Working on the VST version

[senso]

The 3.52 seems stable now.
I know that I have a some suggestion to implement before, but I start working on the VST version.

I have some decisions to take and as usual, I need your opinion.

lite or complete version.
Do I create a simplified version of Usine, for example only one track and one stereo output, or the complete pro version with 16 tracks 10 stereo out?
In other words, do you think that Usine should be loaded as several "lite" copies in a vst host or only few "heavy" ones?

thanks for your comments

[damstraversaz]

in my opinion, the lite. most usable for a sequencer , and for a modular host like energy xt and bidule for exemple.I would say a heavy one before the new rack feature.

[moody33]

A lite version seems to be more usable.

-If we add a lite version ( as a patch ) in each tracks of our favorite sequencer, then we have a complete usine version !
-usine in a DAW is interesting for creating special effects. I suppose that we only need to add patch on some tracks as effects / synths.
-If we need a complete workspace in a song: we can export each tracks as a patch or as wave file using Usine stand alone and import each patchs/waves file in our DAW.
-Lite version could be contains racks chains.
-We need CPU process for other tracks that don't need usine patches.
-If we want to make a live: we don't want our favorite DAW, we just need Usine as stand alone.

So, in my opinion, Usine as VST is a little plugin , CPU friendly and easy to use.

[Newbie Brad]

Usine VST big and normal, not lite! We can make the normal one big or little as we want. You can't make a lite big if you want. Usine VST big and normal please!

[ravasb]

A full version and a lite would be great. The beauty of Usine is the ability to manipulate an incredible number of things on one interface. That would be lost with lite only. On the other hand, a lite version would let us bring some of the spice of Usine to our tracks. I hate to be greedy, but both versions would solve almost all of my daw's deficiencies.

[moody33]

What's the main interest using usine in a daw?

In a Daw like cubase , tracktion, ( semi modular ) energy xt ( modular), bidule ( modular ) , live, it's easier to manage long midi tracks and long waves tracks than usine do. So, in my opinion, a DAW is build to COMPOSE a song . Their goal.

Usine is a live application more than a multitrack sequencer. It's also a powerful sound design tool. Well.

As I said , If we want to use a workspace, it's possible to "do it yourself" exporting patches and waves files in case of a lite version. Don't forget that classic DAW are often semi-modular.

Lite Version = less memory and CPU usage ( I think , is it true? )
Complete Version = more memory usage and more CPU.
A semi-Lite version with the possibility to rack 3 or 4 patches could be an alternative.

An audio track is an audio track. And a track in your favorite sequencer work the same as a track in Usine. With several tracks and Lites versions of usine , it's possible to have the same result than Usine Complete Version. You want to send your usine track into another usine patch? Well, your sequencer is design to allow this. Just put a lite version in your insert/send effect. that's all.

Qui peux le moins, peux le plus. ( who can the less , can the more- good translation? )

And above all, a lite version = less work for oliver ! More time for him to make music, and more time to build excellent modules !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nay-seven]

i vote for a lite one , my only interest in a vst version could be to use it in a reaper track , to benefit of the Usine's modules

if i need many usine tracks , well , i use Usine...ha ha

hmm , OK, I go out...

[headphoner]

hi,

completely agree with nay-seven

a lite version could be useful

[cmodica]

Yes i am agree with you too. I think a lite version is better.

But for me the better should be the possibility to ceate a VST Plugin with an Usine patch. A sort of pluggo ....

have a nice day and thank you Olivier.

[franck]

Hello Olivier

I agree with nay-seven, a VST lite version could be nice.
Good luck with this new version.
Franck

[swindus]

For me a lite version would be all I need.

[bsork]

I too vote for a lite version, but if possible I would like to have more than two inputs, maybe four, for sidechaining types of patching.

MIDI in- and output would also be nice.

[kara]

Prefer a lite version here
And bsork has a point with side-chaining you would need 4 inputs

[antwan]

Hi,

I know I use A LOT of midi/audio/data buses between patches. I don't know if there's any way of making them work between several such Usine Lite VST instances?

antwan

[senso]

Thanks for all your comments.

Don't forget that Usine is a live soft. So the real question is about the way you will use Usine on stage:

two possibilities

1) Usine is still you main soft on stage but it can be cool to use another DAW for special stuffs you cant do with Usine.

2) Usine is used as complement into you main DAW and you use Usine only for special things.


I think that Usine is powerfull on stage because of
- it's routing capabilities,
- easy midi learn,
- you display only what you need see in the control panel or in interface builder
- conductor, to store snap shots,
- loop markers on the timeline.
- built-in surround
- ???
so the Vst version has to keep all of that?

[runagate]

I personally would view the audio/midi/data routing modularity
and the conductor snapshots as the most important things for a VST version

The reason is that I envision COMPOSING music in another DAW and then using the VST of Usine to set up my live set using the sounds and scores in the first DAW.

Because the main problem I have with Usine isn't anything to do with Usine itself, it's that I don't have people sitting there playing their instruments, or virtual instruments through midi controllers, or whatever while I'm making the patches in Usine. I only have 2 hands.

With Usine as a VST I can make a mock-up of my live song, scoring the parts that other people will play, and then take the patches out of the VST and move them over to Usine proper after teaching others (or learning the parts myself).

That, and as anyone who's ever used energyXT can attest, modularity in a VST is just a really useful thing to have access to in a DAW. Or Chainer VST host, for that matter.

[goyya76]

Or Chainer VST host, for that matter.

hello,

i have Chainer...but i'd love to have a modular "chainer" in Cubase! as a guitar player, it would be useful to create guitar sounds on the standalone usine, then simply load the patch in Usine VST as an insert when it comes to record - also while building a song, you could:
1) set up 2-3-4 tracks for the live input (with the main 2-3-4 guitar sounds)
2) record both the dry and the processed sound on the L/R channel of a stereo track (you have Stereoid Bouncer to manage them) and record as many tracks as you want without adding plugins->CPU drain etc....
3) when you finish, if needed you load up in the recorded track Usine VST with the correct patch and tweak it

don't know if i've clear - however, modularity would rock (especially in the "famous" DAWs like cubase, which AFAIK haven't modular FX inserts)

Ciao,
Goyya

[cmodica]

I don't need a VST version of Usine for live !! I just use Usine in live ...

I think a VST version is for complement in DAW and special use for studio workink.

[goyya76]

hi all, just thinking about the VST version...i think a double VST/VSTi version like energyXT would be very useful - i must admit i didn't look if this has just been mentioned on the forum...i have a feeling it should not be difficult - as far as i've seen experimenting with Synthedit, the .dll should be the same for both version, it's just a matter of adding a "tab" for the host (hope i'm not wrong!)...

Ciao,

Goyya