

AudioGL: 3D Modular Software Synthesizer & Sequencer - schrototo
http://audiogl.com

======
Cieplak
I'm waiting for Bitwig to come out. It will support Linux.

<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.

~~~
hemmer
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?

~~~
Cieplak
I also think Ableton's legal team will not be happy with Bitwig, but I think
all of the following DAWs are visually similar:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_audio_workstation#Comme...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_audio_workstation#Commercial_systems)

Of these, only Renoise supports the linux platform, and I just learned about
them this morning.

------
leeoniya
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

sick project, this one.

------
gbaygon
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?

~~~
anigbrowl
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.

------
fiaz
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:

[http://soundcloud.com/crystalfighters/champion-sound-
regal-s...](http://soundcloud.com/crystalfighters/champion-sound-regal-safari)

[http://soundcloud.com/strobehypnoticz/deadmau5-bleed-
strobeh...](http://soundcloud.com/strobehypnoticz/deadmau5-bleed-
strobehypnoticz)

I hope software such as this will help flatten out the music industry some
more.

~~~
gravitronic
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 :)

~~~
msutherl
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).

[1] see: <http://www.raskinformac.com/> \+
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooming_user_interface>

------
clavalle
The interface is really slick. Very, very nice. I am disappointed that Linux
is not mentioned.

Barring Linux, I would love to see this on the iPad or other touch interface.

~~~
wavephorm
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.

------
rogerallen
I have to say I really love the 3d pan/zoom interface. That is a great way to
move quickly between different contexts.

~~~
the-cakeboss
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.

~~~
mickey7
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

anyways, looks pretty and feels cosmic

~~~
the-cakeboss
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.

~~~
mickey7
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

------
jebblue
The author says it will be available for PC. PC running which operating
system?

~~~
bhrgunatha
Directly from the article:

AudioGL is a big project for one developer. These dates are estimates.

AudioGL BETA (Windows32/64): July 2012 AudioGL v1.0 (Windows32/64): Fourth
Quarter 2012 AudioGL BETA (Mac): Fourth Quarter 2012 AudioGL v1.0 (Mac): First
Quarter 2013

~~~
jebblue
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.

