The result of this research is Jamstix 2, which is a near-complete rewrite of the original Jamstix. It boasts an easier-to-use interface, in-depth style and drummer modeling and many enhancements. Jamstix is arguably the most powerful and flexible drummer simulation on the market today. 12/13/18 Mixcraft 8.1 Build 418. Fix for plugin issues where the plugin would grow in size by repeated showings. 11/29/18 Mixcraft 8.1 Build 415. Fixed Melodyne bugs related to the new Melodyne 4.2; Fixed bug #10112. Undo of lane was creating double the slots.
Getting The Most Out Of Jamstix Kits A Guide To The Internal Audio Engine And Advanced Usage Of The Mapping Functions In this article I will talk a bit about the internal audio engine of Jamstix and how to get the most out of it using the editing functions that the mapping tab provides. You will see how you can adjust Jamstix kits to the needs of your specific projects and how to get different sounding kits out of the same sample sets. How the engine works The Jamstix audio engine uses CMAS technology, which stands for Close- Mono Ambient- Stereo.
This means that every sound played consist of three samples: one is a mono sample recorded close to the instrument and the other two are a stereo image recorded with some distance. This approach allows you to control the ratio of close mic to ambient mic signal for each sound. Starting with Jamstix 1.4 and DrumPak #2, the audio engine also supports a second mode, called CS ( Close- Stereo), which uses a stereo sample set recorded close to the instrument.
This mode requires 33% less memory and CPU usage than the CMAS sounds and is great for situations where you do not need any ambience and would like to use a room simulator or other DSPs on the host side to develop your ambient sound of choice. Sustain The sustain slider is your friend! It's essentially a dampening function. By sliding to the left, you are dampening the sound by shortening its sustain. Use this slider to do any of the following:.
You want to reduce sound length, such as to reduce the boominess of the kick or to increase the 'crack' of the snare. You want to reduce ambience without losing the attack and color of the ambient signal Pitch tuning As far as the pitch slider is concerned: a little goes a long way! Some sounds are very sensitive to pitch changes and may quickly sound unrealistic (which could be what you're after!). Some sounds can benefit greatly from pitch changes. The best example is the kick. You can dramatically alter the sound of the kick without it sounding unrealistic. Experiment a bit and see what pitch fits your specific song best!
You can also turn a standard snare into a deep snare by slightly lowering the pitch X-Samples + Low Mem You may have wondered what those boxes in the internal sound panel really do. Let's discuss them in detail: The X-Samples are multiple samples of each sound at the same velocity. Without them, the sound of a drum hit repeatedly at the same velocity will always sound the same, which is hardly realistic. Naturally, having all these extra samples takes up memory space so the X-Samples checkbox allows you to turn this feature off.
The result will be less CPU usage at the expense of realism. If you are really hurting for RAM and your song keeps the drums pretty much at the same loudness level then you're better off using Low Mem rather than disabling the X-samples since your song doesn't use many velocity layers to begin with.
The Low Mem box does a similar thing but affects the number of velocity layers loaded for each sound. Turning Low Mem on will save memory at the expense of realism. If you must save RAM and your song has a lot of velocity changes in the drums then disable X-Samples rather than using Low Mem. I generally recommend to use X-Samples and not touch Low mem, if at all possible, to get the best drum sound out of Jamstix. Most modern hosts have VSTi freeze functionality so you can 'freeze' your Jamstix performance at any time and recoup CPU and RAM without losing the ability to rework the arrangement at a later time as you would if you mixdown Jamstix. Voice Reduction Chances are you never really worried about the voice reduction slider but let's talk about it a bit.
The Jamstix audio engine plays a sound for every note triggered and the only limit to the maximum number of sounds at one point in time is set by the CPU usage. Some cymbals have very long sustain so repeatedly hitting them will produce more and more sounds playing concurrently, using up a lot of CPU power. A good example is the BrushPak with its 22' sizzle cymbal.
It is an absolutely beautiful instrument and Jamstix will happily play 16 or more ride sounds at the same time for a fast rhythm. This produces a very realistic wash of sounds just like the real cymbal. If we all had 5GHz CPUs then we'd slide voice reduction all the way left and stop reading.
In the real-world you may run into a siuation where CPU usage is too high and you can reduce it by moving the voice reduction slider to the right. This raises the volume threshold where Jamstix decides that a sound has become quiet enough to kill it. If you go too far, you will notice sounds being choked.
If that happens, move the slider back left. Outputs You may find yourself in a situation where you would like to alter the sound of, for example, the hihats on the host side but not affect the other sounds. You can do this easily by taking advantage of the output routing. Jamstix supports up to 17 stereo outputs and each individual sound can be routed to anyone of those. You can send the hihat sounds to a separate output and then use EQs and other DSP plugins on the host side to alter the hihat sound. The concept of audio outputs is simple: it splits the audio return to the host into separate units that can be manipulated separately in the host.
You can achieve dramatic results by splitting the Jamstix output across multiple outputs and then trying various effect plugins on those outputs. You can use EQing to perfect the frequency spectrum for a specific song or you can use flangers and wah-wahs to create a wild electronica kit. Experimentation is key!
Some Examples:. If you'd like to sharpen the hihats and get them 'closer' to the listener, use an EQ to reduce lows and mids and boost highs.
If the snare is too hard, send it to its own output and reduce the mids and/or lows and boost the highs. If the kick is too noisy, send it to its own output, reduce the highs and boost the low end. Keep in mind that more outputs mean more CPU usage as more audio buffers are handled by the host. This is especially crucial for hosts that use DXi-wrapped VST plugins, such as Sonar and Project 5.
I happen to believe that the cost of piracy is routinely overstated by software vendors and their lobbying arm, the SPA, to generate sympathy for draconian legislation such as the DMCA. The numbers they cite are made up out of thin air - think about it: how does a vendor determine how many copies they didn't sell, for whatever reason? I am a software developer myself. I have been burned by users who ripped off my software and used it without paying for it. I am a fairly well-off consumer who pays for all the software I use. You'd think I'd be strongly in favor of copy protection. But I am not.
The majority of users who obtain bootleg software were not going to be customers anyway. They do not represent lost sales.
More likely, they actually boost sales by broadening the user base and elevating the vendor's profile. Many of them do purchase legitimate copies later, when they can afford them or become dependent on them in their work. Andrew Kirk naturally thinks PACE has the answer, but his assertion that the cost of copy protection is trivial isn't convincing. Why should I be coerced into buying an iLok dongle, a piece of hardware that offers zero functionality to me? Its sole function is to prove I am not a thief.
What if taxicabs required a document proving you were not a robber before you could get in? Retail stores requiring proof you are not a shoplifter? What if said documentation cost you thirty bucks. Would arguments for 'convenience' sell you on the concept? Over the years I have had to abandon several software products because of unresolvable problems with copy protection. In some cases, the vendor had gone out of business and the license key was tied to a machine - the machine was upgraded or repaired and the vendor could not supply a new license. Case in point.
I used to be a fan of Jamstix. I bought versions 1 and 2 and all the expansion packs.
I recommended it to others. Then one day it refused to run, saying I had an invalid license key. The vendor was unable to help. So I abandoned Jamstix, a significant inconvenience. Copy protection turned me from a happy customer to a non-customer. Hi Dave- Case in point. I used to be a fan of Jamstix.
I bought versions 1 and 2 and all the expansion packs. I recommended it to others. Then one day it refused to run, saying I had an invalid license key. The vendor was unable to help. So I abandoned Jamstix, a significant inconvenience. Copy protection turned me from a happy customer to a non-customer.
That really surprises me. Everyone on the Rayzoon forum praises his support, and everything I've seen from Ralph supports that User support. Have you posted there directly about your license key issue? I have to say 'surprised' doesn't cover it - I'm 'astounded, even open-mouthed' to hear that. That is just not anything like what I've experienced from Rayzoon. Ah- while I agree with some of your sentiments, Dave, overall I'll have to disagree. ORIGINAL: bitflipper I happen to believe that the cost of piracy is routinely overstated by software vendors and their lobbying arm, the SPA, to generate sympathy for draconian legislation such as the DMCA.
The numbers they cite are made up out of thin air - think about it: how does a vendor determine how many copies they didn't sell, for whatever reason? You might find this thread interesting: Note that Rob says that in that time period (a couple months ), fully half the users were trying to register an illegal copy. I am a software developer myself. I have been burned by users who ripped off my software and used it without paying for it. I am a fairly well-off consumer who pays for all the software I use. You'd think I'd be strongly in favor of copy protection.
But I am not. The majority of users who obtain bootleg software were not going to be customers anyway. They do not represent lost sales. More likely, they actually boost sales by broadening the user base and elevating the vendor's profile.
Many of them do purchase legitimate copies later, when they can afford them or become dependent on them in their work. I could reply with the traditional moralistic answers like 'So, I'm not going to buy a.insert name of product here., but it's OK that I steal it', but I won't- we've all seen that one before. What you do see lots of times though is damage done to the vendor's reputation because of either the copy protection kicking in or the crack breaking other functionality, and therefore people assuming it's an issue with the app itself. A case in point: Note that some posters thought this was an often reported bug until I stated unequivocally that this was the copy protection. Follow the other links I posted in the thread as well.
Or, another along the same line: Or, for sheer audacity: Andrew Kirk naturally thinks PACE has the answer, but his assertion that the cost of copy protection is trivial isn't convincing. Now that I'll agree with you on.
The cost is far from trivial, both on the vendor and end user side Convenience? Over the years I have had to abandon several software products because of unresolvable problems with copy protection. In some cases, the vendor had gone out of business and the license key was tied to a machine - the machine was upgraded or repaired and the vendor could not supply a new license. I've been bit there with a couple products, and it's inexcusable.
Any vendor who uses C/R copy protection should make permanent unlock codes available in the case of insolvency, etc. From the NI forum, as linked by ew: I downloaded Massive from a site, now i use it in FL studio 8. I used it for almost a month but now, when I open FL, and i click on Massive, it works.
But when i select an effect FL shuts down. What can be the problem? This is indicative of the pervasive 'I'm entitled to steal whatever I want' mentality of today's youth.
(Did I just say 'today's youth'? Geesh, you really do become your grandfather eventually.) I do not condone theft.
I am just saying that a) the cost to businesses from theft is exaggerated and b) the measures taken to prevent it make products fragile and are burdensome to legitimate customers. That really surprises me. Everyone on the Rayzoon forum praises his support, and everything I've seen from Ralph supports that User support. Have you posted there directly about your license key issue? I have to say 'surprised' doesn't cover it - I'm 'astounded, even open-mouthed' to hear that.
That is just not anything like what I've experienced from Rayzoon. This had been my impression of Rayzoon, too. In fact, Ralph was helpful to me when I had an issue early on.
But vendors seem to take a different attitude when the problem involves licensing. It's like standing outside an apartment building telling people 'I lost my key, can you let me in?' Most will ignore you.
ORIGINAL: bitflipper From the NI forum, as linked by ew: I downloaded Massive from a site, now i use it in FL studio 8. I used it for almost a month but now, when I open FL, and i click on Massive, it works. But when i select an effect FL shuts down. What can be the problem? This is indicative of the pervasive 'I'm entitled to steal whatever I want' mentality of today's youth. (Did I just say 'today's youth'?
Geesh, you really do become your grandfather eventually.) But, Dave- who's your market? Most of the old farts like you and me already have what we need. The market growth target is the generation with that attitude; that group's the people who will become your main customer base in the not so distant future.
I do not condone theft. I am just saying that a) the cost to businesses from theft is exaggerated and b) the measures taken to prevent it make products fragile and are burdensome to legitimate customers. While I agree with point b), I strongly disagree with point a) A case in point- remember the TCWorks plugins? Made by a division of TC Electronics, they were great plugins with fairly low overhead and a decent price. I still rememvber the day that the person who was in charge of that division posted over at KVR, absolutely torn apart over the fact that his division closed due to piracy with the plugins.
Now, instead of having those nice plugins as native plugins, you have to buy a Powercore to run them on. And, for all of us who originally bought the native versions and all of a sudden have install hassles- guess what? They aren't supported any more. And, that's just one example. There's others such as Bitheadz, the decision of companies such as MOTU to go strictly Mac with software because of Windows piracy, etc.
ORIGINAL: syrath I personally dont think that piracy does account for as many lost sales, I agree with bitflipper that these people would not have bought the software anyway. However there is the case to be made that this hurts developers of cheaper products. For example, how many more sales would a developer like Audio Damage (whose plugins are extremely good value for money), but are perhaps often overlooked because people have access to pirate plugins. This is an interesting issue, but there's a good answer to that, and it's one that comes from thinking out of the box. Professional plugs are expensive but they're also complex.
The typical user of pirated software isn't a professional, he/she is an amateur with limited time for his/her hobby. He/she doesn't have time to learn a complex plug -especially without instructions or tutorials- because this person would rather spend his/her 'quality' hobby time doing music. So, here's the angle for low-cost plugins: offer 80-90% of a professional product quality/functionality in a package that's MUCH easier and much less hassle to use.
You'd be surprised how many people would rather use Photoshop Elements or Premiere Elements over their professional counterparts, even when they can get them for free through a pirated torrent. Because all an amateur photographer/videographer wants is to make nice family pictures/videos to show to relatives and friends and he/she doesn't have and doesn't want to spend time to achieve 'professional' results.
![Jamstix 3 serial Jamstix 3 serial](/uploads/1/2/5/3/125383728/905018030.jpg)
![Jamstix Jamstix](http://img.afreecodec.com/screenshot/1f/jamstix-495500.jpg)
Not to mention his/her lack of skills. But the preset effects in those two packages look impressive enough for a family show. I agree with bitflipper, but music is my profession and even though I hate dongles, I have lots of them, because I need those products and I certainly would never use pirated software for a lot of PRACTICAL reasons (support, updates, tax write-offs, I don't want to risk infecting my DAW with viruses/trojans.), and I'm not even mentioning my honesty and integrity. I think that the industry is exaggerating figures and that dongles, authorizations, limited/time-constrained downloads etc. Only harass the honest paying customer, all the while people who want pirated software can get it easily through a torrent even a kid could find on google.
Susan EDIT: I'm sorry, but that's too bizarre for me to ignore. You've both reported your problems to Ralph and what, he's ignored them? Never would happen. I Have to agree with Susan concerning Ralph.
I've been a Jamstix Customer since it's inception & I cannot recall a time that Ralph did not respond to any given problem/situation within usually minutes. I'd be willing to bet that Ralph was left out of the loop at some point because he's never been anything less than a complete, Caring, Compassionate, Competent, Developer. There's not a lot of people left in the Crazy World that I would go out on a line for but Ralph is a Genuine Person, JMHO Wildman. ORIGINAL: ew You might find this thread interesting: Note that Rob says that in that time period (a couple months ), fully half the users were trying to register an illegal copy. I haven't read the thread but this is still not indicative of lost sales. The fact that some users are stupid enough to try and register an illegal copy does not in any way mean that they would buy the software if no crack was available. Even if the figure was 99% of registration attempts coming from illegal copies it still wouldn't tell anyone how many lost sales there were.
(But I can understand it being disheartening to the developer). I still rememvber the day that the person who was in charge of that division posted over at KVR, absolutely torn apart over the fact that his division closed due to piracy with the plugins. Again the fact that the manager of that department thought they closed because of piracy is no guarantee that that really is the case. I think it is just impossible to know. What I do find interesting is the post by Angus Baigent from Steinberg. Reading between the lines, he seems to say that even though C4 and C5 are uncracked, they have not seen a drastic increase in sales since SX3.
(I'm quite sure he would have simply stated that if it were the case). Who else are better placed to see the effect of working dongles on sales? Despite there being no clear indication that successful copy protection increases sales, he writes 'So having a functioning (knock on wood) uncracked copy protection technology is definitely helping in the long run.'
What does he base this on? This is a logical leap of faith and IMO characteristic of those that believe unequivocally in copy protection. There is no real evidence to support this belief. ORIGINAL: MatsonMusicBox Well. I'm not going to buy a Lexus. So I guess that makes it OK for me to steal it since I wouldn't be buying one anyway. Let me know when you can press a button and obtain a brand-new, fully functional Lexus copy for the cost of a 49-cent disk.
All I know is that I get irrationally pissed off, throwing-things-around-the-room mad, when I buy a neato new software product, get home with it, and can't get it to work because of some copy protection snafu (as has happened to me more than once). I would be calmer if I found a rattlesnake in the box.