Few things are as essential to music making as the experience of a live show. So it’s about time someone took some risks to see if there’s a better way to run live sound. Line 6′s new StageScape M20d is important because it does just that – it finally says the mixer as you know it doesn’t have to be sacred, and tries to build a better one. Traditionalists might be skeptical – and with good reason, as we see if this idea works in practice – but it features some bold ideas worth considering.

Centered on a touchscreen interface, the StageScape mixer eschews traditional channel strips in favor of images and virtual touch controls. Want to tweak your vocalist’s sound? Instead of remembering which channel she’s on, tap the picture of the singer. StageScape brings up an elaborate array of processing options, all performed behind the scenes by Line 6′s DSP tech. You can even store in internal memory twenty seconds of a band playing, then adjust multitrack audio after the fact until it’s right, wandering around a venue using an iPad as a remote control. From processing to preset settings, control to sound experience, StageScape is completely and totally digital. It even “knows” what kind of input you’re using when you plug in the jack.

The solution is radically different than what we’ve seen before. It’s likely to scare away some users, and we’ll have to see how it works in practice. But coupled with some sophisticated sonic capabilities, it just might win over new users and adventurous live sound vets. Here’s a first look, after CDM got to meet with Line 6 at the product’s unveiling.

A Better Mousetrap

For the most part, all mixers are designed with the same basic assumptions in mind. To connect multiple microphones and instruments, the mixer presents a series of columns that represent “channels,” and lines up parameters for each of those channels. To amplify and treat the sound of a singer, then, you connect the vocal microphone to a channel number, then adjust the settings for that particular channel. The challenge is, you are restricted to the knobs and faders on physical hardware, so anything you do is limited to a fixed number of controls – and you have to remember the abstraction of which instrumentalist is associated with which channel. Just writing this out seems redundant and obvious; we’re so used to the arrangement that it’s hard to even think about it. But if you do think about it, there is a layer of abstraction between what you’re doing and the way you’d think about the actual musical ensemble.

Adding a touchscreen interface means these kinds of abstractions don’t have to be there, but most software simply recreates the same setup. It may be easier to label channels once you have a display, but otherwise digital mixers have generally replicated the same setup. And even software has generally aped the lineup of channel strips, rather than design a visual metaphor more closely tied to how we think.

StageScape tosses all of that out the window.

It starts from the moment you plug in a cable. I/O jacks on the back, featuring combo Neutrik connectors, “know” what sort of cable you’ve connected. So, for instance, plug in an XLR, and the mixer guesses you’ve got a mic. Add a 1/4″ line jack, and it works out you’ve connected something that’s line level or instrumental. (I’m still researching just how much the auto-sensing considers, but it at the very least knows which connection you used.) The feature works with both input and output, and sets paramters like channel gain, EQ, effects and routing.

Live sound has already benefited from going digital. Having hung out front-of-house with the rival Avid Venue system, I can already tell you live sound engineers adore the change. Let’s assume you have a lineup of three bands. Already, the ability to label channels for those three different ensembles, set levels, and then store presets for instant-recall of settings for each is huge. In fact, I’d wager almost everyone reading this has been in a live situation – front-of-house, onstage, or both – where the show didn’t sound right because some setting from soundcheck was lost in translation. Digital presets are already a breakthrough.

What’s different with StageScape – apart from the fact that it’s far cheaper than something like Venue – is that the whole process is instantly focused on players, and it’s visual. Got a singer? You place a picture of the singer on a virtual stage on the screen, dragging their position in place with your finger. Got a guitarist? Drag a picture of a guitar. (Note that this view is called Perform Mode – you can also see more traditional views if that’s more convenient.)

The same graphical workflow applies to tweaking sound. X/Y pads take a bunch of DSP functions and label them in everyday English, so instead of adjusting a bunch of EQs and dynamic controls, you drag to settings like “punch” or “bright.” Line 6 emphasized that this will help folks who lack audio engineering backgrounds, but it might be useful to experienced users, too. Dynamics, equalization, and effects are also available as a separate, traditional “Deep Edit” view. Multiband compression and multi-point parametric EQ naturally benefit from touchscreen interfaces, since you can manipulate these graphical views directly. But you can also create your own X/Y presets, so when you need to make quick adjustments, you can quickly navigate favorite settings.

Of Touchscreens and iPads

It’s worth noting that the interface on the SoundScape mixer isn’t an iPad. Various vendors at the NAMM show last week had iPad dock solutions, but there’s an advantage to using a custom touchscreen. What’s wonderful about capacitive touchscreens (like the iPad and iPhone) is the instant response you get from a feathery touch. What’s terrible about capacitive touchscreens is that a feathery touch can quickly screw up your settings in a live show. That’s bad.

Line 6 joins a number of other music products in instead using a resistive screen. This technology requires some pressure before it senses your finger, which makes accidental touches less likely. It’s also less susceptible to, for instance, sweaty fingers.

Instead of making the iPad the main interface, Line 6 employs Apple’s tablet as a remote control. There, it makes far more sense than locked into a dock. You can wander around a venue and control the SoundScape mixing settings, hearing how they sound in different spots. (Especially useful: those 20 seconds of multitrack recording can be looped, as Line 6 showed off in a press conference featuring Colbie Cailet. It’s a simple thing to pull off, but so badly needed in live sound, it was met with enthusiastic cheers by the gathered crowd.) You do need an optional USB WiFi adapter to enable this functionality.

You’re also not without physical controls. Endless encoders, color-coded to match on-screen controls, provide physical, hands-on control. I don’t think anyone is going to like this arrangement quite as well as motorized faders (or faders, generally), but it does mean you get tangible control. (It’s also not hard to imagine Line 6 offering a motorized fader module if this box is a hit. In fact, I’d very much love to see a USB input on there, unless I missed one.)

Recording and Sound Processing

In addition to being a mixer, the SoundScape M20d is a multi-track recording device, so it can capture the same performance it’s mixing – perfect for preparing downloads of a live show. It records 24-bit lossless WAV to SD card or a connected USB drive or computer.

You also get various effects – no surprise with a Line 6 product – including:

• Parametric EQ
• Multi-band compression
• Feedback suppression
• Studio reverb
• Delays
• Vocal doubling

These in turn are bundled into channel effects.

I/O

While it eschews the channel strip metaphor, the M20d is otherwise a conventional mixer under the hood:

• 12 digitally-controlled mic/line combo ins (using that auto-sensing feature mentioned earlier)
• 2 digital inputs from computer, USB, or SD
• Stereo line inputs
• 4 monitor outs, 2 mains, each with auto-sensing on balanced XLR

Line 6 also has something called L6 LINK, a multi-channel, digital networked format via an XLR plug that allows you to connect and intelligently-configure Line 6′s own speakers. At NAMM, they were showing off their own StageSource speakers and subwoofer. They sounded terrific, though I am a little sad there isn’t a standard protocol employed on the mixer that would allow you to choose vendors.

What it’s Not

As part of the “let’s put an iPad in everything” trend at NAMM (which included almost everything but a harpsichord dock for your iPad), Mackie launched the DL1608.

In fact, the DL1608 basically is the Line 6, conceptually speaking, but minus all the critical refinements I mentioned – made more obvious when you look at images of these two units side by side.

• It immediately reproduces a virtual mixer screen on the touchscreen, which has the effect of demonstrating … why physical faders make more sense when you’re trying to reproduce physical faders.
• Using an iPad as a primary touchscreen saves some scratch, but then your iPad is stuck in your mixer, you have a capacitive touchscreen that can be too touchy when used live, and you have annoying things like notifications popping up while you’re trying to mix.
• You don’t get a fully-integrated system.

Correction: Like the Line 6 offering, the Mackie supports multiple iPads (up to ten) via wireless connection. Also like the Line 6 kit, you need extra hardware to support that — in the case of the Mackie, you need a connected router. I’m not sure with either how the mixer handles multiple people controlling the same parameters / how it deals with conflicts.

So, sorry. If I’m going to save money, I’ll just buy one of Mackie’s (excellent) non-touchscreen mixers. I think we have to see how touchscreens work for mixer in general, but if I were to go touch, the Line 6 product looks both more practical and better-equipped to actually innovate with the concept.

Mackie DL1608
Via SHOCKLEE blog

They do have a cute video, at least.

Stay Tuned

No official pricing or availability has been announced, but early numbers I heard made this sound accessible. Update: Street appears to be US$2500. That’s steep for the same band who’s just starting out and has no one doing sound (especially if they want to buy the PA, too), but it’s quite reasonable for people looking for a digitally-automated mixer for a home studio or live – and even more so given the DSP and touchscreen and iPad remote control options packed into this product.

To me, the big question will be who actually uses StageScape. Line 6 kept talking about bands who lack their own live sound person. But while the idea of a band running their own sound is appealing, that means the same band who couldn’t afford a tech now are buying and lugging around this PA system – possible in some cases, but surely not in all. Someone, it seems, is sure to buy it: venues, perhaps, and certainly academic and institutional settings where its user-friendly features are doubly valuable.

Once in place, we’ll see whether the “magical” interface can really replace a traditional mixer. I can certainly see some live sound people very badly missing the ability to hover their hands over physical faders. Oddly, the folks who might appreciate this most are the people who do live sound, and find its preset storage, built-in processing, and seamless configuration appealing in the field. I look forward to when we get to try it out.

But I applaud Line 6 for rethinking the mixing interface itself. The company certainly has a track record – co-founders Marcus Ryle and Michel Doidic gave us ADAT and then single-handedly popularized digital DSP for guitarists. We’ll see now if this is their third grand acheivement in transforming the business. In the meantime, this could easily be, amidst an avalanche of new gear, the most daring and promising new music product announcement this year.

http://line6.com/stagescape

Mobile devices are here, they’re powerful — get used to them. Now, could they just connect to the rest of your noisemakers and studio rigs? That’s the potential of new iOS SDKs for MIDI I/O and keyboard docking. But aside from some restrictions imposed by hardware support on iOS, what many developers are publicly wondering is whether a different path entirely will be most productive.

Hot on the heels of Line 6′s SDK for their MIDI Mobilizer, a MIDI input and output connector for iOS devices, Akai is courting developers for its own music accessory. The SynthStation 25 is a standard 25-key music keyboard with a dock for an iPhone or iPod touch inside.

The proposition for developers: now your sequencer or controller can connect to MIDI gear (with MIDI Mobilizer), or your synth can actually be inside something that looks like a synth, with a real keyboard.

Changes to Apple’s developer agreement have facilitated just this change. But while this is a step forward for developer flexibility, there are still some limitations on what developers can do, and what they can talk about, imposed by the makers of the accessories. Those restrictions won’t discourage all developers, but they’re worth noting, especially as mobile music gear is in early days.

There’s another discussion brewing among developers, too, which is whether the kinds of hardware assumptions upon which these two products are built even belong in the mobile age.

Here’s a look at where we are and how we got there, whether you’re an intrigued developer or just wish to consider how this fits into a larger picture of music gear in 2010.

Why Third-Party Apps for Third-Party Hardware is Now Available on iOS

In April, I wrote an editorial on the direction of hardware support on iOS, which has been a remnant of Apple’s tightly-controlled iPod accessory program, long before their mobile gadgets became real pocket computers. Line 6′s MIDI Mobilizer was the catalyst for the piece:
Of MIDI, iPhones and iPads, and a Restrictive Future for Hardware?

What hasn’t changed since then: Apple’s Dock Connector is not only a non-standard, proprietary adapter specific to their phones, but one for which you must ask permission if you wish to make your own hardware accessories.

What has changed: because of an adjustment to Apple’s legal writing, you can now let developers write apps for your hardware accessories.

Line 6 and Akai, as Apple developers, are not allowed to comment on Apple’s user agreement. (Insert Fight Club reference here.) But the changes to Apple’s Program Agreement are available publicly.

The old agreement

3.3.24 Your Application may interface, communicate, or otherwise interoperate with or control an iPhone Accessory (as defined above) through Bluetooth or Apple’s 30-pin dock connector only if You have obtained a license for such iPhone Accessory under Apple’s MFi Program.

The new agreement

3.3.25 Your Application may interface, communicate, or otherwise interoperate with or control an iPhone Accessory (as defined above) through Bluetooth or Apple’s 30-pin dock connector only if (i) such iPhone Accessory is licensed under Apple’s MFi Program at the time that You initially submit Your Application, (ii) the MFi Licensee has added Your Application to a list of those approved for interoperability with their iPhone Accessory, and (iii) the MFi Licensee has received approval from the Apple MFi Program for such addition.

Source: Twitter user beweeet

Spot the difference?

Apple is now allowing third-party apps to support those hardware accessories – provided Apple approves both the accessory itself, and via the accessory’s maker, the app.

Requirements for Developing for Akai, Line 6 iOS Hardware

Akai and Line 6 deserve some kudos for mediating between Apple and the third-party developer. Again, these developers are not able to talk about their agreement with Apple. But they were extremely cooperative in sharing their policy for working with developers. (In fact, basically, to get started all any interested developer has to do is email them.)

Line 6

A copy of the developer agreement obtained by CDM reveals what’s necessary to become a MIDI Mobilizer developer. At its most fundamental level, that means proposing an application plan to be approved by Line 6 as compatible (as per Apple’s own requirements), and agreeing to non-disclosure regarding any confidential information with which you’re providing (including documentation).

Marcus Ryle at Line 6 confirms with CDM that an additional requirement is sales reporting, though it appears this shouldn’t be a deal-breaker:

We do request reporting on the unit sales of the applications that use the MIDI Mobilizer. This information is kept confidential, and the purpose is so that we can have visibility into which apps are being most widely used by the MIDI Mobilizer. If we were to make any new versions of hardware in the future, we want to be sure that we can continue to meet the needs of our users by understanding what is important to them, and this requires us to know what is being used. We also understand that for some developers this is information that they do not want to share, and we are happy to discuss this directly with them to come to an amicable resolution.

With the SDK itself under non-disclosure, I asked Marcus what this might mean for someone developing an open source app (several of which have already appeared on the App Store):

We do have some limitations with regard to open source usage in our agreement. Specifically, we do not allow the use of open source if our SDK is used in a way that would cause our code to become part of the open source license obligations (unless we have provided written consent), since this typically results in the requirement that our source code would have to be released publicly. If the open source code can be used in a way that does not cause our code to be connected to the open source licensing, then this would be ok.

Akai

Glen Darcey, product manager at Akai, confirmed to me that the SynthStation SDK has some similar requirements in order to maintain their proprietary SDK. But unlike Line 6, Akai is not requesting any sales reporting.

Darcey also downplays the requirements. “Your product is your product,” he says. “Our code is our code. It cannot be redistributed. It can be in your app… Anyone who wants to add support for our hardware can but they have to go through our developers SDK process which is minimal.”

“There are requirements for adding our logos that say the app is compatible with our hardware,” he adds; that appears to me to come from Apple’s program.

As for the NDA, in this case, says Darcey, it’s nothing out of the ordinary: “The NDA is a standard NDA. It basically states that anything we say will be confident as will anything you say to us.”

Will this discourage developers?

Short answer: no – that is, if the developer has the desire to develop for this SDK in the first place.

Developers I’ve spoken to had some concerns about these requirements, but they also didn’t appear to change anyone’s mind one way or the other. That is, those wanting to develop for these accessories found the requirements workable. Those who don’t care … well, don’t care.

I think these restrictions are a deal-breaker for truly open source development on mobile, but for those projects, support for proprietary hardware accessories is generally less appealing anyway.

(If you disagree, of course, you can make yourself heard in comments.)

More than the issues of restrictions on the platform, though, the conversation I’m hearing is one that’s more fundamental.

Time to Move Beyond MIDI (or Wires)?

Line 6 and Akai each promise some exciting applications. But as comments recently demonstrated, many users and developers alike are treating the announcement with skepticism.

First off, even if the requirements for the proprietary SDK are modest, the issue is their competition. A $200 netbook (or a $400 used Mac laptop, if you like) can plug into a $30 MIDI interface without drivers. A variety of free development tools on any platform can then talk to that interface, or you could write your own – we’re talking serial communication, which is hardly brain surgery. And the reality is, a lot of people who use MIDI gear also own these other devices.

Once you add MIDI gear to an iPhone or iPad, you limit some of the device’s elegance and portability. You can also connect only one device at a time, meaning adding a MIDI Mobilizer gives you MIDI but no external audio – and since there are now things sticking out of your iPad, your laptop is suddenly just about as mobile as it is.

I think some of the skepticism here is undue; I still like the idea of a portable, pocketable recorder for MIDI sketching or library backup. But developers like Christopher Penrose, creator of Cosmovox, aren’t necessarily criticizing the availability of these SDKs. They’re saying that energy could be directed somewhere else. From comments, Christopher writes:

It is important to consider the benefits of Open Sound Control and other alternative communication protocols. I don’t believe the future of music entirely belongs to people who have an interest in protecting and extending their hardware investment. But I will say I would consider supporting the MIDImobilizer in some/all of our iOS products if the demand was significant, the API is well designed enough, and the licensing terms are acceptable. But I think developers should be putting their limited energies into viable communication protocols that extend and enrich the music we can make, rather than being bogged down by outdated, replacement-ripe legacy standards…

For independent developers, it may very well be an either/or situation. Time is finite. I have Open Sound Control support well under way and it works without an additional hardware investment.

The other advantage of wireless communication is that it keeps mobile devices mobile. And incidentally, there’s no reason you can’t use a protocol like Bluetooth to do MIDI, as well as implemented OSC wirelessly over a network. It is possible to achieve accurate timing and low latency wirelessly, too, though that’s a discussion I hope we have in greater detail on CDM, so I won’t do it an injustice by faking it now.

I actually had a dream last night in which I was using Bluetooth to do MIDI, so I’m obviously supposed to be getting on this instead of writing lengthy investigations of Apple developer agreements. And I’ll leave it at that.

In the end, I don’t doubt that we’ll see a handful of interesting apps for the Akai and Line 6 gear. And MIDI hardware is something with which we’ll want to interoperate for a long time to come. The question now is, what’s the best path for the future?

2010, meet 1984. For all the wonderfully-futuristic qualities of the iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad, electronic musicians have reason to scoff now and then: sometimes you want to be able to plug into good, old-fashioned, physical MIDI hardware.

Line 6′s MIDI Mobilizer is a nifty little gadget that provides MIDI input and output via the Apple Dock Connector, on iPhone, iPod touch, and (while it’s not listed on their site at the moment) iPad. As-is, it’s a decent purchase, but as was the case with MIDI on the computer back in the 80s, software is really the key. Line 6′s bundled MIDI Memo Recorder app does basic recording and playback, but that’s it. It’s very cool to be able to use your iPhone or iPod touch as a pocketable MIDI recorder, but with all the unusual software designed for the platform, why not grant MIDI to everything?

Since the announcement of MIDI Mobilizer earlier this year, we’ve seen a couple of apps that have expanded what it can do. But open development is clearly what we’d need to make this hardware truly useful. And this week, it appears, we’re getting just that: Line 6 has announced they’ve decided to make its SDK open to all interested developers, not just a handful of selected partners. (You still have to send them an email, but they otherwise say it’s free.) MusicRadar catches the story, and asks, iPhone and iPad to get more MIDI-capable apps?. I don’t want to go out on a limb before I know all the details, but I’d reply, “iPhone and iPad to get more MIDI-capable apps!”

Here’s a look at what MIDI Mobilizer can do currently, and the new developer announcement. (For an overview, see SonicState’s review on the iPad, top. And yes, I’m jealous of your Jupiter.)

MIDI Mobilizer Features and Reviews

Basic MIDI backup and playback, what Line 6 describes as “MIDI memos,” is already pretty useful, especially on the pocket-sized iPhone and iPod touch. That’s the reason that back in the MIDI hardware heyday, MIDI recorders were readily available.

A number of the existing reviews focus on this feature. Line 6, for their part, sums it up:

And here’s a test by our friend, PalmSounds:

Line 6 also demonstrates how to use the MIDI Memo App for backing up MIDI settings.

Matrixsynth has an excellent, extended written review from back in May:
Direct MIDI for the iPad is Here

Additional Apps

Line 6 worked with developer Audiofile Engineering to develop MIDI Surface, a US$5.99 app that makes iOS devices into a MIDI controller device, with keyboards and pads, via the MIDI Mobilizer hardware. That’s handy, though still not quite in the territory of killer app, just because a velocity-sensitive keyboard or set of pads is still going to be more playable. (There’s also not yet a native iPad version.)
MIDI Surface – iTunes link
MIDI Surface on Palm Sounds

MIDI Live, by Garren Langford, went further, with an app that allows realtime modification, though the interface is more than a little primitive and the app costs GBP23.99.
iTunes link

An Open SDK

I raised concerns and had some harsh words for the iOS platform earlier this year when Line 6 first announced the restrictions on developing for the device. It may have seemed I was simply savaging Apple’s platform, but I at least got feedback from iOS developers that my criticism wasn’t far off the mark. It was unclear at the time – partly because of vague wording on the part of Apple – how much fault could rest with Line 6 and how much with Apple’s hardware platform in general, though at least some blame fell in the latter category.
Of MIDI, iPhones and iPads, and a Restrictive Future for Hardware?

As I concluded at the time, though, I wasn’t going on a rant just because I like the sound of my fingers against my QWERTY keyboard – I hoped the situation would change. Whether via technical changes in Apple’s SDK, changes in the legal agreement Apple makes with developers (a Byzantine document for us non-lawyers to navigate), or some combination, Line 6 has had a change of heart.

MusicRadar’s Ben Rogerson reports:

“With Apple’s new iOS 4 it is now possible for any developer to create MIDI-enabled applications that work with MIDI Mobilizer,” explains Marcus Ryle, SVP of New Business Development at Line 6.

“As an open invitation to developers, we are now providing the SDK at no charge, and are not charging any license fee or royalty.”

Hopefully, this should kickstart the development of MIDI-capable iOS apps – requests for the SDK should be sent to MMdeveloper@line6.com.

I think the potential here is terrific. Sure, not everyone wants to use mobile platforms. Not everyone owns an iOS device. But in the long run, I’d hope that across mobile and desktop platforms, hardware and software, we retain the kind of standards that have made the desktop electronic music revolution possible. That means interconnected software and hardware and steps forward, not backward.

In fact, I imagine high on the priority list could be things like MIDI compatibility with cross-platform versions of Pure Data (Pd) running across desktop and mobile — something that’s very doable, by the way.

Important caveat – “open” probably doesn’t mean free. I expect the SDK itself would not be open source, so it would mean for a project like Pd, having to rely on a non-free license for a dependency. That’s something that, should Android finally get support for this, should be made entirely free on Android. Nor does that preclude commercial projects built on such a library – most Android projects use non-GPL-style licenses.

It seems like it’s also time for the Android community to ask how, with a Linux kernel, the absence of restrictive legal documents like Apple’s developer agreement, and a more open ethos, the Android platform has been beaten to this kind of hardware compatibility by iOS. (After all, that’s what competition is for — not flame-baiting in comment threads, but actually making things better.)

So, if you’re interested in getting something accomplished with this new tool, I invite you to let us know what you’re doing, and to join our Noisepages mobile hack group:
http://noisepages.com/groups/next-gen-mobile-music-visual-dev-hack-group/
(If you need an invite to Noisepages, you can request one from an existing user, and we plan to provide more robust tools on that platform for September.)

And iOS, welcome to the 80s.

MIDI Mobilizer

In pointing out Behringer’s clone of Apple’s homepage, I may have left some things unclear. I was honestly surprised to find a number of people rushing to Behringer’s defense. I wasn’t trying to score cheap and easy points against the brand, but while venting frustration, I may have underestimated the response of people who own Behringer gear. If you do, and it’s working for you, as always – that’s a good thing.

The conversation got me excited, and I stepped into the comment fray. I shouldn’t have in this case, and unless asked to, I’ll stay out of this conversation. I enjoy being involved in those threads, but there are times when I should keep my writing to this space and let you have at it in the space below – the one labeled “comments.”

I think the reason Behringer inflames some people boils down to two things. Those people may have been burned by gear that proved not to be a bargain, or offended by a history of gear designs copied from recognizable models, or both. The former, of course, can happen with any vendor, but it does illustrate that saving money doesn’t always save time or money. Caveat Emptor is therefore true with any vendor. The latter is really the sticking point. Here’s a loose timeline of the cases in question:

Behringer and Mackie: In 1997, Mackie sued not only Behringer but distributor Samson and retailer Sam Ash. Mackie claimed that Behringer mixers were intended as exact copies of Mackie mixers – not only of external look and feel, but circuit design and individual components. In 1999, Behringer and Samson claimed a decision by the US Copyright Office “vindicated” the company. That supposed vindication is fairly empty, however. The US Copyright Office didn’t say that Behringer’s circuit designs were original. Instead, they said that the circuit board designs weren’t covered by the US Copyright Office. That has more to do with peculiarities of US intellectual property law than it does a vindication of Behringer.

Behringer and Roland/BOSS: In 2005, Roland sued Behringer for duplicating the look and feel of its guitar pedals. The blog Music Thing had a nice visual of just what this looked like. In this case, there was no claim about underlying circuit design, but the look and feel or “trade dress” is covered legally. Again, Behringer was not exactly vindicated. The two companies reached a settlement. The terms remained confidential, but Behringer did modify the look of its pedals.

Behringer and Line 6: What’s more disturbing to me is that, after reaching a legal settlement with Roland, Behringer simply moved on to a different vendor. In 2007, Behringer introduced a new line of pedals copying Line 6 instead of BOSS. Again, Music Thing’s Tom Whitwell did a visual comparison. Less extreme, but demonstrating Behringer continues to try to steal Line 6 market share by looking like Line 6, even the prize for the web design competition (the V-AMP) is intended to clone Line 6′s POD.

These are not the only cases of Behringer products that are designed to look like someone else’s products. As noted in comments, even the screenshot of the Behringer website is of monitors intended to look like those from KRK. Part of why I’m taking up the Behringer stories is that Music Thing isn’t around to do it any more, but here are some of Tom’s best hits:

In 2006, Behringer again copied Mackie, answering Mackie’s ONYX with mixers-plus-digital-I/O called the XENYX. (They copied the look and feel of older Mackie mixers rather than newer ones, but this was also clearly intended to look like Mackie’s product.)

Some amount of cloning, of course, should be forgiven – it’s expected practice for software emulations to mimic the look and feel of classic analog gear, so I can’t really fault Behringer for that. (That said, of course, I still think there’s far too much of that, and far too little original thinking about how to lay out controls and design interfaces.) The difference between cloning a classic product and a currently-shipping product is that making something look like something else that you can buy new suggests you want to create confusion. There are laws around that – “trade dress” – but more importantly to me is the question of whether it’s ethical.

Please, if, in comments, you want to fill out this timeline or offer more details of each case, on either side, I’m happy to hear it.

Apple and Behringer: In the case of the Apple site, while I wish websites in general would stop cloning Apple’s design – good as it may be – Behringer crossed a line by copying product pages, the color weight, gradient values, pixel weights, and radius of the Apple site. My small images in the story didn’t do that justice. This is not about the “cult of Apple.” Let me make myself plain: please, stop making sites look like the Apple site. Behringer’s case I think was worse than most, but I’d be happy if other sites flirted less with some of the particulars of Apple’s designs. Apple’s solution is not always the “best” design solution. There are others.

(Side note: the basics of Apple’s current website design really have been tremendously influential – so much so that it’s easy to overlook how much of this is derived from Apple. The earliest version of the current look dates from around 1997. But you can be influenced by a design and make it your own, rather than copying every detail or copying every detail poorly. To pretend otherwise would be to say design doesn’t matter, and I can’t do that.)

Let’s consider the larger issues:

Cheap can be great. One thing I won’t do is discriminate against musicians because what they’re using is cheap. “Ghetto fabulous” I believe is the proper term. Far from that, I hope on CDM we can find every opportunity to champion finding ways of doing cool stuff with cheap things. However…

Cheaper doesn’t always save you money. Because value is important, because you’re on a budget, you don’t want to throw your money away. Assume for a moment the allegations that Behringer cloned Mackie’s mixers down to individual circuits and components were true. That still doesn’t cover issues like manufacturing quality assurance or support. Larger than any one vendor – Behringer or otherwise – we urgently need to consider value. We can’t afford disposable gear. Our musical electronics are made out of toxic materials, and they impact the environment as they’re made, shipped, and disposed. And we need them to last for our music, too. I’m certainly guilty of having made this mistake, but it’s something that – as a community – we can all do better. Again, perhaps you have a good relationship with Behringer gear, which is great.

Copying is good; plagiarism, not so much. There’s a huge benefit to making copies and improving on them. A certain amount of copying is part of design. There is a difference, however, if the copy is intended to create confusion, to substitute for something else dishonestly. It’s the difference between Kia competing with the Honda Accord, as mentioned in comments, and someone making a car that looks exactly like an Accord called the Monda Schmaccord, and steals the design of its drivetrain. Likewise, in music, sampling can be a beautiful thing. Taking someone else’s work and trying to pass it off as your own is something different.

I believe it’s essential to draw these lines. It’s only going to get tougher from here. If you think these isolated Behringer cases were bad, brace yourselves: an army of music technology cloning companies is waiting in the wings.

My plea to Behringer: kick your copying habit, if you can. I could forgive you if you didn’t keep doing it over and over again. That suggests to me, and many others, that it’s malicious, that you hope consumers won’t notice and will buy your cheaper version because, cosmetically, it looks the same as something else. If it really is different, and if it really is better, then that only makes this more of a tragedy.

I’m going to leave the Behringer discussion at this point, having provided some of the historical background. But I certainly won’t let go of these other issues. And the uprising of Behringer support says to me that CDM and I do need to spend more time talking about affordable gear, affordable software, and — not necessarily because it’s “cheap” or “free” — free and open source hardware and software. I welcome your suggestions.

What do you really want from a recording tool on a computer? The Digital Audio Workstation answer to that question has for years been on giving you a generalized set of tools that try to anticipate every possible need. The “workstation” approach puts a whole bunch of functionality in one place, in particular adding features like plug-in hosting for supporting third-party effects and instruments, video editing and scoring, and music notation.

Record is a different animal: it’s a specialized tool focused on making music with audio, instead of a generalized tool. Reason has focused on synths, with a distinctive set of hardware-styled modules in a virtual rack. Record focuses on sound, with a distinctive set of hardware-styled modules in a virtual rack. Get it?

What’s left out is important. There’s no plug-in support, but by limiting use to the internal sound modules, Record is entirely agnostic about things like sample rate and can be far more flexible with modular audio routing and fluid tempo changes. (There’s also no MIDI out support, but if you’re looking to sequence external hardware, I might look elsewhere, anyway – especially with gems like Numerology out there.) Record also supports ReWire and has various export features, so the assumption is that – as with Reason – when you really want plug-ins, you can use your existing environment of choice.

Maybe you can call the results a DAW, if you really want to. But the one thing that isn’t debatable: Record is Reason for sound.

CDM was first with the official story from Propellerhead over the weekend, talking about the philosophy behind Record. Now we can talk about the specifics inside – and I have a test version here I’ve been working with while on the road.

Basically, Record combines comp-based recording with Reason-style racks and a whole load of goodies for processing and mixing your sound, including Line 6 guitar effects and an emulated SSL mixing desk. Why am I excited to begin working with it? Basically, it’s what happens when you flip the Record interface around. The most important screenshot (see any of these shots bigger by clicking on them):

Here’s what you get:

• All about “Record”ing – with comps: As the name implies, the real soul of Record is recording. Comping is built in from the beginning so that you get a take you want, and each track even includes an integrated tuner by default. This is really a tool that assumes you’re actually one person plugging in an instrument and playing.
• Music and tempo-based sound: “Tempo-independent” audio is almost the reverse of what this is. When you record sound, the idea is that you always have some musical information in mind – beats and bars. Record lets you then change the tempo of that audio fluidly, without ever having to think about warping or slicing or markers or loops or anything like that. Propellerhead says they’re especially proud of the audio quality of the stretching algorithm working behind the scenes to make these changes sound good, which is what we’re already hearing (unofficially, of course) from beta testers in comments and elsewhere.
• Tempo changes: Unlike other tools that have focused on DJ-style or electronica-style master tempo, Record assumes fluid changes in tempo from version 1.0. There’s always a “conductor” track, a main tempo lane, which can have subtle, curved tempo changes (accel./rit.). When you export your audio, that information is exported as MIDI, so this musical information travels with you to other tools.
• An integrated recording/mixing/arrangement environment: This is the one DAW-like part of Record, though it still feels more like Reason than anything else. Each track gets three things: a channel routed into the mixer, an individual device module you can insert into the rack (as in Reason), and a sequencing lane for MIDI and audio.
• Sequencing: This is the most traditional part of Record – you do get conventional sequencer lanes. Clips can arbitrarily contain audio, MIDI, and automation data. The important thing to note is that, because Record doesn’t support plug-ins, you can count on consistent integration of automation – if there’s a knob in a module, you can automate it in the sequencer, just as in Reason.
• Hardware-style mixing: No software-style mixer here: the mixer inside Record is a direct simulation of hardware, not a loosely-inspired emulation. The Record mixer is modeled after an SSL 9000k analog mixing desk, so that it intends to look, work, and sound like the real thing. (SSL was not officially involved, so you’ll just have to count the Propellerheads as SSL fans.)
• Reason-style effects: In addition to the mixer, you get Reason-style modules for EQ, dynamics, and other effects.
• Line 6 guitar effects: Line 6’s virtual POD is built in, so you get their guitar amps and cabinets built in. I’m guessing those should be quite nice with keyboards, too.

Arrangement: Looking at the birds-eye view, Record does admittedly look like a DAW. But dig in a little bit to how these modules work, and there’s more Reason DNA than anything else. It’ll be interesting to work with these modules over the coming months. Also, most important to recognize is that when you see audio in Record, it will always obey tempo changes you make, including gradual speed increases and decreases – no warping or slicing required. When you do want to slice up audio, you could, say, drop Record as a ReWire client into an Ableton Live set, or even export your audio with tempo changes from Record as one track and put your sliced audio in a different rack.

The mixing desk:

The thing is, it’s not so much what Record does as what it does in a Reason-style way. So while this is a preview, not a review, here’s what makes Record more like Reason:

For Reason users, this one image pretty much sums everything up. The workflow is still essentially a Reason workflow – if you love that, you’re likely already salivating. If not, it’ll likely take more convincing from the other aspects of the tool.

• Every track is a rack: Each time you create a track, you get a modular rack, which translates to the inserts you see in the mixer. For advanced users, this means you can do anything with routing you want. You get a full-blown rack on each track, with all the usual goodies for routing. For beginners, it means you can call up easy presets for whatever you’re doing, and the parameters show up as plain-English knobs in the mixer. You don’t have to think about routing or what everything represents; you just focus on sound. For beginners and advanced users, the ability to “see” all of this routing with virtual cables and such means sophisticated mixing and routing setups aren’t quite so abstract.
• It’s a Reason interface: Everything looks and feels like Reason, even with a much more involved UI. All the new views continue on the theme of adjustable navigation panes. These views either get combined into a single-window interface, or can be detached if you’d prefer. But there are almost no dialog boxes, with one notable exception:
• You get Reason patches and patch browsing, for audio: Reason users will feel right at home, as Record extends the patch browsing metaphor from Reason. And because track effects inserts use what are essentially Combinators, those inserts just feel like Reason devices inside a mixer.
• Reason + Record: If you have Reason, you have access to all your Reason modules. And since Record has a big Reason rack – well, you get the idea. Instead of recording inside Reason, what Reason users get is Reason inside a bigger version of Reason that understands not only recording, but mixing and audio arrangement, and treats audio like music, with tempo.
• ReWire: Record is a ReWire client (slave), not a host (master). That should be your first clue Propellerhead aren’t trying to replace Pro Tools, Live, and Logic. But it does mean you could easily use, say, Record for recording purposes on your own, then drop it into a Pro Tools session in the studio, or Record to do some song-writing that you then bring into an Ableton live PA or remix set.
• Reason-style automation and control. Most notably, this is the first audio production tool I’ve seen that was set up from the beginning to be used with keyboards, as Reason was. It’s funny: right now, M-Audio are pitching using a keyboard to control Pro Tools with their Axiom Pro / HyperControl product. This essentially goes the other way: like Reason, Record uses the “Remote” protocol, which was effectively the first to “automap” your keyboard controller and control surface to the software. That means you can comfortably produce an entire work from your keyboard, while adding guitar or vocals as an audio recording.
• Oh yeah, it’ll be fun even if you only use synths: In case you haven’t guessed already, for Reason users, this means mixing and processing and arrangement tools that weren’t available before, so even if you never hook up a mic to Record, I imagine you could use almost all of these tools. (Only the tuner and audio comps become redundant.)

It’s really the relationship of the device rack to the mixer and tracks in Record that make it unique, and will be fun to explore over the coming months. When you create devices and Combinators, you can easily see them in the mixer and track sections. Sends are named as the actual sound parameter, too. Because it doesn’t support plug-ins, that also means you never have to worry about the way parameter names are handled in formats like VST, though you can always return to your favorite host when you do want plug-ins since Record is also a ReWire client.

Line6 guitar and bass amps are available out of the box as insertable modules. This is all you need for the interface: it’s aggressively simple.

The patch window will look familiar to Reason users. But if you’re new to this, what it means is that you can easily surf through, say, Line 6 guitar presets and hear immediately what they sound like.

So, what does the music sound like? Josh Mobley via Twitter tells us about his official demo song, “Push Me Down,” made in Record for Propellerhead. All the songs in the embedded player below were made in Record, with the exception of “Narrow Escape,” the demo for Reason 4.

About that Dongle

The other bit of news – and the one item that’s likely to be most divisive – is that Propellerhead is changing the authorization scheme in Record, as explained here:

Ignition Key

The good news: “demo” mode / non-authorized mode is actually only “open”-disabled. You can even save files in the demo; you just can’t open existing files. The Ignition Key comes free with the tool rather than being a separate purchase as with some iLok products, and if you lose or break it, a replacement is available for a nominal fee. (Some manufacturers actually have the gall to charge for the full purchase price of the product or close to it, which is utterly ridiculous.) Also, if you don’t want to use the key, there is an Internet authorization.

The bad news: it is still a dongle. Internet authorization requires a consistent connection while you’re working; the moment that’s dropped, the software reverts to demo mode. I would personally much rather have seen one-time Internet authorization as is available from Ableton and Native Instruments, among others, especially as Record would be fun to use on a bus or train without plugging in a dongle. Propellerhead say they’ve put some thought into this and wanted to do copy protection right, but I expect they’ll hear about it anyway.

The one upside I do see is for people who use a lot of machines (like myself, for one). You can use just the dongle without any other authorization, and you can use it on as many machines as you want. So that means you can move from a studio to a Mac laptop to a PC laptop to a netbook just by moving your dongle around, and never have to fill out a registration form or worry about if you’ve run out of authorizations.

Also, I’d suggest that people use this as an opportunity to freely try the demo without any annoying limitations and decide if you like the tool before you buy it.

Availability / pricing

Beta testing is starting now, today – sign-up at the site below.

September 9, 2009 is the official release date.

Suggested retail: US$299, EUR299. No word yet on what bundles will be available for existing or new Reason users, but Propellerhead says that it will have special bundle pricing of some kind.

Videos and more info at:

www.record-you.com

It’s been a long, long wait for side-by-side Reason and audio racks and recording in Reason, but there’s no question that this is a big announcement.

Since many of you will be beta-testing this alongside me, I look forward to hearing your opinions of the tool and any tips or techniques you discover.