Latency?

Retrofreak wrote:

DJ Hellfire wrote:

Retrofreak wrote:I personally thing we've accepted computer glitches and quirks as the norm.

I really don't thing that's the case. I think it's just more a thing where not everyone has that problem!

Maybe?.

Put it this way I don't have 100% faith in windows based computer rigs onstage.

I can understand that. Live situations are totally different. Believe it or not, a lot of daw instabilities are actually caused by plugins, especially out of date ones. A lot of times, even having a plugin scanned can cause daw issues even if that plugin isn't use on any tracks in your current session.

Have you tried Mac at all, specifically for live use?

Retrofreak wrote:Nope,

I'm saying that the whole concept of doing things in the box is that your running a virtual representation of the hardware counter part.

On paper it sounds good, but in practise it's not always the case.

An MPC is one brain and modules are independent of that.

When one thing goes down it rarely effects the other, bar stuck midi notes.

When a computer acts glitchy it takes everything else down with it as it's the sound source and sequencer.

Timing and buffer underuns have normally been the first sign of this.

Hence why I said maybe when there's more multicore support, stability might improve, "I think computers are doing too much and have too many variables (VST's being one of them)".


*Speaking on DAW's in general not just the REN as I haven't used one*

You are talking about some concept the way you perceive it. The MPC Ren is a virtual representation of an MPC. It sequences external hardware and it loads samples into drum and keygroup programs just like your typical hardware MPC. You will have absolutely no problems running the Ren this way. None of these processes will negatively impact the Ren. No timing issues...no buffer underruns.

Yet you still want to attempt to overload the Ren with CPU intensive plugins and then say its not stable as a hardware MPC. This doesn't make any sense as a hardware MPC will never host plugins. If it did, you would have far worst issues as a hardware MPC has a limited CPU, limited effects engine, and a very small amount of RAM.

You will just have to wait and see for yourself. But to summarize all of this.....

You can use the MPC Ren in the same fashion as traditional MPC with zero timing and stability issues. Load up all you samples...connect all your hardware to sequence with it. If this is what you need...the Ren is obviously a good option for you.

But if you think you can surf the internet, max out your PCs available Ram, load CPU intensive plugins inside the Ren and hope your computer is stable....the Ren is certainly not for you.

JAH wrote:

Retrofreak wrote:Nope,

I'm saying that the whole concept of doing things in the box is that your running a virtual representation of the hardware counter part.

On paper it sounds good, but in practise it's not always the case.

An MPC is one brain and modules are independent of that.

When one thing goes down it rarely effects the other, bar stuck midi notes.

When a computer acts glitchy it takes everything else down with it as it's the sound source and sequencer.

Timing and buffer underuns have normally been the first sign of this.

Hence why I said maybe when there's more multicore support, stability might improve, "I think computers are doing too much and have too many variables (VST's being one of them)".


*Speaking on DAW's in general not just the REN as I haven't used one*

You are talking about some concept the way you perceive it. The MPC Ren is a virtual representation of an MPC. It sequences external hardware and it loads samples into drum and keygroup programs just like your typical hardware MPC. You will have absolutely no problems running the Ren this way. None of these processes will negatively impact the Ren. No timing issues...no buffer underruns.

Yet you still want to attempt to overload the Ren with CPU intensive plugins and then say its not stable as a hardware MPC. This doesn't make any sense as a hardware MPC will never host plugins. If it did, you would have far worst issues as a hardware MPC has a limited CPU, limited effects engine, and a very small amount of RAM.

You will just have to wait and see for yourself. But to summarize all of this.....

You can use the MPC Ren in the same fashion as traditional MPC with zero timing and stability issues. Load up all you samples...connect all your hardware to sequence with it. If this is what you need...the Ren is obviously a good option for you.

But if you think you can surf the internet, max out your PCs available Ram, load CPU intensive plugins inside the Ren and hope your computer is stable....the Ren is certainly not for you.

THEN: Midi Production Centre that sequences sound modules.

NOW: Virtual MPC that sequences VST's all running ITB.

I've stated clearly, "computers are doing too much" there is no argument here.

Retrofreak wrote:
Nope,

I'm saying that the whole concept of doing things in the box is that your running a virtual representation of the hardware counter part.

On paper it sounds good, but in practise it's not always the case.

An MPC is one brain and modules are independent of that.

When one thing goes down it rarely effects the other, bar stuck midi notes.

When a computer acts glitchy it takes everything else down with it as it's the sound source and sequencer.

Timing and buffer underuns have normally been the first sign of this.

Hence why I said maybe when there's more multicore support, stability might improve, "I think computers are doing too much and have too many variables (VST's being one of them)".


*Speaking on DAW's in general not just the REN as I haven't used one*

Well, TECHNICALLY speaking, even a hardware keyboard or rack synth is just as much a "virtual" representation of hardware. In reality, the only "real" hardware is the actual instruments these synthesizers synthesize! The only difference is where the information is stored and is processed; in the actual hardware synthesizers internal computer and memory or externally inside an ATX desktop housing or uni-body laptop frame and operated by a brainless controller.

DJ Hellfire wrote:

Retrofreak wrote:
Nope,

I'm saying that the whole concept of doing things in the box is that your running a virtual representation of the hardware counter part.

On paper it sounds good, but in practise it's not always the case.

An MPC is one brain and modules are independent of that.

When one thing goes down it rarely effects the other, bar stuck midi notes.

When a computer acts glitchy it takes everything else down with it as it's the sound source and sequencer.

Timing and buffer underuns have normally been the first sign of this.

Hence why I said maybe when there's more multicore support, stability might improve, "I think computers are doing too much and have too many variables (VST's being one of them)".


*Speaking on DAW's in general not just the REN as I haven't used one*

Well, TECHNICALLY speaking, even a hardware keyboard or rack synth is just as much a "virtual" representation of hardware. In reality, the only "real" hardware is the actual instruments these synthesizers synthesize! The only difference is where the information is stored and is processed; in the actual hardware synthesizers internal computer and memory or externally inside an ATX desktop housing or uni-body laptop frame and operated by a brainless controller.

Agreed!

Retrofreak wrote:THEN: Midi Production Centre that sequences sound modules.

NOW: Virtual MPC that sequences VST's all running ITB.

I've stated clearly, "computers are doing too much" there is no argument here.

Correction.....

Now: MIDI/Music Production Center that sequences sound modules and VST instruments within a host

Soon: MIDI Production Controller/Software package that sequences sound modules and directly hosts VSTs. It can also be used within a DAW as a VST.