Audiobus: Use your music apps together.

What is Audiobus?Audiobus is an award-winning music app for iPhone and iPad which lets you use your other music apps together. Chain effects on your favourite synth, run the output of apps or Audio Units into an app like GarageBand or Loopy, or select a different audio interface output for each app. Route MIDI between apps — drive a synth from a MIDI sequencer, or add an arpeggiator to your MIDI keyboard — or sync with your external MIDI gear. And control your entire setup from a MIDI controller.

Download on the App Store

Audiobus is the app that makes the rest of your setup better.

Use of AU vs IAA(stand alone)?

13»

Comments

  • It’s almost there in AU already. In AUM, you double tap the AU menu bar and it goes full screen. The only problem is it keeps the AUM transport visible on top rather than take up all of the screen. And then you would need a mechanism to minimize as pointed out.

    So if an AU can go ‘full’ full screen in the future, we’re good?

  • edited September 2019

    @gusgranite said:
    It’s almost there in AU already. In AUM, you double tap the AU menu bar and it goes full screen. The only problem is it keeps the AUM transport visible on top rather than take up all of the screen. And then you would need a mechanism to minimize as pointed out.

    So if an AU can go ‘full’ full screen in the future, we’re good?

    Those 20 pixels don't make much of a difference, do they? They're usually there for a good purpose.

    I'd say the advantages of AU far outweigh the disadvantages. AU-opponents always say they don't need multi instance. But they gloss over the most compelling AU benefits: seamless state saving, automatic host synchronization, painless MIDI integration, AU parameter mechanism (which is far superior to MIDI CC; e.g. high resolution, meaningful parameter names, etc).

  • @brambos said:

    @gusgranite said:
    It’s almost there in AU already. In AUM, you double tap the AU menu bar and it goes full screen. The only problem is it keeps the AUM transport visible on top rather than take up all of the screen. And then you would need a mechanism to minimize as pointed out.

    So if an AU can go ‘full’ full screen in the future, we’re good?

    Those 20 pixels don't make much of a difference, do they? They're usually there for a good purpose.

    I'd say the advantages of AU far outweigh the disadvantages. AU-opponents always say they don't need multi instance. But they gloss over the most compelling AU benefits: seamless state saving, automatic host synchronization, painless MIDI integration, AU parameter mechanism (which is far superior to MIDI CC; e.g. high resolution, meaningful parameter names, etc).

    I think full full screen would be case closed by the sounds of it. You also have apps like Egoist we’re those 20 pixels are really annoying because it hides the functions on the bottom row. (At least on the 10.5 Pro)

  • What if iOS was itself an AUv3 host, how would things look then ?

    You could run your apps without another host app, dev's wouldn't need to be careful about descriptions when submitting to the app store for audio app unaware app store testers....users could freely buy apps without finding out afterwards that they need another app (host) in order to use what they wanted to buy....

    For this to happen, AUv3's would need to be able to host other AUv3's....apps could be switched when using full screen using standard iOS gestures...4 finger drag left/right to scroll through running ones (on iPad anyway), and if apps all offered a midi or qwerty mappable 'Bring to front' control, they could be switched using controllers.

  • @RUST( i )K said:

    @TheDubbyLabby said:

    @RUST( i )K said:

    @audio_DT said:
    I’ve answered ‘no’, but what I really mean is that I like AUs that are full size. I never use IAA unless there’s literally no other option. It’s too unwieldy, it doesn’t state save, and it gets in the way of doing things because too much time is spent messing about trying to get everything working as it should do.

    I use some iOS devices with 1 app as an instrument or audio signal depot or origin so I guess my use is unique to some.

    Thanks for your feedback!

    I’m with you bro!
    Even more full screen apps vs AUv3 floating mesh...
    I suppose Apple expects the garageband/Bm3 approach where AUs get integrated in the host app GUI instead floating but then it forces users into one workflow...
    I can’t believe Apple doing something like that... :trollface:

    Anyways we are in the endgame...

    End of days.....lol

    :lol:

  • @AndyPlankton said:
    What if iOS was itself an AUv3 host, how would things look then ?

    You could run your apps without another host app, dev's wouldn't need to be careful about descriptions when submitting to the app store for audio app unaware app store testers....users could freely buy apps without finding out afterwards that they need another app (host) in order to use what they wanted to buy....

    For this to happen, AUv3's would need to be able to host other AUv3's....apps could be switched when using full screen using standard iOS gestures...4 finger drag left/right to scroll through running ones (on iPad anyway), and if apps all offered a midi or qwerty mappable 'Bring to front' control, they could be switched using controllers.

    You think it is that big an issue? How many people buy a VST and then go ‘Doh! I need to use a DAW’.

    Am I right in thinking that Apple is not taking away the option to develop a true standalone app that uses the audio-out? If you really want that standalone hardware experience.

  • @brambos said:
    Sounds like people want their cake and eat it too...

    Originally AUv3 filled half the screen, so they could be integrated seamlessly in the UI of the host. This way you don't have to do screen switching all the time. Really nice!

    But people kept whining and nagging that they want fullscreen AUv3. Now they have it and they're complaining about all the screen switching.

    I'm sure you can figure out the pattern here. Hint: the standard is not the problem :|

    Precisely. Expecting the mob to be unified is the problem. ;)

  • @brambos said:

    @gusgranite said:
    It’s almost there in AU already. In AUM, you double tap the AU menu bar and it goes full screen. The only problem is it keeps the AUM transport visible on top rather than take up all of the screen. And then you would need a mechanism to minimize as pointed out.

    So if an AU can go ‘full’ full screen in the future, we’re good?

    Those 20 pixels don't make much of a difference, do they? They're usually there for a good purpose.

    I'd say the advantages of AU far outweigh the disadvantages. AU-opponents always say they don't need multi instance. But they gloss over the most compelling AU benefits: seamless state saving, automatic host synchronization, painless MIDI integration, AU parameter mechanism (which is far superior to MIDI CC; e.g. high resolution, meaningful parameter names, etc).

    Yup, that slice of the mob can just be ingnored.

  • edited September 2019

    @auxmux said:

    @RUST( i )K said:

    @auxmux said:

    @brambos said:
    Sounds like people want their cake and eat it too...

    Originally AUv3 filled half the screen, so they could be integrated seamlessly in the UI of the host. This way you don't have to do screen switching all the time. Really nice!

    But people kept whining and nagging that they want fullscreen AUv3. Now they have it and they're complaining about all the screen switching.

    I'm sure you can figure out the pattern here. Hint: the standard is not the problem :|

    I'm with @brambos if I wanted Ableton, I'd use my computer. iPad should be its own paradigm which is why I use AUM/iPad more than Ableton these days.

    If standalone/fullscreen is preferred, why not get a few iPads with cheap audio interfaces and use them as separate pieces for external hardware.

    A used iPad + $150 audio interface is still cheaper than 0coast, Minilogue XD, etc.

    First. I agree with you.

    But, I think in a round about way, that is the over arching context some people are coming from.

    Many "improvements" to iOS are merely making it more and more like plug ins in Ableton in lieu of a different experience.

    I think that is the reason we in the industry are at a crossroads of determing who and how use iOS for music making and the best way to proceed. Changes will happen inevitably. But, hopefully they will be based on the user experiences and needs.

    As for getting iPad per instrument that is what I and many people do. But with the changes as Jakob indicated full size options are not a given for each app.

    You are right in theory with your proposal, but if IAA and/or Standalone versions are eliminated totally that will not be an option. That is some of our concerns. A user is then forced in to the "host" app scenario which is not always ideal or just the size of the apps orientating on the screen.

    Kai indicated how he programs and always includes the full stand alone version of each app. Which is vital for me.

    Yeah I agree that any instruments or sound generators should come in a standalone format so that option is available when preferred. FX not so much. There are times when you want to be able to focus on one thing.

    I'm one of those users and at the same time suggesting developers to keep monolithic apps alongside AUv3 versions. If IAA is deprecated and/or AB3 returns as glue protocol I'm ok with all. I don't use AU hosting or if so, it's usually at studio duties... never on stage. Let me say I'm more and more into hardware (or frozen machines like you described and I'm going to requote) so that's why I said "we are now in the Endgame (Tony...)"
    New paradigm isn't for all of us...

    Description of Frozen machine

    A used iPad + $150 audio interface is still cheaper than 0coast, Minilogue XD, etc.

  • @TheDubbyLabby said:

    @RUST( i )K said:

    @TheDubbyLabby said:

    @RUST( i )K said:

    @audio_DT said:
    I’ve answered ‘no’, but what I really mean is that I like AUs that are full size. I never use IAA unless there’s literally no other option. It’s too unwieldy, it doesn’t state save, and it gets in the way of doing things because too much time is spent messing about trying to get everything working as it should do.

    I use some iOS devices with 1 app as an instrument or audio signal depot or origin so I guess my use is unique to some.

    Thanks for your feedback!

    I’m with you bro!
    Even more full screen apps vs AUv3 floating mesh...
    I suppose Apple expects the garageband/Bm3 approach where AUs get integrated in the host app GUI instead floating but then it forces users into one workflow...
    I can’t believe Apple doing something like that... :trollface:

    Anyways we are in the endgame...

    End of days.....lol

    :lol:

    Let's not get into fantasy movies and comics...don't get me going on that! LOL

  • I think this is a great thread and a topic important in which user input is the best thing for the greater good.

    Interesting to hear all opinions on this.

  • @gusgranite said:

    @AndyPlankton said:
    What if iOS was itself an AUv3 host, how would things look then ?

    You could run your apps without another host app, dev's wouldn't need to be careful about descriptions when submitting to the app store for audio app unaware app store testers....users could freely buy apps without finding out afterwards that they need another app (host) in order to use what they wanted to buy....

    For this to happen, AUv3's would need to be able to host other AUv3's....apps could be switched when using full screen using standard iOS gestures...4 finger drag left/right to scroll through running ones (on iPad anyway), and if apps all offered a midi or qwerty mappable 'Bring to front' control, they could be switched using controllers.

    You think it is that big an issue? How many people buy a VST and then go ‘Doh! I need to use a DAW’.

    >
    Well, dev's were having app submissions declined because the appstore testers didn't get it, so yes, users will do it too ? It is being taken care of (sort of) by being very specific in the app descriptions, which shouldn't really be needed.

    Am I right in thinking that Apple is not taking away the option to develop a true standalone app that uses the audio-out? If you really want that standalone hardware experience.

    No they are not, so for single app on a single device it would be fine, apart from the poor dev who makes it, and get's a million 1 star reviews because it is not AUv3 !!

  • @AndyPlankton said:

    @gusgranite said:

    @AndyPlankton said:
    What if iOS was itself an AUv3 host, how would things look then ?

    You could run your apps without another host app, dev's wouldn't need to be careful about descriptions when submitting to the app store for audio app unaware app store testers....users could freely buy apps without finding out afterwards that they need another app (host) in order to use what they wanted to buy....

    For this to happen, AUv3's would need to be able to host other AUv3's....apps could be switched when using full screen using standard iOS gestures...4 finger drag left/right to scroll through running ones (on iPad anyway), and if apps all offered a midi or qwerty mappable 'Bring to front' control, they could be switched using controllers.

    You think it is that big an issue? How many people buy a VST and then go ‘Doh! I need to use a DAW’.

    >
    Well, dev's were having app submissions declined because the appstore testers didn't get it, so yes, users will do it too ? It is being taken care of (sort of) by being very specific in the app descriptions, which shouldn't really be needed.

    Am I right in thinking that Apple is not taking away the option to develop a true standalone app that uses the audio-out? If you really want that standalone hardware experience.

    No they are not, so for single app on a single device it would be fine, apart from the poor dev who makes it, and get's a million 1 star reviews because it is not AUv3 !!

    OK, but now we are moving away from AU functionality and talking about AppStore staff (agreed) and AppStore reviewers (also agreed). The last point is kind of funny though because yes, if a developer wants to go standalone then you might get lots of people asking for integration, statesaving, etc, etc... 🙂

    I’m not trying to be a daftee here. Just trying to understand why AU is such a bad standard for some people.

    There’s a recent app that has been really struggling with state saving and I keep reading the back and forth and think none of this would be an issue if it was AU. Same with some of the midi issues in recent apps. Just let the host deal with it.

    I’m enjoying the conversation though. I agree AU and the AppStore approval stuff to improve.

  • @gusgranite said:

    @AndyPlankton said:

    @gusgranite said:

    @AndyPlankton said:
    What if iOS was itself an AUv3 host, how would things look then ?

    You could run your apps without another host app, dev's wouldn't need to be careful about descriptions when submitting to the app store for audio app unaware app store testers....users could freely buy apps without finding out afterwards that they need another app (host) in order to use what they wanted to buy....

    For this to happen, AUv3's would need to be able to host other AUv3's....apps could be switched when using full screen using standard iOS gestures...4 finger drag left/right to scroll through running ones (on iPad anyway), and if apps all offered a midi or qwerty mappable 'Bring to front' control, they could be switched using controllers.

    You think it is that big an issue? How many people buy a VST and then go ‘Doh! I need to use a DAW’.

    >
    Well, dev's were having app submissions declined because the appstore testers didn't get it, so yes, users will do it too ? It is being taken care of (sort of) by being very specific in the app descriptions, which shouldn't really be needed.

    Am I right in thinking that Apple is not taking away the option to develop a true standalone app that uses the audio-out? If you really want that standalone hardware experience.

    No they are not, so for single app on a single device it would be fine, apart from the poor dev who makes it, and get's a million 1 star reviews because it is not AUv3 !!

    OK, but now we are moving away from AU functionality and talking about AppStore staff (agreed) and AppStore reviewers (also agreed). The last point is kind of funny though because yes, if a developer wants to go standalone then you might get lots of people asking for integration, statesaving, etc, etc... 🙂

    I’m not trying to be a daftee here. Just trying to understand why AU is such a bad standard for some people.

    There’s a recent app that has been really struggling with state saving and I keep reading the back and forth and think none of this would be an issue if it was AU. Same with some of the midi issues in recent apps. Just let the host deal with it.

    I’m enjoying the conversation though. I agree AU and the AppStore approval stuff to improve.

    I'm not in any way suggesting that AUv3 is bad, far from it, it is good, very good..and does help in lots of ways.

    Just pointing out that there are also a couple of downsides that can catch people out, particularly those not in the know about music tech. ;)
    Your VST comparison for example...If you are shopping for VST's, chances are you know already what they are, and because of the cost would more than likely do more research before buying, on desktop people tend to start with a DAW and then add VST's afterwards....with apps it is different, someone can happen across one on their phone, and buy it for £2-3 without having to give it much thought.....then they cannot run it so leave a bad review, which hurts the dev's.

    It is a good conversation to be having I agree :) And I'm playing devil's advocate more than anything.

  • @AndyPlankton said:

    @gusgranite said:

    @AndyPlankton said:

    @gusgranite said:

    @AndyPlankton said:
    What if iOS was itself an AUv3 host, how would things look then ?

    You could run your apps without another host app, dev's wouldn't need to be careful about descriptions when submitting to the app store for audio app unaware app store testers....users could freely buy apps without finding out afterwards that they need another app (host) in order to use what they wanted to buy....

    For this to happen, AUv3's would need to be able to host other AUv3's....apps could be switched when using full screen using standard iOS gestures...4 finger drag left/right to scroll through running ones (on iPad anyway), and if apps all offered a midi or qwerty mappable 'Bring to front' control, they could be switched using controllers.

    You think it is that big an issue? How many people buy a VST and then go ‘Doh! I need to use a DAW’.

    >
    Well, dev's were having app submissions declined because the appstore testers didn't get it, so yes, users will do it too ? It is being taken care of (sort of) by being very specific in the app descriptions, which shouldn't really be needed.

    Am I right in thinking that Apple is not taking away the option to develop a true standalone app that uses the audio-out? If you really want that standalone hardware experience.

    No they are not, so for single app on a single device it would be fine, apart from the poor dev who makes it, and get's a million 1 star reviews because it is not AUv3 !!

    OK, but now we are moving away from AU functionality and talking about AppStore staff (agreed) and AppStore reviewers (also agreed). The last point is kind of funny though because yes, if a developer wants to go standalone then you might get lots of people asking for integration, statesaving, etc, etc... 🙂

    I’m not trying to be a daftee here. Just trying to understand why AU is such a bad standard for some people.

    There’s a recent app that has been really struggling with state saving and I keep reading the back and forth and think none of this would be an issue if it was AU. Same with some of the midi issues in recent apps. Just let the host deal with it.

    I’m enjoying the conversation though. I agree AU and the AppStore approval stuff to improve.

    I'm not in any way suggesting that AUv3 is bad, far from it, it is good, very good..and does help in lots of ways.

    Just pointing out that there are also a couple of downsides that can catch people out, particularly those not in the know about music tech. ;)
    Your VST comparison for example...If you are shopping for VST's, chances are you know already what they are, and because of the cost would more than likely do more research before buying, on desktop people tend to start with a DAW and then add VST's afterwards....with apps it is different, someone can happen across one on their phone, and buy it for £2-3 without having to give it much thought.....then they cannot run it so leave a bad review, which hurts the dev's.

    It is a good conversation to be having I agree :) And I'm playing devil's advocate more than anything.

    I think you make an excellent point. It's a real shame if a developer gets a poor review because of a lack of user understanding - and, equally, it's a bit of a shame for the user, too. The wonderful thing about making music on iOS at the moment is that it's still very much in the early, exciting stages, where all sorts of weird and wonderful things are being produced. Some hit, some miss, but nearly all are really innovative and are great fun to use. But the relative 'newness' of the scene does, I suspect, leave some people a bit bewildered about what they've just bought. I'm not sure what can be done about that, other than to do what lots of devs now do, which is to state at the top of the app description, "This app makes no sound on its own and needs a compatible host", or whatever the case may be. Tough one, though, I agree.

  • @brambos said:

    I can't think of another solution short of invoking dark magic. :)

    Coming soon from @brambos, the Dark Magic app.... :o

  • @audio_DT said:

    @AndyPlankton said:

    @gusgranite said:

    @AndyPlankton said:

    @gusgranite said:

    @AndyPlankton said:
    What if iOS was itself an AUv3 host, how would things look then ?

    You could run your apps without another host app, dev's wouldn't need to be careful about descriptions when submitting to the app store for audio app unaware app store testers....users could freely buy apps without finding out afterwards that they need another app (host) in order to use what they wanted to buy....

    For this to happen, AUv3's would need to be able to host other AUv3's....apps could be switched when using full screen using standard iOS gestures...4 finger drag left/right to scroll through running ones (on iPad anyway), and if apps all offered a midi or qwerty mappable 'Bring to front' control, they could be switched using controllers.

    You think it is that big an issue? How many people buy a VST and then go ‘Doh! I need to use a DAW’.

    >
    Well, dev's were having app submissions declined because the appstore testers didn't get it, so yes, users will do it too ? It is being taken care of (sort of) by being very specific in the app descriptions, which shouldn't really be needed.

    Am I right in thinking that Apple is not taking away the option to develop a true standalone app that uses the audio-out? If you really want that standalone hardware experience.

    No they are not, so for single app on a single device it would be fine, apart from the poor dev who makes it, and get's a million 1 star reviews because it is not AUv3 !!

    OK, but now we are moving away from AU functionality and talking about AppStore staff (agreed) and AppStore reviewers (also agreed). The last point is kind of funny though because yes, if a developer wants to go standalone then you might get lots of people asking for integration, statesaving, etc, etc... 🙂

    I’m not trying to be a daftee here. Just trying to understand why AU is such a bad standard for some people.

    There’s a recent app that has been really struggling with state saving and I keep reading the back and forth and think none of this would be an issue if it was AU. Same with some of the midi issues in recent apps. Just let the host deal with it.

    I’m enjoying the conversation though. I agree AU and the AppStore approval stuff to improve.

    I'm not in any way suggesting that AUv3 is bad, far from it, it is good, very good..and does help in lots of ways.

    Just pointing out that there are also a couple of downsides that can catch people out, particularly those not in the know about music tech. ;)
    Your VST comparison for example...If you are shopping for VST's, chances are you know already what they are, and because of the cost would more than likely do more research before buying, on desktop people tend to start with a DAW and then add VST's afterwards....with apps it is different, someone can happen across one on their phone, and buy it for £2-3 without having to give it much thought.....then they cannot run it so leave a bad review, which hurts the dev's.

    It is a good conversation to be having I agree :) And I'm playing devil's advocate more than anything.

    I think you make an excellent point. It's a real shame if a developer gets a poor review because of a lack of user understanding - and, equally, it's a bit of a shame for the user, too. The wonderful thing about making music on iOS at the moment is that it's still very much in the early, exciting stages, where all sorts of weird and wonderful things are being produced. Some hit, some miss, but nearly all are really innovative and are great fun to use. But the relative 'newness' of the scene does, I suspect, leave some people a bit bewildered about what they've just bought. I'm not sure what can be done about that, other than to do what lots of devs now do, which is to state at the top of the app description, "This app makes no sound on its own and needs a compatible host", or whatever the case may be. Tough one, though, I agree.

    That's what I find so exciting about iOS/iPadOs music too. It's in it's early stages, and I personally think it's a lot of fun to speculate how the entire Tablet Computer paradigm might evolve.

    I think one of the keys to predicting the future, is to try to understand what parts of the computer market Tablet Computers fill.

    The first things that come to my mind, are Tablet Computers are, convenient, portable, have a broad grange of existing Apps, can take the place of a desktop PC for many kinds of uses, and have a high level of communications connectivity.

    But the largest factor, IMO, is affordability.

    The reader of this post are likely more interested in how Tablet Computers might evolve for use with music making. But I think it's essential to examine what the majority users might be using these devices for. And think about what kinds of new features don't just benefit musicians, but the majority of other users too.

    Others on this thread have mentioned that they like hardware, and hardware is certainly good. But I feel the secret of iPad's attractiveness to some people interested in creating music, is the relatively low introductory cost required to own a "virtual music production studio" based on iPAD.

    Thus I think, affordability is the driving force that attracts many people to the iPadOs platform for music making. for other's it's the portability and connivance of being able to work with it just about anywhere.

    Many people live on fixed incomes, and have limited living space. Yet they may be very interested in having a full studio full of gear, but may just not be something that they could actually do.

    So I think many, including myself, dream of virtual music studios, that are affordable, compact, yet are capable of providing much of the "simplified" experience of working with individual hardware instruments, with hardware controllers, and computer DAWS

    This is why I think the idea of a capability for linking multiple iPads and iPhones together, utilizing some kind of comprehensive device interconnectivity protocol, might be an attractive way for people to "build" their virtual studio.

    Multiple devices could be dedicated to serve different functions depending on what the musician is desiring to achieve. Sure such capabilities are somewhat possible now by using cables and hardware interfaces. But that's not the same as wireless connectivity, and have the option of putting two iPads in your backpack, and setting up your studio wherever you feel most inspired.

    If such interconnectivity becomes real, I'd expect that iPad case manufactures would quickly come up with cases designed to hold two iPads as a single transportable folded unit.

    If a new base model iPad can be purchased for $250.00 USD on sale. Compared to the cost of hardware instruments and devices, the iPad is the more affordable choice. And also the far more "compact' space saving choice.

    This is why I'm imagining that multiple wirelessly interconnected iPad music studios, may be one possible future for iPad Music creation.

    But, here's the big "why".... I can't see this happening unless there is a reason for Apple to develop a system for multiple iPad interconnectivity that is also amazingly useful for the majority of all iPad users.

    Apple is interesting in selling hardware. If owning multiple interconnectable iPads can provide some amazing new types of benefits to a majority iPad users. Then I think that would be the reason such a thing might come into existence. Because anything that encourages people to by more iPads, is good for Apple's profits.

    Who else might benefit from a system of multiple interconnectable iPads?

    Gamers could use multiple interconnected iPads as multiple monitors for game play.

    If the method of interconnectivity allows for combining CPU power of all the connected iPads, that could be useful for CPU intensive uses, by dividing CPU tasks between iPads.

    Graphic artists, animators, video editors and Photographers, could always use multiple monitors to put tool palettes on and to move elements of work between.

    An animator could potentially be desiging on one device, while sending projects over to a second device for rendering.

    Educators might find uses for interconnected iPads in the educational setting. Groups of student might work together on projects collectively, and learn about team project building experiences. A teacher could connect to student's iPad and help them understand something by showing them on a program running on their own device.

    Certain kinds of businesses might benefit from iPad interconnectivity as a way of keeping all team members updated with pertinent data, and live updates of the state of project development.

    An important business presentation could be developed on an iPad, while the same project is simultaneously developed on that user's iPhone. Sure they can also upload the project to iCloud, but they might review the presentation on the larger iPad screen from the iPhone to assure to assure every thing is just right. If for any reason internet is not available, then connected devices sharing projects might be used without any need for internet.

    Lastly. What might developers think up in the way of new Applications that could utilize interconnected iPads and iPhones? What other sorts of work could be done more efficiently on iPads that are interconnected and grant access to the processing power, and screens of both?

    Again.. Just imagining what could happen in the future, that's all.

  • @horsetrainer said:

    @audio_DT said:

    @AndyPlankton said:

    @gusgranite said:

    @AndyPlankton said:

    @gusgranite said:

    @AndyPlankton said:
    What if iOS was itself an AUv3 host, how would things look then ?

    You could run your apps without another host app, dev's wouldn't need to be careful about descriptions when submitting to the app store for audio app unaware app store testers....users could freely buy apps without finding out afterwards that they need another app (host) in order to use what they wanted to buy....

    For this to happen, AUv3's would need to be able to host other AUv3's....apps could be switched when using full screen using standard iOS gestures...4 finger drag left/right to scroll through running ones (on iPad anyway), and if apps all offered a midi or qwerty mappable 'Bring to front' control, they could be switched using controllers.

    You think it is that big an issue? How many people buy a VST and then go ‘Doh! I need to use a DAW’.

    >
    Well, dev's were having app submissions declined because the appstore testers didn't get it, so yes, users will do it too ? It is being taken care of (sort of) by being very specific in the app descriptions, which shouldn't really be needed.

    Am I right in thinking that Apple is not taking away the option to develop a true standalone app that uses the audio-out? If you really want that standalone hardware experience.

    No they are not, so for single app on a single device it would be fine, apart from the poor dev who makes it, and get's a million 1 star reviews because it is not AUv3 !!

    OK, but now we are moving away from AU functionality and talking about AppStore staff (agreed) and AppStore reviewers (also agreed). The last point is kind of funny though because yes, if a developer wants to go standalone then you might get lots of people asking for integration, statesaving, etc, etc... 🙂

    I’m not trying to be a daftee here. Just trying to understand why AU is such a bad standard for some people.

    There’s a recent app that has been really struggling with state saving and I keep reading the back and forth and think none of this would be an issue if it was AU. Same with some of the midi issues in recent apps. Just let the host deal with it.

    I’m enjoying the conversation though. I agree AU and the AppStore approval stuff to improve.

    I'm not in any way suggesting that AUv3 is bad, far from it, it is good, very good..and does help in lots of ways.

    Just pointing out that there are also a couple of downsides that can catch people out, particularly those not in the know about music tech. ;)
    Your VST comparison for example...If you are shopping for VST's, chances are you know already what they are, and because of the cost would more than likely do more research before buying, on desktop people tend to start with a DAW and then add VST's afterwards....with apps it is different, someone can happen across one on their phone, and buy it for £2-3 without having to give it much thought.....then they cannot run it so leave a bad review, which hurts the dev's.

    It is a good conversation to be having I agree :) And I'm playing devil's advocate more than anything.

    I think you make an excellent point. It's a real shame if a developer gets a poor review because of a lack of user understanding - and, equally, it's a bit of a shame for the user, too. The wonderful thing about making music on iOS at the moment is that it's still very much in the early, exciting stages, where all sorts of weird and wonderful things are being produced. Some hit, some miss, but nearly all are really innovative and are great fun to use. But the relative 'newness' of the scene does, I suspect, leave some people a bit bewildered about what they've just bought. I'm not sure what can be done about that, other than to do what lots of devs now do, which is to state at the top of the app description, "This app makes no sound on its own and needs a compatible host", or whatever the case may be. Tough one, though, I agree.

    That's what I find so exciting about iOS/iPadOs music too. It's in it's early stages, and I personally think it's a lot of fun to speculate how the entire Tablet Computer paradigm might evolve.

    I think one of the keys to predicting the future, is to try to understand what parts of the computer market Tablet Computers fill.

    The first things that come to my mind, are Tablet Computers are, convenient, portable, have a broad grange of existing Apps, can take the place of a desktop PC for many kinds of uses, and have a high level of communications connectivity.

    But the largest factor, IMO, is affordability.

    The reader of this post are likely more interested in how Tablet Computers might evolve for use with music making. But I think it's essential to examine what the majority users might be using these devices for. And think about what kinds of new features don't just benefit musicians, but the majority of other users too.

    Others on this thread have mentioned that they like hardware, and hardware is certainly good. But I feel the secret of iPad's attractiveness to some people interested in creating music, is the relatively low introductory cost required to own a "virtual music production studio" based on iPAD.

    Thus I think, affordability is the driving force that attracts many people to the iPadOs platform for music making. for other's it's the portability and connivance of being able to work with it just about anywhere.

    Many people live on fixed incomes, and have limited living space. Yet they may be very interested in having a full studio full of gear, but may just not be something that they could actually do.

    So I think many, including myself, dream of virtual music studios, that are affordable, compact, yet are capable of providing much of the "simplified" experience of working with individual hardware instruments, with hardware controllers, and computer DAWS

    This is why I think the idea of a capability for linking multiple iPads and iPhones together, utilizing some kind of comprehensive device interconnectivity protocol, might be an attractive way for people to "build" their virtual studio.

    Multiple devices could be dedicated to serve different functions depending on what the musician is desiring to achieve. Sure such capabilities are somewhat possible now by using cables and hardware interfaces. But that's not the same as wireless connectivity, and have the option of putting two iPads in your backpack, and setting up your studio wherever you feel most inspired.

    If such interconnectivity becomes real, I'd expect that iPad case manufactures would quickly come up with cases designed to hold two iPads as a single transportable folded unit.

    If a new base model iPad can be purchased for $250.00 USD on sale. Compared to the cost of hardware instruments and devices, the iPad is the more affordable choice. And also the far more "compact' space saving choice.

    This is why I'm imagining that multiple wirelessly interconnected iPad music studios, may be one possible future for iPad Music creation.

    But, here's the big "why".... I can't see this happening unless there is a reason for Apple to develop a system for multiple iPad interconnectivity that is also amazingly useful for the majority of all iPad users.

    Apple is interesting in selling hardware. If owning multiple interconnectable iPads can provide some amazing new types of benefits to a majority iPad users. Then I think that would be the reason such a thing might come into existence. Because anything that encourages people to by more iPads, is good for Apple's profits.

    Who else might benefit from a system of multiple interconnectable iPads?

    Gamers could use multiple interconnected iPads as multiple monitors for game play.

    If the method of interconnectivity allows for combining CPU power of all the connected iPads, that could be useful for CPU intensive uses, by dividing CPU tasks between iPads.

    Graphic artists, animators, video editors and Photographers, could always use multiple monitors to put tool palettes on and to move elements of work between.

    An animator could potentially be desiging on one device, while sending projects over to a second device for rendering.

    Educators might find uses for interconnected iPads in the educational setting. Groups of student might work together on projects collectively, and learn about team project building experiences. A teacher could connect to student's iPad and help them understand something by showing them on a program running on their own device.

    Certain kinds of businesses might benefit from iPad interconnectivity as a way of keeping all team members updated with pertinent data, and live updates of the state of project development.

    An important business presentation could be developed on an iPad, while the same project is simultaneously developed on that user's iPhone. Sure they can also upload the project to iCloud, but they might review the presentation on the larger iPad screen from the iPhone to assure to assure every thing is just right. If for any reason internet is not available, then connected devices sharing projects might be used without any need for internet.

    Lastly. What might developers think up in the way of new Applications that could utilize interconnected iPads and iPhones? What other sorts of work could be done more efficiently on iPads that are interconnected and grant access to the processing power, and screens of both?

    Again.. Just imagining what could happen in the future, that's all.

    some great points here too....

    An integrated multi device setup would be a pretty cool thing indeed, and the multi device setup does bring to light the fact that some do not need multi instancing and that where on a single device AUv3 provides total recall, it wouldn't on a multi device setup...maybe another reason why many do not see AUv3 as that much of a gain.

    Different perspectives, different problems :)

  • @AndyPlankton said:
    maybe another reason why many do not see AUv3 as that much of a gain.

    I actually do not think there are many. They are just really loud and vocal :D

  • @brambos said:

    @AndyPlankton said:
    maybe another reason why many do not see AUv3 as that much of a gain.

    I actually do not think there are many. They are just really loud and vocal :D

    haha, there is that too :D

  • @AndyPlankton said:

    @brambos said:

    @AndyPlankton said:
    maybe another reason why many do not see AUv3 as that much of a gain.

    I actually do not think there are many. They are just really loud and vocal :D

    haha, there is that too :D

    ...and long winded. :D

  • You know what I think?

    That only people who agree with a certain type workflow and music making system should post on here.

    Some people have such invalid methods and opinions compared to others. Seriously, right?

    Silly fools............................

  • @brambos said:

    @gusgranite said:
    It’s almost there in AU already. In AUM, you double tap the AU menu bar and it goes full screen. The only problem is it keeps the AUM transport visible on top rather than take up all of the screen. And then you would need a mechanism to minimize as pointed out.

    So if an AU can go ‘full’ full screen in the future, we’re good?

    Those 20 pixels don't make much of a difference, do they? They're usually there for a good purpose.

    I'd say the advantages of AU far outweigh the disadvantages. AU-opponents always say they don't need multi instance. But they gloss over the most compelling AU benefits: seamless state saving, automatic host synchronization, painless MIDI integration, AU parameter mechanism (which is far superior to MIDI CC; e.g. high resolution, meaningful parameter names, etc).

    Very interesting comment... and I’m thinking what can be accomplished (collectively) from these advantages highlighted... forget ‘clip launching’ that was the 90ths baby...

    It’s ‘state launching’... imagining say, AUM instead on Ableton live here in the video..

  • edited September 2019

    @RUST( i )K said:

    You know what I think?

    That only people who agree with a certain type workflow and music making system should post on here.

    Some people have such invalid methods and opinions compared to others. Seriously, right?

    Silly fools............................

    ....As Great Grand-Dad used to say while shaking his fist at us youngins... "You'll take what you're given and you'll like it! ".

  • edited September 2019

    Duplicate post

  • @horsetrainer said:
    @RUST( i )K said:

    You know what I think?

    That only people who agree with a certain type workflow and music making system should post on here.

    Some people have such invalid methods and opinions compared to others. Seriously, right?

    Silly fools............................

    ....As Great Grand-Dad used to say while shaking his fist at us youngins... "You'll take what you're given and you'll like it! ".

    Have to agree it does feel a little like that round these 'ere parts on occasion, along wth "Shhh kiddies, go and play outside"

Sign In or Register to comment.