Consolidating music software. What do you think?

it's not significant to me, but I feel like these durned kids really care about this stuff... and we cater to every nerd

Fair point! However, if people want to care whether Skrillex used Ableton Live 10 or Live 11 at some specific point in the space time continuum, that's all fine and good... I AM advocating for the edition and version metadata to be preserved for future use, where available✝... but anyone who thinks it's more important to capture whether an artist used Ableton Live 10 Standard or Ableton Live 11 Suite than it is to capture and reveal the bigger picture of which artists used Ableton Live and which used a different DAW... well those people are wrong. They're myopic, they are possibly a bit new to this whole world of DAWs and the business cycles therein, and also they are wrong. :)

EDIT: The big picture is the priority, and right now the big picture is being obscured by 19 different entries for FL Studio. This has to end.

✝ ok ok I was/am advocating for that metadata to be saved for users, not necessarily artists, but from a technical standpoint, I doubt there is much difference.

Ooh, I'm belatedly coming to this thread after looking at my Equipboard and thinking "Huh? I don't own Guitar Rig version 6! Did I add the wrong one?". That, and my VintageWarmer v2 seemed out of place, because it was meant to rank below my v1...

I see I'm in the minority though! And I agree it's much easier to add gear if you don't have to worry about version or specific differences. I have spent more time than I should have trying to identify a specific version of Pianoteq used by a producer. And I've been "that guy" who marked someone's Tube Screamer sighting as "Needs Improvement" because it wasn't the exact specific Tube Screamer model and I thought guitarists and Equipboard were especially picky about that stuff. I'm glad Equipboard has taught me how to be that specific, but I agree that detail might not be helpful to everyone (or better added in comments to an artist gear sighting).

There's some software where I have two versions installed because old versions had different features removed from later ones (in my case Ozone 4 & Ozone 7, also PSP VintageWarmer v1 and v2), but I'm happy to write about the differences and how I use them in a consolidated review / gear comment. Or perhaps I should put that detail on my own blog & not fuss with that much detail here :)

So I'm generally on board, but I think in that case, you shouldn't include the version number in the product name. I don't have Guitar Rig 6, but it's fine to say I have Guitar Rig. I don't have Izotope Neutron 3, but it's fine to say I have Neutron.

Ooh, I'm belatedly coming to this thread after looking at my Equipboard and thinking "Huh? I don't own Guitar Rig version 6! Did I add the wrong one?". That, and my VintageWarmer v2 seemed out of place, because it was meant to rank below my v1...

I see I'm in the minority though!

preach on.... I think it as mostly me and Kenneth talking so we're not a majority, we're just vocal.... and we're both really hardware oriented.

And I've been "that guy" who marked someone's Tube Screamer sighting as "Needs Improvement" because it wasn't the exact specific Tube Screamer model and I thought guitarists and Equipboard were especially picky about that stuff. I'm glad Equipboard has taught me how to be that specific, but I agree that detail might not be helpful to everyone (or better added in comments to an artist gear sighting).

For hardware, I think we should stay that specific. Hardware is not a moving target. e.g. If you buy a Prophet '08, Sequential is not going to email you and offer you a free/cheap upgrade to Prophet Rev 2, Sequential support is not going to recommend you upgrade to a Prophet Rev 2 to fix a bug in Prophet '08 firmware... you may own and use that Prophet '08 rest of your career... but if a pro is spotted using Ableton Live there is 1) typically no visual way to identify which version and edition of Live they are on, 2) that pro is very likely to upgrade to the next version of Ableton once it is released and 3) per the previous example, tracking down a Prophet '08 20 years from now, to get exactly the Prophet '08 sound, is a feasible and common endeavor, but running a 2015 version of Ableton Live on a 2035 computer would probably require a vintage-CPU/legacy OS emulation environment and an illegal copy of Ableton, as officially transferring a license that old between users is typically not supported by the vendor... and using that old software is much less likely to unlock any special mojo in the same way that using a very old guitar, discontinued pedal, or synth full of ancient parts might give you... in other words, using old software is a bad path to suggest/encourage impressionable new producers into trying.

I see I'm in the minority though!

preach on.... I think it as mostly me and Kenneth talking so we're not a majority, we're just vocal.... and we're both really hardware oriented.

Well said. We're just the chattiest voices, not the most important voices.

using that old software is much less likely to unlock any special mojo in the same way that using a very old guitar, discontinued pedal, or synth full of ancient parts might give you... in other words, using old software is a bad path to suggest/encourage impressionable new producers into trying.

its not unlocking any mojo unless you really like an old OS build that won't support the update.... and that's more to do with loving your old workhorse computer even if its obsolete (been there)... for the most part the software just has no sound and they don't typically do abrupt workflow changes, maybe in FL studio, it changed quite a bit over the years since fruityloops, but all the legacy beat box gui features are still there.... anyway.... to me the DAW is primarily a cheaper and easier alternative to a tape machine and hardware sampler(s) setup. It doesn't even succesfully replace an actual mixing desk at this phasewithout really going out of your way to fake the sound character and simulate the workflow. All this other stuff is just window dressing. If it does recording and editing, that's all I need.... and midi editing with a piano roll is nice too. All these versions and thing, it just doesn't seem all that important from where I'm sitting.... more features and virtual synths and things included ae nice but I wouldn't miss them and the core engine stays pretty well the same for most purposes.... the newst Live is easier to CV and trigger signals from but any DAW can be hijacked to do that with old or modular hardware synths and drum machines, you just have to know the tricks.... anyway, I haven't really seen any major advancements going on in computer recording other than increased sample rates every few years and that's driven by hardware. I hoenstly feel like the updates are msotly about utilizing the latest, fastest processors to the full and the other stuff is just an afterthought.... and part of the salespitch tog et your money again in the case of most developers........

namesuppressed you have great points here.

I think we mostly all agree that identifying what specific version (much less edition) a pro artist uses - especially from grainy screenshots on social media - is not just super hard but also not really that crucial.

And I've been "that guy" who marked someone's Tube Screamer sighting as "Needs Improvement" because it wasn't the exact specific Tube Screamer model and I thought guitarists and Equipboard were especially picky about that stuff. I'm glad Equipboard has taught me how to be that specific, but I agree that detail might not be helpful to everyone (or better added in comments to an artist gear sighting).

I also think we mostly all agree that for hardware it IS important, so we can't just consolidate every pedal version into one, or every guitar version into one. I think that would be losing a lot of valuable info.

There's some software where I have two versions installed because old versions had different features removed from later ones (in my case Ozone 4 & Ozone 7, also PSP VintageWarmer v1 and v2), but I'm happy to write about the differences and how I use them in a consolidated review / gear comment.

That's exactly what I would encourage, expand on your old reviews or comment on them as follow-ups.

So I'm generally on board, but I think in that case, you shouldn't include the version number in the product name. I don't have Guitar Rig 6, but it's fine to say I have Guitar Rig. I don't have Izotope Neutron 3, but it's fine to say I have Neutron.

I think in order for the product page to serve more of a "shopping" purpose we need to have the latest version number... but I also agree w you that it should not force you to say you own the latest version. If you're like, what the hell, I don't own VintageWarmer 2, I love version 1 and that's mine... ok totally fair, so be it. So in the near future I think we can let you select a specific old version as you're saving gear, that way your Equipboard page remains more personalized.

Quick question regarding Pro Tools. We're almost done consolidating the major DAWs, but I have 2 versions of Pro Tools still left floating around. One is just named Pro Tools, the other is named Pro Tools 12.

If you look on the official site there's not much mention of version number. Did Avid change it to just refer to the latest one as simply Pro Tools, with no version number?

Which of the two names do you all think should be the one on Equipboard?

EDIT: Same question for Avid Sibelius, and it looks like SONAR did away with version numbers as well?

I'm not a current PT user, but Avid has been all-in on subscription for some time now, and part of that switch involves weaning customers off the expectation of big annual updates and new major version releases. This is why Adobe (who is the gold standard in old-school desktop software successfully making the jump to subscription) doesn't include year or version #s in the official names of their products anymore. So I'd be shocked if it was anything other than "Pro Tools" from here on out.

Perfect, thanks. That's what I figured but needed some confirmation!

Now that we have badass product pages for these DAWs that show things like 1162 Pros using Ableton Live (YES!!!), does it make sense to change the Artist sort on Gear Pages from "Most Followers" to the "Popular" algorithm used to sort Producers, Guitarists, etc?

The "Most Followers" sort reflects an apparent high-water mark for following artists in the middle of the previous decade's EDM boom. I feel like using the Popular algo instead would make the Artist sort on Gear Pages a little more current. Thoughts?

EDIT: if that algo is more expensive, performance wise, and it's gonna drive up the AWS bill, then maybe not worth it.

Preach on, brother!!!

Where have you been all these years, warpcanada? I've felt so alone in me low-key seething re: counterproductive software version/edition proliferation here. Finally, someone else has the passion! :D

warpcanada, glad you are here :)

OK it looks like we're far from done consolidating software. If you're got more egregious examples like that, please list them in this thread. I 100% agree w your points, on the software and the Squier!

Consolidation or iZotope RX is mostly done, but as you can see when you search there are lots of results for specific RX plugins. Should all those be merged into the master iZotope RX item as well?

Consolidation or iZotope RX is mostly done, but as you can see when you search there are lots of results for specific RX plugins. Should all those be merged into the master iZotope RX item as well?

I'd say so.

I definitely think the individual plugins should be merged with the master iZotope RX. AFAIK you can't buy those plugins individually - you have to buy an RX bundle. Which plugins you get depends on the bundle level you buy. I'd have a different opinion if iZotope sold them unbundled (ala Waves).

The consolidation has had the weird consequence of RX no longer scoring for any category, though. RX should be near the top of Noise Removal Plugins (I think most people would agree it's the industry standard for that purpose). But because RX also does audio restoration, dialog enhancement, creative spectral editing etc etc, the whole bundle is now categorized as just "Audio Editor Plugins". So if you look at the charts for Noise Removal Plugins, you don't even find RX listed (except for an RX V1 listing near the end that still needs to be merged).

Just to complicate things, iZotope RX 8 isn't actually the "latest" version. They're getting out of one-time licenses & moving to Subscription, and the subscription version with updates is called RX Pro For Music. Though you can only get that by subscribing to iZotope Music Production Suite Pro.

The consolidation has had the weird consequence of RX no longer scoring for any category, though. RX should be near the top of Noise Removal Plugins (I think most people would agree it's the industry standard for that purpose).

It will. The ranking/classification runs as a batch process weekly.

Just to complicate things, iZotope RX 8 isn't actually the "latest" version. They're getting out of one-time licenses & moving to Subscription, and the subscription version with updates is called RX Pro For Music. Though you can only get that by subscribing to iZotope Music Production Suite Pro.

Eek. Okay thanks for the rundown on that. Maybe we just make the item "iZotope RX" and leave it at that!

Eek. Okay thanks for the rundown on that. Maybe we just make the item "iZotope RX" and leave it at that!

Dumb question: What's the benefit of having version #s in any of the master entries in the first place? Why not just "izotope RX", "Avid Pro Tools", "Ableton Live", "FL Studio", etc? Seems like a good amount of administrative work of keep on top of the version #s, once there are hundreds of consolidated entries for the whole field of MI software.