The following is a set of general comments, not just a response to this topic.
There's a similar post on another forum right now - a totally different company and a highly respected one in electronic music. Someone's totally fed up with problems running the software and has come to the end of his patience with it.
Thinking about the problems people have with Arturia software and with other companies' software, many of the problems seem to be with compatibility with operating systems and third party software such as sequencing and recording programs.
If you sell a piece of music software, everyone expects it to run on every computer system going and be compatible with every major third party software package.
Is that too much to expect?
In my view it is expecting a bit much, because you're expecting perfect compatibility with products the synth software company has no control over.
In some cases you could reasonably expect compatibility, perhaps, if it's with an industry standard that's been around for a good while.
But there are a lot of variables. I'm not surprised Arturia decided to establish their own complete system by producing the Origin. That way they have control over the system running the software.
I think it's reasonable to expect much better than we're getting with synth software, but that situation is true of computers generally, and I have sympathy with anyone running a company that depends on Microsoft's latest whim, or Apple's.
With Microsoft intending to make all new PCs run Vista by next year, and with their previous track record both with bugs and with deliberate attempts to keep out third parties they want to put out of business it doesn't bode well that people are going to have to use this latest episode in the ongoing Windows saga.
As I've said before, if you have a computer that runs your software, keep it. Don't fall for the `upgrade' con unless you have something that'll keep you going until all the problems are resolved (if they ever are).
The idea that software gets old is a con. It's digital code. It doesn't wear out. Computers do, and can be replaced. But the only way your software `gets old' is if someone like Microsoft decides to make it unuseable in the future under their latest non-operating system.
I think software synthesis is the future, or a major part of it. And I'm not alone in that. People like Brian Eno think the same. But what's holding it back is what always holds back computing - inept platforms, accidental incompatibilities because of different company software having to interface, and deliberate playing around with compatibilities to squeeze out competitors. We, the users of these systems, are the losers every time.
There are still a lot of plus factors with synth software, and I'm finding it very valuable, along with Eno and a growing number of other people. But there really are problems as well, and we do have to look past the ideal situation and make this stuff work for us, if possible, by focusing on what works properly and seeing if it does the job we need it to do.
People like me are at an advantage, it's true. I use a keyboard for input and I don't use third party sequencing software. This may be one reason why I'm saying "it works for me" when other people are saying the software won't work for them.
I also know what sort of nightmares existed with the old analogue systems that are now being reproduced in software. Many musicians are encountering the instruments for the first time and therefore encountering problems without knowing what the previous generation of synth players had to fight with. There's always some problem, and there's no such thing as the perfect well-behaved instrument.
What's in the way of better synth software isn't just the quality of the software writing - the presence of bugs and so on. It's the whole hard reality of business - the fact that any softsynth maker has to rely on someone else's operating system, and often someone else's sequencing software.
Maybe it'd be better if people like Arturia made their own computers, with an Arturia operating system for softsynths, and we had a dedicated computer for the music instead of adapting our PC or Mac systems. But then we'd have a computer for Arturia, one for Korg, one for.... and so it would go on.
As it is we have a compromise that's sometimes a very uneasy one. I sympathise with the guy selling the Vintage Collection, and the guy on the other forum who's sick of the other company's software not working properly. I feel the same about Windows, and I'm thinking about getting a Mac next time round - though maybe that'll just be a different lot of problems.
It's bloody frustrating. But so was using a Mg Modular. So was using a VCS3. Sometimes an instrument could have been right, but annoyingly it isn't and you have to recognise that and try something else.
Software synthesis could be so much better than it is in practice. That's annoying and sometimes it just isn't worth it. But it's a typical part of being at the leading edge of music technology. They say you can recognise pioneers by the arrows in their backsides. It's true. You can also recognise people pushing back the barriers by the bruises on their foreheads.
