Proprietary DAW's

[Lee Flier]

 

Dedicated OS are created all the time for hardware, even purpose built machines. Usually, anymore, it's an embedded flavor of Linux or other Free OS. The HW layer is highly developed in Linux, and perfect for what is described in this thread, and there is no reason to reinvent the wheel.

 

 

Yup... the beauty of Linux is you can compile it with just the functions you need and nothing you don't. And then modify it or add functions if you need to. The Yamaha AW4416's OS was an adapted version of Linux, and it's super stable and no latency.

 

I do think there's a use for this sort of thing, similar to what the RADAR does. I think the mistake in past products of this kind is that if you do it as an all-in-one workstation, it will become outdated pretty quickly and people don't want to be locked into using proprietary plugins and the like. As for the RADAR, I think its cost is mainly what keeps more people from using it.

 

But if someone can figure out how to make something like this modular and portable, and not too expensive, I think it would work great. That is, make it like a "tape machine" that is optimized for low latency, so you can carry it with you for remote recording, etc. Include a nice set of converters and various I/O options, expandable so you can get 8/16/24 tracks etc. Then make it networkable with other DAWs so you can add virtual instruments and do your mixdown elsewhere, with a minimum of fuss. This is almost what the RADAR does, and other dedicated HDRs, but I think it could done cheaper and you should be able to do tracking and overdubs without a mixer or any other hardware. Then hook it up to another DAW or a mixer or both, later. So it's like a DAW hardware interface but with a zero latency HDR built in, if that makes any sense, and then it can be connected via Firewire/USB/lightpipe/whatever to a computer based DAW just like any other interface.

 

I think it's mainly once you get into mixing, plugin compatibility and licensing, and all that stuff that it starts becoming less cost effective. But I think a unit like I describe could be sold for not much more than the cost of a firewire/USB interface + external HDD, and it could be used as either or both with the additional benefit of zero latency tracking, remote recording with no additional HW... etc.

[MikeRivers]

 

That was my baby at Tascam. I still have my SX-1 and love it. It also had a 40-input digtal mixer with full moving fader automation. As far as BeOS, we paid a license fee for the OS. I would never do a product like this again.

 

 

Hi, Mike

 

Ah, those were the days when, largely through your effort, as I recall, TASCAM was doing their own design work in the US rather than taking designs from Japan and fitting them into the US marketplace.

 

Yes, the SX-1 was probably just ahead of its time, and today it would probably have to cost under $2,000 for anyone to consider the advantages of not having to build a system around a general purpose computer.

 

I guess I never really got the story about BeOS straight. I thought I understood that when the company folded, TASCAM still had active products based around it and bought enough so that they would be able to maintain it. If I ever knew about the Palm connection, I forgot.

 

And speaking of forgetting, what was the name of that elegant stereo workstation from the company in Vermont which I think you were associated with, along with the guys who formed Frontier Design (and I guess are still doing some design work for TASCAM)..

[MikeRivers]

 

Yup... the beauty of Linux is you can compile it with just the functions you need and nothing you don't.

 

That's a good thing, as long as "you" is you, or the manufacturer of a system that uses Linux. This is essentially what Harrison is doing with their digital consoles. They don't release the code to their console customers or expect or encourage them to modify their own software. However, when something needs doing, Harrison doesn't have to wait for an Apple or Microsoft to get them what they need.

 

But if someone can figure out how to make something like this modular and portable, and not too expensive, I think it would work great. That is, make it like a "tape machine" that is optimized for low latency, so you can carry it with you for remote recording, etc. Include a nice set of converters and various I/O options, expandable so you can get 8/16/24 tracks etc. Then make it networkable with other DAWs so you can add virtual instruments and do your mixdown elsewhere, with a minimum of fuss. This is almost what the RADAR does, and other dedicated HDRs, but I think it could done cheaper and you should be able to do tracking and overdubs without a mixer or any other hardware. Then hook it up to another DAW or a mixer or both, later.

 

The up-and-coming product like that is the JoeCo Black Box Recorder. While it's designed for remote recording, basically capturing a live show, there's no reason why it couldn't be used in the studio as well. It records 24 tracks up to 96 kHz sample rate, to a plug-in USB hard drive, and it's available with an assortment of I/O interfaces. Where RADAR and other dedicated hard disk recorders of that generation have it beat for studio use, though, is that the JoeCo doesn't give you the ability to edit while you're tracking.

 

I came pretty close to Nirvana when I had an Allen & Heath ZED-R16 here for review, combined with my Mackie HDR24/96. The ZED is an analog mixer, so you really have zero (for all values of zero) latency for input monitoring when tracking, Editing and comping tracks is quick and easy on the recorder so you can clean up tracks while someone's getting coffee. And when you're ready to go into full DAW mode, the mixer becomes a MIDI controller. And when the computer crashes, you have a nice sounding analog console to mix through.

 

The problem, though, is that you can only buy a Mackie HDR24/96 used, and there's no guarantee how long it will last. And I doubt there will be another recorder like the Mackie. Nowadays anyone who might buy one would say "I can do the same thing and more with a computer, for half the price."

 

I think it's mainly once you get into mixing, plugin compatibility and licensing, and all that stuff that it starts becoming less cost effective.

 

I believe that's the reality, but the marketing doesn't tell you that. There are some mighty expensive plug-ins out there now. Although you can have as many instances as your computer will handle, some of them cost as much as a single piece of the hardware that they emulate.

[Jon Gnash]

Nice replies! So clearly the major problem is that it's not a feasible business venture. It would be interesting, though, to see how it turned out if someone wrote an OS and DAW in their own time, just because they wanted to. Too bad I'm not a programmer.

Veracohr,

 

Everyone else on this forum is to damn nice. They belong in Disneyland or something. But not me. I

[Jon Gnash]

... the marketing doesn't tell you that.

A Linux box.

[Jon Gnash]

A Linux box.

 

 

[mcmike100]

 

Hi, Mike Ah, those were the days when, largely through your effort, as I recall, TASCAM was doing their own design work in the US rather than taking designs from Japan and fitting them into the US marketplace. Yes, the SX-1 was probably just ahead of its time, and today it would probably have to cost under $2,000 for anyone to consider the advantages of not having to build a system around a general purpose computer. I guess I never really got the story about BeOS straight. I thought I understood that when the company folded, TASCAM still had active products based around it and bought enough so that they would be able to maintain it. If I ever knew about the Palm connection, I forgot. And speaking of forgetting, what was the name of that elegant stereo workstation from the company in Vermont which I think you were associated with, along with the guys who formed Frontier Design (and I guess are still doing some design work for TASCAM)..

 

 

Hi Mike,

 

When I was there, I was asked by the main office in Tokyo to head up all the product development, so it came out of the US then. Regarding BeOS, the only product that used it was the SX-1. The OS did exactly what we needed and no further OS features would have been needed. Therefore, when Be disappeared, we were fine. I've had my SX-1 for 8 years and it has never crashed once. I wish I could say the same about my PCs and Macs. BeOS was a very good operating system.

 

The company in Vermont was Fostex Research and Development. When New England Digital went under, Fostex hired the enigineering team. That team created the Foundation 2000 workstation, which was a really nice piece. It carved itself a niche piece of the post-production market. Unfortunately, about 5 months after I started there, Fostex shut the facility down and laid everyone off. I subsequently joined Digidesign. Charlie Hitchcock (who had been my officemate at Fostex) and Barry Bracksick formed Frontier. And, of course, they did some nice products for Tascam when I was there.

[MikeRivers]

The company in Vermont was Fostex Research and Development. When New England Digital went under, Fostex hired the enigineering team. That team created the Foundation 2000 workstation, which was a really nice piece.

Thanks for the memories, Mike. I remember sitting down in front of a Foundation 2000

 

 

at an AES show and just using it. It made complete sense. I didn't remember the olive drab paint job. Were they all like that?

[veracohr]

Veracohr,   Everyone else on this forum is to damn nice. They belong in Disneyland or something. But not me. I

[MikeRivers]

 

I understand it's a bad idea from a business perspective, but from a technical/user's perspective? Don't you think it would be good to have a DAW system much like the ones we use, but with an application-specific OS to reduce many of the system issues people tend to experience?

 

I don't think the operating system in itself is the issue. What makes for reliability and stability is a dedicated application running on high quality hardware. If the application can't send the OS off into never-never land, and the hardware doesn't have any intermittents, then it won't crash and you won't have to mess with it.

 

One of the things that gets us into trouble is the temptation to make something better than when we bought it. Sooner or later, the things that you change won't have been tested with your specific configuration and something will go wrong. But we tend to think things are obsolete before they really are, and the manufacturers do all they can to encourage that.

[philbo]

Amen Mike. I worked in autopilot design for a number of years.. Reliability CAN be built into a dedicated custom embedded OS. I've seen these run for many many years without a glitch. And I've seen them gracefully and painlessly recover from glitches.

 

The key: the OS is not from Microsoft....

 

A DAW is not safety-critical like an autopilot. But with hardware prices being what they are, it would be feasible to design in some of the hardware 'hooks' that make it possible to make it 10 to 100 times more reliable than any Windows PC.

 

The killer issue: Would people want to buy something that is not upgradeable? I would, if it were all I wanted in a DAW. But I'm not everybody. Some people just want to be the first on the block to send their spare $300 to somebody for yet another DVD of stuff they never really tap into. Not everybody. Just, some people....

[MikeRivers]

 

The killer issue: Would people want to buy something that is not upgradeable?

 

There's no reason why a dedicated DAW can't be upgradeable except for one thing - the manufacturer has to do all the work, and usually a lot of work, in order to offer upgrades. It doesn't bother Steinberg (or most DAW users) that every couple of years they have to buy a new computer with more and faster processors in order to run the latest plug-ins or virtual instruments. And, seemingly, it doesn't bother the users, either, because a new computer is only another grand. But try to charge a grand for a DSP board for a dedicated DAW so it'll run VST plug-ins and people scream "Proprietary!"

 

Nor is there any reason why there can't be new software to run either on the existing hardware or hardware built so that it can be upgraded. But somebody's got to do it, and the market for any single product of this nature isn't great enough to have a major sustaining engineering effort that extends beyond a few years after the release date. When its time comes, it goes on the "discontinued" list even though loyal users think it has many more years of useful life in it.

 

In its first three years or so, the Mackie hard disk recorders got a couple of software updates, the most practical of which was the use of time-stamped broadcast wave files and the addition of track rendering to the MDR24/96. A new model, the SDR24/96 came along and the HDR and MDR got an update to use the new project file format of the SDR, but the SDR was the first model to be discontinued. Go figure!

 

There really isn't anything that I wish my HDR24/96 could do, but I know that some day something will fail that I can't replace or repair, and then it will go on the pile of boat anchors and I'll just have to buckle down and start using a PC-based recorder like nearly everyone else.

[mcmike100]

 

I didn't remember the olive drab paint job. Were they all like that?

 

 

I think that is the lighting on that photograph. I think they were more of a gray color. It's been a while since I've seen one.

 

Mike McRoberts

[WRGKMC]

 

Hmmm.... That's funny. I seem to remember that Gates bought DOS from Gary Kildahl, who owned Digital Research at the time, and who had written DOS as an extension of the CP/M operating system. Nope - I was wrong. (not that anybody cares)

 

 

The facts to the real origins are deply burried in corporate backroom deals it was built on early adaptains and collaborations of the best in the business who wrote code based on the best hardware at the time. You arent going to find it on the net and it surely wasnt written by a single guy who sould claim it was his own private invention. To assume it could be would be negate the education and history and work experince that funded that persons experteese on the subject. It would be like saying einstien developed the atomic bomb. he had the root theory, but it took thousands to actually develop it. They all worked for one guy so that one gut is known as the developer.

 

The roots of DOS go back before they even had CPUs. I knew bits and pieces of what actually occured through people involved in designing software for the company. Even they werent supposed to talk about it at the time. Much of its hidden and hush hush from the public because of how the companies did business and the kind of business Monroe did. Besides having some of the first one of a kind computers used for military which was basically relays switches and motors, it also had some of the first vaccume tube computers where tubes acted as switches for binary data.

 

Monroe had its first PC's back in the 70s but they were by no means new to computing. They were much different from what you consider to be a computer today. I couldnt find much on the net on the early color computers. I do remember seeing a few, and they were used in schools. The second one was mentioned here. http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=1078

 

If you read, you'll see they mentioned they ran they're "own" operating system, but they dont tell you what that actually was. Not many knew I suppose. It wasnt like its was based on a CPU because there werent any yet. It was an earley version of DOS likely an early 8 bit version. There are many versions of DOS since then and many spinoffs and people claiming to have developed it. In reality it was an ongoing build that dated back to the 60s. Monroes was all computing and the best minds in that field worked there at one time or another. Public companies like IBM had deeper pockets and got more government contracts and later won out in the PC market.

 

Monroe had been in the computing world long before guys like Gates and Kildahl were even born. Most of it is math anyway and who better to develop that higher math than the company who invented the calculator and had already been involved in early computer designs.

 

The company did have alot of buyouts and buy ins over the years. I first worked for them when Litton owned them. Alot of the guys there were reaching retirement. I was 20 and they were 60~70, so I learned alot from guys who had the experience in the earley days. Most of what occured even when I began in the early 80s was long before the internet so you arent going to find squat on the subject unless those early developers are around and free to write about it.

 

Companies have had a habit of requiring non disclosure so even if someone was an author of something, It was owned by the company, and they had no rights to saying they were the author of it. You got to keep your mouth shut if you want a paycheck in other words. Maybe if you're luckey, someone will post something when you're dead but even then the guy was paid for services rendered and his product was owned by a company not by and individual.

 

The company was later sold to private bankers, who eventually sold off a good portion in the late 80s and 90s. They sold some branded equipment as well as manufactured they're own stuff. It was difficult to know all the details even working for a company. As with many, they would buy up failing companies along with rights, then sell off those interests to others without it even being known to the public. DOS was only one of those silent back room deals.

 

What likely did occur. Monroe did some major work getting into the PC market and already had the service organization going. Monroe knew it wasnt going as well on the sales front as it should have been and bamboozeled others to buy them out "for an offer they couldnt refuse" if you catch my drift.

 

If you arent first because in a market but have deep pockets and need that part of the market, you buy the companies/markets out to get in. DOS was one of those casualties of business wars. Monroe had it, and didnt know what to do with it and it was bought for chump change by others. As with many companies, They may own assets and people and product and have no idea as to their value till they become valuable.

 

Anyway, I realize much of this is unrelated, but on the other hand its a classic example of how a single product like a unique PC that does something specific doesnt have a chance in the market. That Early PC was a dam good box at that time, but even if its it was, it still has the whole manufacturing, software and hardware support, and marketing angle to deal with.

 

If someone actually developed a box everyone wanted, The Big companies currently in the business with a recognised name simply steal away any market from a new company by introducing their own design. Its dirty politics but thats how business works. You can be a no name with a fairly decent income. try to make too big a splash and its like turning a blow tourch in your direction. The minuite you start taking too big a piece of the pie your gonna get clobbered by the competition. To think otherwise, well its just a lack of experience in how things really work vs how you think they should or could work.

[MikeRivers]

Ah, yes, tales of early computer development. I had a friend from high school, he was a couple of years ahead of me, who would always take first place in the science fairs in the category of "computers." This was in 1958-60. He had a couple of years of summer jobs with Monroe while he was still in school. I lost track of him when he went off to college, but I suppose he was into some of the early computer development. I'm pretty sure his first name was Lynn, can't remember his last name at all. Maybe he got famous.