"I still find all this speculation over a product that doesn't yet exist quite amusing." It does exist. We have heard some of it. We know what hardware it uses and a core understanding of Ai's user methodology. We don't know the price.
Beyond that, as I read this discussion, I see what the VSL users are looking for, how they budget, how they see through marketing copy and ask pertinent questions. It's all good, DG.
So if for no other reason that cheering Plowman in his lonely outpost, I'll continue.
"When you have a full time assistant, things like multiple PC/Mac set-ups are not a problem." Admittedly true. The Porsche crowd doesn't want to futz with tune-ups and maintenance either, so they hire mechanics.
So it's ironic when, in the Ai copy, you see a kind of cost consciousness at work: the less expensive PC platform, no need for multiple audio cards, no need to re-license the sounds over multiple computers (just Kontakt). They say that the "other" library would need seven computers to run in its totality, and theirs just needs five.
But Drew has touched on the real cost: Ai is asking the user to dramatically de-value the investments already made for the *substitution* of a new library. Can you imagine how few Ai clients don't own VSL already? Those with Mac farms are really taking it on the chin. And we disavow ourselves not only of much of the hardware, but of a working method that has become second nature.
In that context, the real question emerges for commoners like me: what's the in-point? How much cost and labor do I incur grafting a twig of Ai, most likely violins and celli, into my present system? Because the idea of jettisoning all I know and love about VSL is madness to me. And if Ai offers no incremental approach, that in effect is what they're asking me to do.
The answer lies in Ai's market strategy. Is this a commercial venture or a boutique? And I don't mean "boutique" disparagingly. It's their money, their investment, and they are targeting the need for elite sound and service.
Beyond that, as I read this discussion, I see what the VSL users are looking for, how they budget, how they see through marketing copy and ask pertinent questions. It's all good, DG.
So if for no other reason that cheering Plowman in his lonely outpost, I'll continue.
"When you have a full time assistant, things like multiple PC/Mac set-ups are not a problem." Admittedly true. The Porsche crowd doesn't want to futz with tune-ups and maintenance either, so they hire mechanics.
So it's ironic when, in the Ai copy, you see a kind of cost consciousness at work: the less expensive PC platform, no need for multiple audio cards, no need to re-license the sounds over multiple computers (just Kontakt). They say that the "other" library would need seven computers to run in its totality, and theirs just needs five.
But Drew has touched on the real cost: Ai is asking the user to dramatically de-value the investments already made for the *substitution* of a new library. Can you imagine how few Ai clients don't own VSL already? Those with Mac farms are really taking it on the chin. And we disavow ourselves not only of much of the hardware, but of a working method that has become second nature.
In that context, the real question emerges for commoners like me: what's the in-point? How much cost and labor do I incur grafting a twig of Ai, most likely violins and celli, into my present system? Because the idea of jettisoning all I know and love about VSL is madness to me. And if Ai offers no incremental approach, that in effect is what they're asking me to do.
The answer lies in Ai's market strategy. Is this a commercial venture or a boutique? And I don't mean "boutique" disparagingly. It's their money, their investment, and they are targeting the need for elite sound and service.
