ability to run vst within maschine.

i will chime in here and say that it would be nice to load up vst effects

 

Not like it's not obvious,but they already know how to integrate Vst's into products,this is what they do and do it well (Kore 1,2) Besides this ability would allow you to load Reaktor ensembles inside of it, what if I can't stand Reaktor ensembles? Lastly they've already thought of this feature - c'mon, do we really need to tell them? They are most likely already working on prototype software as we speak. This feature in Maschine would move more units then a Korg M1 did.

 

VST supporT
Time Stretch
Groove Templates



/Game

 

Just in case it's not obvious, Kore and Maschine are two completely different products with completely different premises. Kore was designed from the outset to load VST's, whereas Maschine was not. This undoubtedly makes a huge difference. I'm not sure what you know or don't know about programming, but you can't just wave a magic wand and say "presto" here's your VST support. Sorry, it just doesn't work like that. I think it is important to think from the programmer's perspective and to read between the lines (given that this is far from an open source application...) sometimes when thinking about what features can or should be added next...

At this moment Maschine still doesn't fully integrate within a VST host (only automation support is through the Macros, etc.), yet some still want it to become a VST host itself. The fact that it even took so long for NI to implement what host automation capabilities there are tells me that Maschine is somewhat of a closed system. And the addition of those capabilities would be trivial compared to adding VST support in any meaningful way that doesn't interfere with Maschine's raison d'etre, whereas the addition of new oscillator-based modules (based on Reaktor technology) to supplement the current Sampler or MIDI Out modules would be (granted, by my estimation only...) not as much of an undertaking.

My reasoning for thinking this way is that by adding NI developed modules, the NI development team can have precise & discrete control over parameters, etc. Therefore they could very easily control how things appear both in the software and on the hardware controller. The VST world, on the other hand, is pretty much the wild west in terms of that kind of stuff and NI might have to make all kinds of compromises in order to take into account all the variables that exist out there.

Perhaps one day NI will make some sort of hardware integrated DAW that combines the features of Maschine & Kore, but until then I think they should let their products fill their intended niches and not become bloated abominations at the behest of forum members who want too much. If NI listened to every wish of every forum member this product would quickly become a Frankenstein's monster that would be of limited use to anybody.

Personally, I'm just curious what would be gained by adding this VST support to Maschine? Perhaps there is something that I'm missing here.... Maschine has no linear arrangement view and thereby no associated linear automation, so it really doesn't qualify as a DAW. You can already use Maschine to send MIDI to other VST's. What would be the significant advantage in hosting VSTs within Maschine then? To me it seems that most of what you might want to accomplish could be achieved by NI adding a few synth modules, which would probably be much easier for NI and have less affect on the existing feature set, which personally I feel is at a pretty good place as it is.

I'm just trying to be pragmatic here, and if you have some overwhelming ideas to the contrary that you want to share, I'd certainly be open to hear them, as I'm certainly not above changing my mind on a subject when confronted with a superior logic.

 

Maschine may have not been designed or originally coded with alot of idea's in mind, but as sales prove to be good,what do you think they'll do? Writing code isn't what I do,it's what they do,they've never denied that they would do it,what makes you think they wouldn't do it? code? or original plans? Please seriously this conversation is going nowhere,we're talking about money here. Code is not an issue when money is in the picture,now is it?
If you don't understand the benefit for vst support in Maschine,I'm not sure there's much more I can say..really.
---
fwiw I never said writing code for vst support is as easy as waving a magic wand,or simply adding it to an update as you seemed to have gathered from my post,but to think they could not eventually add it to a build,is not thinking clearly,as they can and will at some point - again money talking here. By the way where did you hear their original plans,or where did you see their original code to where vst support in Maschine is impossible?

 

Or perhaps you just don't have anything else to say? Which, if that is indeed the case, I find to be somewhat disappointing as I was actually looking forward to your feedback. But as you have came up somewhat short in that regard, I have to agree with you that this conversation is indeed going nowhere...

 

oops you might have missed this josh -

fwiw I never said writing code for vst support is as easy as waving a magic wand,or simply adding it to an update as you seemed to have gathered from my post,but to think they could not eventually add it to a build,is not thinking clearly,as they can and will at some point - again money talking here. By the way where did you hear their original plans,or where did you see their original code to where vst support in Maschine is impossible?

 

im with trusampler on this, when maschine was released from the outset the idea was right but lacked features , within the time frame of launch until now, maschine users have been requesting features and workflow improvements and ni have been working eaggerly with the community to "make maschine the best it can be".

considering maschine is in some sense its own sequencer daw, with the addition of adding vsti this will not limit our soundbase, considering the tech is there working in another product , no i am not a programmer but i have a logical mind and i think hosting vsti in maschine is certainatly possible and i hope they implement it in the near future,

yes it is more simpler to add "synthesis modules" but i like many others here own a ontourage of expensive vsti that we would want to use,

currently i cannot work with maschine in my daw, i use standalone and use maschine as it was intended, then bounce my track in daw to mix,

if they could get the standalone functionality in maschine as a vsti then that could work also, i would prefer maschine ot host vsti directly, thats my opinion and every one in this forum is entitled to one.

i say "vst support is as easy as waving a magic wand" because its been done in kore, i dont need morphing vsti's, i need a vsti on a soundslot so i can utilise.

The tech , the code is all there, its just how they implement it into maschine.


ps

i would rather a paid upgrade to use vsti, rather then ni releaseing soundpacks for maschine.

ni could implement a scheme for those that dont want vsti support that it stays locked and does not disrupt there workflow, those that upgrade get the extra functionality

 

@Trusampler- Well, sorry to disappoint, but I'm certainly not privy to any insider NI plans or anything like that. And I certainly haven't ever seen the code, which I thought would've been made clear by my statement regarding Maschine not being open source. Nor would I even be able to reverse engineer it if I did see it, as my programming knowledge is rather meager. In fact, I'm just merely extrapolating, reading between the lines, if you would.

And I have in fact been wrong about things before. I was once quite vocally against Ableton adding MIDI to their program on their forum before Live 4 came out, which in retrospect they added in a most elegant fashion and I certainly had to reevaluate my stance on that matter. However, if you look at their current situation with Live 8, then you can see that continuously bolting on new features can at some point take it's toll on a programs stability and usability, as well.

I am not trying to be some VST hater or something, I just wouldn't want to see the Maschine that I have grown to be quite fond of end up compromised. If I were perhaps shown the overwhelming evidence against my current viewpont, then I could give my +1 on this subject, as well. However, until that time, I think that my opinion/proposal is a valid as any...
---

@Smithwessen
quote=smithwessen;660341]im with trusampler on this, when maschine was released from the outset the idea was right but lacked features , within the time frame of launch until now, maschine users have been requesting features and workflow improvements and ni have been working eaggerly with the community to "make maschine the best it can be".[/quote]
Certainly. I was very vocally upset on this forum about some of the missing features. I remember feeling quite cheated regarding the claims of "total DAW integration', which was far from the case when I pre-ordered my Maschine. Since that time, NI via Thomas, et al. have become much more responsive and I feel that Maschine is now in a satisfactory state. That point can also sometimes be the point where I enter a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of posture...

I am glad that you said "in some sense" its own sequencer, as in some ways it also is not. Although there is pattern automation, there is no way to freely draw/record in automation along a fixed timeline. Pattern automation is cool, but timeline automation is essential.

i think that this is perhaps the root of my own confusion, as I seldom (though sometimes...) use Maschine in a standalone capacity. Perhaps this tendency has made it harder for me to understand why others might want this capability. Fair enough. Also, you are quite right that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and for what it's worth, I'm glad that you shared yours...

Yes, the implementation is the heart of this matter, indeed. And the details about how VSTs would/could be usefully implemented is what I'd really like to hear. That is the deal breaker for me. I, personally, see many potential pitfalls here. How could VSTs be added in a useful way without interrupting the existing workflow? That is my (perhaps somewhat selfish...) main concern, as I don't think I would use VST's in Maschine, so my main concern is that it stays out of my way when using it in a normal, non-VST manner. If the VST implementation did not change my workflow, and didn't compromise stability or CPU usage, then I'd certainly not be opposed to NI adding this feature. If it did compromise any of those things, I'd have to give thumbs down.

I've been thinking along these lines, as well and I'm curious to see how this will all play out...

Perhaps one day if an advocate of VST support would outline some specific examples of how they would use/benefit from VST support in Maschine it might go some way toward showing me how that might be superior to just adding Reaktor-based synth modules.

 

i agree with you.

and my preferences are decent timestretch and sidechain before any consideration of hosting vstis, but then i do own Kore2 so my needs are not as great as others.

sowari

 

I agree. Id love my maschine to be able to host my copies of DCAM Synth Squad and sonic charge µtonic without needing to use Ableton Live. It would be truly awsome and a real selling point for Maschine.

This one additional function could make Maschine the number one live tool for electronic musicians.
---

You are thinking completely from a DAW centric and studio production position here.

Think about live use and you'll see that making the overhead of a full DAW on stage unnecessary is a great step forward. Hows that logic for you?

Personally I bought Maschine primarily for live use, jamming and only very secondarily for studio production.

 

if it's implemented properly and as an option so that those that don't need it don't have to enable it, it would be awesome.

I think it's more enticing for those that use Maschine by itself and want it to be the main source of their production. In this regard, being able to load up vst instruments without opening Maschine as a plugin and using it in a daw, would be amazing.

On the other hand, if a person is using Maschine mostly as a plugin, then they probably have absolutely no need for this feature. I will admit, the more I use Maschine as a plugin, the more I can see where they are coming from, especially with drag and drop audio, it's quick to bang out tracks/beats in Maschine, drag to a track in the daw, and add vsts to the mix.

However, if we could just use Maschine as a production station, and not have to open the daw to add other instruments, that would be awesome. The daw would then be there for mixing and or vocal recording. I think the sequencing style of Maschine has hit the sweet spot for many musicians and they would rather compose everything in Maschine instead of a daw.

I wouldn't expect vsts to be browsable from the hardware, I'd just be happy to be able to choose vst as a src on a sound, and pull up a browser of some sort that let's me pick my instrument.

However they implement it, if they do, I'm sure it will be awesome. If they never do, we still have the BEST music production tool around, PERIOD.

 

Currently I use Maschine back n forth, juggling the workflow in standalone,mind you I can only get a certain kind of mix going on in Maschine standalone,that's not motivating 2 me.I then load it as a vsti,quickly I lose the ability to have hands on with no support for transport,but do gain access to my compressors and eq's (real ones not their's) So it's workflow for me is like a juggling act right now,a bit like reason was in the beginning imo.. 2 apps are quite painful - vst support would fix that..
till then I'd prefer NI just concentrate on fixing the vsti to work with transport control via controller.. this way I could just make music the way I want and not have the dirty circus theme happening each day. Anyways vst support eventually would be a great option,and I couldn't find one logical reason why they wouldn't consider it at some point. options are good

 

Indeed there are. We don't need multiple threads about the same subject, so I'm merging this with the thread in feature requests.

ew

 

I would have to agree with your assessment of my perspective, as I am thinking mainly from a studio perspective and perhaps have not put enough weight on the live perspective. That paradigm does vindicate the pro-VST stance to a certain degree. However, now that I have given it some more thought, I have to admit that I still have the same stance as before (albeit with greater understanding of why some might not agree with it...).

I think that even for live usage I, personally, would be better served by NI-developed native synth modules (again based on Reaktor technology). My reasoning for this is that these would be able to more fully integrate into Maschine's existing interface (both hardware and software). Isn't that what Maschine is about, "getting lost in the flow?". I am just challenged to see how NI could keep it that way with the addition of third party plug-ins.

I mean you mention DCam Synth Squad, which I have never used but have heard good things about. What would you want to do with Synth Squad live? Play a bassline? Generate a pad? Use note repeat to jam out an arp-like lead with it? Okay, those are all understandable things to want to do in synthesis, but why couldn't you do those things with NI-developed synthesis modules? Despite anything good I have heard about Synth Squad, I have a very hard time believing that its sound quality is that much better than Reaktors. You could knock out a good bassline or pad with no problem using a very simple Reaktor module, let me assure you.

You also mention microTonic, which is a drum synthesis plug-in. Do you realize how many drum synthesizers have been created in Reaktor? NI could do specific modules for specific types of drum sounds. Since the existing Sampler module in Maschine already has most of the subtractive synthesizer elements in place, these new oscillator-based modules need not be very different from the existing ones. That means almost no learning curve and no interruption in the killer workflow that is already in place.

This could all very well be that I do not have the foresight to see VST support through to implementation, but perhaps it could also be that the VST proponents have not thought out the reality of how such a feature would truly be implemented into Maschine. There are so many hurdles... How to integrate a VST GUI, assign VST outputs (keep in mind that some VSTi's have more audio outputs than Maschine currently even has...), assignment of VST parameters to Maschine (probably not an easy task...), etc.

I would love to hear some proposals on how these problems could be circumvented without interrupting the existing workflow....

 

Dcam is definitely a different sound then reaktor. Presets aside,the engine in Dcam is amazing.Reaktor's very good,but so are thousands of other synth's,if you could have your choice,why wouldn't you want that? If it we're possible,I'd rather have my choice vs. an ensemble,no knock on reaktor at all,but there's alot of great synth's out there imo that murk reaktor. One for the record that would destroy it,is Ace. No competition, NI don't have anything near it. imo..only my opinion..

 

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about having a Reaktor ensemble that you can open up in Maschine with a GUI and all that stuff. I'm just talking about modules built-in to Maschine that would be based on Reaktor technology. To be honest, I could really care less if they were coded from the ground up specifically for the purpose, or not. I just assume that's how NI would go about it. I think I heard somewhere that the FX in NI's Traktor are based on Reaktor technology, for instance. I would be willing to bet that the existing Maschine FX are, too.

Yes, there are thousands of great VST's out there, and I use lots of them, for sure. And while the idea of opening up, let's say Sylenth or something in Maschine sounds like a great idea at first, when I actually think it through I don't see how it could be achieved in a useful way. The fact that DCam sounds better than Reaktor still doesn't answer the questions I outlined earlier as to how it would be implemented into Maschine.

Let me put it this way: I wish that my car could fly. That sounds like a great idea, doesn't it? Who wouldn't want a car that could fly. I have seen prototypes of cars that can fly, so the technology is actually there. Does that mean that I want Honda or Ford or whoever to invest their R&D time & money into developing a car that can fly? With existing cars wouldn't that time & effort be better put into something a little more realistic like more fuel efficient engines, or safety features, etc.? Because time spent on developing flying cars is time not spent doing something else, that's a given...

Like Sowari said, I think that there are other more immediate things to take care of at this point in time. Furthermore, like I stated previously I am not against VST support if it does not interrupt my existing workflow or compromise stability or CPU usage. However, the ball is in the court of the VST proponents to show me how VST support can actually and realistically be achieved within those parameters, because at this point I just don't see it....

 

Well if they could add reaktor why wouldn't they be able to add VSTi? YOu don't make sense it seems that there are people for VSTi and people who aren't. Personally I think the people aren't are purist who will only appreciate it after they do add VSTi. Pretty simple if you ask me. Kinda how ableton added vsti. Go to the browser which would have a new VST/Plugin box added for all your plugs. If it was a multi instrument drag it to the group if it is a single channel like ReFX nexus drag it to a sound. You almost made me cuss all this hatin on VSTi compat is pissing me off. We are in a VST world. What is the point of need a whole other program to do something they could just add to this one? Also you wouldn't have to use it if it was there. Only the people who wanted to use it would anyway. You sound like a hater homie. I personally am happy with the progress of 1.5. I hope to see timestretching and vsti hosting in 2.0. How can a company that came up making vst instruments have a problem adding them to there own software? lol wtf. I hate Reaktor because it's complicated. I like VSTi because I have a choice of what I want to use. Notice everyone trying to make a freakin workaround to sequence in Maschine with VSTi. I had to put 2 dang soundcards in my computer so I can run Maschine and Kore 2 together. Others are using Reaper. That doesn't tell you anything? You appear to be the hating minority. And just think they only use 1 core so far. All that left over headroom they can add more things to make a producers life easier. It's 2010 stop hatin.

 

word up man,just chill out josh,we're eventually getting that feature just leave it alone,it'll be alright you can play with reaktor in it one day..you might not see it yet,but we all do,like vince said, abelton added vsti/midi support when it wasn't based on that etc. That's been your argument,perhaps you should investigate more apps,that took major changes to their code to suit their customer base.. it's a fact,money man,it rules the world.NI knows how to get it..