Isla Instruments

[LPF83]

Ah, those hidden gems revealed by search engines are great aren't they? 

Even though I don't need a drum machine/sampler/groovebox, the retro appeal of the S2400 makes me keep an eye on it...something about it keeps tugging at my wallet, appealing to my sense of nostalgia.

I've read some bad rumors about the responsiveness of support from the company and other issues, so I decided to google "Isla Instruments Experiences".  Not one to judge, I couldn't help but wonder if side hobbies could be involved in the responsiveness situation? 

[chysn]

Emptors gotta caveat, I guess.

See it in eurorack all the time. It's easy to make something cool, and the teeming throngs are always interested in new things. Then the realities of logistics hit, and everyone's wondering where their stuff is. Meanwhile, the inventor just doesn't want to do it anymore. They wake up every day thinking, "Oh my god, I've got to do that and I don't want to." They've already spent the money, maybe on parts, but it's so much less fun to build the second one of something.

[LPF83]

Emptors gotta caveat, I guess.

See it in eurorack all the time. It's easy to make something cool, and the teeming throngs are always interested in new things. Then the realities of logistics hit, and everyone's wondering where their stuff is. Meanwhile, the inventor just doesn't want to do it anymore. They wake up every day thinking, "Oh my god, I've got to do that and I don't want to." They've already spent the money, maybe on parts, but it's so much less fun to build the second one of something.

I can relate to the inventor perspective... my approach to systems design has always been that if I can't make something that is largely self-supporting (i.e. it just works, and is self-explanatory to use), then I won't make it (or at least it will never get released), because I have never been able to develop a tolerance for things that are repetitive / mundane such as answering the same questions over and over.

What's different here is I think this is the first time I've every seen evidence of a sugar daddy article posted to the company website (attached images).  Maybe that's a work-life balance thing?  Mixing business and pleasure?

[chysn]

What's different here is I think this is the first time I've every seen evidence of a sugar daddy article posted to the company website (attached images).  Maybe that's a work-life balance thing?  Mixing business and pleasure?

Ha! I think it's more likely that his site got hacked. But who knows, his side hustle might have a side hustle.

[LoboLives]

I have the S2400. Love it and have nothing but good things to say about Brad and co.

[LPF83]

What's different here is I think this is the first time I've every seen evidence of a sugar daddy article posted to the company website (attached images).  Maybe that's a work-life balance thing?  Mixing business and pleasure?

Ha! I think it's more likely that his site got hacked. But who knows, his side hustle might have a side hustle.

Since there is nothing illegal about old guys dating younger gals, blogging about it isn't exactly a walk of shame as much as it struck me as maybe a.... well..  distraction?  But the first thing I thought is uh oh, I hope he isn't married, and if so, he should have the "I was hacked" response ready and on standby..

I think more than anything I was hoping for some opinions (outside of gearspace where there have already been some heated threads) on the S2400, and more importantly convince me the rumors of bad support / unresponsiveness / undelivered promises are not true.

[LPF83]

I have the S2400. Love it and have nothing but good things to say about Brad and co.

My situation here is that I want one, but at the price point it is very difficult to talk myself into it.  The design and demos I've seen of the S2400 just draw me in.  But when it comes to drum machines, having an external hardware device actually creates logistical complications because my audio interface inputs are in short supply since I don't use a mixer/patchbay etc and run them straight into the audio interface.  With drums, I like to have a separate Cubase mixer track for each instrument simply because of all the of the options for sculpting it gives me (and the fact that it provides a consistent way of doing it, where for example I can put gated reverb on a track, and if needed reuse the channel strip I've created for a completely different drum source).  All of this works well with drum plugins (Maschine, XO, Addictive Drums, Roland cloud drum machines, etc)...  But it gets more complicated with a hardware drum machine because I need inputs available for the hardware outs.

This, plus space considerations (both of which are clearly my problem and not anyone elses) are what gives me initial hesitation.  But then I see reports of poor customer service, the owner fighting with customers on GS, etc. and then the price tag starts to look less attractive.

Question....   based on overall reliability and features the S2400 has right now (notwithstanding promised future features or bug fixes), if there were never going to be any additional updates, would you still recommend?

[LoboLives]

I have the S2400. Love it and have nothing but good things to say about Brad and co.

My situation here is that I want one, but at the price point it is very difficult to talk myself into it.  The design and demos I've seen of the S2400 just draw me in.  But when it comes to drum machines, having an external hardware device actually creates logistical complications because my audio interface inputs are in short supply since I don't use a mixer/patchbay etc and run them straight into the audio interface.  With drums, I like to have a separate Cubase mixer track for each instrument simply because of all the of the options for sculpting it gives me (and the fact that it provides a consistent way of doing it, where for example I can put gated reverb on a track, and if needed reuse the channel strip I've created for a completely different drum source).  All of this works well with drum plugins (Maschine, XO, Addictive Drums, Roland cloud drum machines, etc)...  But it gets more complicated with a hardware drum machine because I need inputs available for the hardware outs.

This, plus space considerations (both of which are clearly my problem and not anyone elses) are what gives me initial hesitation.  But then I see reports of poor customer service, the owner fighting with customers on GS, etc. and then the price tag starts to look less attractive.

Question....   based on overall reliability and features the S2400 has right now (notwithstanding promised future features or bug fixes), if there were never going to be any additional updates, would you still recommend?

I'd recommend it to someone looking for a hardware drum machine and understand what's involved.

Actually the S2400 itself is an audio interface and will output on separate tracks in your DAW automatically once hooked up to USB and set up correctly. So again, it's just a case of your system allowing multiple interfaces to run at once.

[LPF83]

I have the S2400. Love it and have nothing but good things to say about Brad and co.

My situation here is that I want one, but at the price point it is very difficult to talk myself into it.  The design and demos I've seen of the S2400 just draw me in.  But when it comes to drum machines, having an external hardware device actually creates logistical complications because my audio interface inputs are in short supply since I don't use a mixer/patchbay etc and run them straight into the audio interface.  With drums, I like to have a separate Cubase mixer track for each instrument simply because of all the of the options for sculpting it gives me (and the fact that it provides a consistent way of doing it, where for example I can put gated reverb on a track, and if needed reuse the channel strip I've created for a completely different drum source).  All of this works well with drum plugins (Maschine, XO, Addictive Drums, Roland cloud drum machines, etc)...  But it gets more complicated with a hardware drum machine because I need inputs available for the hardware outs.

This, plus space considerations (both of which are clearly my problem and not anyone elses) are what gives me initial hesitation.  But then I see reports of poor customer service, the owner fighting with customers on GS, etc. and then the price tag starts to look less attractive.

Question....   based on overall reliability and features the S2400 has right now (notwithstanding promised future features or bug fixes), if there were never going to be any additional updates, would you still recommend?

I'd recommend it to someone looking for a hardware drum machine and understand what's involved.

Actually the S2400 itself is an audio interface and will output on separate tracks in your DAW automatically once hooked up to USB and set up correctly. So again, it's just a case of your system allowing multiple interfaces to run at once.

If I'm not mistaken, that's a limitation of Windows (basically only one interface + set of ADAT pre amps at a time), so it may be something I'll need to do without, for now at least.

[LoboLives]

I have the S2400. Love it and have nothing but good things to say about Brad and co.

My situation here is that I want one, but at the price point it is very difficult to talk myself into it.  The design and demos I've seen of the S2400 just draw me in.  But when it comes to drum machines, having an external hardware device actually creates logistical complications because my audio interface inputs are in short supply since I don't use a mixer/patchbay etc and run them straight into the audio interface.  With drums, I like to have a separate Cubase mixer track for each instrument simply because of all the of the options for sculpting it gives me (and the fact that it provides a consistent way of doing it, where for example I can put gated reverb on a track, and if needed reuse the channel strip I've created for a completely different drum source).  All of this works well with drum plugins (Maschine, XO, Addictive Drums, Roland cloud drum machines, etc)...  But it gets more complicated with a hardware drum machine because I need inputs available for the hardware outs.

This, plus space considerations (both of which are clearly my problem and not anyone elses) are what gives me initial hesitation.  But then I see reports of poor customer service, the owner fighting with customers on GS, etc. and then the price tag starts to look less attractive.

Question....   based on overall reliability and features the S2400 has right now (notwithstanding promised future features or bug fixes), if there were never going to be any additional updates, would you still recommend?

I'd recommend it to someone looking for a hardware drum machine and understand what's involved.

Actually the S2400 itself is an audio interface and will output on separate tracks in your DAW automatically once hooked up to USB and set up correctly. So again, it's just a case of your system allowing multiple interfaces to run at once.

If I'm not mistaken, that's a limitation of Windows (basically only one interface + set of ADAT pre amps at a time), so it may be something I'll need to do without, for now at least.

Correct. There is an ASIO For All software but it's buggy.



This is why I'm switching to Mac myself so I can run two Soundcraft 24 tracks together.

[LPF83]

This is why I'm switching to Mac myself so I can run two Soundcraft 24 tracks together.

At the risk of straying too far off topic, as someone who went from Windows to Mac back to Windows, each platform has its pros and cons, but Macs come with a fairly expensive dark side IMHO.  To give an an example of this, owners of the Access Virus have a major headache with recent versions of MacOS, which is a great synth but is designed to rely on the software editor for much of its functionality (without it, it becomes a nice sounding but very menu-diving synth).  Because Apple doesn't care about backward compatibility (its detrimental to their business model), and expects software vendors to invest in major rewrites every time they change their mind, Access just dropped support for Macs altogether, so pretty much every Mac user invested in that synth got abandoned.

Lots of folks reporting DAW timing or performance issues with M1 chips, and of course having an Intel Mac makes you a dinosaur (and having an M1 Mac will again make you a dinosaur when Apple once again changes their CPU platform as they are notorious for doing every few years).  The problem lies in the fact that Apple only makes money if they constantly reinvent ways to sell the customer more hardware.

I'm not saying Windows is the right choice for everyone and I will confess that I have considered switching back to Mac for my music production rig due to the audio interface flexibilty, but the reality is that's the only benefit I would reap (at the expense of many more tradeoffs) and I only need so many pieces of gear connected at one time to make a track.

[LoboLives]

This is why I'm switching to Mac myself so I can run two Soundcraft 24 tracks together.

At the risk of straying too far off topic, as someone who went from Windows to Mac back to Windows, each platform has its pros and cons, but Macs come with a fairly expensive dark side IMHO.  To give an an example of this, owners of the Access Virus have a major headache with recent versions of MacOS, which is a great synth but is designed to rely on the software editor for much of its functionality (without it, it becomes a nice sounding but very menu-diving synth).  Because Apple doesn't care about backward compatibility (its detrimental to their business model), and expects software vendors to invest in major rewrites every time they change their mind, Access just dropped support for Macs altogether, so pretty much every Mac user invested in that synth got abandoned.

Lots of folks reporting DAW timing or performance issues with M1 chips, and of course having an Intel Mac makes you a dinosaur (and having an M1 Mac will again make you a dinosaur when Apple once again changes their CPU platform as they are notorious for doing every few years).  The problem lies in the fact that Apple only makes money if they constantly reinvent ways to sell the customer more hardware.

I'm not saying Windows is the right choice for everyone and I will confess that I have considered switching back to Mac for my music production rig due to the audio interface flexibilty, but the reality is that's the only benefit I would reap (at the expense of many more tradeoffs) and I only need so many pieces of gear connected at one time to make a track.

Well until Windows figures out a way to have multiple interfaces running at once, seeing as I have 2 24 track mixers and want to use them together....I'm stuck with Mac.

[LoboLives]

As far as Brad fighting with customers of GS. I haven't experienced this myself personally but I have seen him flat out insult customers before and he does tend to get a bit too political to the point where it's almost baiting people into an argument.

[LPF83]

As far as Brad fighting with customers of GS. I haven't experienced this myself personally but I have seen him flat out insult customers before and he does tend to get a bit too political to the point where it's almost baiting people into an argument.

I noticed that.  And, while I never really have those kinds of combative experiences with any vendor's support (so I'm not worried about whether I would get along with the guy or not), I just learned a very long time ago that when it comes to professional matters (i.e. the things I do for money versus hobbies), it NEVER pays to get involved in an argument, no matter how big of an ass the customer may be.  So when I see a business owner of a product I'm interested in doing that with one or more of their customers, even though the product might be great, it makes me question whether they have the maturity / stability to still be standing behind their product in the future, or are they the type to rage quit / pack up their toys and go home, etc...  Over the decades I've seen some really talented individuals that undermined their own success via their own ego.

[LoboLives]

As far as Brad fighting with customers of GS. I haven't experienced this myself personally but I have seen him flat out insult customers before and he does tend to get a bit too political to the point where it's almost baiting people into an argument.

I noticed that.  And, while I never really have those kinds of combative experiences with any vendor's support (so I'm not worried about whether I would get along with the guy or not), I just learned a very long time ago that when it comes to professional matters (i.e. the things I do for money versus hobbies), it NEVER pays to get involved in an argument, no matter how big of an ass the customer may be.  So when I see a business owner of a product I'm interested in doing that with one or more of their customers, even though the product might be great, it makes me question whether they have the maturity / stability to still be standing behind their product in the future, or are they the type to rage quit / pack up their toys and go home, etc...  Over the decades I've seen some really talented individuals that undermined their own success via their own ego.

I saw it quite a bit from the guitar/amp world during Trump's presidency to the point of absolute embarrassment. Demanding specific political supporters block out the guitar brands logo or stop tagging it when using the instruments in videos or requesting buyers to reach out to the company directly and provide their social media before ordering in order to "Vet" them. Just absolute stupidity.

[DavidDever]

This is why I'm switching to Mac myself so I can run two Soundcraft 24 tracks together.

At the risk of straying too far off topic, as someone who went from Windows to Mac back to Windows, each platform has its pros and cons, but Macs come with a fairly expensive dark side IMHO.  To give an an example of this, owners of the Access Virus have a major headache with recent versions of MacOS, which is a great synth but is designed to rely on the software editor for much of its functionality (without it, it becomes a nice sounding but very menu-diving synth).  Because Apple doesn't care about backward compatibility (its detrimental to their business model), and expects software vendors to invest in major rewrites every time they change their mind, Access just dropped support for Macs altogether, so pretty much every Mac user invested in that synth got abandoned.

Lots of folks reporting DAW timing or performance issues with M1 chips, and of course having an Intel Mac makes you a dinosaur (and having an M1 Mac will again make you a dinosaur when Apple once again changes their CPU platform as they are notorious for doing every few years).  The problem lies in the fact that Apple only makes money if they constantly reinvent ways to sell the customer more hardware.

I'm not saying Windows is the right choice for everyone and I will confess that I have considered switching back to Mac for my music production rig due to the audio interface flexibilty, but the reality is that's the only benefit I would reap (at the expense of many more tradeoffs) and I only need so many pieces of gear connected at one time to make a track.

It's not Apple's responsibility to maintain Access' Virus plugin code–the blame is misplaced.

And most macOS users are quite pleased with the Apple Silicon improvements, provided that they make use of software which is actively developed, improved and maintained by responsible companies with on-staff developers. It gets no simpler than that.

To the original point of this thread: active development, improvement and maintenance is the ISLA way, and makes the S2400 a product that beats expectations.

[LPF83]

This is why I'm switching to Mac myself so I can run two Soundcraft 24 tracks together.

At the risk of straying too far off topic, as someone who went from Windows to Mac back to Windows, each platform has its pros and cons, but Macs come with a fairly expensive dark side IMHO.  To give an an example of this, owners of the Access Virus have a major headache with recent versions of MacOS, which is a great synth but is designed to rely on the software editor for much of its functionality (without it, it becomes a nice sounding but very menu-diving synth).  Because Apple doesn't care about backward compatibility (its detrimental to their business model), and expects software vendors to invest in major rewrites every time they change their mind, Access just dropped support for Macs altogether, so pretty much every Mac user invested in that synth got abandoned.

Lots of folks reporting DAW timing or performance issues with M1 chips, and of course having an Intel Mac makes you a dinosaur (and having an M1 Mac will again make you a dinosaur when Apple once again changes their CPU platform as they are notorious for doing every few years).  The problem lies in the fact that Apple only makes money if they constantly reinvent ways to sell the customer more hardware.

I'm not saying Windows is the right choice for everyone and I will confess that I have considered switching back to Mac for my music production rig due to the audio interface flexibilty, but the reality is that's the only benefit I would reap (at the expense of many more tradeoffs) and I only need so many pieces of gear connected at one time to make a track.

It's not Apple's responsibility to maintain Access' Virus plugin code–the blame is misplaced.

And most macOS users are quite pleased with the Apple Silicon improvements, provided that they make use of software which is actively developed, improved and maintained by responsible companies with on-staff developers. It gets no simpler than that.

To the original point of this thread: active development, improvement and maintenance is the ISLA way, and makes the S2400 a product that beats expectations.

Using the Virus software as an example of something that fell victim to Apple's constant cycle of breaking changes was just that, an example.  The real point is that Apple makes regular and intentional changes to their platform in order to ensure their customers need to constantly upgrade their hardware.  It's a difference in business model.... Apple makes money selling hardware, Microsoft makes money selling software and cloud services.  If Apple doesn't find ways to make their old gear obsolete, their business model runs dry.  The consumer ends up becoming the victim of their choice of vendor.

I wrote iOS applications for many years.  Every single year, some new update was released that broke XCode, deprecated features in Objective C to the point it required significant re-write, and then the whole "Swift" language catastrophe started.   Meanwhile I can still run software I wrote 40 years ago without even compiling it on Windows.

Let's not even get into the "why did we remove the headphone jack?  Well because of Courage, that's why"... thing.

I do think Access needs to invest in updating their software -- not just for Mac compatibility but to address other changes like higher resolution monitors.  But as a software developer myself I know what a nightmare it is to have a business dependent on Apple, and how often Apple make changes for the sake of change (the change being that jingling sound in their pocket) and how expensive it can be to try to keep up with it all as a developer.

I still use an iPhone as my phone and an iPad as my tablet... as I think for all their shortcomings they are still the best of the options available in the mobile device space.  But every time I consider switching my music studio platform back to the Apple ecosystem, I remind myself of everything I've seen over the last 40 years and I quickly fall back to Windows.

This should not influence anyone else's opinion about Apple.  Whether we use Mac or Windows or a DAWless setup or whatever --- use whatever works the best for you along the goal of making music.

About the SP2400, I think they're nice and I know the tactile experience of using one is different than using a computer as a sampler... but for me and right now my GAS expenditures will go toward other things.  Who knows, maybe in the future.  Kordbot looks interesting too.

[DavidDever]

Meanwhile I can still run software I wrote 40 years ago without even compiling it on Windows.

My team (including me) writes both host-based (Windows PC + Android) as well as embedded audio signal processing software (Tensilica HiFi 3/4/5 et al), with operating system-level audio integration, and I can assure you that very little of it "just runs", compared to higher-level application software from 10-15y ago. The Windows audio subsystem changes somewhat frequently, leveraging ever-more-efficient hardware designs to extend battery life far beyond that which would have been possible even 10y ago, though–ask any Windows driver engineer about the frequency by which HLK tests newly fail across subsequent versions of Windows.

This is the nature of tighter hardware, software and firmware integration; product designs change quickly to ensure better performance and, as many manufacturers have experienced, it's no longer a given that the underlying hardware or commodity components might remain unchanged (or available).

As for Apple, iOS and mobile handset product cycles in general tend to be driven (by mobile telephony carriers) as you've described, though this churn seems to slow down the larger and pricier the screens get (handset => tablet => laptop => desktop). Microsoft would LOVE to be in that business, yet they've failed to adapt to the mobile telephony market.

My decently-specified 2018 Dell laptop cannot run Windows 11, yet my 2014 Mac mini has no issues with the latest macOS. I think you have this backwards.

In the case of DAW plugins, the underlying applications also change frequently, even on "slower" platforms, which breaks compatibility (though, in the case of AUv3 and VST3, these changes are ultimately for the better). I don't see any blame being thrown at Steinberg; they control the VST specification and licensing, and not Apple. There are still developers complaining about having lost access to VST2 SDKs.

And, as for the Virus–ask yourself as to why Kemper's Rig Manager application continues to gain regular, cross-platform updates, yet the Virus VST plugins do not (HINT: it has nothing to do with Apple, or Microsoft for that matter).

Ultimately, this is the rationale for selecting products from manufacturers that will continue to support them as long as they can.

[LPF83]

Meanwhile I can still run software I wrote 40 years ago without even compiling it on Windows.

My team (including me) writes both host-based (Windows PC + Android) as well as embedded audio signal processing software (Tensilica HiFi 3/4/5 et al), with operating system-level audio integration, and I can assure you that very little of it "just runs", compared to higher-level application software from 10-15y ago. The Windows audio subsystem changes somewhat frequently, leveraging ever-more-efficient hardware designs to extend battery life far beyond that which would have been possible even 10y ago, though–ask any Windows driver engineer about the frequency by which HLK tests newly fail across subsequent versions of Windows.

I can certainly see how this could be, with specific niches like driver development and embedded systems.  But by and large, including audio software that runs at a higher layer, I can run VERY old Windows software on the current version.

As for Apple, iOS and mobile handset product cycles in general tend to be driven (by mobile telephony carriers) as you've described, though this churn seems to slow down the larger and pricier the screens get (handset => tablet => laptop => desktop). Microsoft would LOVE to be in that business, yet they've failed to adapt to the mobile telephony market.

No argument from me there about Microsoft's lack of success in the phone market -- they've never seemed to be able to gain much ground there, and it's one reason I carry an iPhone.  Because of their dominance in enterprise-level systems (a playing field where Apple has failed miserably than MS has with phones), I think they mostly concluded they should stick with what they are good at.  Funny story, when they were trying to play catch up, I worked at a place that gave all their developers free Zune devices (heh... remember that one?).  It was actually a great device and better than the iPod I had at the time.  But Steve Jobs was very focused in his pursuit of the consumer market at that time, and was an unstoppable force.  Kind of a shame that most of Apple's magic died when he did.

My decently-specified 2018 Dell laptop cannot run Windows 11

Yes it can.  I can make a registry tweak to bypass the TPM module requirement and other checks in about 30 seconds.  So can you with a bit of Googling.

In the case of DAW plugins, the underlying applications also change frequently, even on "slower" platforms, which breaks compatibility (though, in the case of AUv3 and VST3, these changes are ultimately for the better). I don't see any blame being thrown at Steinberg; they control the VST specification and licensing, and not Apple. There are still developers complaining about having lost access to VST2 SDKs.

I don't disagree with any of this... applications do change, and standards evolve.  I wasn't implying that Windows can run all software from 4 decades ago or anything like that, I was only providing a specific case of backward compatiblity that is so far out of reach for Apple that it provides an illustrative example.

And, as for the Virus–ask yourself as to why Kemper's Rig Manager application continues to gain regular, cross-platform updates, yet the Virus VST plugins do not (HINT: it has nothing to do with Apple, or Microsoft for that matter).

I don't have to ask, I've known the answer for years.  Chris has a greater interest in his amplifier product line than he does his synthesizer line for whatever personal reason.  He's more comfortable in that space and/or finds it more to his liking.  In some ways if you look at what was happening to the industry, it might reveal that he is actually a fairly savvy businessman when it comes to spotting trends.  Virtual analog synths became popular for a span of time largely because for the most part true analog options had died off.  And because someone can make a particularly good filter implementation for Motorola chips (the real reason for the success of the Virus), does not mean they are knowledgable or talented in the area of creating analog polysynths (although it seems like the background couldn't hurt if he were inspired to learn).  He has said himself that his ideas for innovation for the Virus line pretty much plateaued and sent him in other directions.  It happens sometimes, unfortunately.  Sure there are some other things he could have done with the Virus line, but the bottom line is that it's not happening simply because Chris Kemper doesn't want to.

That said, it's still a legendary synth and I always recommend owning one.  If you prefer MacOS, Mystery Islands is becoming the defacto replacement for Virus Control on that platform.  I hope Kemper will pick up the ball again on Virus Control becasue the panel controls aren't really adequate for unleashing its full potential, but even if he never does it's still a great (and powerful) synth.