Fairlight's new Xynergi controller

[robcap]

Originally Posted by TheSweetener

...and it just works with Fairlight or what?

Why would you take a Ferrari and put a North American average engine in it? Having worked on many systems over the years, (Fairlight, ProTools, Nuendo, AudioVision, Studer Dyaxis, etc...), the Fairlight does various things already faster than other systems talked about on this site. the knock prevoiusly was it could not do bundles or rewire - now it does. Coupled with the CC-1 and this looks like a pretty good system!

Perhaps it will work for different systems - I do not know. I found the whitepaper on Fairlight's website to be interesting as it discusses the limitations of processor speed and the end of Moore's Law - I have seen a few discussions about this but this paper put it more simply. (I also could not resist how this applies to the Native versus hardware discussion which in my opinion is based on dreams and not science...)

I have never had a problem switching platforms, but clearly many people on this website seem to only want to drive 1 car in their lifetime. my apologies to those who have at least worked on different systems, or to those who have to work on specific systems due to other reasons such as client specifications - (happening to me as clients wish for a project to be delivered on ProTools - no problem but not our choice.)

Roberto

[ghoost]

Originally Posted by robcap

Why would you take a Ferrari and put a North American average engine in it? Having worked on many systems over the years, (Fairlight, ProTools, Nuendo, AudioVision, Studer Dyaxis, etc...), the Fairlight does various things already faster than other systems talked about on this site. the knock prevoiusly was it could not do bundles or rewire - now it does. Coupled with the CC-1 and this looks like a pretty good system!

Do you happen to know if they added the ability to edit by means of bars, beats, measurues and so on, using a grid snap ? Along with another distingushed buddy of mine, this was the biggest red flag. It may seem trivial to some, perhaps especially those in post for who their stuff is a dream but when the majority of your edit pocess is based around this method, it just seems a completely natural way of doing things.

More curious, it seemed they simply didn't understand how that concept could be so crucial to someone's work flow. It would seem a relativly simple piece of code to write. Then again I'm not a programmer. As my good friend said ... "Even Protools listens to their customers" We felt, some years back, they had a golden oppurtunity to stomp all over protools (during the forced hardware upgrade). They just never quite got it ... which is a pity.

[laser]

Originally Posted by TheSweetener

I meant, does the controller work with other software than Fairlight?

If I'm using the CC-1 card and Fairlight DAW software, will the controller give me operational control over my plug in's?

In other words, can I control several UAD-1's, software VST EQs, Altiverb, ect. from the controller?

If I have to constantly go back and forth from the Fairlight controller to a mouse during a mix session, the advantage of this controller is significantly reduced.

Laser

[laser]

Originally Posted by ghoost

AS mygood friend said ... "Even Protools listens to their customers" We felt, some years back, they had a golden oppurtunity to stomp all over protools (during the forced hardware upgrade). They just never quite got it ... which is a pity.

Painfully true.

It's frustrating. Pro Tools and UAD-1 are operating off of inferior hardware in terms of firepower and are dominating their respective marketplaces. And, here you have a company that has developed a powerhouse piece of hardware, perfect for the DAW studio, and they remain completely deaf (or ignorant) to everything but post-production.

If they took their controller and the CC-1, joined forces with UAD-1, Algorithmix and Samplitude/Sequoia (who couldn't do hardware integration if they were given the blueprints) creating a seemless "all in one" studio DAW (non-post), they'd all win big. Combining technologies makes each exponentially better. The ultimate Pro Tools killer.

Isn't that where the real market is?

Laser

[antonbuys]

Originally Posted by laser

Painfully true.

It's frustrating. Pro Tools and UAD-1 are operating off of inferior hardware in terms of firepower and are dominating their respective marketplaces. And, here you have a company that has developed a powerhouse piece of hardware, perfect for the DAW studio, and they remain completely deaf (or ignorant) to everything but post-production.

If they took their controller and the CC-1, joined forces with UAD-1, Algorithmix and Samplitude/Sequoia (who couldn't do hardware integration if they were given the blueprints) creating a seemless "all in one" studio DAW (non-post), they'd all win big. Combining technologies makes each exponentially better. The ultimate Pro Tools killer.

Isn't that where the real market is?

Laser

Amen! Well-stated indeed. And I'd line up for something like that... Stick it in an OctaCore Mac Pro...

[robcap]

Originally Posted by ghoost

Do you happen to know if they added the ability to edit by means of bars, beats, measurues and so using a grid snap ? Along with another distingushed buddy of mine this was the biggest red flag. It may seem trivial to some, perhaps especially those in post for who their stuff is a dream but when the majority of your efit pocess is based around that method, it just seems a completely natural way of doing things.
They just never quite got it ... which is a pity.

I actually agree with you here, and actually your entire post. My post was with regards to Television Post Production and how we need to use our DAWs. If I required the music tools, I would obviously be on a different system for that application. I should have posted more concisely.

It would be great if Fairlight could incorporate those features into their DAW and perhaps entice some of the music users out there. Quite ironic when you consider that their original Fairlight CMI was one of the first, if not the first, music computers used by artists such as Peter Gabriel, Herbie Hancock, etc. The computers are still being used and there is even an active yahoo group with users sharing sounds and info on a box that is around 20-25 years old!

Roberto

[ghoost]

really got to be aware of typos's

Originally Posted by robcap

I actually agree with you here, and actually your entire post. My post was with regards to Television Post Production and how we need to use our DAWs. If I required the music tools, I would obviously be on a different system for that application. I should have posted more concisely.

Hey Rob ... it definitly wasn't a knock on you here .. And it's wonderful to see someone from your side of the fence having compassion for how the grass grows in your neighbor's field With the survival of the music biz (and its ever changing model) showing up more and more on your side of the fence you would think with such crossover that FL could see the advantage of writing this additional peice of code. How hard could it be I for one, much less quite a few others I can think of, would be slobbering all over this very cool looking piece of hardware if that were to occur.

I gotta believe there's enough people on the recording side doing work directly for post production, recording/mixing for film or otherwise, that the cross pollination would be a complete advantage .. Or is that just my frustration surfacing

It would be great if Fairlight could incorporate those features into their DAW and perhaps entice some of the music users out there. Quite ironic when you consider that their original Fairlight CMI was one of the first, if not the first, music computers used by artists such as Peter Gabriel, Herbie Hancock, etc. The computers are still being used and there is even an active yahoo group with users sharing sounds and info on a box that is around 20-25 years old!

Roberto

Yes .... exceedingly ironic. And that was my initial exposure to FL. Actually worked with somebody that had one of those, on a project we did together. Incredible machines from whence my fascination of the co. grew. I still get tempted to dig one up for the sound quality alone. Perhaps some day.

All things considered, what could "We" actually do to get Fairlight to see the 2nd part of their Name. I'm convinced they could still have both sides of the coin (litterly) .. in the palm of their hand. After all, once you have the product, all you have to do is market it. And I understand it's not quite that simple but I'm willing to bet that word would spread like wildfire. After all there's a host of folk that would like see a good alternative to PT and pretty much no one else is able to pull it off. Are they afraid of the Big Bad Wolf stike

Considering FL shows up at AES where there seems to be more people on the recording side than post (just my perception .. feel free to correct me), I would have thought FL could see, there is another part of the world they could easily infiltrate, much less make a statement/impact. And I know I'm not the only one that thinks this.

Look ... It's a great co. with a great product. I just want to see it "Be all it can be" .. while working to the advantage of somebody like myself and many others.

Oh Uncle Joe .... Where are you ??

[GilWave]

I got a demo today - the controller is amazing, and the CC1 scalable FPGA engine makes so much sense. From DXD @ 384k down to good ole 48k and everything in between, all with near zero latency.

The on-board proprietary EQ sounds as good as any digital EQ I've heard, and better than most. Haven't had a chance to really hit their compressor yet. Everything else is VST compatible, so you can run most any plug-in you like.

It was very easy to bring over Pro Tools sessions as AES 31 or BWAV, with most key automation intact. The keycaps change function and display on the fly - from QWERTY to tracks 1-48 in a heartbeat.

I'm going to try and set up a demo at a studio in NYC so UBK and I can film an audio-centric presentation of the whole Zynergi/CC1 concept. This system would tie in nicely with a Chandler or Tonelux console/sidecar to combine the best of both worlds.

-g

[mikesilence]

What about the price of the controller? Or a system with the controller??

IS it possible to connect it to other systems e.g. my Mac with Logic?? *g*

Greetz,

Mike

[BenLoftis]

( OOPS! I posted this once on the wrong forum. Sorry for the duplication )

While I have great respect for the Fairlight engineers, I think their white paper is misleading. Maybe their marketing department is to blame.

The general trend of computer horsepower doubling every 24 months is still true... in fact it is accelerating! The white paper does not recognize the fact that desktop computer manufacturers are free to adopt new technologies, and will do it in a way that makes this power available to a wide range of existing native applications... just like the math coprocessor was implemented on early x86 processors. Even radical designs can be made to support existing software. For example Linux has already been ported to the "Cell" processor which powers the Sony PS3. Suggesting that "native processing" is reaching its limit is unrealistic. Development of native processing is continuing at a staggering rate.

Additionally I think they are somewhat misleading in their (Size, Power, Heat, Reliability & Cost) points: a DSP card still has to be housed in a PC enclosure. All the PC stuff is needed in a real system ... multiple big displays, flexible input devices, audio I/O, networking, etc. Those features aren't going to be built into an FPGA anytime soon (at least not until we can jack I/O directly into our brain). So while the DSP itself may be more efficient, the other elements of the system dictate the size, power and heat requirements.

Earlier this year, Harrison began shipping a really "native" DSP system using Linux and commodity hardware. We felt that an open platform would serve the needs of our users best. This has proven to be true, as recent sales of consoles around the world will testify (19 systems and counting). Savvy investors are looking for open solutions that do not lock them into single-source hardware purchases.

-Ben Loftis
Harrison - The World's Finest Digital Audio Consoles

[GilWave]

Nice hijack, Ben!!

How much is the Xrange for a 96 track system at 96k? ...and don't I still need monitors and a console to run it with?

"Savvy investors are looking for open solutions that do not lock them into single-source hardware purchases."

Savvy investors? What about audio engineers, musicians, home/project studio owners?

Single-source hardware purchases? Windows is an operating system, not a hardware platform. While it is not open source like Linux, it is the worlds most prominent OS, and love it or hate it it isn't going away anytime soon. As for the hardware required to run it, anyone can build their own PC or buy one from one of thousands of companies.

I love Harrison, but I think we are talking Apples and Oranges here Ben.

[BenLoftis]

Sorry, i couldn't let this one by.

I think we are saying the same thing, Gil: there still needs to be one or more computers in the studio, so where is the savings?

Furthermore, why does everyone insist on making proprietary solutions that are limiting the growth of the industry instead of expanding it? In the old days, you could differentiate yourself from your competitors by "taking control" of your tools. Hot-rodding them, fixing them and learning from them was part of the job of an engineer. In those days the industry grew exponentially. These days the pro audio industry is shrinking. Harrison is trying to reverse this trend by promoting more open systems like native processing and open software like the Xdubber. We aren't fully there yet but we are making strides.

Maybe this rant would be better directed againt Pro Tools; but when they came on the scene, you needed addon DSP. No sense crying over spilt milk. But now it irks me to see another proprietary system that serves to make factions rather than push the industry forward.

Sorry, I'll stop ranting now.

-Ben

[robcap]

But now it irks me to see another proprietary system that serves to make factions rather than push the industry forward.

Hi Ben,

Always loved your Harrison products. I am a ProTools and a Fairlight user for TV post. Fairlight was first of the 2 proprietary systems by the way, nothing has changed except that they are moving their product forward. Interesting that you call PT proprietary - I remember a discussion with the broadcast engineering division I worked for years ago calloing PT the 'Mac system.' (Their words, not mine.)

Furthermore, why does everyone insist on making proprietary solutions that are limiting the growth of the industry instead of expanding it?

My Fairlight QDC has run 6 years with ONE freeze, while running an average of 80 hours a week in that time. Never a problem with having to upgrade the OS while changing the software, no features disappearing, no viruses. Native is not a solution for us at this time - we have not seen a Mac or a Windows system run this well - I would be happy if none had a problem for a month much less 6 years. The broadcast engineers I have worked for have always been in agreement, although they think native is somewhere in the horizon. My good friend is a VP of the IT department at a national bank and designed the trading floor - his opinion of Macs and Windows is far worse than mine ( I do run both ) - someday I will try and get more of the specifics of his complaints.

I agree that the industry is shrinking. But getting everybody onboard with native is not necessarily the answer. I would rather see us get away from using 1 box - that seems to be the dream of producers these days - walk into a room and see the same equipment but maybe a different colored wall or couch. In Mobile Television Production, the 1 box scenario has already occured - Grass Valley switchers, RTS intercoms, Sony VTRs, EVSs, Calrec Digital consoles, (sometimes SSL), Yamaha or Soundcraft analog consoles. Anything else, and your mobile is difficult to market. Choices have been removed from mixers such as myself. In post this is occuring as major studios are not only requiring deliverables to include stems, but the ProTools sessions as well. It does not matter what we wish to edit on anymore. Now I am ranting... The fact is, all mixers, even some who have worked on PT for years, here would actually choose Fairlight if the decision was left up to them. Each system does have its advantages and there are many things I like about ProTools as well.

Another problem we have is combining products. Our money people do not want to see a Yamaha console with ProTools, or another configuration for example. If we are ProTools, they want to see an Icon. If we use Fairlight, Constellation is preferred for example. Past experience has proven that the manufacturers blame each other when their part of the configuration is not working. Not ideal, but accountants track time spent with customer phone support and delayed deliveries - to them it makes no sense to mix products.

I see what you are trying to get at, but I prefer if various companies can work towards a few different possibilities - some native and some proprietary to serve the needs of the many varieties of products required to edit music, post, etc. Products like the Xynergi, D-Control, etc. really help us in our work as they can speed up the mechanical part of the editing process and leave more time to be creative.

Roberto

[GilWave]

Originally Posted by BenLoftis

Furthermore, why does everyone insist on making proprietary solutions that are limiting the growth of the industry instead of expanding it?

Huh? It's called competition. Could you put your 3348 tape on a Mitsubishi 32 track? Could you stick your ADAT tape into a DA-88? Take your SSL automation file and run it on a Neve?

To some extent you can open Pro Tools files in Logic, Digital Performer, Radar, Fairlight - so there's interopability there.

In those days the industry grew exponentially. These days the pro audio industry is shrinking.

It is? Not by my calculations. The price of the hardware required has come down considerably, but the amount of studios (home/budget/project/mixing suite/etc) is exponentially increasing. Plus almost every decent musician is buying some type of recording gear for themselves.

Harrison is trying to reverse this trend by promoting more open systems like native processing and open software like the Xdubber. We aren't fully there yet but we are making strides.

The "trend" cannot be reversed - the Genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting him back in.

But now it irks me to see another proprietary system that serves to make factions rather than push the industry forward.

I guess I see it differently - I think Fairlight *IS* trying to push the industry forward. The Xynergi can be a front-end to Pro Tools, or Nuendo, or what have you (it supports HUI). it is blindingly fast, sounds good, is relatively future-proof, and comes with great customer service and support, world-wide. What's the downside? That it competes with Harrison and Pro Tools? Boo-hoo.

Sorry, I'll stop ranting now. -Ben

Promise?

[TheSweetener]

Originally Posted by GilWave

it supports HUI

Cool, how could I miss this?

[ghoost]

Originally Posted by GilWave

I guess I see it differently - I think Fairlight *IS* trying to push the industry forward. The Xynergi can be a front-end to Pro Tools, or Nuendo, or what have you (it supports HUI).

Hi Gil,

Do you know if it supports Bars/Beats by means of a snap grid in the edit window ?

[BenLoftis]

Originally Posted by robcap

Native is not a solution for us at this time - we have not seen a Mac or a Windows system run this well

Just to be clear ... using an AMD or Intel processor does not necessarily mean you have to run WIndows or Mac. There are quite a few embedded OS's out there that do a fine job across many industries. The only goal of "native" processing (at least in my opinion) is to leverage the billions of dollars that gets invested in the IT industry, and apply it to audio.

Originally Posted by robcap

I see what you are trying to get at, but I prefer if various companies can work towards a few different possibilities - some native and some proprietary to serve the needs of the many varieties of products required to edit music, post, etc.

I definitely agree, it may make sense to create a proprietary chip for a simple mixer. But the needs of high-end music and post users is very different. It's no longer a simple case of playback/mix/record. Plugin compatibility, file I/O, networking, sharing DSP resources among rooms, etc have all crept into our lives. The DSP hardware is such a small part of the big picture... why invest so much in something that will be outrageously outdated in just a year or two?

I agree that the world would be a better place if you could load up a session from any system and use the user interface (&control surface) of your choice to work on it. I think this is where Ardour has a chance... as a standard session format and reference implementation for a session editor...

-Ben

[Stevo]

Originally Posted by ghoost

Do you know if it supports Bars/Beats by means of a snap grid in the edit

Not in the editor window, but Crystal-Core is Rewire enabled so going to bar 56 beat 3 in a rewire app will locate the editor the the exact spot.

[Steve]

[Adamon]

Originally Posted by BenLoftis

Additionally I think they are somewhat misleading in their (Size, Power, Heat, Reliability & Cost) points: a DSP card still has to be housed in a PC enclosure. All the PC stuff is needed in a real system ... multiple big displays, flexible input devices, audio I/O, networking, etc. Those features aren't going to be built into an FPGA anytime soon (at least not until we can jack I/O directly into our brain). So while the DSP itself may be more efficient, the other elements of the system dictate the size, power and heat requirements.

After reading this, I dived onto the white green paper.... whatever they wanted to call it and then went surfing their product history.

They have a point which looks like you have completly glazed over....

They have taken a QDC Engine... a box that looks to be the size of a 21 Inch CRT and now have a Card (CC-1) which fits into a single PCI chassis slot with an outboard box (SX-20) for IO/Sync.

They already were using a PC in their system to drive the Engine (QDC) and to control the surface. So now the same PC accomodates the Engine.

So to put into straight forward terms.... the difference being that instead of this seperate entity (QDC), there is now a PCIe card that is replacing this functionality and thus the need for extra power circuits.

[Adamon]

Originally Posted by laser

Painfully true.
If they took their controller and the CC-1, joined forces with UAD-1, Algorithmix and Samplitude/Sequoia (who couldn't do hardware integration if they were given the blueprints) creating a seemless "all in one" studio DAW (non-post), they'd all win big. Combining technologies makes each exponentially better. The ultimate Pro Tools killer.

Isn't that where the real market is?

Laser

This assumes that these companies are open to the possibliities... not all are... look @ AVID's Business model.

This and people banging the open source drum are part of the reason I created an account here. At the end of the day, commerical and business viability win out over what the user wants. Academics do not control the operating budgets of businesses.

[ghoost]

Originally Posted by Stevo

Not in the editor window, but Crystal-Core is Rewire enabled so going to bar 56 beat 3 in a rewire app will locate the editor the the exact spot.

[Steve]

Thanks for the heads up Steve. However, what I'd like to do is drag the soundwave in incremental steps, be it bars, beats, notes, milliseconds or whatever.

[Uncle Joe]

Originally Posted by Stevo

Not in the editor window, but Crystal-Core is Rewire enabled so going to bar 56 beat 3 in a rewire app will locate the editor the the exact spot.

[Steve]

G'day,

Thanks for the posts mates ! thumbsup Keep it up ...

Thanks Stevo ! You are correct.

The ReWire protocol is designed to allow a number of ReWire Clients
to communicate with a single ReWire Mixer. We are always the ReWire Mixer.

The ReWire Mixer can accept up to 256 inputs from each of the connected
ReWire clients. We currently supports 96 of these ReWire inputs.
When the Fairlight and ReWire Client are connected together,
transport controls and position information are automatically
transmitted in both directions between the Mixer and Client(s).

As you probably can guess, ReWire permits us to connect to a long list of 3rd
party tools, including sequencing software like
Reason and Ableton Live, and sound design tools like Celemony Melodyne
and even software samplers like Tascam Gigastudio.

In the real world, a composer might show up to a session with a
MIDI sequence composed in Ableton Live. The entire composition
could be routed to our inputs via ReWire during a mix to picture session,
giving the composer flexibility to make adjustments to
the score “on the fly” based on feedback from the client.

Alternatively, a music session might feature drum loops and synth bass
that have been sequenced in Reason. We can be used
to record live guitar and vocal tracks, with the Reason tracks
fed as ReWire sources via Live Inputs to the cue system for the artists.
All of this sync of course.







All the best,


Uncle Joe / Fairlight


.

[Uncle Joe]

Originally Posted by laser

If I'm using the CC-1 card and Fairlight DAW software, will the controller give me operational control over my plug in's?

In other words, can I control several UAD-1's, software VST EQs, Altiverb, ect. from the controller?

If I have to constantly go back and forth from the Fairlight controller to a mouse during a mix session, the advantage of this controller is significantly reduced.

Laser

Howdy Laser,

FYI -

If you are running a Fader option for Xynergi, Plug-in control is automatically
mapped to the surface. We use what we call ‘Fleximap’ files,
which simply map VST plugin controls to the Fader Panel's
surface, providing real-time and automated control over plugin parameters.
Our stuff ships with quite a few Fleximaps for popular plugins,
and in all cases a Fleximap file is automatically generated on a
fresh Plug-in load.


You can even edit your own Fleximaps.

Here's some pics of a Waves C360 5.1 ... mapped to the surface. Along
with some Onboard CC-1 processing.









Thanks !

Uncle Joe / Fairlight



.

[ghoost]

ummmmm .... about the bars, beats .. gridsnap thing with a waveform

[laser]

Originally Posted by Uncle Joe

Howdy Laser,

FYI -

If you are running a Fader option for Xynergi, Plug-in control is automatically
mapped to the surface. We use what we call ‘Fleximap’ files,
which simply map VST plugin controls to the Fader Panel's
surface, providing real-time and automated control over plugin parameters.
Our stuff ships with quite a few Fleximaps for popular plugins,
and in all cases a Fleximap file is automatically generated on a
fresh Plug-in load.


You can even edit your own Fleximaps.

Here's some pics of a Waves C360 5.1 ... mapped to the surface. Along
with some Onboard CC-1 processing.

Thanks !

Uncle Joe / Fairlight

.

Howdy, Uncle Joe.

Excellent! Exactly what I was looking for.

I'm getting very excited about this product. Can you run a special package like you did with the CC-1/Satellite for us audio guys?

Laser

[laser]

Originally Posted by Adamon

This assumes that these companies are open to the possibliities... not all are... look @ AVID's Business model. .

Thank you, Professor Obvious.

Originally Posted by Adamon

This and people banging the open source drum are part of the reason I created an account here. At the end of the day, commerical and business viability win out over what the user wants.

Commercial viability has much to do with user wants. It's called marketing. It's one of the reasons why Digidesign is slaughtering its competition. See ICON, Sibelius, Strike, 192 kHz, ect. ect. Sonically, not really that important. Their customers and prospective customers were asking for these things--Digi listened and delivered---good marketing.

Business viability is a given. Business 101. But, the ability to penetrate a market you have almost no presence whatsoever without cannibalizing your core market has tremendous business viability. Collaborating with companies that gives each a winning proposal, enabling you to take a big chunk of said market share from the goliath--something you might not otherwise get--has strong business viability. Doing both without using the majority of your available resources is very viable from a business standpoint.

Originally Posted by Adamon

Academics do not control the operating budgets of businesses.

Ummm......academics? You're using this word out of context. Again, it's all strategic marketing. It happens every day in the real world. Strategic and well-executed collaboration is most often beneficial to operating budgets---especially when you have limited resources versus a larger competitor like Digidesign. All of the companies I've noted fall comfortably in this bucket.

Laser

[Adamon]

Completely missed the boat on what I was trying to get @ laser... might have been the way I phrased it.

The part of your post referring to a herd of third parties like UAD, (which I quoted) was what I was highlighting... and suggesting that they might not be interested in working with Fairlight... have to look to Uncle Joe to clear that up. It might be all well and good for people to follow text book principles but in the real world....

Though that being said... Fairlight has tried to make this a possiblity with some of the design for the CC-1... hardware(sections of the FPGA code) that can be dynamically reconfigured... see whitepaper on CC-1
Im sure we will see some sort of SDK for their hardware at some point in the future for plugin writers.





P.S. Good to see you made it through first year Business studies.

[George Necola]

how much is it?

[laser]

Originally Posted by Adamon

Completely missed the boat on what I was trying to get @ laser... might have been the way I phrased it. .

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Adamon

The part of your post referring to a herd of third parties like UAD, (which I quoted) was what I was highlighting... and suggesting that they might not be interested in working with Fairlight... have to look to Uncle Joe to clear that up. It might be all well and good for people to follow text book principles but in the real world.... .

My point had nothing to do with the collaborators being interested, though obviously that's an important factor (so obvious that I didn't think it needed to be expressed either by you or I). It had to do with who would profit from it.

Originally Posted by Adamon

Though that being said... Fairlight has tried to make this a possiblity with some of the design for the CC-1... hardware(sections of the FPGA code) that can be dynamically reconfigured... see whitepaper on CC-1
Im sure we will see some sort of SDK for their hardware at some point in the future for plugin writers. .

Agree. But, still, from a price/performance standpoint, it remains primarily a post-production tool (assuming the price of the CC-1/controller is >$20k). Helluva product, though. For post-production, IMHO, it's going to do quite well.

Originally Posted by Adamon

P.S. Good to see you made it through first year Business studies at University.

LOL. My degree is in Applied Physics. I've spent the last 15 years in strategic marketing, most of it at Director level. And, you?

Laser

[George Necola]

Originally Posted by laser

LOL. My degree is in Applied Physics. I've spent the last 15 years in strategic marketing, most of it at Director level. And, you?

Laser

good one