Thread
StudioVision vs. ProTools
OS9 LIVES FORUM REMARKABLE COINCIDENCE DEPT.
If anyone here doesn’t know of and subscribe to Bobby Owsinski’s “The Big Picture” music production blog, you’re missing a very entertaining and educational weekly experience.
Bobby Owsinski is a long-time recording engineer, author, blogger and all-around human encyclopedia of all things recording. Trust me, try it… you’ll like it!
Now, the coincidence part: A few postings/days ago, I noted that Dave Oppenheim’s working at Avid was finally bringing some looong overdue MIDI features to PT.
In an item in Bobby’s blog of 5/26/15, he describes the “Programmed Hi-Hat Feel Trick” using PT. The trick involves using PT’s random pencil tool to randomly modulate volume level and EQ (both level and center freq.) to “humanize” an otherwise mechanical sounding Hi-hat track, thereby helping the groove to well… groove!
Watching him demo this YouTube screen video using PT, I immediately noticed the amazing similarity to StudioVision. In fact, the process was absolutely identical to the way it would be done in SVP! The random pencil tool and automation control tracks he finds so useful in PT were in fact introduced in StudioVision many, many moons ago!
This demo is a perfect example of just ONE of the countless reasons I still use SVP. Actually, comparing the density of all of the packed-in data in the PT window with the equivalent layout in SVP, the SVP screen is far clearer, customizable and more readable-at-a-glance than PT. The huge amount of CPU overhead that goes into all the colors, shadows, animations etc, in the modern PT (and OSX) is flashy and pretty, but ultimately no more functional than SVP in OS9.
So what’s new in modern DAWs? Not as much as you’d think apparently…
Look HERE:
http://bobbyowsinski.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-programmed-high-hat-feel-trick.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BobbyOwsinskisBlog+%28Bobby+Owsinski%27s+Blog%29
Quote
the SVP screen is far clearer, customizable and more readable-at-a-glance than PT
i think we have reached peak interface proportions and performance at 5:4 (maxed out 4:3). this format comes from early fotography and film.
japanese tv standards of the 90s slowly took over in the early 2000s and the consumers never looked back.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120309054711/http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-0A424DE8-28DF6E59/displaysearch/hs.xsl/070108_16by9_PR.asp
https://www.beetronics.co.uk/19-inch-monitor-5-4
"This 19 inch monitor has a matte IPS panel with a 5:4 aspect ratio. The monitor delivers a crisp image quality with excellent 178° viewing angles."
if you're trying over and over again to get to the result you want - its persistance.
studio vision used pro tools hardware before there was pro tools afaik
studio vision used pro tools hardware before there was pro tools afaikAt one point Sudio Vision Pro supported Sonic Solutions hardware as well
http://web.archive.org/web/19980115220757/http://sonic.com/html/sonicstudio/studio_vision.html
One was born as a MIDI sequencer with added audio, the other Audio with very little MIDI.
That pretty much boils it right down. I would only note that development of SVP audio software was begun along with the Acadia audio engine. Implementation was waiting only for Mac hardware and HDD capacity to advance enough to use it.
BTW…This was a time when Opcode and Digidesign were located literally across the street from each other in Palo Alto. With Opcode having started with MIDI and Digi with audio, they had a very friendly relationship then. I don't know who was primarily responsible for writing Acadia, but I would bet if you were to successfully decompile Acadia and DAE, you would find a LOT if very similar coding.
Quote from: smilesdavis on Today at 08:21:52 AM
studio vision used pro tools hardware before there was pro tools afaik
By the time of SVP 4, there was extensive compatibility with PT I and II, III/24 and even back to Session 8 and SoundTools. SVP was capable of using DAE or Acadia at any time. That was handy because you could get around Mac hardware limitations, use TDM plugins and import/export PT session files with ease. Exactly where that was intended to go only Dave Oppenheimer and Doug Wyatt know, but it went down the pooper when Avid took over and Gibson blew Opcode up.
Never ever touched Studio Vision. Would be fun to give it a go. Is there any VST support in the newer versions?
Never ever touched Studio Vision. Would be fun to give it a go. Is there any VST support in the newer versions?SVP has complete VST support. What is missing however, is VSTi.
I need to give it a go. The MIDI editing functions look amazing to say the least.
Can't understand why Gibson killed it off when they bought Opcode.
Can't understand why Gibson killed it off when they bought Opcode.
Never ever touched Studio Vision. Would be fun to give it a go. Is there any VST support in the newer versions?Studio Vision was an American product and popular on that continent. In Europe it was mostly Steinberg.