PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Muse Research has developed a computer running a custom programmed Linux operating system that is optimized to play VST plug-ins. The computer is nicely package (small 2U rackmount design and quiet), optimized for audio and supposedly much more stable than any computer running a standard OS. It can run standalone (from the front LCD - or you can hook up a keyboard and monitor), or it can be remote controlled by another computer (such as a laptop).

The key here is a highly optimized operating system designed specifically to run VST instruments. I think the same concept applied to Creamware cards would be great - imaging having a nicely packaged computer (2U rackmount) optimized with a custom operating system that is specifically designed for running your Creamware card - making it extremely stable and more powerful than what your Creamware card currently is running on a standard computer.

I looks really cool, nice targeting of a niche market. I'd question how useful having only stereo out would be in a studio enviroment though...to be really useful they should have the option of an ADAT lightpipe interface, which may be coming...They say that they are working on an analog breakout box, but why leave the digital domain?

The other thing is how much is it?

If it's $5,000.000 then it's not so great, I wonder what the selling price will be?

R




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nprime on 2004-08-26 13:34 ]</font>

"Noah" would have been it.

But they should have done it like this:
1) make it so that if you have a plugin for your SCOPE system, you can also use it on your Noah system
2) make the Noah system function exactly like a
PC with a SCOPE card in it.

I guess someone could have done this as a "3rd Party" venture as well. But it would have been cool if Creamware had done it that way.

Not to slam Noah. I think it's crazy cool. I just think it would have been a better approach to make it closer-in-kind, which would have been easier on both the developers and the customers.

http://www.via.com.tw/en/vtf2004/muse_research.jsp

Good article on the technology involved in this unit.

It does have lightpipe output!

R

I want one, how much how much how much????

$1,399 - not too badly priced. Here are some more details from Muse Research:

>1. What are the dimensions?

Receptor is 11.375 inches deep (28.8 centimeters)

>2. What is the approx. weight?

Receptor weighs about 14 pounds

>3. Is it basically a computer (motherboard, CPU and hard drive), but with optimized software for running VSTs?

Yes it is an optimized computer... "optimized" is the key word here

We've developed our own OS based on Linux and WINE that is specifically optimized to play Windows VST plug-ins. We also have our own custom software front end for mixing stacking, tweaking (and saving!) patches as well as display the origin GUI presented by the developers. We also have a custom
version of iLok so that installation is the same for each plug-in. We also have special Ethernet based communication software that enables you to see the Muse Control front end software, and edit everything inside of
Receptor from the comfort of the screen of your host computer. Also, Receptor
has a custom hardware front panel that enables full control from the front of the box.

>Is so, what type of CPU, hard drive, etc?

We are currently utilizing an AMD Athlon 2500. Please note that with our
optimized OS the levels of efficiency outstrip comparable Windows and Apple
systems running on similar processors.

We include a 40GB hard drive (there are 4 USB 2.0 ports on the back if you
need extra space). We ship with 256 MB of RAM, expandable to 2GB.

>how loud is it (my main complaint for running a computer in my studio is the noise level)?

Quiet fans. In fact, we invested extra into the fans for that very reason and we have a clause in our mfg agreement that maintains we have the right to return any unit that goes above a certain level of noise.

>4. Can it run large sample based VSTs - like
>Spectrasonics Trilogy and Atmosphere - and samplers (assuming there is a hard drive to store the samples)?

Yes. We currently support Kompact, we should have a special install for Spectrasonics samplers in the near future.

>5. How exactly does it integrate with VST host software running on my computer? Can I use the VSTs running in Receptor just as I would any VST on my computer - as a plugin directly in the host (e.g.,insert effect in a track)? If so, how does the audio flow back in forth - via the ethernet connection?

Think of Receptor as a MIDI instrument. That is how you would communicate with it via your sequencer, and the way you would send MIDI info to it. The Ethernet connection (for now) is for editing the Muse Control mixing software and for manipulating VST/VSTi's within Receptor. It is also
used to drag new VST and patches into the unit from the outside world.

You would plug Receptor into your Hard Disk Recording system or external
mixing console via the analog and digital I/O provided within Receptor.

This is a fun box. Stacking sounds, creating unique blends of sounds and
effects, the live usage, the optimization, etc. really makes it a musician's dream.

We will have a forum on http://www.kvr-vst.com in a couple of weeks where you caninteract with other Receptor folks. We will have support guys from Muse Research host the forum. We will be sponsoring some live demos- perhaps
in your area? http://www.museresearch.com/receptor_on_the_road.php

Here are some flash demos showing how the front panel and the mixing software GUI work:

http://www.museresearch.com/movie_front_panel_intro.php

Thanks again!

Keith Borman
Muse Research
970 O'Brien Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Phone: 650 326 5400 ext 118
Fax: 650 326 5401
keith@museresearch.com
http://www.museresearch.com

We are currently utilizing an AMD Athlon 2500. Please note that with our
optimized OS the levels of efficiency outstrip comparable Windows and Apple
systems running on similar processors.

But why bother - it's exactly what's to expect from the Linux port of SFP.
I don't give a sh*t on OpenSource, ideology, cheap software or potential customers - all that's needed is an OS capable to boot up the system and save a bunch of files.

cheers, Tom

Oh well Astro, now you are revealing your true self. I see that you again are attacking us. If you don't give a sh*t to Open Source just shut up. Now I can see that you are probably one of those pro "software patents" guys who see only $$$$$$ everywhere a line of code is written. Or you probably are supportive to the campaing of the parasite SCO. Well, anyway I'm sorry for the rant...... By the way, if you only need a OS only to boot up the system and "save a bunch of files" why don't you write it yourself and share it as we, the open source community, did hundreds of times.....

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AlienMachine on 2004-08-28 16:08 ]</font>

well, I don't think I ever made a secret from my commitment for commercial software developement - I kinda make my living from this
And to answer your final question: there's no need to develope that OS myself - it either exists (QNX to name one) or existed - now you get your chance for a hearty laugh - Mac OS7.
It doesn't help much, though, for the simple fact that hardware suppliers have to write drivers for what's sold most.

I find it interesting that 'you' feel attacked. I just pointed out that there are more practical aspects in a Linux port than just those ethic ones.
You're absolutely right that I can't stand these, but I do respect people's work - whatever motivation drives them.

SCO is a stock exchange game, nothing else - but I'm somehow tempted for a certain kind of protection for the 'small', but brilliant guys who see their work cloned by the big ones without a single chance to make it on their own.
It does s*ck if it leads to a situation where people develope only 'in the hope to be aquired by a major player...', which is a matter of fact meanwhile.

you may rant about my comments as much as you like, but I don't appreciate to be told to 'just shut up'

cheers, Tom

Well I have no interest in ranting on, nor telling anyone to SHUT UP (in the words of the ignomimious Bill O'Reilly), but if I may make a sober and measured attempt at why open-source can in fact HELP sell software, but more importantly here, offer a much more stable platform for our precious audio....

Admittedly, it's not 100% ready for prime time yet, but I think depending on what your computing needs are, that could be said for just about ANY OS. But the major boon for us audio types is that, while Microsoft's standards HAVE made much of our computing world easier, I think we all can agree that they made certain design decisions that make it very difficult to keep secure, time-intensive to make stable, and a royal pain in the ass to keep the system "clean" while still maintaining some level of internet connectivity. Linux, -at least at this point in time, is very easy to keep clean. In fact, because Linux can scale to very small sizes --owners of newer Linksys devices like the WRT54GS Wireless router, will know what I mean-- you can have an entire specialized distribution running a few tasks and almost never crashing while taking up no more real-estate than a 32MB flash chip.

What this means for us is, as computer workstation users is that it will become easier to, like the Muse has demonstrated, isolate a few mission critical functions and have that be the focus for the entire OS installation. Microsoft has come close to that with their Hardware Abstraction Layer schema, but it has never taken off the ground and there are too many features which are unnecessarily dependant on each other. Not to mention, that if you do hack the OS down to a usable size, to share your experience (much less offer a package of tools to help others do the same) you might find yourself up against serious legal hurdles.

I think Muse's optimized OS is not just blowing smoke. If I had to guess, they are probably using DeMuDi which IS in fact a heavily optimized version of Debian, made explicitly for Low-Latency audio timing.

I imagine these types of hyper-specialized Linux distros replacing home-built OS's like my Kurzweil used to communicate with the Motorola chip that powered it. And while my Kurzweil was an amazing chip, and the OS, while crude was amazing, I've since sold it to keep my CW setup lean.

Which leads me to my note on how I think Linux can HELP sell software. I've been using my laptop with a Magma chassis for audio. While my laptop is probably the best I will be able to get for these purposes for the immediate future, I still hit little performance obstacles due to Windows inability to manage heavy bi-directional I/O traffic. It's just terrible. And it needs to be told explicitly what's connected to it and how to play.

An example of what I mean, the process of installing the Magma chassis under windows is so excruciating, just for Windows to understand what is there. Whereas, using a P owerbook (using the BSD-Based OSX) or using a SuSE/Linspire/Knoppix/Debian LiveCD on my laptop, immediately, the kernel could read the hardware, differentiate between which card was on which slot of the Magma chassis (External BUS: Scope/SP port 0, Pulsar II port 1). Even though I couldn't load up the SFP system, the Unix legacy is vastly more efficient in communicating with hardware and bus systems.

So theoretically, I will be able to get a performance boost just by switching OSes. Now, if I can get more oomph from a free OS (meaning no license costs to Microsoft) that means more money to CW plugs.

Many people argue that Linux people will never buy anything, but I know plenty of people who are rabidly waiting for Macromedia to release DreamweaverMX to the Linux world, or Adobe to release Photoshop -not because there aren't good open-source tools which do similar things (Gimp is great) but because they have to work with people on multiple platforms and need to have that similar framework for composition.

Moreover, they are better able to afford such software as they can minimize their license and support costs.

I'm rambling on in the usual fashion so I'll step away from my keyboard, but food for thunk. "Free software" has been proving to be incredibly profitible. Just ask IBM.

Sam

On 2004-08-28 17:35, dehuszar wrote:
... you can have an entire specialized distribution running a few tasks and almost never crashing while taking up no more real-estate than a 32MB flash chip...

QNX runs from a 1.4 MB diskette (unpacking into about 8 MB of Ram) including OS, network support, GUI, a web-browser and a web-server...
not rant against open source, but there's clearly a difference in level of sophistication - not an emotional, but a technical one.
Nevertheless I agree with your post, Sam

cheers, Tom

........... 'My name is AlienMachine, I just landed on this planet, and imagine -haha- in my 18th post I told someone who's of invaluable worth for this community with his great contributions on every possible subject, to shut his mouth...HAHAHA, isn't it funny'

'Hi, I'm Huub and come breathe some Fire in your topic'

Hey aren't we confusing Open Source with Free? Only Sam seemed to remark the difference eh.

And yes, a highly optimised OS would be nice. The OS we all use now is built to chat over MSN, watch movies and endlessly send shocking pics around. You have to listen to the user base
We are experimenting with a program that properly removes IE, OE, MSN, and a lot more crap from XP's installation CD. Is that illegal, Sam? It's not 100% stable yet, but we will post the results when it gets that far.

To get back on topic, this Muse Research computer must be the wet dream of anyone who has multiple music computers, goes on stage and plays VST etc. How about a rack of these? Love the remote GUI stuff, too!

Long before Noah, a pulsarian had this project to build a tiny pc with 2MB NT server into a keyboard with 2 12" touch screens and a couple of controller knobs. I think that project died quietly when Noah was announced. With Linux, all these tricks will become much easier to do IMO.. Waiting till they've ported SFP over to Linux,

at0m.

Depends. You'd have to read through the license agreements for each item stripped if you intended to make a public release. Off the top of my head, I would guess that Microsoft is not going to look kindly on such an endeavor as it would de-legitimize an element of their anti-trust suit which they squeaked past Judge Kotter-Kotelly (or whatever her name was). i.e. the stripping of IE would 'break' Windows.

It doesn't matter that they went ahead and did that for their Pocket PC version of XP anyway. That's a different. OS

Seriously though, I'd run your "rough draft" past a lawyer with some IT industry experience and have them run through the MS license agreements.

As an IT Manager in a small Chicago law firm , I've had the displeasure of having to read through an IE license agreement (to assist in translation from IT-ese portions, to English so that it could be analysed and reconstructed into legalese with the rest of it) and it's pretty dense reading and, all around, no fun at all.

I doubt any of MS licenses (or any licenses at all some would argue) could truly be held up in court. But that's not the point. The point is most people can't afford to stay in court with Microsoft long enough to demonstrate that the licenses are unenforcable.

Tread cautiously amigo. If you think you can pull it off, though, count me in. I hate that sh*t.

Sam

On 2004-08-28 18:26, astroman wrote:

not rant against open source, but there's clearly a difference in level of sophistication - not an emotional, but a technical one.
Nevertheless I agree with your post, Sam

cheers, Tom

I hope it does not sound as though I'm arguing as I say this, I take your point (and, yes, QNX is pretty effing cool). As far as a level of sophistication goes, that's exactly my point. And I would say that QNX and Linux probably demonstrates more technical sophistication than Windows as the *NIX/BSDs are far more dynamic and scalable. Using the same core design ethos, you can have a distro that is less than 10MB or over 10GB with all the various packages and environments.

In terms that our community could appreciate, that means we could either create a linux based CW box where it literally does nothing but act as a piece of audio hardware which gets connected and controlled by a Windows workstation (not unlike a NOAH scenario). OR, one could build a Linux Workstation from the ground up and use it as an all-in-one as we do with Windows boxes.

For me as a laptop user, this opens up all kinds of options. At a basic level, it means I could get an RME or some such thing for my laptop to do all the ASIO tracks and VSTs in CubaseSX and I could lightpipe that to the A16Ultra which could talk to my Linux box which was just a 2U rackmount chassis and in the vein of NOAH allowed me to remotely tweak stuff from my Windows box. My laptop, a 4-6U briefcase, my Remote25 and some headphone/monitors and I could do all kinds of guerilla live recordings or mobile sessions with NO BOTTLENECK (theoretically anyway).

Even more than sophistication, these options have technical elegance and some wherewithall to boot. Windows on the other hand has progressively gotten fatter, clumsier, and developed auto-immune-deficiency-syndrome.

These hotfixes and service packs are really becoming AZT-like. They won't cure any problems, but they'll keep you alive for another 8-9 months at which point you'll have to come back to fill your prescription.

No thanks.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm trying to convince you of something you've already announced you agree with, I just have been bursting with anticipation for all this to happen as it would really broaden what I could do in terms of making money working on music without having to spend too much more cash than what I already have. That means more money for plugins!

I'll need it when the A100 gets released.

Sam

I'm too tired to read all of this in detail at the moment (except for Hubird's sage post, that was classic). But as a Linux lover and hater I think the biggest problem with the "Open Source" community, and Gnu too, is the focus on imitating or duplicating everything Mickeysoft and Stun Microsystems put out. There hasn't been any innovation in the open software world for 10 years.

QNX is certainly where it's at. But Gnu still hasn't been able to get its head around microkernels. Who needs an all-in-one Swiss Army Knife uber-operating system with graphics when nothing works and nothing is automatable?

Also the whole idea of open source is absurd. Ever look at the code for a relatively small open source project? Contemporary open source coders are absolutely terrible.

Automation is the past and the future of computing IMHO. The present is just really asinine (though at least the dancing paperclip has disappeared). Automation and small interoperable modules are what we need. NOT GUIS!!!

I don't want to wade into the free / open source / commercial debate. But I found a recent Tim O'Reilly speech mildly interesting -- the future "free" movement will be all about data, not code. Currently Amazon.com and EBay and so on have proprietary data and so everyone is stuck with their buggy and awkward interfaces as a result.

Richard Stallman produced a great piece of software (Emacs, still the only editor worth using -- *Office producs suck...). However he hasn't had anything interesting or new to say for several years. He needs to be replaced.

Sorry for rambling. I need some coffee...

Johann

Actually, Amazon and eBay run on Domino and Websphere, which are IBM's softs. Websphere is an amalgamation of open-source (modified apache core for web hosting) and java, designed through Websphere studio (modified eclipse), and Domino borrows and modifies open-source software and keeps it in a proprietary replicatable data-store.

"Automation and small interoperable modules are what we need"

I'm not sure how bash/perl/python/etc scripting and general package management aren't automatable interoperating modules... And do you feel that Windows is well automated and modular? I have to reinstall Windows right now because somewhere in the life of this current install, some piece(s) of software didn't uninstall properly and my antivirus program (which I desparately need to survive) can't download and install virus tables or engine updates without blue-screening due to some kernel level access denial. This is not elegant well automated software.

I think there are many misperceptions about open-source and many people/companies who use open-source for their products but do not advertise the fact. For instance, Yahoo's webmail service is built on qmail (which is heavily automatable) and has its antivirus capabilities provided by ClamAV a gnu-based AV service.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a battle here, but the major flaws in linux have more to do with vendor cooperation and growing pains than talent and code quality. I don't see there being any more crappy gnu code than there are crappy free-vsts. It's just an understandable side effect of allowing everyone to play.

But the world is in motion. At least on the gnu side of the fence people can make their own choices. That is my primary concern. Freedom is the ability to make choices. Even if you end up making poor ones.

Sam

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dehuszar on 2004-08-29 02:59 ]</font>

On 2004-08-28 22:43, dehuszar wrote:
...And I would say that QNX and Linux probably demonstrates more technical sophistication than Windows as the *NIX/BSDs are far more dynamic and scalable...

I completely agree - with the exception that for obvious reasons we'll hardly be able to 'optimize' Apple's BSD flavour... (lot's of OpenSource there, too)

In the mid to late 80's Apple certainly had the best programming staff in the industry and released remarkable and ground breaking apps.
That was a teamwork of extremely skilled individuals - the toughest part probably bringing them together in dedicated projects.

It's pretty obvious that today Apple isn't after technical progreass in the first place, but to offer additional 'values' - similiar as Johann pointed out with the future importance of data content.

As said above the major players write code to tie customers to their respective solutions - and that's hardly sophisticated.

So it's true that the OpenSource community can keep up and frequently outperforms them.

But I can't deny my programming roots (from the 80s) and I do have my personal 'yardstick' for software quality based on experience - and it applies to OpenSource as well as to 'regular' software

...That means more money for plugins!
I'll need it when the A100 gets released.

a good example of what will be missed if people get used to all and everything for free
Warp did an incredible job on those verbs and deserves an appropriate revenue - that stuff is still extremely affordable for what it delivers.
And I admit being kinda shocked what he sent as a 'freebie' bonus - not just another me-too chorus/delay, but a very distinct effect.

Btw I'm completely aware of the difference between OpenSource and Freeware and my original irony was more to justify my own change of mind towards the Linux port

cheers, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2004-08-29 08:59 ]</font>

So I can leash the dogs then, eh?