Re: flexible looper in small package

[Jeff Larson <Jeffrey.Larson@Sun.COM>]

Travis Hartnett wrote:
> I'm always curious as to where they're being used (rackmount VST
> hosts), since it seems that it makes more sense in the studio to use a
> host computer, and I haven't seen them crop up in the gear lists of
> working musicians.  Maybe in the electronic music world, which I don't
> keep tabs on, but even then I'd think a laptop would be the tool of
> choice.

Yes, I wish the Receptor folks well, but that has to be a difficult
business.  It makes little sense in the studio where you will already
have computers.  Most plugs are designed to need a graphic UI, so on
the road you're still having to deal with an attached LCD panel and
possibly even a keyboard and mouse.

The big issue for developers is that it runs neither Windows or
OSX, so you have yet another port.  Oh they claim to run Windows plugs
but that's marketing hype.  If you deviate from their portability
rules, which easy to do, it won't run.  This basically eliminates all
non-commercial developers because there aren't enough Receptor users
to justify a port.  And Receptor buyers have to be sure that what they
want runs on it.  A classic chicken-and-egg problem.

There are certainly advantages to the Receptor approach, but I have to
wonder if it wouldn't have been better to start with Windows as a
foundation, properly tuned with all the unnecessary components
removed.  No, it wouldn't boot in 5 seconds like the Receptor claims,
but you wouldn't have any plugin support issues.  A lot of the their
technology like the VST host application, integrated audio/midi,
plugin version management, integrated copy protection, crash
detection, etc.  would still be valuable and differentiate it from
just another rack mount PC.

As long as they keep you from using it as a PC and doing silly
things like surfing the web or reading email, it wouldn't be
be any less stable than the Linux platform they currently use.

Jeff