AudioGL
category: offtopic [glöplog]
Pretty demoscenish, isn't it. And seems to have made a lot of noise on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-RCzeJQazA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-RCzeJQazA
liked the video too where he explains how it works:
video
video
"Hmm, sounds like the bass is a bit strong on that lead instrument... hold on, I'll just FLY OVER THERE AND FIX IT".
It seems people tend to like these kind of environments (especially shiny ones like this one ;)) but after having worked with modular DAWs since 2004 and knowing that I never make any small projects (limiting the project size doesn't seem to be my thing ;)) I know that I'd be completely lost very quickly. Freedom and lack of limitations comes with a price: Increased complexity. Software that has a well-defined workflow (like the kind of workflow that's been established in traditional multitrack sequencers since several decades back) might not be as open and limitless but they tend to be quicker and easier to deal with if you're used to it. At least that's my experience. Unless you're diciplined (i.e not me ;)) and set up your own rules and boundaries in the modular environment you might very well be bogged down with details like finding your way around your own project, tracking down problems in the signal flow etc.
I'm sure that a lot of people will like AudioGL and other modular environments, though. Just not the thing for me.
It seems people tend to like these kind of environments (especially shiny ones like this one ;)) but after having worked with modular DAWs since 2004 and knowing that I never make any small projects (limiting the project size doesn't seem to be my thing ;)) I know that I'd be completely lost very quickly. Freedom and lack of limitations comes with a price: Increased complexity. Software that has a well-defined workflow (like the kind of workflow that's been established in traditional multitrack sequencers since several decades back) might not be as open and limitless but they tend to be quicker and easier to deal with if you're used to it. At least that's my experience. Unless you're diciplined (i.e not me ;)) and set up your own rules and boundaries in the modular environment you might very well be bogged down with details like finding your way around your own project, tracking down problems in the signal flow etc.
I'm sure that a lot of people will like AudioGL and other modular environments, though. Just not the thing for me.
I like the end result, but I don't know if I'd be willing to get that far with it.
I could imagine this being a total pain in the ass to use.
Dig the song in the first video, btw.
I really like the argument behind "there is no mastering or post processing"... does it mean it already sound fucking cool? I want that for sure.
To me, it's adding a lot of mess to music composing.
To me, it's adding a lot of mess to music composing.
I'm not quite sure what this is. Is it a sequencer? Is it a softsynth? The modular synth-part seems quite nice, but what I personally need from a sequencer is overview of practically everything. I don't need notes 2 seconds away to be some thin line along with parameter-data and everything else.
Building the sequencer in three dimensions reduces the use of it since "normal" sequencers are able to display one parameter per axis (normally not Z) which is easily interpreted by my eye. His sequencer seems to completely ruin my chances of identifying a slight change in a parameter automation that doesn't sound "right".
Hmm ... I really don't know about this one. Perhaps I'm just getting too old to openmindedly welcome new ways of doing things. Still - my point about losing overview stands. It seems completely obfuscated what's actually going on per instrument/parameter.
Building the sequencer in three dimensions reduces the use of it since "normal" sequencers are able to display one parameter per axis (normally not Z) which is easily interpreted by my eye. His sequencer seems to completely ruin my chances of identifying a slight change in a parameter automation that doesn't sound "right".
Hmm ... I really don't know about this one. Perhaps I'm just getting too old to openmindedly welcome new ways of doing things. Still - my point about losing overview stands. It seems completely obfuscated what's actually going on per instrument/parameter.
knl: i think it meant that what you hear in the video comes straight from the tool, so it wasnt "photoshopped" up to sound like that.
I remember seeing this earlier, and while it doesn't seem particulary useful serious sequencing & production it could still be a great tool for live shows!
Hm - There's quite a few WAY cooler visualization plugins for liveshows than lines driving through parameter-knobs ;)
So to sum up:
It's an ok Softsynth
It's a not-that-usefull sequenzer
It's a rather lousy visualization plugin
Still need to see the light with this one ;)
So to sum up:
It's an ok Softsynth
It's a not-that-usefull sequenzer
It's a rather lousy visualization plugin
Still need to see the light with this one ;)
Nice idea with the visualization -as- the arrangement tool. Allthough I kind of agree that this would be most usable for live shows.
And (perhaps since I am who I am) it would take quite a lot of spare time for me to try to use it more than sparsely.
And (perhaps since I am who I am) it would take quite a lot of spare time for me to try to use it more than sparsely.
Sounds are rather dull, to say the least.
