Spectrasonics and near future

[zeruyo]

Hi, I would like to express a concern about my use of Spectrasonics products.
I'm currently starting to work on a huge musical project that will have a timeline of about 2-3 years.
I planned around 6-8 months of creation and then having gigs with constant evolution of the musical material.

The project will be strongly built around Stylus RMX and Omnisphere.
Since I'm expecting (hoping) that in brief Spectrasonics will release something revolutionary about RMX (I hope because, compared to the other two flagship products, RMX is really way back), my concern is to build things in a way that will minimize the potential effort converting the project.
I know that this post has two weak points:

• it assumes that Spectrasonics is working on a new RMX (and revolutionary) version of RMX with no real evidence
• it looks like I'm trying to forcefully have strategic and secret informations about the near future Spectrasonics projects.

I know that is really difficult to answer to my question without the risk of breaking the marketing strategy of a company (especially Spectrasonics that have minimum time gap between announces and releases), but starting a project like the one I mentioned in terms of timeline, I have to worry about the evolution of the main tools I'm going to use.

Thanks.

[spectrum]

All I can really say is that we are always keeping a close eye on backwards compatibility for whatever we do in the future of our instruments....this much you can be sure of. :-)

[playz123]

My suggestion is to just focus on what you have now, and the future will take care of itself. If you base your thinking on what you might have, you'll never be satisfied with what you do have. No one knows what lies ahead or what new 'tools' will be available in two years, but if all goes well developers will continue to release new products, as they are doing currently. Anyway, unless you want to sit and wait for some new product that might possibly be coming sometime, it seems to me that it would be most productive to just get started now, and deal with what lies ahead when it happens.

[zeruyo]

My question was not about my dissatisfaction about current versions of the products. Although, for example, the browsing of the libraries of Stylus RMX is really frustrating and time consuming, this is not the point.
With a timeline of about 2 years and the first 6 months of production, there will come a time when I will have several projects with the current version of RMX and, maybe, the possibility to use more confortable way of working (and better features) on a new version.
So I was asking some tips about the way of setting the projects to minimize the effort of future conversion.
Thanks for your answers.

[Mauri]

What's wrong with using what you have now for the duration of your project.
Don't get me wrong, new tools and better workflow are always welcome but surely 'safety' comes first?

Good luck with your big project,

Mauri.

[Vocalpoint]

With a timeline of about 2 years and the first 6 months of production, there will come a time when I will have several projects with the current version of RMX and, maybe, the possibility to use more confortable way of working (and better features) on a new version.

So I was asking some tips about the way of setting the projects to minimize the effort of future conversion.
Thanks for your answers.

Do you think Hollywood suddenly stops a movie because of the possibility of some new software coming out while the movie is being made? Stay productive and stop dreaming about stuff that's not available would be my first instinct.

Make your project the very best it can be with what you plan to use and stay the course. There is no guarantees on anything being better, faster or even available within your project timelines. And the first rule of any big deliverable is to never switch apps midstream - especially with something that's shiny and untested.

VP

[zeruyo]

I'm almost sure that (apart for Eric) the real question behind my post is not so clear and I'm pretty sure this is because my english is not so good.
Of course I've just begun working on the project with the tools I have.
What VP states is true, but in my case I'm very disappointed about some of the functions in a wonderful instrument like RMX.
In particular the way browsing libraries and edit suite are built makes the workflow really slow and in the last year I counted every second to the next release. If in a new version these features will be better there is no doubt I will make the jump. The effort of converting worths the time I'm spending in searching a sound in RMX.
Anyway what if some years ago you were working in a project strongly Atmosphere based and in the middle of production something like Omnisphere came out?...

[Vocalpoint]

Anyway what if some years ago you were working in a project strongly Atmosphere based and in the middle of production something like Omnisphere came out?...

Again - if you are a working professional and are being paid for this "project" (aka "My client requires me to complete this project on time and on budget") then there is only one right answer - which is to stay the course with Atmosphere. For any of my professional work - meeting the requirements of the client ALWAYS outweighs the arrival of any new fangled software that may (or may or may not) be better. I am not being paid to be a software tester - I am being paid to deliver.

In particular the way browsing libraries and edit suite are built makes the workflow really slow and in the last year I counted every second to the next release. If in a new version these features will be better there is no doubt I will make the jump. The effort of converting worths the time I'm spending in searching a sound in RMX.

Now - on the other hand - if your project is non-professional in nature (as in NOT getting paid) - and is more like "I really want cool, shiny untested tools and plan on wasting tons of time messing with them to see if they will make my 2 year project easier" - my apologies - but it does sound more like you are trying to get Eric to tip his hand early - hoping there may be something cool waiting in the wings.

Being disappointed from time to time in how any given software tool works is totally normal - but if it's really as bad as you are making it out to be - then perhaps RMX is not the tool for this job - period.

VP

[zeruyo]

thanks again for the time you spent for your clear advices. I definitely agree with you.

but it does sound more like you are trying to get Eric to tip his hand early - hoping there may be something cool waiting in the wings.

Being disappointed from time to time in how any given software tool works is totally normal - but if it's really as bad as you are making it out to be - then perhaps RMX is not the tool for this job - period.
VP

really i was afraid that my original post could sound like this (and in my poor english I tried to avoid this kind of misunderstanding).
The project is professional but I'm my own client, something I'm investing on. I already know that after the first mass production time it will constantly evolve and there's no doubt that, considering the great reliability even of the first Spectrasonics releases, I will upgrade if it worths.
But my only original question was much simpler:
just some tips to make the conversion effort easier, something like "more slice mode, less groove midi mode" for example. As Eric said, I hope in backward compatibility.
Thanks.