u-he view on vcv

[W23]

Even if the software modulars can top my hardware modular in functionality, I still have no interest
in them whatsoever. For some reason, to me they would have just been a "letdown" even before I
bought into Eurorack.

Which I find odd, as I've previously always wanted a DSI profit. Yet when I actually ponied up the
coin, I passed on the DSI stuff in favor of eurorack modular, precisely because my satisfaction
with the Uhe softsynths, made the DSI far less attractive.

I did the same thing. I had RePro5. I got close enough to “that sound”(DSI), and found a good deal on a couple of dreadboxes and an O-coast. I didn’t exactly go modular but, I went different for sure

[lnikj]

@Urs - the numbers are hard to analyse. 70k Befaco downloads bears no relation to potential sales, but you know that.

There are just under 16k in the FB group, 750 in the very active new forum. In both there only 300-400 (I estimate) active posters. Things will get busier once the VST version is released.

People would love you to port a few things to Rack, you would get sales, and DRM will be in place with 1.0. You would get to sell things twice, to me anyway

There are only a few devs with serious analog modelling chops. There is plenty of space for you; the ship has definitely not sailed ! U-He has such high credibility that it only feels natural that you would be involved, both with modules and in the positive, active, intelligent and non-judgemental community that is one of the very best things about Rack.

[masterhiggins]

FFS, if Urs has no interest then he’s not going to pursue it.

[lnikj]

FFS, if Urs has no interest then he’s not going to pursue it.

Thanks for a shining example of the sort of attitude/post that you won't find in the VCV Rack community

[Taika-Kim]

And anyway VCV VST will cost around 100€, no? Nice job, all those free modules creating a basis for his business. Or does he plan to pay shares of profits to also free device creators? It's like this one shop I know that in the beginning was volunteer-run, but now that it makes profits in the million euro scale, I don't think those initial contributors get compensated.

[lnikj]

And anyway VCV VST will cost around 100€, no? Nice job, all those free modules creating a basis for his business. Or does he plan to pay shares of profits to also free device creators? It's like this one shop I know that in the beginning was volunteer-run, but now that it makes profits in the million euro scale, I don't think those initial contributors get compensated.

When I started using VCV Rack I thought "wtf ... I have to use this standalone ... really ?"

After a short time though I thought "why did I ever think I needed to use a DAW with this ?". It is in the nature of modular that it lends itself to being self-contained.

IIRC, when Andrew created VCV Rack he had no intention whatsoever of creating a VST version. He wrote this on FB over a year ago:

"The reason it's not a VST is mostly because of the technical limitations but also because of the philosophy that eventually it will be able to replace DAWs and naturally handle all "time scales" itself: sound design (20kHz to 20Hz), sequencing (20Hz to 2s) and arrangement (2s to 20mins). It's not there yet, but it will get there."

It was only due to persistent badgering by people, again IIRC, that he decided to do a VST version. I think he estimated at some point that it would be about $50k of dev time to do it properly. That is why he will be charging for it.

I can see that people would like a VST version to use Rack in amongst the rest of their devices in a DAW, but don't forget that Rack now has a VST host within it.

The core version is open source and free and will always be so. Those devs who contribute free modules are not expecting to be remunerated for the modules they contribute (some accept donations though); on the contrary most of them will probably buy the VST version themselves, even if they have little intention of using it, because it will support the development and maintenance of the platform they love going forward.

If you need some clarification of the philosophy behind VCV Rack please read this:

https://vcvrack.com/manual/About.html

Cheers !

[Urs]

It's what happens when expensive-stuff-everybody-wants becomes available cheap.

Surely it's what happens when open source hardware gets made into software ?

Last time I checked, I spent as much dough on Mutable as on Make Noise

[Urs]

As for where the thread is heading:

Let's distinguish between the software and its impact. I haven't much to criticise on VCV. It does what it should, and that is right up my alley. I even used it to try some ideas before setting things up in my eruorack.

What I dislike is manufacturers of eruorack modules using VCV and "we're toast" in one sentence - a statement that implies how good VCV is. What I dislike - completely subjectively - is that it makes me not want to pursue a similar path in my own endeavours.

We might even one day do VCV modules. Our development calendar for 2019 has no space for this though.

And, be it sales or not, 70k Users is probably more than u-he has in paying customers altogether. It's ginormous impact in a very small market. In comparison, only a handful of Eurorack modules have ever been sold more often than 10.000 times. Such that, chances are great that there's more people using VCV than actual Eurorack modulars. Which IMHO is a landslide shift from hardware to software, hence my original metaphor which upset so many people. And which has nothing to do with the quality of the software, its usefulness, and so on. It has everything to do with what it does to me subjectively and nothing with what it does to any of you.

[lnikj]

Thanks Urs. Very clear. Hope to see you there in the future.

[mholloway]

Did the VCV creator ever actually explain *what* the "technical limitations" of the VST format actually are? If that's (one of) his arguments for why he avoided doing it originally (and it is), it would be far more interesting / helpful if he actually explained the alleged limitations, as they pertain to VCV... I'm not able to imagine what they are on my own...

[lnikj]

Did the VCV creator ever actually explain *what* the "technical limitations" of the VST format actually are? If that's (one of) his arguments for why he avoided doing it originally (and it is), it would be far more interesting / helpful if he actually explained the alleged limitations, as they pertain to VCV... I'm not able to imagine what they are on my own...

He may have done but I don't recall.

From my limited understanding one thing that might be behind it is that Rack operates with single samples. This is what lies behind timing, audio rate modulation etc..

DAWs work with blocks of samples.

Anyway, don't quote me on that; you can ask him easily enough.

Cheers.

[EvilDragon]

It was only due to persistent badgering by people, again IIRC, that he decided to do a VST version.

It's not "just" that. From what it seems to me, Andrew changed the way he thought about things after he saw bsp804's fork of VCV that worked just fine as VST plugin.

Similarly to how he's changing his mind about multicore processing after he saw another fork with one method of multicore processing implemented that seems to work pretty well.

From my limited understanding one thing that might be behind it is that Rack operates with single samples. This is what lies behind timing, audio rate modulation etc..

DAWs work with blocks of samples.

That doesn't matter. Yes, DAWs work with blocks of samples, but the plugin can process things internally however they want. For example, u-he plugins process everything in blocks of 16 samples internally, regardless of DAW's block size.

[lnikj]

It was only due to persistent badgering by people, again IIRC, that he decided to do a VST version.

It's not "just" that. From what it seems to me, Andrew changed the way he thought about things after he saw bsp804's fork of VCV that worked just fine as VST plugin.

Possibly. I don't know.

Similarly to how he's changing his mind about multicore processing after he saw another fork with one method of multicore processing implemented that seems to work pretty well.

I think the situation is quite complex there. A long time ago on here he had a discussion with Urs about multicore and modulars (in a Softube thread IIRC). I recall that Andrew said that he had some ideas back then on how to do it.

Jim Tupper (rcomian)'s fork does multithreading but in a way that is expensive on cpu (and resulting heat). Again, this is my limited understanding, but I believe the way it works is to spin up however many threads you select and leave them looping until they are given something to do. The reason being that while normally you would put threads to sleep and wake them up when there is a job to do, you can't do that 44k/48k/etc times a second as current CPUs are not up to that. You need to be on a machine with good thermals to do that. I think Jim himself is hopeful that another way of using multiple cores will be found. Jim is very approachable if you want further information.

There are some individual modules that do multicore and the VST Host modules run the VSTs on additional cores.

I know Andrew intends to look at mullticore for version 1.0 but he has not confirmed his approach as yet (to my knowledge).

From my limited understanding one thing that might be behind it is that Rack operates with single samples. This is what lies behind timing, audio rate modulation etc..

DAWs work with blocks of samples.

That doesn't matter. Yes, DAWs work with blocks of samples, but the plugin can process things internally however they want. For example, u-he plugins process everything in blocks of 16 samples internally, regardless of DAW's block size.

As I said, better to ask Andrew. He is 'vortico' on here and you can get him by the VCV forum / Facebook / Twitter / email as well.

Cheers.

[EvilDragon]

Yeah I did read Jim's writeup on various multicore implementations. Was a very interesting read!

[vurt]

As for where the thread is heading:

Let's distinguish between the software and its impact. I haven't much to criticise on VCV. It does what it should, and that is right up my alley. I even used it to try some ideas before setting things up in my eruorack.

What I dislike is manufacturers of eruorack modules using VCV and "we're toast" in one sentence - a statement that implies how good VCV is. What I dislike - completely subjectively - is that it makes me not want to pursue a similar path in my own endeavours.

We might even one day do VCV modules. Our development calendar for 2019 has no space for this though.

And, be it sales or not, 70k Users is probably more than u-he has in paying customers altogether. It's ginormous impact in a very small market. In comparison, only a handful of Eurorack modules have ever been sold more often than 10.000 times. Such that, chances are great that there's more people using VCV than actual Eurorack modulars. Which IMHO is a landslide shift from hardware to software, hence my original metaphor which upset so many people. And which has nothing to do with the quality of the software, its usefulness, and so on. It has everything to do with what it does to me subjectively and nothing with what it does to any of you.

70000 free downloads.
how many of those are active users is anybodys guess?
hardware requires initial outlay, a lot of the actual users may be people with an interest, but no viable way of taking the plunge in to hw.
it may even mean, some kids who will grow up and want to "graduate" to hardware later.

the impact on the market cant really be known, i haven't noticed anyone giving up euro because of the availability of sw modulars.
usually, its space, time, didn't work for them, or it became too expensive.

i like having both personally, patching hw is so zen i dont think id ever give it up.
software means i can jam on public transport

but together in the studio, i can build some monster patch that i can then jam along with in realtime on the hardwares!


i understand, as a businessman you have to worry about the impact, you have to think of your employees. whereas i dont have such responsibility. so may not always see the negatives.