You may like my dream request

Vas · Unread post by **Vas** » 07 Apr 2018, 22:13

Would be great if the HH3 Addons were made available as VSTâ€™s or plugins for Reaktor (if multi-touch works) or Audulus.
Or
Develop a VST/VSTi wrapper for the HH3 Addons so they can be used in any DAW. Fantastic!!!
Or
Develop a VST/VSTi modular environment similar to Bidule, Mux and Patcher that will host the HH3 Addons.
In addition to hosting the HH3 Addons if it also hosts VST's that would be great.

I had wrongly thought that HH besides being a standalone would also be offered as a VSTi.
My feeling is that the HH/VSTi would be well received by musicians and be profitable to Sensomusic.

sm_jamieson · Unread post by **sm_jamieson** » 07 Apr 2018, 23:54

This has been requested a few times.
I think Usine earlier versions (before Hollyhock) were available as a VST.
I think the feeling was that Usine HH has now become too large to be contained in a VST.

One option is a VST that supports a single rack, single patch, or some cut-down functionality.

The other way this is often done is with a VST "bridge" so that HH runs separately as it does now, but a VST interfaces with it to provide the inputs and outputs.

I am sure doing either would be quite a bit of work ...

Vas · Unread post by **Vas** » 08 Apr 2018, 01:08

Yes, there are several VST requests made in this forum.

My request is not to make HH3 into a VST but to somehow make the Addons available for playing outside HH.

I have a multi-touch screen and would really like to be able to use the HH Addons in my DAW.

Unread post by **oli_lab** » 09 Apr 2018, 11:38

why ?
to use reaktor in Live

I'm sure that with a bit of learning you can build anything that is doable in Usine with Reaktor.
As for Live, how could you you possibly make music with a software that so much looks like Xcell is beyong me.

otherwise, for very good sounding homemade VST, I strongly recommend Cabbage + Csound, even so the learning curve is rather deterrent !

x.iso · Unread post by **x.iso** » 09 Apr 2018, 15:33

oli_lab wrote:why ?
to use reaktor in Live
I'm sure that with a bit of learning you can build anything that is doable in Usine with Reaktor.
As for Live, how could you you possibly make music with a software that so much looks like Xcell is beyong me.

otherwise, for very good sounding homemade VST, I strongly recommend Cabbage + Csound, even so the learning curve is rather deterrent !

As Vas said, to utilize multi-touch, which Reaktor doesn't support. For now it's possible to utilize Usine's capabilities using virtual midi, but it's not very convenient.

Unread post by **oli_lab** » 10 Apr 2018, 19:16

x.iso wrote:As Vas said, to utilize multi-touch, which Reaktor doesn't support. For now it's possible to utilize Usine's capabilities using virtual midi, but it's not very convenient.

Got it !
should ask Reaktor to add multi-touch support ?

Vas · Unread post by **Vas** » 12 Apr 2018, 07:02

thanks to all for your replies.

I am looking forward to Audulus 4 which may be released this summer
http://audulus.com/
Perhaps with some collaboration with Audulus.com the HH addons can be sold separately and be hosted by Audulus 4.

Yes, I am dreaming!

YouTube · Unread post by **senso** » 13 May 2018, 10:13

The VST specification can't support a soft like Usine which is too big and takes too much system resources.
Actually we are more thinking about a bridge to be able to communicate with other software's but not a full VST implementation.
I hope to give news soon !

joffo78 · Unread post by **joffo78** » 13 May 2018, 10:47

hi. And what about export "only" patch as a vst possibility ?

gurulogic · Unread post by **gurulogic** » 14 May 2018, 02:40

joffo78 wrote:hi. And what about export "only" patch as a vst possibility ?

+1 Even this would have so many applicationsl. Maybe possibly a feature like in the old Usine vst where different instances could communicate flows independent of the host allowing different patches to be used in a vst host in a modular fashion. Plus having export patch to vst would be a great way to help introduce Usine to a wider audience.

YouTube · Unread post by **senso** » 14 May 2018, 07:59

A patch needs Usine to work !

joffo78 · Unread post by **joffo78** » 14 May 2018, 10:42

So maybe could we imagine a vst bridge that allow To open patch

Vas · Unread post by **Vas** » 18 Mar 2019, 16:30

I would like to renew my feature request.
Made a few revisions.

Would be great if the HH3 or HH4 Library, Addons and Modules were made available as VSTâ€™s
Or
As an option allow the current modular environment, Patch, to be a VST OR VSTi so can be used in any DAW.
In addition to hosting the HH3 Addons and Modules it also hosts VST's.
This will attract many multi-touch users and all that prefer to work in a modular environment.
That is a huge market. This is a win-win for Sensomusic and the musician.

I had wrongly thought that HH besides being a standalone would also be offered as a VSTi.
It would be great if this happens in HH4. This will benefit both Sensomusic and us the musician.

x.iso · Unread post by **x.iso** » 19 Mar 2019, 02:02

Well, all the patches (addons in Usine are either patches or modules for patches) require Usine engine itself to run, at which point if it was feasible, then I guess we would have whole Usine HH3 running as VST by now.

But still I hope for VST bridge, that would help since Rewire is troublesome it seems.
In the mean time, use virtual MIDI or OSC to communicate between the DAW's.

Vas · Unread post by **Vas** » 19 Mar 2019, 04:57

Mutools http://www.mutools.com/mulab-product.html
has Mulab and Mux. Mux is the modular environment that can be used with Mulab or any other DAW.
Mux can be purchased separately without purchasing Mulab.

Would be great if the complete HH 3 or HH4 was available as a VST like the very complex DAW FL Studio.
But as a good compromise many musicians especially multi-touch fans like myself would be glad to have the Hollyhock modular environment available in the same way as Mux.
I believe this will be profitable for SensoMusic and musicians alike.

YouTube · Unread post by **senso** » 22 Mar 2019, 08:08

I know that a VST version could be useful for everybody. Actually we are working on a bridge, a simple VST that we could add to any DAW to communicate with Usine.

bvorberger · Unread post by **bvorberger** » 22 Mar 2019, 08:34

Vas · Unread post by **Vas** » 24 Mar 2019, 01:05

senso wrote:I know that a VST version could be useful for everybody. Actually we are working on a bridge, a simple VST that we could add to any DAW to communicate with Usine.

Fantastic!
but the words "bridge" and "simple" scare me.
I will wait with great anticipation!

bermudagold · Unread post by **bermudagold** » 08 Sep 2019, 07:23

Since MUTOOLS MUX can do it, FL Studio can, and now reason....all within the vst spec,...it's counter intuitive to simple consumers that it's not possible......But I trust the developer is aware of the pros and cons, the amount of work involved, and the ROI
But it helps consumers get their feet wet without the fear and turn off of switching over completely immediately, or having to adopt an export/import workflow which will also turn some folks off....as far as bridges go....there is plenty of documentation on the polarization of rewire and even the melodyne standalone, then plugin, and then the ARA evolution.....probably a good analogous lessons learned case study.....details of implementation would be paramount..... all i know is i would buy it immediately if it was available as vst

congrats and good luck...exciting times

x.iso · Unread post by **x.iso** » 08 Sep 2019, 11:21

for now it's implemented like this: when Usine HH4 detects VST Bridge in another DAW, it syncs to it and routes it's audio/MIDI outs through this VST in the DAW and also inputs audio/midi from the DAW. for comparison, while FL Studio VST loads the instance of the app as sub-process of the DAW, Usine is loaded as standalone, so that means you do have to save it's workspace separately from the project in your other DAW and load both DAWs and respective projects.

23fx23 · Unread post by **23fx23** » 09 Sep 2019, 08:45

Vst spec can ask/ send chunk of data on save / reopen of daw project, so theorically even a bridge could get this chunk and request usine to load that chunk as a compressed wks maybe

x.iso · Unread post by **x.iso** » 09 Sep 2019, 09:11

As an option perhaps it would be good (there's separate settings for Bridge now), especially if it's possible to just point Usine to the location of wks instead of saving it with project.

bermudagold · Unread post by **bermudagold** » 12 Sep 2019, 09:37

the more i read and watch I think I understand the reluctance.....its actually very elegant as is.....its like bitwig without the ableton baggage.....a fresh take on the composition as a spreadsheet concept.
Its like its overcoming the shortcomings of ableton/bitwig session view by rotating it 90 deg ccw, basically turning the arrangement view into the spreadsheet,...
and giving each cell in the spreadsheet object orientation, making each cell or consolidated group of cells, a self contained object of nested containers with inheritance and persistence.....
The "parts" are "scenes" that play in a sequence according to a set of rules similar to "follow actions",....and the "sections" are "tracks"....things that play at the same time during a "part"("scene")
The contents and properties of these objects exist independent of the "parts" and "sections" constructs (tracks and scenes)
The possible benefits (to the ableton/bitwig) analogy:
1. You will have less rows in this arrangement view spreadsheet because you wont need to add a bunch of new rows if you want new instruments and plugin chains to play in your next scene
2. Depending how you plan and compose your arrangement, you should end up with less instances of your plugins being used and consuming resources as a plugin chain can be used by (ableton/bitwig nomenclature) multiple clips in different tracks playing at the same time in a scene
3. It should save editing time.....If you define "part 3" as the bridge for instance (scene 3 in ableton/bitwig), and later you want to make a change to the bridge. You dont have to re-align your session view with your arrangement view in ableton/bitwig after changing the scene, or copying and pasting the new bridge everytime it appears in the arrangement view......you edit once and the changes appear everywhere there is an instance of that object

Once you allow your mental model to be reoriented,.....and until I find some some major tradeoffs that are too hard to ignore that come with this additional flexibility,....I'm starting to feel like it almost may be self defeating and missing the point to use HH inside another DAW....

Need to experiment more first.

x.iso · Unread post by **x.iso** » 12 Sep 2019, 12:21

Sure, Usine's Grid is quite unique and flexible. I'm also using Bitwig and I've been thinking of trying out Usine's Grid for controlling Bitwig session, like activating/deactivating tracks/groups, launching clips and so on. It's possible to do this via CC mapping, but only using Virtual MIDI cables, so it's one of the pros for making Usine running by itself in Bridge mode (Usine still having access to MIDI outputs beyond the DAW with VST Bridge). So you both get perfect sync to Bridged DAW via VST and additionally send control messages over virtual MIDI!

23fx23 · Unread post by **23fx23** » 12 Sep 2019, 14:05

il take my personnal use exemple: i do a mix of "traditionnal" and more experimental sound compositions. i use a lot multitrack, where precise arrangement of tons of wavs/midi/automations is needed, including stuff like sample accuracy, plugin delay compensation, warp, fast editing workflow ect.. areas where usine clearly can't compete with ie ableton or other major traditional daws.

On the other side i like the ultimate and unmatched flexibility of Usine, with or without the grid, even just patches are so much powerfull and way head anything out there, to build anything ranging from random generators, interface stuff, sound generators ect..
Combining the two would be the ultimate solution for me, and VST has proven to work superb in V5 in phe past. so can't wait the bridge to be out.

oshaginko · Unread post by **oshaginko** » 11 Dec 2019, 01:54

bermudagold wrote: ↑
12 Sep 2019, 09:37
the more i read and watch I think I understand the reluctance.....its actually very elegant as is.....its like bitwig without the ableton baggage.....a fresh take on the composition as a spreadsheet concept.
Its like its overcoming the shortcomings of ableton/bitwig session view by rotating it 90 deg ccw, basically turning the arrangement view into the spreadsheet,...
and giving each cell in the spreadsheet object orientation, making each cell or consolidated group of cells, a self contained object of nested containers with inheritance and persistence.....
The "parts" are "scenes" that play in a sequence according to a set of rules similar to "follow actions",....and the "sections" are "tracks"....things that play at the same time during a "part"("scene")
The contents and properties of these objects exist independent of the "parts" and "sections" constructs (tracks and scenes)
The possible benefits (to the ableton/bitwig) analogy:
1. You will have less rows in this arrangement view spreadsheet because you wont need to add a bunch of new rows if you want new instruments and plugin chains to play in your next scene
2. Depending how you plan and compose your arrangement, you should end up with less instances of your plugins being used and consuming resources as a plugin chain can be used by (ableton/bitwig nomenclature) multiple clips in different tracks playing at the same time in a scene
3. It should save editing time.....If you define "part 3" as the bridge for instance (scene 3 in ableton/bitwig), and later you want to make a change to the bridge. You dont have to re-align your session view with your arrangement view in ableton/bitwig after changing the scene, or copying and pasting the new bridge everytime it appears in the arrangement view......you edit once and the changes appear everywhere there is an instance of that object

Once you allow your mental model to be reoriented,.....and until I find some some major tradeoffs that are too hard to ignore that come with this additional flexibility,....I'm starting to feel like it almost may be self defeating and missing the point to use HH inside another DAW....

Need to experiment more first.

I really like this post. Thank you. The grid in HH is really totally unique. Being able to manipulate time units from seconds to bars to beats in the way the grid can is opening up new paradigms of musical flow. That is an extraordinary achievement.

bermudagold · Unread post by **bermudagold** » 09 Feb 2020, 00:16

x.iso wrote: ↑
08 Sep 2019, 11:21
for now it's implemented like this: when Usine HH4 detects VST Bridge in another DAW, it syncs to it and routes it's audio/MIDI outs through this VST in the DAW and also inputs audio/midi from the DAW. for comparison, while FL Studio VST loads the instance of the app as sub-process of the DAW, Usine is loaded as standalone, so that means you do have to save it's workspace separately from the project in your other DAW and load both DAWs and respective projects.

Hi...so does this mean HH4 can communicate with only one track at a time?
Or can you have the bridge vst in multiple tracks communicating with a single instance of HH4?

Thanks,

x.iso · Unread post by **x.iso** » 09 Feb 2020, 01:23

bermudagold wrote: ↑
09 Feb 2020, 00:16
Hi...so does this mean HH4 can communicate with only one track at a time?
Or can you have the bridge vst in multiple tracks communicating with a single instance of HH4?

Thanks,

yes, in host DAW you have to use just 1 instance of the Bridge, but depending on DAW in question it shouldn't be hard to route other tracks to it or route different audio outs and midi channels to other tracks.

we'll have to wait for proper VST Bridge release though, there were some bugs with midi transmission, although clock sync and audio worked perfectly fine.

23fx23 · Unread post by **23fx23** » 04 May 2020, 19:04

a little shameless 2020 bump :v

x.iso · Unread post by **x.iso** » 06 May 2020, 11:20

the bridge that was given during beta test actually mostly working, just midi messages caused problems, but when using virtual midi instead it's all working well. maybe release it publicly with beta tag and midi portion disbled? (but with syncing enabled, as that works correctly too).

nay-seven · Unread post by **nay-seven** » 06 May 2020, 12:46

We don't communicate around this, cause it's not really finished and no MAC version, only Win.

Welcome to %s forums

You may like my dream request

Who is online

Login • Register