synthmaker

[kensuguro]

A vsti maker that's quite different from synthedit.. seems like a cool tool. Definitely worth checking out. What amazed me was that they have these modules that let you directly input assembly code or C code into a blank module. Amazing.

seems like it's in a stable beta stage. who knows, those who can't go DP, this may be an interesting alternative. Not that I want to bum out the flex/mod combo, but I gotta admit, the guys at synthmaker did their homework.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2006-06-13 21:45 ]</font>

[erminardi]

Yeah, I find it "warmer" and his enviroment more usable. The only negative thing is that SynthEdit has a huge library and documentation compared to SynthMaker.

[astroman]

if this is the program I have in mind then they should have... at least 4-5 years to do theirs right

cheers, tom

[astroman]

On 2006-06-13 21:44, kensuguro wrote:
..What amazed me was that they have these modules that let you directly input assembly code or C code into a blank module. Amazing.
...

of course this one caught my attention, as it's among the most sophisticated tasks a running app could perform

well, the code you enter isn't traditional C, but in their own high level language
nothing exiting

to be honest (and with all respect) this is a piece of 'lightweight content' with a very nice graphic layout (on which I'd swear it's wxWidgets based), but definetely stylish and nice to handle.
At least on 'not so complex' items...

I consider it rather weak because it's been around for ages (I'll check my old demo CDs) and given the time those folks had the result is less than meager - audio quality seems way below the first release of Modular One (imho)

cheers, Tom
edited for a less harsh syntax

OMG my apologies to wx
looks M$ lib sh*t

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-06-14 05:32 ]</font>

[Shroomz~>]

It's maybe promising software, but definately highly underdeveloped in it's current form. Jeff McClintock's Synthedit in it's most recent (& re-written) form is far far more developed & advanced. Even in it's original & slated form from years back, Synthedit was more interesting & capable than Synthmaker.

Nowadays .. there's really no competition to Synthedit in it's market. DSP coders like DADEV who programmed hundreds of custom atoms for Scope aren't working on Synthedit developement for a laugh. Synthedit is THE synth coders modular dev enviroment at both high & low level. It even rollercoasters over the Scope SDK (at least in terms of documentation & support) Unfortunately Synthedit originally got a bad name for it's sound & for flooding the market with free synths, but if you're smart you wont bet on it never sounding good with so much promising developement in it's large camp.

The only thing I've read of interest regarding Synthmaker, was that the maker was thinking about changes to or a port of his software to make a compatible modular front end for programming the Chameleon. That would've been really nice, but was obviously too difficult or not commercially viable for the guy given that Chameleon apps are developed for free.

Synthmaker's prices looked OTT too. Jeff's got that one right with SE. Synthedit is free or $25 for the full version (you can still make VSTs without nags on the free version)

[astroman]

On 2006-06-14 03:20, Shroomz wrote:
...DSP coders like DADEV who programmed hundreds of custom atoms for Scope aren't working on Synthedit developement for a laugh. ...

I have a lot of sympathy for Nikko as a person, but his devices never convinced me...
tnx for helping me out with another proof that all that 'custom atom blurb' is just daydreaming

cheers, Tom

[astroman]

On 2006-06-14 03:20, Shroomz wrote:
...Synthmaker's prices looked OTT too. Jeff's got that one right with SE. Synthedit is free or $25 for the full version (you can still make VSTs without nags on the free version)

it's 2 different business models
SM is targeted as a product, SE tries to establish a standard

if the latter succeeds, Jeff will probably part from his baby for a few million bucks

makes him a smart guy in my eyes - realizing his hopeless position in the 'traditional' market he plays a high bet - and chances aren't so bad that he eventually wins
remember a certain Linus, or a free email service called hotmail, etc,... ?

cheers, Tom

[spoimala]

On 2006-06-14 02:46, astroman wrote:

On 2006-06-13 21:44, kensuguro wrote:
What amazed me was that they have these modules that let you directly input assembly code or C code into a blank module.

of course this one caught my attention, as it's among the most sophisticated tasks a running app could perform.

What's so hot here?

[astroman]

well, Ken's statement read as if you could include 'regular' C source, that would be compiled and linked to a running application.
Ok, a similiar feature already existed in the days of 8-bit computing as 'self-modifying-code', but I don't know a single application that does anything like that today.
An included script language or an interpreter is in fact 'not so hot'

cheers, Tom

[BingoTheClowno]

If one can insert assembly or C code one should be able to write a new application from scratch. I think Buzz allows one to do that if I'm not mistaken.

[kensuguro]

hmm, didn't really know it was around for that long.. well, synthedit does seem to be the established platform of choice.

[Shroomz~>]

Thanks Stardust, you've just ended my annoying & unexplained feelings of de ja vu.

[kensuguro]

lol.
thanks for reminding me too. Sorry for the de ja vu.

[Shroomz~>]

lol.. it must be senile dementia setting in.