About VST3 ?

[Cary B. Cornett]

jmh,

But I dare to disagree that SS as a DAW is more suitable for certain things....

I am not sure about "more suitable for certain things", as my experience is not wide ranging enough to make that determination. But I would definitely agree, and I think so does Bob, that it might be more suitable for certain USERS. Bob made a set of tools that fits how he personally like to work. He has said so more than once. He has also said that if you like some other DAW better than his, you should use that. He definitely did not set out to make SS be "all things to all people".

I don't know why Bob didn't put the option to increase the slope of the LowCut in the EQ, because there are sometimes big things under there. I have found it easy with a thick filter or adding an EQ to double the slope of the Low Cut, or another filter, but it's not the most elegant.

Again, Bob's EQ works the way he personally likes it to work. Nothing wrong with that. But I personally sometimes want an EQ to do certain things in a way different from the SAW native console EQ. My personal fave for those situations is the Ultrafunk R3 equalizer, which is much more customizable, including the ability to select different slopes on HP/LP filters including an ability to set up anything from a Bessel, to a Butterworth, to a Chebyshev function or compromises between these. I have also sometimes stacked two or more HP filters to get a curve that I want. The tradeoff with this choice is the need to make more decisions, and also having a UI that takes more screen space.

[MMP]

One great thing about the onboard EQ is that you can automate it.

[Pedro V]

Cary,

I'm not talking about people who like the software or not. I'm talking about the software itself. Obviously, I'm not talking about forcing anyone to use SS.

As for EQ, they can use whatever they want. Everyone is free to do whatever they want, let's put it that way. The decision is at the discretion of each person: The information is there.

[Todd R]

One great thing about the onboard EQ is that you can automate it.

indeed, SAW mixer natives are mostly automate-able (cannot automate Assign)...and what an awesome design! all within a single overlay

I can automate VST parameters in Reason...can't do that in SAW, sadly...I haven't tried in any other DAWs
I have asked and have heard PT, Cubase/Nuendo, Reaper, Logic all allow VST automation

frankly, for my current work, I'm working standalone in SpectraLayers to get a much better NR result...including elimination of crew chatter and unwanted noises, along with isolating low level sounds I want to mix...then it all goes back into SAW for mixing

really, my need for VSTs has seriously taken a nose dive...which I'm frankly happy about

[Dave Labrecque]

Dave Labrecque for president!

LOL. Right after I change my diaper. Stand by...

I had read the George Martin thought that the 'White Album' should have been a single album. What would he have cut?

Right? I'm sure, being the older, wiser producer guy (in his early 40s by then!), he was still thinking in terms of well-crafted pop tunes. C'mon. He was an old-school producer. But the boys were having fun.

But before I start into the whole "demo" feel of the White Album, again, I catch myself: when I think about it, sure, the songs weren't as polished as the Beatle songs to-date, production-wise; but they were still well-crafted-and-arranged songs for the most part. Sure, there was the occasional "Why Don't We Do It In The Road," but by and large...

I do remember reading that releasing a double LP meant two of their remaining contractually obligated 12-inchers would be checked off and that that was a motivational factor for them. FWIW. Not sure if that was with Capital (U.S.) or EMI (U.K.).

You have a point. In fact when I just looked at the track listing I started asking myself the same question - but I could part with Polythene Pam and 75% of the medley.

Well, I can't imagine losing anything from side 2; it's just so ingrained. "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" is a contender from side 1. I think John or George thought it was silly. Maybe both. Me, too. But it's such a part of history, now.

Now that I've thought it through, my suggestion for playing it as a 'thing' would be to wrong order it as follows:

Here comes the sun as the first portion of a medley consisting of a third of the rest, then the whole songs Something, Oh Darling, I Want You, Come Together.

Bands have based entire careers on lesser songs than those last four...

Um. Yeah. Way lesser. Consider that "Something" is maybe one of the best songs of all time. Even Sinatra said so when, during his live shows, he credited its composers, Lennon/McCartney (sic). (Hilarious. Who on his staff was gonna correct Fank? No one. That's who.) I love that story.

Edit: Add an additional chorus to the beginning of 'come together' so the long long sustain lurches straight into it.
Edit2: Okay, you are right. 75% is too much of a cut. The medley would have to include more than just a third of the remaining material.
Edit3: "lesser songs than those last four" ...come to think of it, the number of bands with 4 songs that good is is not that long.

Now yer talkin'.

[jmh]

Well, I can't imagine losing anything from side 2; it's just so ingrained. "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" is a contender from side 1. I think John or George thought it was silly. Maybe both. Me, too. But it's such a part of history, now.

I guess I feel that way about side one as Octopus's Garden & Maxwell's Hammer would be well represented in the medley. Maybe I'm not remembering why we abandon that correctly. While I wasn't into reproducing the medley, I would have gone with the consensus. In that particular group, the other guitar player (he is a very good player) would introduce the handful of songs he was most focused on in recent days and abandon the ones we did previously. It kept us lurching in different directions. We would have fun jamming rehearsals - but not the type that that prepared us to get many gigs. Ironically those guys could sing Oh Darling and some of the others with justice.

Um. Yeah. Way lesser. Consider that "Something" is maybe one of the best songs of all time. Even Sinatra said so when, during his live shows, he credited its composers, Lennon/McCartney (sic). (Hilarious. Who on his staff was gonna correct Fank? No one. That's who.) I love that story.

In a sense he wasn't wrong. When a middleweight steps into the ring with the heavyweights - he's forced to figure out how to up his game!

The 11 hour 'Let it Be' documentary is worth watching just for capturing a piece of that songs history (which also backs Frank) - although my favorite part was when George trips on a cable and stumbles across the studio with a now priceless AKG? tube mic bouncing behind him.

[Dave Labrecque]

...with a now priceless AKG? tube mic bouncing behind him.

The horror... The horror...

[Cary B. Cornett]

Cary,

I'm not talking about people who like the software or not. I'm talking about the software itself. Obviously, I'm not talking about forcing anyone to use SS.

As for EQ, they can use whatever they want. Everyone is free to do whatever they want, let's put it that way. The decision is at the discretion of each person: The information is there.

I completely agree with your statement. I should explain better. Not everyone has the same thought process or way of working things out. Bob writes his applications to suit his own way of thinking and seeing things, then offers them for sale for the benefit of other people who might be comfortable with his approach. For me, some of his way is immediately intuitive, and other parts of it require a "look up and learn" process. With the way my mind works, I do find at least some parts of Bob's UI style easier, faster and more comfortable to navigate than with some other DAW platforms. I don't know how much of this for me is because SAW "got there first" (to my mind), but I know that some platforms that some other people easily work with are quite bothersome to me because they don't as easily fit with how my mind works. That is why I think a given platform may be more suited to some users than to others.

[UpTilDawn]

... For me, some of his way (Bob's) is immediately intuitive, and other parts of it require a "look up and learn" process. With the way my mind works, I do find at least some parts of Bob's UI style easier, faster and more comfortable to navigate than with some other DAW platforms. I don't know how much of this for me is because SAW "got there first" (to my mind), but I know that some platforms that some other people easily work with are quite bothersome to me because they don't as easily fit with how my mind works...

Absolutely! - I'm just chiming in, because this is how I feel (having used SAW as my first pc daw in 2003) - not to divert from the thread any further.

[Carl G.]

Absolutely! - I'm just chiming in, because this is how I feel (having used SAW as my first pc daw in 2003) - not to divert from the thread any further.

I 3rd that.
Been on board with IQS (RMLLABS) since 1996. It was a natural evolution for me: Leaving the Ampex Reel to Reel Multi-track and QRK Turntable production in the 60's and 70's, progressing to the Otari Reel to Reel 8track and CD's in the 80's, then onto the Alesis ADATS/BRC with CDs and DATS in the 90s, and finally into the box with SAWPlus, then SAWPro in late 90s, then getting the Ferrari of consoles, SAWStudio! (in 2001)

SAWStudio was Waaaaay ahead of its time in speed, quality, and versatility. I still love it's style and production concept. When needed, RX and SpectraLayers do great specific standalone jobs. But it has been Bob's ingenious SAWStudio that always brought me the best mixes!

That said, I wish Bob the best on the VST3 quest. That would be amazing!