I know I’m a little late to the game in discovering this, but I couldn’t be more excited. Back in the late 80′s and early 90′s (and I suppose still to this day) there was a music phenomenon of sorts that allowed any computer user (that wasn’t an adept programmer) to create full musical compositions via a sample-based utility known as a tracker.
The early tracker application “VicTracker” for the Commodore Vic-20.
Trackers come in all shapes and sizes but they have evolved from utilities that meet the “bare minimum requirements of music making” to full blown powerhouses of sample and virtual instrument manipulation. The tracker that I started with back in 1996 was Impulse Tracker. Seen here in all it’s glory.
I liked Impulse Tracker at the time because it was all I knew, but having inherited a hardware synthesizer from my father I started to want more MIDI implementation in my software. Plus, at the time, there was a sort of chic-vacuum when using trackers. Probably from my inexperience in using Impulse Tracker I assumed that things like Groove Quantization and virtual instruments were not possible with a mere tracker. I also had discovered that I could load samples into my Sound Blaster 64 AWE and sequence them in Calkwalk with full-blown DSP effects! I started moving away from trackers thinking that I would be much better off using Calkwalk then eventually Logic for all my music making.
I have to admit that I’ve been able to do a lot with the much more expensive software packages like Logic. Multi-track recording is obviously suited for the bigger apps, but since I primary make electronic/dance music, multi-track recording is usually unnecessary. Enter Renoise…
Renoise has re-lit my appreciation for trackers like I never felt possible. It creates a bridge between what I wanted from a digital audio workstation (DAW) and what I need as an electronic musician. Sure it doesn’t have a full multi-track recording interface but it allows you to export all tracks into a DAW should you want to throw in some real instruments. Or you can just sample. There’s a sample editor, recorder, and generator built-in, including the ability to cue up any portion of that sample at any speed, direction, or repeat-rate.
It’s really liberating to have a tool that allows me to compose while within the limiting constraints of a train seat with only my laptop; nothing else. I’ve been searching for a really small MIDI instrument to control my other apps, but now I have the perfect input device, the computer keyboard. Sequencing is a dream when you’re just a keyboard shortcut away from any feature.
I was hesitant to use Renoise because of my prior experiences with Trackers, but Renoise is built for electronic music, has VST/VSTi support, is PC and Mac compatible and is actively developed. Yes, it’s not as Free as Impulse Tracker was back in the day, but 90 bucks is a steal for what this will do for your creativity.
I’ll be sure to post some samples of things I’m working on, but right now I’m just happy to be creating again.
The ProjectMix I/O is M-Audio’s answer to the more expensive Digidesign (despite being part of the same company, AVID), Tascam, and Mackie control surfaces. It gives you a flexible audio interface and motorized fader-based control-surface. I’ve debated making the leap in purchasing this thing on several occasions. I don’t have any need for it now, but seeing how M-Audio likes to drop driver support for certain products, I’m glad I didn’t pick it up.
It’s safe to assume that the ProjectMix I/O is one of (if not) the flagship devices M-Audio makes currently. OS X Leopard (10.5 to be exact) was released October of 2007 and M-Audio still has not provided support for the operating system. It seems odd to me that a company that has such a partnership with a software manufacturer could be “caught with it’s pants down” when it’s new, much publicized, operating system is released. No doubt M-Audio was given advance access to the pre-release copies of Leopard as to allow them to release updates to their product lines. Why a company as prolific as M-audio is in the Mac Pro-Audio field would not be able to write a driver update for their flagship hardware devices after over a year is beyond my sphere of understanding.
I’ve already come to grips that I won’t be able to use my much-beloved Omnistudio Pro USB anymore, since they’ve stated they have “no plans” to support it into OS X Leopard. Fine. It’s an older device; gone discontinued since 2005, I believe. Sucks, but I can take it. How the hell is anyone to have any confidence with this company when you can’t be guaranteed to have drivers prepared for your $1500 recording device a YEAR after an operating system is released. For fuck’s sake, point-releases are coming through (already 10.5.2 and 10.5.3 on the way) and nothing. I don’t envy ProjectMix owners.
Currently, I’ve been experiencing problems with my FastTrack Pro USB interface that I purchased to replace the OmniStudio (I believe in second chances). The audio will drop out after functioning normally for an arbitrary amount of time. I don’t know if it’s a problem with the device or with the driver software that M-Audio dutifully provided, several months after OS X Leopard was released. I like to know if there’s a company out their more trust worthy than M-audio to fill the void on reliable audio interfaces. I hear bad stuff about everyone else’s products like Tascam, Lexicon, Focusrite, etc, (minus Pro Tools rigs, but I hear issues regarding the software required to run them, plus I want be able to use software other than ProTools), maybe this is all their is? All I can do is tune in and wait.
Adding true multi-monitor support and “experimental” DX 9, it looks like version 2 of Fusion will fully close any gap that may exist between its rivals over at Parallels.
Anyone using Parallels Desktop 3 knows that their idea of “Multi-Monitor” is really “giant-ass monitor” support. They decide to combine horizontal resolutions of multiple monitors when in Convergence mode, using the root monitor’s vertical resolution as a base. This means that you aren’t able to take advantage of 100% screen realestate if you use monitors of varying resolutions. An invisible cutoff point will exist when you try to drag a Convergence window south of your initial display’s max vertical res. Weak.
Fusion 2 actually passes monitor detection to the guest OS, allowing it to treat each additional display as its own, configurable, and arrangeable output. Check the youtube vid below to see this in action. Their testing proves that it can work with as many as 8 independent displays.
Sure, the 3d performance won’t blow anyone’s socks off, but DX 9 support alone is pretty impressive.
the beta 1 release is available as a free download from VMware via the following link. You can see more videos of Beta 1 in action here.
Even though it probably won’t happen, I would like to see either company develop a utility to allow a user to convert a virtual machine into a Boot Camp partition, in case you wanted to dual boot. I realize that it’s probably infeasible, but we can hope can’t we?
Another great provider of excellent, value-packed, Macintosh software bundles is MacHeist. Usually they kick off their bundles with a “spy/mystery” themed puzzle that you have to solve. As you solve these puzzles, or “cases” you accrue “loot”, which may include free software or credits that you can use towards future bundles. The cases are usually extremely clever in their design, but a helpful community forum may help you along should you need help. It’s really just a fun way to get the word out on new Mac software.
Should you have a Mac, I suggest supporting the site and buying 12 apps for $49 bucks, even though (as Socrates will point out) Bugdom and Nanosaur don’t really count. It’s more like 10 apps for $49 bones, which is still a great deal.
The good folks over at MacUpdate have extended us another wonderful Mac software bundle for a reasonable price. For the price, you are once again getting an assload of software! Check it out, NOW!
Now that I’ve taken the plunge on Fusion after using Parallels for about 1 year I feel that I can give a good review on the ups and downs of both packages. On the surface, it seems that both programs are too similar, in their looks and their feature set, to make a compelling argument for choosing one over the other. Parallels has had a head start in this niche. The options and integration features offered by Parallels Desktop reflect that. Even though VMWare is about 1 year behind, Fusion (despite some graphic flubbiness, which I’ll get to) takes said features and implements them the way they should have been in Parallels.
For those of you Parallels users out there (and I know “many” are reading this, ha) I’ll cut right to the chase. A dynamic disk image in Parallels takes quite a bit of time to compress, and most times doesn’t compress to the smallest size possible. In my experience, it took Parallels’ image tools, sometimes 10+ hours to full reduce the size of my dynamic virtual disk. As you all know, it will have to be compressed again because of Windows’ liberal use of disk geometry. This sucks for users, and is a colossal waste of time.
I just yesterday reduced the size of my Fusion image, converted from a Parallels image, and it took 25 minutes….from start to finish. It went from 28GB (max 30GB, with 13GB actual disk usage) to 13GB. All in a painless Fusion Tools process. I was up and running in no time. This is why you Parallels users should drop what you’re doing right now, and buy Fusion. Plain and simple. VMWare has a beta edition of their image conversion utility and worked flawlessly for me, which removes the concern that one would have when moving to a different application. Plus, Fusion starts and suspends faster, with less beachballing and system hiccups.
The only downside that I’ve noticed is that Fusion has an issue with Windows redraw when running Unity mode (called Convergence within Parallels) so that background Unity windows do not redraw their contents when dragged, until the mouse button is let go. This problem extends to the usage of Expose, so that the overlapped Unity windows have “impressions” of their counterpart windows when Expose is activated. I say, “Big Deal”. This will most likely be fixed in a patch, and besides being a little visually displeasing, it really doesn’t impact productivity to a great degree.
I’m totally happy with my switch to VMWare and I won’t be looking back to Parallels Desktop. I wish VMWare would post the differences in performance and the ease (and more importantly, speed) of virtual disk compression. These are vital metrics when making the leap. Too bad Sinbad didn’t chime in sooner about how much he loves Fusion on his Mac, because I would have taken the dive long before now.
I am totally psyched about this TBA release by KORG. Korg managed to fit a software emulation of the popular patch synth MS-10, recently revived through a software plug-in bundle, onto a standard Nintendo DS. Being able to program a synth and sequence some beats, all using the tiny little DS would be a blast on the train to work. With people still composing music using the original Nintendo Entertainment System, the fact that you can chain up 8 DS’s together means that an “All DS music group/project” will no doubt be around the corner.
Eight DS’s would give a programmer a maximum of 16 synth voices and 32 drum tracks. That’s insanely more than your standard, dedicated chip artist out there would need to craft an opus. Check the specs and video from MESSE08.
From SonicState.com:
DS-10
World’s first music tool software created for the Nintendo DS
Two patchable dual-oscillator analog synth simulators:
Four-part drum machine that uses sounds created with the analog synth simulator
Six-track (analog synth x 2, drum machine x 4) /16-step sequencer
Delay, chorus, and flanger sound effects available from the mixing board
Three note-entry modes: touch-control screen, keyboard screen, matrix screen
Real-time sound control mode via touch-control screen
Exchange sounds and songs and play multiple units simultaneously through a wireless communications link
Update
I guess the sonic state video of the ds-10 was pulled…here’s another from youtube…
I received the obligatory ad email from VMWare today, having test drove their latest emulation software for Mac (Fusion), and within this advertisement was a this photo and caption:
I’m wondering what Mac software evangelist has been holding on on buying Fusion for lack of Sinbad’s take.
Apple has announced today that not only will 3rd party applications become available as soon as June of this year, but they are working on an enterprise boost for their lovable/loath-able handset.Apparently, Apple has licensed ActiveSync from Microsoft and plans to bring the Push, finally, and for some reason EA felt it necessary to demo Spore on an iPhone…You heard me right. Why the fuck? I have no idea, but what I’m holding onto is the hope that a native multi-IM chat app will soon become available. Now for the rub. It might be a tactic by Apple to weed out potential ruffians but they have stated that any developer that commercially releases iPhone/touch native applications will not only have to pay $100 US for submission of their creations to Apple so the software can be wirelessly purchased and installed via the device, but will also need to relinquish 30% of their profits from the sale of such software to Apple. Obviously, I’m not a developer (and not much of a writer) but it seems a bit unfair to ask this of entrepreneurial iPhone/touch developers. I suppose this is to subsidize the process of creating the SDK, but jesus. Well, here’s to June!
I’ve been noticing a lot of software developers are beginning to tap one of the best and least used workstation resources to fuel their feature-rich and visually stunning applications. Apple have moved a majority of their graphical tasks within OS X to the client’s GPU instead of following the usual design paradigms, whereby the already tasked CPU has to contend with not only program code but also the responsibility of displaying and manipulating the interface elements, etc. It sounds like a great idea, and it has proven pivotal to a great deal of applications that promise us features, even with our greatly streamlined CPU’s, would seem improbable.
A few applications of note, that have called upon GPU power to solve the dilemmas of visually oriented/design applications, include:
A photo editing package that is touted as the first to utilize the GPU for all of its realtime previewing/application of filters, as well as rendering. It has a beautiful interface and since every filter or task you perform is in realtime it allows for a lot of creative expression, since you’re not constantly waiting for a preview to be rendered.
A vector drawing app and combines a great interface with Apple’s CoreImage effects. It allows direct conversion from raster to vector, supports layers, and blends. All previews prior to export are using the GPU in realtime.
A truly stunning application for creating screencasts. It allows multiple video/audio sources and provides the most streamlined and innovative timeline edition work flow I’ve ever seen. All video effects and mixing occurs in realtime thanks to some custom GPU algorithms.
These programs are great examples of GPU-enabled applications and all are a joy to use. It’s exciting to see programs start to look and behave in the much coveted “hollywood futurism” style that we all expect. It’s 2008, goddamn it!
Now, don’t get me wrong, there are some downsides to using the GPU. First off, power consumption goes up, and with that comes heat. Also you are somewhat limited in dealing with large content should you not be blessed with a standalone video card. Using the GPU to manipulate high DPI or high megapixel images can really hurt when shoved through an integrated Intel 950 or comparable card. A card that has to peel video memory from physical system RAM. Editing a 12MP photo in Pixelmator on your Macbook is not advisable.
Secondly, driver issues can introduce inconsistencies in a program’s output. Sometimes you may have a image created in a particular piece of software but when exporting you may find scaling issues, artifacts, etc. I was using a modified Geforce 7800 XT that I bought off ebay with a flashed BIOS to work in a G5 (obviously not the best thing to do) and noticed all the applications that used the GPU for exporting images were introducing artifacts into the output. A bit of spline-snot is fine when you’re playing a game but not when you’re producing something for print.
But like I said, I’m not faulting the developers entirely for this, but it is just another nuance for the consumer to be aware of when purchasing and configuring your computer.
Now I would like to make a general recommendation, if I may, to anyone who would like to produce graphics for print or audio recordings professionally.
Buy a MacBook Pro not a regular Macbook.
You can’t run Final Cut Studio on a Macbook, you can’t record audio through the rear USB port due to some sort of hardware glitch that only m-audio seems to want to acknowledge (even though this wasn’t their fault), and without a standalone video card certain visual effects and applications will just be out of your reach. The veritable app-booty you will receive after having a machine with a standalone GPU will far outweigh the monetary costs.
From the great development company TastyApps comes a little gem that really streamlines the process of “online video acquisition” (aka, youtube ripping, aka, “That guy got popped in the balls!! *huh huh* I think I want me a piece of that there Flash video for my digital versatile disc player.”)
Anyway, here’s a little screencast, created for your viewing pleasure, showing off some of the more impressive features of this inexpensive and flexible little app.
I was recently given access to a full installation of Office 2008 for Mac at my job and was interested in checking out what new features and functionality were included in the new version. Since it’s the first in the Office line to be installed as a Universal Binary I was very excited to ditch the Office v.X copy that’s been languishing on my laptop for a few years. After the 30 minute install I was a little disgruntled to find that a new set of Office Aliases were copied into my Dock without an obvious choice to do so during the setup, but, that aside, I started Word to see what new stuff awaited.
I find, to my horror, that the Word 2008 for Mac looks damn near exactly like Pages ’08 (in fact all versions of Pages). See below:
The screen capture on the left is Word 2008 and the one on the right is Pages ’08. Apart from some minor differences in the interface, you’d have thought that these two programs were part of the same family or even the same software with a different configuration. Now this isn’t a full review of the software, I really haven’t had a chance to play with Word too much to give a proper assessment of its capabilities. It looks very powerful and from what I’ve attempted it functions very well and uses a lot of OS X features that were ignored for so many years. Of them, Spotlight support in Entourage, realtime options, but no CoreImage rendering. It seems Microsoft is choosing to go with their own engine for visuals over what’s readily available to any OS X developer.
Details aside, it’s very difficult to pay attention to this new application as it has so much in common with a bundle of applications you can buy for 80 bucks! Namely, iWork ’08. And is it just me or does Entourage 2008 look like shit? For something that you have to look at everyday, it sure needs some work in the usability/visibility area. Messages are clumped together and attachments are either exposed in this bulky pane with vertically stacked buttons that take up nearly all of the reading pane, or are collapsed into a read-only view where the files can’t be right-clicked or interacted with. The folder, to the left, hierarchy looks completely fucked together. Cluttered and confusing, with a series of view options visible by default which add nothing to average user. I know what you’re saying, “Leopard comes with default search views in the finder that I don’t use”. Well, I happen to use a least one of those search views daily, and there’s not fifty of them filling up the screen.
All I’m saying is that if I had to make the choice between buying Office 2008 for Mac and iWork ’08, I’d go for the $80 package that does 90% of what Office does and maybe a few things that it doesn’t. You can keep Entourage.
Ok guys, enough’s enough, for Christ’s sake! Stop releasing your software so that when you mount the disk image the finder window, that presents your application, is in simple mode!!! It is especially annoying when you don’t place a complementary link to the local Applications folder.
LOOK!
That is a stupid way of doing things! The finder is so rich and useful now, why the fuck do we need to keep living the < OS 9 days?! Simple-ass windows.
Each time you download an application that behaves like this. You have to click on the button in the top right corner to see the following Finder window, then drag the application to your Application folder:
I know what you’re thinking, no big deal, and you’re right. Although, when you multiply that “no big deal” by 10123123 times you get a pissed off user. A lot of applications are designed to be updated by downloading the whole application over again. Once you have the updated application file, you drag it to the Application folder and overwrite the original. Easy. All you preferences are saved, registration info, etc. The problem is when you have to add a extra step into that process it gets old, quick.
So to all you OS X developers out there, listen up! You are so close to app-install nirvana you are suffering an Icarusarian fall from grace. Keep the Finder alone, ok? I don’t like simple-mode and I never did. Cut that shit out.
Update – 2/1/2008
To clear up any confusion over what I’m actually bitching about. I had unknowingly used the term “simple finder” to describe a finder window with the hidden toolbar option enabled, for lack of a better phrase. So my real beef is with developers who prefer this “hidden toolbar” finder setting, and tend to us this view setting when packaging their application disk images.
Apple has announced today that not only will 3rd party applications become available as soon as June of this year, but they are working on an enterprise boost for their lovable/loath-able handset.Apparently, Apple has licensed ActiveSync from Microsoft and plans to bring the Push, finally, and for some reason EA felt it necessary to demo Spore on an iPhone…You heard me right. Why the fuck? I have no idea, but what I’m holding onto is the hope that a native multi-IM chat app will soon become available. Now for the rub. It might be a tactic by Apple to weed out potential ruffians but they have stated that any developer that commercially releases iPhone/touch native applications will not only have to pay $100 US for submission of their creations to Apple so the software can be wirelessly purchased and installed via the device, but will also need to relinquish 30% of their profits from the sale of such software to Apple. Obviously, I’m not a developer (and not much of a writer) but it seems a bit unfair to ask this of entrepreneurial iPhone/touch developers. I suppose this is to subsidize the process of creating the SDK, but jesus. Well, here’s to June! 
