UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 09:19:35
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: gordonrussell76
My post was toungue in cheek and not meant to be offensive, British humour can be quite biting, but believe me its not meant to be insulting, its just the way we are.
No worries. I'm British myself. 
So while you don't like it for a practival reason, thats fair, not liking it becuase its no professional, that subjective and a little bit silly.
Don't you think that practical consideration more or less equivalent to professional considerations? In my book they are. I understand the wow factor argument but maybe I'm wowed by different things. Or maybe I am just finding faults where there are none due to my disappointment in the lack of modularity...
Oh and on the practical level I really like the idea of this thing as an act control, yes a Joystick would allow similar, but the smooth travel of this thing for filter sweeps and other types of effect automation I am sure will be pretty useful in many situations.
That's a good point. I wonder what the output resolution is. I often use the knobs of my Andromeda mapped to a soft synth's NRNP values because besides their size, the knobs outputting NRPN data have higher resolution than your typical MIDI controller.
So in conclusion, do not mock the Alderon, unless you want Vader to pay you a visit.
Let him come. I'll throw my Cakewalk StudioMix at him.  UnderTow
|
dappa1
Max Output Level: -46 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2949
- Joined: 2007/02/26 04:18:57
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 09:26:34
(permalink)
I dont think that the Fantom will become outdated as there is an expansion pack for drums...that would probably mean also for synths!
|
aoresteen
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 131
- Joined: 2006/02/08 14:49:00
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 10:01:15
(permalink)
Give Roland two quarters (six months) of sales reports to realize that the package system isn't selling very well. Then they will release an interface box & software that will have USB 2.0 and Firewire 400/800 ports that will let you use the control surface with your existing system (both Windows & Mac DAWs). It's the only way that they will get their R&D investment back.
I would love to replace my Peavey StudioMix with a V-700 control surface but I don't need the I/O box or Sonar. $1300 would be a terrific price for the V-700 control surface alone.
I would wait until July 2009 to see what Roland will do.
Tony Intel Core 2 Quad 3.0 GHz, 4 GB RAM, Win XP Pro SP3 Sonar PE 8.5 Dual Acer 22" Monitors Alesis QSR, E-MU Proteus 2000 & lots of guitars Newnan, GA 30265
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 10:06:03
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: aoresteen
Give Roland two quarters (six months) of sales reports to realize that the package system isn't selling very well. Then they will release an interface box & software that will have USB 2.0 and Firewire 400/800 ports that will let you use the control surface with your existing system (both Windows & Mac DAWs). It's the only way that they will get their R&D investment back. I would think it more likely that this is the plan already, not they need to "realise it isn't selling very well". It seems like fairly basic roll-out stuff to me. It's far easier to start with the all in one turnkey solution that you can easily explain to people than with a more complex modular thing. Establish the brand, get the early adopters, and then go to work on other areas of the market. Think about it; there are already a load of control surfaces and IO devices in the market. The one marketable benefit that Cakewalk and Roland have here is tight integration. So it's hardly surprising that they are leading off with a product that is all about tight integration.
|
AT
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10654
- Joined: 2004/01/09 10:42:46
- Location: TeXaS
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 10:23:53
(permalink)
ducati,
Actually, on the Cake site there was a 360 degree view of the Controller. I noticed a couple of jacks on the back rather than a single conector to the audio interface. I couldn't tell what the jacks were - but it was that view that disappeared.
I also realized that the controller won't have access to the headphones without the audio box, unless some fo those mysterious connectors will function instead.
@
https://soundcloud.com/a-pleasure-dome
http://www.bnoir-film.com/ there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 10:32:12
(permalink)
John,
I really don't see the logic in "easier to explain to people". There is no way Roland or Cakewalk could explain to me why I need to pay for a hardware synth when what I really want is a control surface (or an audio interface). I would say that the market for people wanting a good control surface OR an audio interface upgrade (and not needing any explaining) is much larger than the market for people wanting to spend $4K on an all-in-one solution. Like it or not, this product will be competing with the Yamaha n12 FireWire Digital Mixing Studio which costs $1200.
Modularity does not prevent tight integration and makes sense from a design perspective. Either the system is already modular and selling the separate parts together is a commercial decision or the system is not modular which means more design and engineering costs further down the line. Neither of these two scenarios are good things IMO.
I suspect it might be a different story entirely: Roland have parts in stock or manufacturing production lines that they want to make use of. This is influencing the design and commercial decision more than real market considerations. This is pure speculation of course.
UnderTow
|
aoresteen
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 131
- Joined: 2006/02/08 14:49:00
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 10:32:59
(permalink)
What if you need 16 or 24 inputs? Can multiple I/O boxes be daisy chained? If so that would imply that exrtra I/O modules would be available. So can the I/O box be used stand alone? This will be interesting.
Tony Intel Core 2 Quad 3.0 GHz, 4 GB RAM, Win XP Pro SP3 Sonar PE 8.5 Dual Acer 22" Monitors Alesis QSR, E-MU Proteus 2000 & lots of guitars Newnan, GA 30265
|
aoresteen
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 131
- Joined: 2006/02/08 14:49:00
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 10:51:01
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: UnderTow
snip... Like it or not, this product will be competing with the Yamaha n12 FireWire Digital Mixing Studio which costs $1200. snip...
I'd say the Yamaha N8 with 8 inputs at $800 is a better equivilant as the V700 has 8 inputs. The Yamaha N12 has 12 inputs.
Tony Intel Core 2 Quad 3.0 GHz, 4 GB RAM, Win XP Pro SP3 Sonar PE 8.5 Dual Acer 22" Monitors Alesis QSR, E-MU Proteus 2000 & lots of guitars Newnan, GA 30265
|
vomitgod
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 90
- Joined: 2004/12/04 23:13:48
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 11:05:44
(permalink)
Wow - a lot of folks here in the forums have a real problem understanding and/or contemplating what is very obviously constructive criticism!?
Kudos to Undertow for having a valid opinion and stating it as such.
I was somewhat interested in the V-700 until I found it had a on-board Fantom. Unless it can be purchased without it for a lot less, I won't even consider it.
Also, I think the T-Bar looks like it belongs on the dash of the Millennium Falcon! :)
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 11:06:51
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: UnderTow
John,
I really don't see the logic in "easier to explain to people". As in, easier to market. This product is really clear and simple. Buy it and install it and you have everything you need to record and produce apart from the room and the microphones. This is a really easily marketable idea. There is no way Roland or Cakewalk could explain to me why I need to pay for a hardware synth when what I really want is a control surface (or an audio interface). Indeed no. But that suggests to me more that it's not aimed at you, rather than there's something wrong with it. .... This is pure speculation of course.
That's kind of my point. There's a lot of people making overly definitive points about the size of this or that market, and the sense of this or that commercial approach. I do wonder what data these views are based on.
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 11:08:27
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: vomitgod
Wow - a lot of folks here in the forums have a real problem understanding and/or contemplating what is very obviously constructive criticism!? I'm not actually seeing much of that. I#'m seeing a lot of "nobody wants this and it will fail". I'd suggest that's a rather bold statement to make based on what appears to be no market data and no knowledge of the long term plan.
|
mgh
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8594
- Joined: 2007/05/10 05:15:56
- Location: betwixt and between
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 11:10:27
(permalink)
Buy it and install it and you have everything you need to record and produce apart from the room and the microphones and a fast PC...  i agree with the prevailing sentiment - needs to be modular. no-one in a pro studio is gonna be using those mic preamps cos they're gonna have some decent front-end all ready, or the soundcard, ditto. i can see it being a good on location solution, flight-case mount the controller and use the inputs for a live desk feed. but then CW already have the REAC thing for that...
|
ducatibruce2
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 557
- Joined: 2008/10/05 09:04:31
- Location: Tasdemonia, Oz
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 11:42:55
(permalink)
AT
I think I remember the one you mean.
The surface picture in the link I posted above shows the labels for the rear ports - most are reasonably self explanatory but what Setup & USB are actually for is open to speculation. Since I've wildly speculating on this already my guesses are USB memory stick (with synth & IO patch/setup data) & Mouse respectively - since they fit in with my earlier guess.
With each of the 2 ARX boards currently available going for around US$450 each & their main claim to fame being their editablility (via the Fantom G screen & control surface) let's hope that the V700 control surface & as yet unseen VST editors are as tightly integrated for the synth part as the surface seems to be with Sonar. I havent seen any real detail on the synth part yet. (I have a soft spot for external synths - see my sig).
S8.5.3PE & X1d P Exp & X2P, Q6600 @3Ghz, 4GB DDR2, XP SP3 With Knobs: 2 x Yamaha i88x mlan (ASIO), RS7000, Motif ESR, Roland SI24, VSynth XT, Varios, Fantom XR, JunoD, HPD10, Korg PadKontrol No knobs: P5, DimPro, Rapture, Z3ta+, IK stuff, ReCycle, Komplete8
|
Jim Wright
Max Output Level: -66 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1218
- Joined: 2004/01/15 15:30:34
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 11:43:43
(permalink)
My view is maybe a bit different.
I think it makes all kinds of sense to launch with a single bundled configuration. This is a pretty ambitious product. Getting everything to work smoothly is hard enough without having to deal with differences between different sound cards, driver versions, etc. etc. Cakewalk and Roland surely want the 'out of box' experience to be as trouble-free as possible.
Down the road - I'd be very surprised if they don't offer various modular options (including, most likely, the control surface by itself). But, I wouldn't expect it for a while. They need time to work everything out, and to make a strong initial market impression. Launching with a high-end version is a time-honored marketing strategy - for a recent example, look at Korg launching first the OASYS (workstation, not PCI card), then the M3 (3 versions) and recently the M50 (far more affordable). Things trickle down. Also, consider the history of the V-studio line itself --- it's been developed as an all-in-one package from the beginning. From that viewpoint, I'm a bit surprised that the PC itself isn't bundled, since the VS-700 won't work without one. (3rd-party DAW shops, here's your cue!)
Go listen to the Sonic State video (AES08SF, just under 14 minutes). At the very end (around 13:37), the Sonic State interviewer comments on the obvious modularity of the package, and asks if different configurations will be available. Brandon says something like "Well.... the V-Studio does have a number in it ... 700 ... so, ummmm..... use your imagination."
My 2 bits,
Jim
PS. I want one...
|
bapu
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 86000
- Joined: 2006/11/25 21:23:28
- Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 12:10:13
(permalink)
the I/O-Synth box is proprietory. I think it's actually a case of it can't be split. Actually all the more reason that it can be split by creating a "simple" interface box that goes between the CS and the Computer (uisng the proprietory cable). No brainer IMO. That box is nothing more than the guts of the USB interface that already exists in the I/O box.
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 12:12:45
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John T
ORIGINAL: UnderTow
John,
I really don't see the logic in "easier to explain to people". As in, easier to market. This product is really clear and simple. Buy it and install it and you have everything you need to record and produce apart from the room and the microphones. This is a really easily marketable idea.
Sure but with the competition at $1200 or $800... it becomes quite a bit harder to market. Sonar already comes with plenty of synths. There really is absolutely no need to add the hardware synth to make this product marketable. It just hikes up the price.
There is no way Roland or Cakewalk could explain to me why I need to pay for a hardware synth when what I really want is a control surface (or an audio interface). Indeed no. But that suggests to me more that it's not aimed at you, rather than there's something wrong with it.
Exactly. It is not aimed at me but it could be aimed at me very easily. And that is exactly why it doesn't make any sense to me.
.... This is pure speculation of course.
That's kind of my point. There's a lot of people making overly definitive points about the size of this or that market, and the sense of this or that commercial approach. I do wonder what data these views are based on.
Simple maths: The all-in-one market + the existing DAW market and specifically the large Sonar user base can only be larger than the all-in-one market alone. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or know anything about market research to figure that one out. Btw, the old VS2480 recorder/mixers (which go for around $1200) were discontinued. Usually highly successful products are not discontinued. That really makes me worry about the viability of the VS700 at $4000 in today's market. The market is much more competitive (many more products to chose from) and the world economy isn't doing too well. It seems to me like the VS-700 is the replacement for those VS1680's and VS2480's. That probably explains the whole approach. It looks like a Roland product geared to recapture that market rather than a Cakewalk product geared to enhance Sonar. UnderTow
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 12:26:43
(permalink)
Exactly. It is not aimed at me but it could be aimed at me very easily. And that is exactly why it doesn't make any sense to me.
What? A business making products that aren't aimed at you makes no sense to you? You must find a hell of a lot of stuff puzzling. Simple maths: The all-in-one market + the existing DAW market and specifically the large Sonar user base can only be larger than the all-in-one market alone. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or know anything about market research to figure that one out. The size of a user base is NOT the size of a market. The size of a market is the number of likely purchasers. Furthermore, the value of a market is not it's size. Sure, there are more people who'd buy a $100 thing than a $1000 dollar thing. But you need ten times as many of them to bring in the same revenue. You're making really sweeping claims about markets, but you don't seem to have considered these kinds of basic points. Btw, the old VS2480 recorder/mixers (which go for around $1200) were discontinued. Usually highly successful products are not discontinued. Eh? Successful tech products are discontinued all the time. Technology moves on and this year;'s model comes around. It looks like a Roland product geared to recapture that market rather than a Cakewalk product geared to enhance Sonar. Yeah... what's wrong with that?
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 12:38:39
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jim Wright
My view is maybe a bit different.
I think it makes all kinds of sense to launch with a single bundled configuration. This is a pretty ambitious product. Getting everything to work smoothly is hard enough without having to deal with differences between different sound cards, driver versions, etc. etc. Cakewalk and Roland surely want the 'out of box' experience to be as trouble-free as possible.
I don't agree with this. All the components of the system should work smoothly with each other whether they are bundled or sold separately. That is inherent in a well designed modular system. The VS-700 product as it stand, still has all the PC compatibility issues a modular system would have. There is no telling whether a potential customer has or doesn't have a second or third audio interface or intends to purchase one later on. The biggest hurdle is compatibility with the PC hardware. Modularity of the VS-700 has no bearing on that.
Down the road - I'd be very surprised if they don't offer various modular options (including, most likely, the control surface by itself). But, I wouldn't expect it for a while. They need time to work everything out, and to make a strong initial market impression.
But will they? And how does selling the control surface separately hinder a strong initial market impression? Good commercial success should be the aim IMO. Increasing the potential market should increase the chances of that success.
Launching with a high-end version is a time-honored marketing strategy - for a recent example, look at Korg launching first the OASYS (workstation, not PCI card), then the M3 (3 versions) and recently the M50 (far more affordable). Things trickle down.
Yes and the industry is rife with companies that have gone bankrupt! Often the flagship version gets discontinued because it is just too expensive. The trickle down effect has to do with the R&D that has already been done. To me it makes much more sense to create modular designs that can be capitalised on starting directly from the initial release. The VS-700 should be modular due to it's functionality and even it's physical properties (separate console and break-out box). Anyway, I don't believe that the audio industry remotely resembles what it was a decade ago or even 5 years ago. Companies that do not adopt to the new paradigms will not survive.
Also, consider the history of the V-studio line itself --- it's been developed as an all-in-one package from the beginning. From that viewpoint, I'm a bit surprised that the PC itself isn't bundled, since the VS-700 won't work without one. (3rd-party DAW shops, here's your cue!)
It would have made sense from an all-in-one product point of view but that is a whole can of worms that I can imagine Roland and Cakewalk didn't want to open. Or they did open it, had a peak inside and quickly decided against it. Imagine the kind of tech-support needed if Roland become what is essentially a PC company. 
Go listen to the Sonic State video (AES08SF, just under 14 minutes). At the very end (around 13:37), the Sonic State interviewer comments on the obvious modularity of the package, and asks if different configurations will be available. Brandon says something like "Well.... the V-Studio does have a number in it ... 700 ... so, ummmm..... use your imagination."
Yes we will see... better earlier than later IMO. UnderTow
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 12:42:26
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: UnderTow
ORIGINAL: Jim Wright
My view is maybe a bit different.
I think it makes all kinds of sense to launch with a single bundled configuration. This is a pretty ambitious product. Getting everything to work smoothly is hard enough without having to deal with differences between different sound cards, driver versions, etc. etc. Cakewalk and Roland surely want the 'out of box' experience to be as trouble-free as possible.
I don't agree with this. All the components of the system should work smoothly with each other whether they are bundled or sold separately. That is inherent in a well designed modular system. Sure. The issue with selling them separately is that you have to make sure they work smoothly with all kinds of other stuff from different manufacturers. The VS-700 product as it stand, still has all the PC compatibility issues a modular system would have. Doesn't have any audio interface compatibility problems, or driver problems. It's all got to work with Windows XP or Vista and Sonar 8, and nothing else. There is no telling whether a potential customer has or doesn't have a second or third audio interface or intends to purchase one later on. It's not aimed at that customer. It's got no means of working with another audio interface. The biggest hurdle is compatibility with the PC hardware. Modularity of the VS-700 has no bearing on that. Yes, quite.
post edited by John T - 2008/10/14 12:43:10
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 12:50:12
(permalink)
The VS-700 should be modular due to it's functionality and even it's physical properties (separate console and break-out box).
Why? That's just a sensible way of constructing it. IO can go in a rack, console goes on a desktop.
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 13:03:46
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John T
Exactly. It is not aimed at me but it could be aimed at me very easily. And that is exactly why it doesn't make any sense to me.
What? A business making products that aren't aimed at you makes no sense to you? You must find a hell of a lot of stuff puzzling.
John, this is complete rubbish and you are just trying to be insulting. Tampons are not aimed at me but that doesn't mean that selling tampons doesn't make sense to me.  If you can't follow my very simple and clear argumentation, you are probably not up to the discussion.
Simple maths: The all-in-one market + the existing DAW market and specifically the large Sonar user base can only be larger than the all-in-one market alone. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or know anything about market research to figure that one out. The size of a user base is NOT the size of a market. The size of a market is the number of likely purchasers.
Exactly. Roland have seriously limited the number of likely purchasers. It isn't like I am going against the grain here. I am not the only one asking for a separate control surface. I am just more vocal and bring more arguments to the table. Even the very first on-line review/article mentions this: "Hopefully, one of these will be a standalone controller: at the moment, the VS-700C has to be bought and used with the VS-700R, but existing Sonar users might already have a good quality audio interface and will question whether they can justify investing in a product that includes another one." If you can't see that it makes perfect sense to sell the control surface separately, you have absolutely no vision or imagination.
Furthermore, the value of a market is not it's size. Sure, there are more people who'd buy a $100 thing than a $1000 dollar thing. But you need ten times as many of them to bring in the same revenue.
You're making really sweeping claims about markets, but you don't seem to have considered these kinds of basic points.
Yes I have and they are clearly explained in my posts but I will repeat the core argument as you seem to have a hard time keeping up: When a simple design change allows to target both markets, it makes sense to make that small design change. This is not an either or situation. Even the market leader and so called "industry standard" offers fully modular systems. It isn't like this business approach doesn't give good results. It is the recipe used by the most successful DAW manufacturer/developer in the industry. Any company ignoring that does it at its own peril.
Btw, the old VS2480 recorder/mixers (which go for around $1200) were discontinued. Usually highly successful products are not discontinued. Eh? Successful tech products are discontinued all the time. Technology moves on and this year;'s model comes around.
Technology moves on indeed. That is why the market has changed. That is why products need to be changed. Anyway, can you give me examples of a successful products that were discontinued but that were not replaced by either a better product at the same price point (remember, the VS2480 is $1200. The Yamaha N12 is $1200) or a cheaper product. (I don't mean products discontinued due to hostile take-overs etc).
It looks like a Roland product geared to recapture that market rather than a Cakewalk product geared to enhance Sonar.
Yeah... what's wrong with that?
Nothing as such. It was just a statement of what this product looks like to me. Of course if you are trying to find fault in what I write, you probably took it the wrong way. UnderTow
post edited by UnderTow - 2008/10/14 13:07:09
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 13:06:39
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John T
Doesn't have any audio interface compatibility problems, or driver problems. It's all got to work with Windows XP or Vista and Sonar 8, and nothing else.
It's not aimed at that customer. It's got no means of working with another audio interface.
Every computer comes with a built in sound chip. And we are talking about Sonar here. It has every means of working with another audio interface. You are clearly not up to discussing this. UnderTow
|
Tom F
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2749
- Joined: 2007/07/08 05:56:12
- Location: Vienna (the one in Europe)
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 13:07:40
(permalink)
the v-700 is neither the reinvention of the wheel nor that rediscovery of fire ;-) i really wonder why people would buy it - personally i am a total gear freak - id buy things id never need if i had money to waste just because i like them...but with this piece..actually with a little exageration i would say that i wouldnt wanna have it for free....its totally "unsexy" its usb / its a mix-pre-synth / it has roland converters ...thats all so uncool 
...trying to be polite... quick temper...trying to be...
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 13:10:43
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: UnderTow
ORIGINAL: John T
Exactly. It is not aimed at me but it could be aimed at me very easily. And that is exactly why it doesn't make any sense to me.
What? A business making products that aren't aimed at you makes no sense to you? You must find a hell of a lot of stuff puzzling.
John, this is complete rubbish and you are just trying to be insulting. Tampons are not aimed at me but that doesn't mean that selling tampons doesn't make sense to me. If you can't follow my very simple and clear argumentation, you are probably not up to the discussion. Well, it wasn't meant to be insulting, more sort of jokey. But no, I don't follow your suggestion that because this isn't aimed at you when it could be it makes no sense to you. They're your words. You're saying, I don't want this, but I'd want it if it was X. Well it's not X.
Simple maths: The all-in-one market + the existing DAW market and specifically the large Sonar user base can only be larger than the all-in-one market alone. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or know anything about market research to figure that one out. The size of a user base is NOT the size of a market. The size of a market is the number of likely purchasers.
Exactly. Roland have seriously limited the number of likely purchasers.
Um, well, no. They've decided there are enough likely purchases for their purposes in the area that they are targeting. Nothing appeals to everyone, and certainly nothing as specialist as audio recording hardware. It isn't like I am going against the grain here. I am not the only one asking for a separate control surface. I am just more vocal and bring more arguments to the table. Even the very first on-line review/article mentions this: "Hopefully, one of these will be a standalone controller: at the moment, the VS-700C has to be bought and used with the VS-700R, but existing Sonar users might already have a good quality audio interface and will question whether they can justify investing in a product that includes another one."
If you can't see that it makes perfect sense to sell the control surface separately, you have absolutely no vision or imagination. It does make perfect sense, and I'm certain there will be such a product at some point. That's not what I'm finding peculiar in your arguments. What I don't follow is that you seem to be claiming that it makes no sense to sell the product they have now, and you seem to be basing this on the fact that you don't want one. I don't want one either, but I don't think that means it's a bad product, or evidence of bad business strategy.
post edited by John T - 2008/10/14 13:11:57
|
ducatibruce2
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 557
- Joined: 2008/10/05 09:04:31
- Location: Tasdemonia, Oz
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 13:14:58
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: bapu
the I/O-Synth box is proprietory. I think it's actually a case of it can't be split.
Actually all the more reason that it can be split by creating a "simple" interface box that goes between the CS and the Computer (uisng the proprietory cable). No brainer IMO. That box is nothing more than the guts of the USB interface that already exists in the I/O box.
I guess that depends on where the OS for the surface lives - in the surface or the IO box. I'm chosing to guess that Roland took existing technology & worked out how to repackage it to suit a perceived market. Essentially, I think they have disassembled a Fantom G & spread it around the room & then cabled it together so that it works whilst still spread around the room & the OS is in the IO box (on the FantomG synth mobo). I think they did this because it would cost substantially less than developing a whole new thing (hardware & software) from the ground up. I think your "simple interface" to USB relies on the control surface having been developed as a new thing (with standalone capabilities being designed in from the start) & the surface having its own OS. Using the modifed Fantom G scenario they can release a double IO module, a full Fantom G (2 ARX) "rack" module, a control surface with integrated keyboard, or a seperate keyboard as well as the current combo with limited development costs (because its using existing technology) & they're all integratable. IMHO this is the sort of stuff corporate marketing & accounts guys love. I guess only time will tell, though I hope I'm wrong & the surface is available seperately eventually - that I'd buy.
S8.5.3PE & X1d P Exp & X2P, Q6600 @3Ghz, 4GB DDR2, XP SP3 With Knobs: 2 x Yamaha i88x mlan (ASIO), RS7000, Motif ESR, Roland SI24, VSynth XT, Varios, Fantom XR, JunoD, HPD10, Korg PadKontrol No knobs: P5, DimPro, Rapture, Z3ta+, IK stuff, ReCycle, Komplete8
|
tyacko
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1190
- Joined: 2007/01/06 07:20:16
- Location: Pittsburgh, PA
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 13:20:14
(permalink)
Jim Wright
I think it makes all kinds of sense to launch with a single bundled configuration. This is a pretty ambitious product. Getting everything to work smoothly is hard enough without having to deal with differences between different sound cards, driver versions, etc. etc. Cakewalk and Roland surely want the 'out of box' experience to be as trouble-free as possible.
You are leaving out the most important thing in all of this "trouble-free" experience and that is the PC itself. That is where this single bundled configuration will likely fail unless they specifically sell it with a PC that has been certified to work with the bundle. Beyond that, selling the control surface separately to a client who already has a working environment might be the easiest sell they would have. Tom
post edited by tyacko - 2008/10/14 13:21:34
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 13:47:44
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John T
Um, well, no. They've decided there are enough likely purchases for their purposes in the area that they are targeting.
Now who is making sweeping statements? You have no idea what Roland decided and why they made that decision. I am only commenting on the general audio market and where it is heading the way I see it. I can do that just as well as anyone at Roland's marketing department. Maybe even better in some aspects due to the number of studios I work at and the number of home recordists I know, the number of products from different DAW developers/manufacturers I use and, importantly, the lack of bias when it comes to any particular product or manufacturer.
Nothing appeals to everyone, and certainly nothing as specialist as audio recording hardware.
Exactly which brings us full circle: Why limit the potential market?
It does make perfect sense, and I'm certain there will be such a product at some point. That's not what I'm finding peculiar in your arguments.
They are just ideas and speculations. Take them as such.
What I don't follow is that you seem to be claiming that it makes no sense to sell the product they have now,
I might have missed a few but I believe that every time I wrote that it made no sense, it was followed by "to me". If not, that is what I mean.
and you seem to be basing this on the fact that you don't want one.
Sheesh, with all the posts and arguments I have written, you are being extremely obtuse.
I don't want one either, but I don't think that means it's a bad product, or evidence of bad business strategy.
Well to me it looks like it could be a bad business strategy. Like any company that has existed for so long and has produced so many products, Roland have had failed products in the past. There is no guarantee that they made the right decision this time just because they are a relatively big player in the audio industry (but only recently in the PC based DAW market). Only time will tell. If ducatibruce2's guess is correct, this product came into existence in a way I would advise any company against: Based on what is available internally within the company instead of based on what is needed out there in the market. I have seen so many companies develop products because they had some parts or technology available internally and then convince themselves that the public would like their concoction to end up falling flat on their faces. I am not saying that this is what Roland have done but it is a possibility. It is as plausible a scenario as any. Of course, there are many stories of success when the internally available technology corresponds to what is wanted and/or needed in the market place but the driving factor has to be the market needs and demands. Not the other way round. Assuming that Roland and Cakewalk made all the right decisions is as naive if not more naive than assuming that they made all the wrong decisions. (Note that I am doing neither. Just speculating and discussing). UnderTow
|
fastelder
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 290
- Joined: 2005/01/12 10:40:04
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 15:18:17
(permalink)
For the price, I still don't see how this would be better than a couple of Mackie controllers and spend the rest on a dynamite I/O
??
Ed
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 3G ram Dual 19"LCD Presonus FirePod Dbx166XL Tascam700 Tascam US-2400 Yamaha PSR293 Sonar6 EZDrummer MOTU Symphonic Instruments Smart Score (Scanning) Sibelius (Notation) CD Architect
|
Garry Stubbs
Max Output Level: -49 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2619
- Joined: 2008/02/18 17:34:48
- Location: Castlethorpe, UK
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 16:50:01
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Sylvan
Damn,
Does UnderTow have a personal grudge against Cakewalk? It seems nothing, and I mean nothing Cakewalk does is to his satisfaction. I can understand making a few feature suggestions, but you always seem to come accross with a condescending bitterness or something. If Cakewalk is such a thorn in your side with no hope of ever meeting your personal expectations, why not just forget about it and stay with whatever you are using?
I am not trying to stir you up or anything, I truly wonder. It is not good to always critisize at every possible opportunity. Suggestions are great, but try and lighten up just a bit. Cakewalk products are not perfect, no ones products are perfect in every detal. Cakewalk products are pretty damn good and have matured very well. They will continue to improve as time moves on. I am sure that these guys, the "Bakers" feel a certain measure of pride when releasing a new product and would be very open to contructive critisizm in efforts to improve future versions. However constant attacks and condescending comparisons to what you feel are superior products is probably not what will inspire the Bakers and/or Roland to keep up the great work. When you target a company's personal pride instead of making helpful suggestions, no productive progress will burst forth from that.
Just one man's opinion, nothing more.
+1 Sylvan - You said it all perfect, constructive criticism yes, verbal ack acks, no. Garry Kiosk
https://soundcloud.com/garry-kiosk Sonar Platinum 64-bit: Q6600 8Gb Win7 64-bit: KRK Monitors: ART MPA PRO VLA ii preamp: 3 x 500Gb internal SATA disks: Superior Drummer2: GPO4: Realstrat: Saxlab: Rapture: Dimension Pro: Ozone 4: Edirol SPS-660: PCR-500 MIDI controller: Korg PadKontrol: Fender / Gibson / Yamaha / Ibanez guitars:Guitar Rig 5: Dual 22" Monitors: Mapex Drums, Sabian AAX cymbals: Alesis DM5 Pro Kit: SE Electronics and Shure Mics: Mathmos Lava Lamp (40W)
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
RE: V-700 Studio review in EQ mag
2008/10/14 17:05:25
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: UnderTow
ORIGINAL: John T
Um, well, no. They've decided there are enough likely purchases for their purposes in the area that they are targeting.
Now who is making sweeping statements? You have no idea what Roland decided and why they made that decision. Oh, come on man. Are you suggesting they've not thought about whether there's a market for it or not? You think they've just knocked it up on the offchance? I am only commenting on the general audio market and where it is heading the way I see it. I can do that just as well as anyone at Roland's marketing department. If that's what you want to believe, knock yourself out. Since you are predicting complete and utter failure here, let's come back to this in 12 months or something.
Nothing appeals to everyone, and certainly nothing as specialist as audio recording hardware.
Exactly which brings us full circle: Why limit the potential market?
You're mistaking targeting for limiting.
post edited by John T - 2008/10/14 17:08:22
|