]]>
]]>
]]>
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. Or can you have the bridge vst in multiple tracks communicating with a single instance of HH4?
Thanks,
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.
Statistics: Posted by x.iso — 09 Feb 2020, 01:23
]]>
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,
Statistics: Posted by bermudagold — 09 Feb 2020, 00:16
]]>
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.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.
Statistics: Posted by oshaginko — 11 Dec 2019, 01:54
]]>
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.
Statistics: Posted by 23fx23 — 12 Sep 2019, 14:05
]]>
]]>
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.
Statistics: Posted by bermudagold — 12 Sep 2019, 09:37
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
congrats and good luck...exciting times
Statistics: Posted by bermudagold — 08 Sep 2019, 07:23
]]>
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!
Statistics: Posted by Vas — 24 Mar 2019, 01:05
]]>
Statistics: Posted by bvorberger — 22 Mar 2019, 08:34
]]>
]]>
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.
Statistics: Posted by Vas — 19 Mar 2019, 04:57
]]>
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.
Statistics: Posted by x.iso — 19 Mar 2019, 02:02
]]>
Would be great if the HH3 or HH4 Library, Addons and Modules were made available as VST’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.
Statistics: Posted by Vas — 18 Mar 2019, 16:30
]]>
Statistics: Posted by joffo78 — 14 May 2018, 10:42
]]>
]]>
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.Statistics: Posted by gurulogic — 14 May 2018, 02:40
]]>
]]>
I hope to give news soon !
Statistics: Posted by senso — 13 May 2018, 10:13
]]>
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!
Statistics: Posted by Vas — 12 Apr 2018, 07:02
]]>