, it's a pita.

BTW I have became much less hungry than before on my DAW specs : I use quite only DP stock plugs and Reason-rewire.

AudioFinder's plugins management has been great help in my search of stability. So have been complete re-scans of all AU each time I believe there's some bad things crowling under the carpet.

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:00 am

Frodo wrote:Oh, Sir Monkey:
I was a big Toto fan. There was just so much good writing and playing going on with that band to ignore them.

Yay! Slickest "rock/pop" band ever, IMHO.

Frodo wrote:I don't listen to them as often as I used to, but after all this time one of their tunes will follow me around for weeks until I dust off one a particular CD or two.

Me neither.
Actually, although I haven't listened to music for years (news radio instead!) due to the fact that it frustrated me no end that I myself wasn't partaking in the music-making festivities, I'm due to replace my long-broken DVD player this week, so I might even rekindle the ol' TOTO flame.
Oh, and I just may be able to check out that trilogy you keep rabbitting on about - something about a rugrunner and a huge call-out job for pittance.

Frodo wrote:Their album/cd artwork was always tops-- all the swords, etc.

Yes, a sense of quest, seeking higher ground, strength in the face of adversity and a respect for traditional values are all conveyed by the covers, IMH, biased O.

Frodo wrote:I wonder what happened to my copy of the Fahrenheit CD?

Sorry. I'll mail it back after I've ripped it into iTunes.

MIDI Life Crisis · Post by **MIDI Life Crisis** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:45 am

stephen1212b wrote:You know this raises a very real question. The eternal chase between software and hardware means that we will never find nirvana, or anything close...

We're not supposed to talk religion here!

That's really tough on us Californians as there are nearly as many religions in CA as there are residents.

stephen1212b wrote:...imagine if the Unicorn Nation demanded MOTU to fix DP in addition to moving on. We don't buy the update until the promise has been fulfilled. Similarly we don't pull the rug out from under the DAW by changing the system until the change is warranted, tested and approved.

I don't know that a group the size of the active UNation can "pull the rug" out from under MOTU. FWIW, the way I see updating a program is as an investment in a program and a company. Hopefully, that is in exchange for an unspoken reciprocation on the part of the company to improve the program and remove bugs. MOTU has done both in the past. It's the level of their "unspokenness" that many find "disturbing."

But in general, I think most serious UNation members (Cornies in Poo-speak*) are on the same page here. We want MOTU, DP, Unicornation, et al (that's "us") to thrive, live long and prosper.

We now return to our regularly scheduled program...

...please stand by...

What the heck?

* - For more on Poo-Speak, please go here:

http://www.unicornation.com/phpBB2/sear ... monkey+man

stephen1212b · Post by **stephen1212b** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:34 pm

As usual it seems that I am not quite clear in my comments.

I am suggesting that there are certain software packages, DP among them, that define the use of a computer. By this I mean that we give up the notion that one computer can be both our web interface and our DAW.

In so far as third party software is dependent upon the system software and the system is such a fast evolving target with major weekly updates, it seems beneficial for a company like MOTU to specify a specific version of software that it has tested in house, or simply stayed with long enough that the bug revision cycle has resulted in a stable "all features working properly" revision. Those of us who depend upon DP would be able to dedicate a machine to it. Stop updating the system, stay off the internet, don't add new programs that could cause instability. This might even be possible with just a dedicated start up hard drive containing the specified system software.

Progress i.e. new versions with new features and compatibility, even dependence upon a newer operating system revision would be available to those who want to push the envelope just as it is for all of us today, but eventually a legacy DP 3 would be locked to a specific OS rev, similarly DP4 would be locked to a later OS rev. Each of these locked pairings would be a stable fully working hardware software solution. System software and key programs like DP need to be updated together with predictable reliable outcome, not each continually breaking the other.

If we are forced to upgrade just to get old bugs fixed instead of solely for the added benefit of new features, then we will likely always have new bugs being introduced at a faster rate than the old ones are fixed. This leads to the endless frustration that Frodo among others is reacting to. Apple can't even manage to release in house software that is 100% compatible with its own rapid system software revisions. The rate of change is unsustainable and the productivity and satisfaction of the user are in jeopardy. I acknowledge the necessity of rapid corrections for on line machines, but not every machine needs to be on line.

daniel.sneed · Post by **daniel.sneed** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:56 pm

Welcome to the real modern capitalistic (sorry James !) world.

Apple, Motu, Digi, Waves and all other companies need to sell as many products as possible. If they don't they go south.

This is very different from trying to achieve for their customers the most efficient and reliable tools to work with.

It's a long story about bells and whistles versus stability. In this race, end users lose for shure.

Against this companies' strategy, I try to hold my own : Keeping focus on music. But the wind blows strong.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:11 pm

stephen1212b wrote:Frodo - imagine if the Unicorn Nation demanded MOTU to fix DP in addition to moving on. We don't buy the update until the promise has been fulfilled. Similarly we don't pull the rug out from under the DAW by changing the system until the change is warranted, tested and approved.

Interesting thoughts, Stephen. All of them.

There are so many variables, including third-party plugins in endless combinations of various "compatible" OSX versions being used concurrently with various DP versions... This appears to be close to the heart of the matter.

On some level, it would be just as easy for MOTU to assert that the newer version *is* the fixed version-- whether or not that might be true. If we choose not to buy it, their argument would naturally be that it would be to our own detriment.

Of course, if some major film or recording company were to suggest such a boycott, the ground would quake!

But, you suggested that I imagine such a thing happening, and I happily obey.

What's most disturbing is to consider all that spawns such thoughtful imaginings and the perpetual plethora of alternative solutions on forums such as these.... then to consider what it would take for any of it to be a non-issue.

stephen1212b · Post by **stephen1212b** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:32 pm

I personally feel that a subscription model is the answer. I have no problem paying for the efforts of the programers in this more direct way as it moves the motivation partially away from the new bells and whistles that attract new customers and places it on the support of the existing customer base. New development would continue as well, but it would be labeled beta and not be at the expense of continued bug support of the stable platform. The key really is that the system OS and the application advance together.

Frodo your comment about third-party plugins is valid. I don't mean to single out DP. The idea of a stable platform lagging a major revision behind the bleeding edge needs to be adopted by all software authors. It provides a known set of constraints that allows the perfecting of workable interaction between all manufacturers. The only real limitation is that this computer can not be connected to the internet as it would remain open to attack without the possibility of even security patches, because as we have all scene even security patches have occasionally crippled our work.

stephen1212b · Post by **stephen1212b** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:34 pm

Accidentally posted twice and deleted.

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:53 am

stephen1212b wrote:In so far as third party software is dependent upon the system software and the system is such a fast evolving target with major weekly updates, it seems beneficial for a company like MOTU to specify a specific version of software that it has tested in house, or simply stayed with long enough that the bug revision cycle has resulted in a stable "all features working properly" revision. Those of us who depend upon DP would be able to dedicate a machine to it. Stop updating the system, stay off the internet, don't add new programs that could cause instability. This might even be possible with just a dedicated start up hard drive containing the specified system software.

Progress i.e. new versions with new features and compatibility, even dependence upon a newer operating system revision would be available to those who want to push the envelope just as it is for all of us today, but eventually a legacy DP 3 would be locked to a specific OS rev, similarly DP4 would be locked to a later OS rev. Each of these locked pairings would be a stable fully working hardware software solution. System software and key programs like DP need to be updated together with predictable reliable outcome, not each continually breaking the other.

If we are forced to upgrade just to get old bugs fixed instead of solely for the added benefit of new features, then we will likely always have new bugs being introduced at a faster rate than the old ones are fixed. This leads to the endless frustration that Frodo among others is reacting to. Apple can't even manage to release in house software that is 100% compatible with its own rapid system software revisions. The rate of change is unsustainable and the productivity and satisfaction of the user are in jeopardy. I acknowledge the necessity of rapid corrections for on line machines, but not every machine needs to be on line.

To say that Stephen's making sense here would be an understatement of the highest order, IMNSHO.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:27 am

stephen1212b wrote: Would there be any interest in, or value to, or willingness to accept a fixed Mac system software rev and of corse fixed hardware rev so that the software could catch up "PERFECTLY"? No new features just continual bug fixes on a known platform until a similar level of consistency could be accomplished with a later rev.

That's actually the promise if not the reality of closed systems like ProTools and other Avid lines. The only way a developer like MOTU could do this is to tie their software to specific hardware, thereby eliminating the third-party finger pointing. And if a Mac is involved, you just know that people are going to install scanner drivers and other potential land mines to a stable system. The simpler it is, the easier it is to stabilize. So, the solution you want is probably a Portastudio type device that you can't check your email on.

I do share your desire that developers fix their buggy software before releasing a newer version. Seems to me there's an implied contract that whatever I purchase should be free of defects.

.

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:34 am

monkey man wrote:
Frodo wrote:Everything's gonna be alright boys
Help is on the way
Hold your head up high now
There's no need to cry now
We're not running anymore...

There's so much more at stake here
It's make or break here
Haven't we been here before?
More TOTO. Yay!
Hey Hobby, did you know that TOTO is a critical benchmark for me?
I aim to produce work of at least half that quality.

I figured half a TOTO's still in a different league from what's out there nowadays.

Correction:
Make that, "1/10 as good as TOTO".

The silly ape was dreamin' again.