My understanding is that several former Ableton engineers became frustrated with the direction management wanted to take the software, so they left to hack on what they would have built for themselves. The result is Bitwig.
It does look like a very exciting project but I'm slightly worried that Ableton's legal team will not be too happy with it. There seem to be quite a few visual similarities, I'm assuming this sort of thing would fall under Ableton's intellectual property rather than the devs?
i was gonna comment on how similar this is to some demoscene tools, specifically .werkkzeug (http://www.theprodukkt.com). then he listed the demoscene as one of the influences <3
I think the video makes a poor presentation of the product.
Maybe he should have started with an empty project and progressively added components to show how the software works.
I'm clueless about music, so, do you think that anyone familiar with this kind of audio tool is going to be able to see the benefits of this software amidst the perceived super-complexity?
It is very intimidating for a starter. On the other hand, there's a lot of software like this floating about inthe Audio world already - Max/MSP, Supercollider, Pure Data and Reaktor being the best known, so for an experienced synthesist it's good to see that it can handle a whole project through a coherent interface, rather than seeing a small proof of concept and wondering whether it'll scale up.
I thought the 3d was rather gimmicky at first, but being able to see the automation projected onto the signal processing network is pretty neat, and it certainly seems fluid and responsive. It's very interesting, and $200 is not an unreasonable price if it fulfills its technical promise.
Two caveats: one, I think it will be important to offer a demo version of some kind (and I'm sure he's thought of this) as getting the most out of a piece of modular software like this really requires you to build a whole workflow around it. There's a ton of free and cheap products to do the simple tasks, so a product like this demands a certain level of commitment - and those who are already committed to a competitor may be reluctant to switch. Users of products like this are often the best sales team for the product and can be fanatically loyal, but are also fairly high-maintenance as a result. Technical support and backwards compatibility are the bane of small synthesis outfits, although that said synth users are a very nice bunch :-) The other caveat is that a modular tool is only as good as the individual modules - so if the oscillators or filters don't excite people, then the parallelism and modularity can be for naught, or at least much less. I don't want to judge the sound from a YouTube video or at this relatively early stage of development, and I do like that it's aimed very firmly at techno artists rather than pretending to be a destined for rock or pop. I just hope the author invests even the basic modules with character, rather than relying on the user to add it through additional complexity. Some synths offer a great variety of configuration and modulation options, but the base modules impose such a distinctive tonal signature ('ear candy') that everything you make with it sounds a bit similar - I used to find this a problem with Roland synths, in particular. Of course, this is very much a matter of taste, and it's probably much better to develop a distinctive sound of one's own than to be chasing the elusive qualities of other sysnths that people say they would like it to sound like. People like me, I have to admit :-)
Overall I'm impressed. I'm not sure if I would use it or not, as I've been trying to do less and less in the computer and more in hardware, and with fewer pieces of gear at that. I've owned some 20 or 30 different synths over the last 15 years and probably used twice as many software products, so I've been trying to slim things down to doing everything in only 2 or 3 devices and using the computer as a tape recorder and occasional supplemental tool. Too many options on the computer means I spend too much time editing rather than creating, but this product does seem to strike a nice balance between the two modes of working.
Very cool video. I am clueless when it comes to music and music theory, so the interface seems a bit overwhelming to me. However, I'm sure there are people that could master this and make something worthwhile.
Btw, I've been finding a lot more music from independent artists. For example:
I think one of the guys from Crystal Fighters is from my home town.
On the other hand, Deadmau5 is not really an "independent artist" (though I think most of his releases are on his own label) – he's probably the single most popular electro-house producer in the world right now.
Don't worry, you're not the only one. I've played music for years and write music in my spare time and still found this interface to be overwhelming :)
I've been making electronic music using all sorts of software for 15 years and this seems really confusing. I think he could improve it considerably by reducing the visual complexity when zoomed out[1]. He could also create tools for making sub-modules at the patch level, but I get the feeling that this environment is going to remain pretty high-level and such things may not be so useful (as they are in Max/MSP, Reaktor, et al).
The software is definitely innovative, but I agree, he should probably be targeting iPad first. There's a lot of "wannabe" musicians like myself that would probably drop a good $49 or $99 on a big app like this. I think a lot of people would love to create music with their hands, and be able to do it anywhere.
I don't understand the point of the 3d element. It seems like a great way to further complex an already overwhelming interface.
There needs to be a way to encapsulate the different components of a synth, and expand them as needed. Furthermore, there need to be ways to better organize an instrument set.
actually the interface is very simple once you grasp the synth model:
each instrument > played by 'seqencer' timeline triggers notes > whose output sound textures modified by 'automation' lines
now see a whole bunch of instruments side by side each one with its own timeline for sequencer and bunch of timelines automation
this just explodes the whole stack of standard 2d tracks to be visible all at once instead of being hidden or listed one below another
the 3d gives me a feeling of full immersion and thorough visual control, i actually crave the next step: to manipulate with my own hands these timelines in realspace
however few issues i see with 3d:
- trouble precisely aligning individual notes in time, easy in 2d grid but in 3d space they feel distant and disconnected, (messy?)) : maybe solved with a quicker more integrated swing to flattened 2d sideview or better yet - 3d gridlines
- handy way to time slice select a sub set of instruments to cut and paste slices (loops) around the song
possibly all implemented already. i'm just bsng this after view of one video
I'm not trying to say that it isn't very effective, its just that when looking at it you are presented with a lot of information simultaneously, I'm sure that after learning it, using it won't be as difficult.
But with that said, being able to reduce the amount of data confronting you would most likely be an invaluable asset. I'm no musician, nor do I have much experience with DAWs, but the ideal environment, and this is true for many things, would be one that is both expressive and easy to use. I just can't see how exploding all the components in such a manner is reaching those said goals. Why can't you just explode them when need be?
Also, why is the quality of immersion important to you? Immersion as it is well known does not make for effective or powerful interfaces. Its simply a further unnecessary abstraction between a user and the data. Correct me if I am wrong, but it doesn't seem that things like BumpTop have really caught on.
the visual 3d zooming and panning seems to work well enough to isolate focus on relevant parts while simultaneously keeping the less relevant stuff still visible in the background. the 2d flat track hiding environments are already available, the 3d is this one's edge.
by immersion i meant better coupling between my internal representation of the project/song tracks and how the program's ui represents it
however i probably got too exhuberant at first - i got carried away after the pretty graphics triggered this imaginary trip where i saw the whole thing like a giant construction site / sort of a space dock / giant cavern where my point of view is floating in the midst of it and all around me are these timeline beams which i rearrange amd modify at will. but reality is a bit limiting through the single mouse pointer.
another idea that sunk in since last post is that this program may be more practical as an addon ui envelope of sorts to already existing music production tools. currently only the ui seems to be the core benefit while a high quality music production backbone is a separate huge project in itself.
the ui may attract newbs to toy around, however advanced users will not switch from their already preferred environments unless this tool also has an edge in the music department
Thanks but my point was that in his video he said it would be available for PC and Mac. PC != Windows so it bugs me when people say something is coming out for PC but really mean PCs running Windows. This PC runs Ubuntu Linux as do millions of other PCs around the world.
http://bitwig.com
My understanding is that several former Ableton engineers became frustrated with the direction management wanted to take the software, so they left to hack on what they would have built for themselves. The result is Bitwig.