BobP wrote:>> "Any chances of a VST implementation?"
I'm not going to say NO, but honestly, there are many more things that are on my list ahead of looking at it.
"Why?" you say?
Here's why:
I run the AMP host on a separate PC, as I recommend for everyone. This gives you the best stability, as it seems that graphic updates are the major source of CPU hiccups. VSTs are designed to be controlled _only_ on the host they are running. How would you then control the VST parameters "live", if you are only at your GUI PC?
BobP,
I appreciate your honest and thorough reply. I realize that I'm nothing in the grand scheme of things - just a bar band making a few $$. So I'm not really your target audience, but here's my $.02 anyway:
I'm not using two PC's to run any software. Is it more stable/robust? I'm sure it is, but at the end of the night, I don't want another thing I have to lug out and it's another point that can fail. Currently SAC is running just fine for me on one PC and has also been very stable. I'm just not really happy with the progress on it and didn't care for the recent quality customer service on the other forum.
BobP wrote:I don't think sac's way of doing it is very good, and I don't want that reputation for AMP - that it's a "gimmicky interface". The big difference between the "big boy" mixers and sac is that their interface is refined, and everything works. There's no "adjust the parameters, right click this, shift click that, Send parameters, etc etc..." stuff. AMP's current plugins, meager as they might be, all work from any GUI, and respond in real time, just as you would expect.
When it's used the way I use it, SAC's way is fine. But I'm not adjusting VST's from a remote. I set them up in advance and forget them. Since I'm in a static environment, I have the luxury of being able to test everything first to make sure it is stable. I never need to adjust from a remote and if I need to do any tweaking, I do it from the host.
BobP wrote:This sort of ties into another interesting post I say on "another" forum... I do *not* want AMP to be a program that requires all sorts of fiddling just to get it working. You should be able to boot, and mix. Sure, there are a LOT of customizations you can do, and in that regard, it's no different from any serious digital mixer. There's a lot more that you CAN do, but not that you NEED to do.
Those are no doubt good goals to have, and I've heard AMP achieves them very well.
BobP wrote:So back to the subject at hand: I don't want to implement something that is a poor design from the start. If there is a way we can get that graphic interface (or -some- sort of interface) to the GUI that will adjust VST parameters live in real-time, then I'm for it. But if it is a hack, I don't want to cheapen the product.
If it were ME designing it, I would make VST ONLY adjustable from the host. I'd make it so you could only remove VST's from a remote. But that only serves MY purposes, I'm sure others would want more. But to me, it seems like a decemt compromise.
BobP wrote:What is it that you want to accomplish with the plugins? Remember that while AMP is in "Beta test", it is *not* in "Feature Freeze". There's lots more stuff on my radar before version 1.0, and what you want may be on the list.
Autotune, crossover duties, distortion, multiband compression, chorus and other modulation FX. We use a lot of automated special FX with SAC currently.
This all being said, I'm still probably going to buy into the beta just to see what it can do. I'm really excited about the possibilities but can't give up what has become some of our signature FX.
Thanks for the info!