The VST version of Usine

YouTube · Unread post by **senso** » 13 Jul 2007, 09:05

I plan to create a VST version of Usine.
Rewire is not dead, but later.

But I'm not really fixed about the specifications.

The dilemma is between:
1) a small VST which allows the loading of only one patch in a reduced interface, with a minimum of inputs/outputs.
2) a big Vst, which looks like the stand alone version with all the routing possibilities.

In the case 1) we will be able to load several VST in our favorite DAW and in the 2), because of the memory size, only one or two instances.

What do you think?

jean-marc duchenne · Unread post by **jean-marc duchenne** » 13 Jul 2007, 09:20

What people want for a VST version ?

Since I understand the interest to link Usine and others, I really don't see the goal to have the FULL Usine interface and features running as a VST inside a host. It will need full screen to be really usable and will be mostly redundant, no ?

On the other side, the idea of a patch only version seems very attractive, and will allow to design wonderful effects or use it as a complex chainer for VSTs.

Perhaps there is also a third alternative with a VST bridge. A plugin that will send and receive audio and MIDI from a full standalone running Usine, finally like a sort of "Rewire/VST".
The advantage would be to benefit from the whole Usine environment and to be able to link everything to everything (each VST instance will have its own inputs / outputs numbers in Usine).
And why not, later, being able to use it in a network ?

bsork · Unread post by **bsork** » 13 Jul 2007, 10:49

I too think that a VST version of Usine should a "lite" version containing one patch, with the obvious possibility to use more than one simultaniously. I could live with a version without editing possibilities if that made the plugin CPU friendlier.

If a VST version later on could be complemented with Rewire or some other way of sending audio back and forth between Usine and other programs, it would certainly put a smile on my face.

The trouble with Rewire is that it's not really fully bi-directional. It may be specified to send both midi and audio both ways between programs, but AFAIK that doesn't happen; the master sends midi to the slave and gets audio in return. Correct me if I'm wrong, I only have experience with Cubase and Reason. (Edit: I've checked the Propellerheads site, and it there it is stated that midi can be sent back to the master. Now I remember I've read this before and tried to do so, but without luck...)

Setting up midi connections between programs is fairly easy these days with one of the several virtual midi cable programs available. I haven't tried it myself, but it seems to me that people have more problems with virtual audio cables, so if Usine could act as a sort of asio driver one could easily send audio back and forth. If however a VST bridge type of program is possible, I certainly wouldn't mind!

nay-seven · Unread post by **nay-seven** » 13 Jul 2007, 12:47

i second that , would be really cool to built some different patchs and open them in other hosts...

moody33 · Unread post by **moody33** » 13 Jul 2007, 14:50

Case 1: Usine as a VST patch !

YouTube · Unread post by **senso** » 13 Jul 2007, 22:44

Hard choice!
All your point of view are right.

If I resume:

- one of the main interest of Usine is the overall environment, the mixer, routing, the patch sequencer.
- for some special application it can be cool create a stand alone patch that we load in other DAW.
- the VST bridge is an interesting alternate solution. Very powerfull, but harder to use. (to tell you the truth, I'm already working on that)

Still hard do choose!!!

neve · Unread post by **neve** » 20 Sep 2007, 17:43

wow.
THIS is one of the big feature that would make me buy Usine nearly in a second

I mean : the learning curve of Usine is a bit steep, and i am already quite happy with my other sequencers/daw. But i would dig to run some fancy plugins in a modular way using Usine in Live, and it would may be a soft way to discover and use Usine.

I think the 3 things to make me click on a Paypal link would be :
1- a VST version (a friend of mine which has bought Usine told me that there is a "audio in to midi clock" kinda plugin, and it interests me a big lot ! If i can use this plugin to control ABleton Live's tempo for example).
2- a less intensive CPU use
3- a french quickstart manual.
(and of course being able to ue multiple ins/outs, which the "pro" version already offers).

YouTube · Unread post by **senso** » 20 Sep 2007, 19:03

hello neve,
thanks for your feedbacks and you appreciations.
I respond a little bit quickly I know, I'm pretty busy....

1- a VST version (a friend of mine which has bought Usine told me that there is a "audio in to midi clock" kinda plugin, and it interests me a big lot ! If i can use this plugin to control ABleton Live's tempo for example).
2- a less intensive CPU use
3- a french quickstart manual.
(and of course being able to ue multiple ins/outs, which the "pro" version already offers).

1) the vst bridge is in progress, but not finalized yet. To control the Ableton tempo I'll probably need a rewire version.

2) the cpu load is a little more important than in other softs, due to the modularity. In Usine nothing is fixed and you can route the sound, midi, data from anywhere to everywhere... It has a cost. But on a recent machine (with dual core) it's not a problem. Personally I have a 2.0 core2 duo 2Gb ram and the CPU load is absolutely not a problem, I'm never really limited.

3) the French Quick start actually in translation. soon.
Remember that sensomusic is very small team and 80% of Usine Users aren't French!

neve · Unread post by **neve** » 20 Sep 2007, 19:15

Thank you Olivier for your reply.
I have a 4 years old laptop with 512 ram, so i think i will just take the time to get familiar with Usine using the free version for now, and maybe that when i'll have enough money to buy a new lappy the vst version will be released too

(Maybe i could help for the manual translation ?)

Newbie Brad · Unread post by **Newbie Brad** » 12 Oct 2007, 16:17

I think a VST should have full features of Usine or be a VST bridge to full featured Usine. And I think ReWire is important, Reason is a pain in the ass without ReWire. ReWire 2 with the audio + midi.

goyya76 · Unread post by **goyya76** » 19 Oct 2007, 19:43

Hi - i tried Usine long time ago (i guess it was 2.2), now i'm back on it...i think a vst version would rock - for me the best solution would be the patch version, because it would represent a modular environment perfect to work with FX within a host: modular, with EACH parameter assignable to a keystroke/CC (it's my dream)....

Good developing!

Ciao,
Goyya

runagate · Unread post by **runagate** » 20 Oct 2007, 02:56

A VST Usine? I'm in heaven.

I have no opinion on what implementation would be best at the moment, but I'll give it some serious thought.

Amazing.

plush · Unread post by **plush** » 21 Oct 2007, 17:57

usine lit vst plugs would be cool

mn · Unread post by mn » 21 Oct 2007, 21:13

VST Usine would... er WILL be great, in any capacity.

I don't diminish anyone else's needs, and I'm still pretty new to Usine, however my priority list would be:

1) I'd rather see Usine as a one patch VST than no VST
2) Obviously full function would be better, but not at the expense of mainstream development
3) Not a fan of Rewire, but it would work.
4) Less of a fan of VST bridges, but again would work.

Perhaps getting a lite one-patch VST going will help you better determine if a full function one is worth the effort.

And really, if you can load multiple instances I think a one-patch VST would be fine, for my purposes. As a VST I'm looking for the modular environment. And I assume one-patch implies support for subpatches.

In any case, more integration of your modular environment with other hosts is a winner, I am looking forward to it.

edit: after just playing with Usine again, I am changing my vote to full function VST!!

For the record I realize it could be considerable effort and I personally am willing to pay a decent upgrade price for any VST implementation, especially a full function.

Vincent · Unread post by **Vincent** » 22 Oct 2007, 00:21

I think that a VST should be as light (and as powerful) as possible. And, since you can plug VSTs in Usine, it's one more good reason to prefer a "lite VST version".
But... I'm not sure we'll be OK to loose this or that, depending on who we are and how we work. And it can become a very hard and very hot (and very long) debate on certain points...
So, let's dive:
What will we lose in this lite VST version?
- Sequencer mode?
- Conductor mode?
- Key(Midi)Learns?
- 8 I/O out of 10?
- ...?
And what will we earn?
- Unusual processing in usual DAWs?
- Busses from one Usine VST to another?
- Rewire?
- Usine plugged in (or bridged to) Usine?
- ... (no idea...)

neve · Unread post by **neve** » 22 Oct 2007, 00:28

senso wrote:The dilemma is between:
1) a small VST which allows the loading of only one patch in a reduced interface, with a minimum of inputs/outputs.
2) a big Vst, which looks like the stand alone version with all the routing possibilities.

In the case 1) we will be able to load several VST in our favorite DAW and in the 2), because of the memory size, only one or two instances.

What do you think?

I don't have a single idea of the time/complexity involved in the programming, but my questio nis :
do we need to choose ?
If it is not a huge amount of time & work, why not making 2 VST versions ("full" & "lite"), to let the user choose depending on his needs / machine power ?
I see myself 2 main uses in using a vst version of Usine :
1- using a "lite" version just to use my custom ensembles and addons in my other DAW ;
2- using a muti-out capable version, in order to make a muti-track improvisation in Usine and recording each track in real-time in my multi-track audio editor / sequencer ;

goyya76 · Unread post by **goyya76** » 22 Oct 2007, 23:57

Hi all,
after reading these later posts, i agree on the one-patch version - Usine as a VST/VSTi in another host could leave the "sequencing" functions to the host, retaining the modular structure/total remote control/interface building capacities....maybe multi outs could be handy too....

to me the VST idea is the winning one, cause i feel it's the easiest way to use Usine (

) within another host (thinking about automation, for example, vs. something linked with a bridge - like Vsthost+Legree)

Ciao,
Goyya

runagate · Unread post by **runagate** » 23 Oct 2007, 00:31

I still have no opinion as I'd use "all of the above" options.

Except it's certainly not going to help me buckle down and become a Usine power-user once I can open up my patches inside FL or Reaper!

I'm super-excited, whichever way you decide to go, Olivier.

damstraversaz · Unread post by **damstraversaz** » 23 Oct 2007, 09:25

runagate wrote:I'm super-excited, whichever way you decide to go, Olivier.

me too !

the "little" vst seems to be very interesting. Usine is a complex software and if I need all the possibiliy of the soft, so I will use the host. but if i need one or two patch ( as fx for exemple) I will need the vst.

maybe the simple is the best and vst version doesn't need to be complex, but very intuitive,

a lot of preset for new user could be too useful , witch in my opinion is a good marketing strategy . I think most of people who's trying a new vst quickly ear the presets and if they like the sound , then they begin to see all the possibility of the full version
and you will keep spare time ! usine development is so quick, I have never see that with another software

hope it helps

Newbie Brad · Unread post by **Newbie Brad** » 24 Oct 2007, 22:58

Please add ReWire to Usine soon!

raintalk · Unread post by **raintalk** » 28 Oct 2007, 20:36

What about taking an approach like VSTHost Slavery Suite (But call it Owner-Member instead just because I hate this name)

Create a VST like Legree - or use Legree (through cooperation)
And then allow an instance or many instances of Usine to come up as a member.
Usine doesn't change, it still can do all it can do.
But the other hosting program can use it all.

It might be a good first step. Later you can still create a VST version.

Just and idea ...

damstraversaz · Unread post by **damstraversaz** » 28 Nov 2007, 20:18

any news about the vst version ?

YouTube · Unread post by **senso** » 29 Nov 2007, 22:06

In in progress!
But the option of raintalk is finally the best?

goyya76 · Unread post by **goyya76** » 12 Dec 2007, 14:26

hi, it's nice to know that the vst version is in progress! Personally i'd go for a vst plugin version, but i guess i can get used to a "legree-like" solution too....

have a nice day and a "happy coding",

Goyya

runagate · Unread post by **runagate** » 13 Dec 2007, 16:13

Olivier, though being the typical USAer I don't know French (just Latin, lol) I hang out in a cafe with a French language professor and a French Literature major that I imagine I could have dictate Usine user manual stuff in English to me to type and send back to you.

neve · Unread post by **neve** » 13 Dec 2007, 17:37

You mean that Usine would have a french developper writing in english, and a usaer making the french translation ?
Awesome (and you're a gentleman).

(and veeeeery interested into having a french manual, because, you know... "Usine is to difficult for starters").

YouTube · Unread post by **senso** » 16 Dec 2007, 19:24

Thanks for the proposition.

since only 20% of visitors are french, I prefere write manuals directly in English. Finally it's simpler.
But the French translation is in progress. Normally, will arrive before christmas.

neve · Unread post by **neve** » 16 Dec 2007, 20:52

Hi, Senso.
French translation & VST version : wow !
By the way, I understand about the "international" stuff, english is spoken worldwide.
"Before Christmas", you mean.... this week ?
double wow !!

YouTube · Unread post by **senso** » 17 Dec 2007, 08:56

Let's take a small margin: before the new year...

neve · Unread post by **neve** » 17 Dec 2007, 20:07

This is good news : in a way, it avoids all the Santa mess, but keeps the spirit of gifts, presents & enjoyable tools !
Looking forward to this (between two fat happy dinners) !

amiga909 · Unread post by **amiga909** » 20 Dec 2007, 02:13

about usine vst:
have you considered to spill out small usine vst's which realize some of usine's unique features?
some smaller host dev's did that, probably to gain popularity (cockos reaplugs, fruity juice pack, xt/cakewalk/orion synths+sampler), albeit dont know yet what these plugins could do and wheter its a good strategy.

waolelaid · Unread post by **waolelaid** » 31 Dec 2007, 02:09

What a french translation ho! I don't believe that
Incredible

moody33 · Unread post by **moody33** » 11 Jan 2008, 20:38

Well, I know you have to sleep Oliver...
Is the Vst version is in progress? How percent?

YouTube · Unread post by **senso** » 11 Jan 2008, 21:07

I'm terribly late on the vst version.
I was supposed to work during the Christmas break but I spent all my time on the newest version.
The vst version is almost clear in my mind : I know how to do that.
It's a big progress!
Since Microsoft had 6 month late for vista let me only 3...

damstraversaz · Unread post by **damstraversaz** » 12 Jan 2008, 09:50

funny, are you thinking to create an "usine OEM" version ?
seriously, vst with the new rack feature will be perfect !

damstraversaz · Unread post by **damstraversaz** » 18 Jan 2008, 08:56

just thinking about this: vst version could be only for gold members. I thinks it's a good reason ( with the access to the addon's section) to buy usine .
I don't remember someone spoke about that ,what do you think ?
btw, steinberg release vst3 sdk kit this week

http://www.steinberg.net/24_1.html

YouTube · Unread post by **senso** » 18 Jan 2008, 17:11

I'll see what is a best option: free or not...
and wait a little before add the VST3 in Usine. Steinberg isn't in a "dominant position" as in 1996 to impose his protocol. Too early, I prefer wait to how the community will react.

Welcome to %s forums

The VST version of Usine

Who is online

Login • Register