AudioBus 2.0 Sneak Preview


Developer Sebastian Dittmann let us know that AudioBus 2.0 is coming in early 2014, and shared these sneak previews of the updated interface.

Here’s what he has to say about the update:

Audiobus 2 will be capable of running as many apps in parallel or in series as your device can handle. That’s right: Multiple, independent pipelines with as many inputs, filters or outputs as you like in each. We’re doing away with any restrictions. This feature will be available as a very reasonably priced in-app purchase.

We’re also introducing a way to save presets of your connection graphs and share them via mail or your social networks.

Audiobus 2 will have a brand new look which enables us to add additional features more easily in the future and which we think looks really great and in tune with the design of iOS 7.

Here’s a video demo of the new features in action:

According to Dittmann, ‘all apps will work with the new version of the app, but we’re working on a few new features that developers will definitely want to support!”

Here are some additional screenshots:

Check it out and let us know what you think!

51 thoughts on “AudioBus 2.0 Sneak Preview

  1. This made me fuckin laugh when it talked about outs!! There isn’t any in the real world is there , just kiddy software ‘imagined outs’ hardly ablle to bang ten jack leads into a desk

      1. Ok do me a favour and show me the exact model using this software , that will enable an individual out on lets say eight of these softsynths, add at least two inputs for modulation.
        Thank you , correct me and appology is owed.

    1. Interesting tidbit from the forum:


      jpshea said:

      “Will connection graphs only save the routing, and not the individual app settings? I.e. for total recall, load the graph, then load the (previously saved) app settings, app by app? (I guess there’s no way for one app to see another’s data in iOS)”

      Please watch this space for an announcement about that.

    2. What I wanted to say in reply was that I *think* this would be more dependent of the app developer… for instance, in the video above you can clearly see towards the end that loopy is feeding multiple channels through separate effects to the speaker output… but that can only be done because loopy has multiple output channels written into the code. So in other words, the capability seems like it’s already there in AudioBus, but the app must be able to utilize those multiple channels.

      This is all assumption, I have no relation to Sebastian and Michael

  2. Seems a bit underwhelming after the long wait and livelihood of secrecy. No mention of whether InterAppAudio will be supported within Audiobus.

  3. And another useful tidbit from the forum:

    Clock sync and MIDI are currently not part of this Audiobus 2, yet. But as you can see that we’re listening to your suggestions with regards to new features there’s a good chance that we’re tackling those next.

  4. Just please don’t adopt the Hello Kitty bubblegum color scheme of iOS7. And make the text legible. That thin text may look nice in the dark, but try reading it in daylight.

    1. Have you used IAA? It’s pretty buggy. And there is no “Cubase VST support.” There is a SDK that will allow certain VSTs to be recompiled to run on iOS, IF they don’t need any external libraries to function.

  5. So route and route again? Nice for laboratory trix, but where is the result? I’m talking about a proper finished professional product that is played by the masses! So far I see no big iOS router mac diddly bus inter audio doing jack shit!

    Fun to play with all these apps but PLEASE I want to hear a professionally made product that people will dance to in clubs!

  6. Wow, the whiney douchbags are out in force tonight, Personally I just want to congratulate Sebastian and his team for constantly daring to put the time and resources into adding more and more well implimented ideas into an awesome tool for musicians like myself who feel their work benefits from IOS.

    Remember: Just because I can’t play violin doesn’t mean that rosin is shit !!!

  7. Well as an oldhand, from day one whiner I’m pleased !! we’re soon to get more of the flexibility I thought we were gonna get from day one.
    I was disappointed with the first Audiobus’ inflexibility ,having spent the previous 12 months of prerelease following the teaser blogs and dreaming of endless possibilities assuming it would come from day one ….including the inter IOS devices wifi audio routing.

    It is a mammoth task I realise, with a responsibility to all of the apps that come aboard whilst dependent on Apple’s fickle hipster OS changes , so congrats on what you’ve achieved so far .

    P.S @Sebastian .One critique I’ll take the opportunity to repeat that I posted on Facebook though ~it drives me mad because it makes no sense to me that Sebastian and Michael’s design aesthetic priority seems to be for NEW users . New users are only new for a short while , they then become long-term intermediate and power users wanting more flexibility and features so it doesnt make sense to restrict functionality so as not to confuse the newbies ,which seems to have been a common defence of theirs on the forum . even more so in the music technology sphere’re gonna have to learn about midi , audio, usb, drivers ,latency, multitimbrality, yada yada yada in this game at some point anyway . //rant

    1. Hey thanks for giving us credit for our achievements.

      About your rant:
      I think we’ve got different views on what should be required of anyone who wants to make music. We’re just trying to make it as easy as possible without dumbing down users. Of course in the end that always means having to compromise. But I really disagree about musicians needing to learn about drivers, latency and technical details. That stuff should just work and not be a part of the creative process.

      1. Maybe you dont realise how patronising and illogical that sounds to the majority of musicians who already (have had to) understand these things : so I can modulate between different keys in 11/4 at 145bpm having programmed my wavetable synthesis and EQed and added compression and delay based fx and reverb algorithms ; but I couldnt understand latency or buffering !

        But however patronising it sounds , my complaint was/is if functionality is restricted or dumbed down for the sake of the minority of newbies ….minority both because most musicains coming to IOS already understand these things , and because true newbies are only newbies SHORT TERM before they assimilate the info and become longterm intermediate and power users anyway .
        That is why it seems illogical to me .

        I welcome that Audiobus2 allows more flexibility, but suggest the development ethos should always be offering the user the most functionality possible ; not the least that an imaginary newbie would understand.
        To that end I add my vote to forum requests for 128 and 1024 buffers ( because I understand when I might use each !) and 24bit audio ( because I know why I might use it !)

        1. I feel as though you’ve confused functionality and the ability to manually edit settings. One is not strictly dependent upon the other. It seems that Sebastian’s philosophy is to maintain functionality but manage it behind the scenes. (albeit, they aren’t there yet with MIDI, along with some other features… but where was iOS music before Audiobus? Sandboxed apps with equally shitty midi capability… so we’ve only gained traction and progress thus far)

          I spent years learning about MIDI, RPN/NRPN, SysEx, etc. for all the same reasons that you did… But in the end, if I have to manage fewer of those settings and mappings, I certainly don’t mind.

          1. Final response:
            My rant comments come from seeing various requests from users on the Audiobus forum over the last year to extend functionality always being knocked back with the mantra that it would confuse new users …. It certainly seems to be their first response , from which I induce their priority .
            I merely hope to have pointed out that either most IOS newcomers are not newbies to music technology in general,
            Or real newbies are only short term before they learn the basics ( as all newbies must do in all activities ) before they become long term intermediate or power users …and demand more as they learn more.
            I agree musicians shouldnt be battling with technology , but it helps if they understand what they are doing and the software offers the greatest flexibility for them to control it according to their needs .
            First make it as powerful and flexible as possible ….and then as simple as possible to use, and we’ll learn what we have to .
            Hopefully Audiobus2 will bring this ethos .

        2. If an instrument or tool isn’t easy enough to use for new users to achieve at least some minor success when using it for the first time (and that includes failing in an interesting way) then they will never stick around long enough to become professionals.

          We’re open to offering more choice to users though. Just stay tuned and I think you’re going to be surprised in a very positive way.

  8. I agree to an extent, but think the problem with this idea is the fact that there is a large number of iOS music-makers who weren’t in bands or came up through recording studios or even had the ability to invest in prosumer gear before ~2011. And when that user is you, I think AB’s simple design is just what you need to get the primary goal of moving audio between apps.

    Don’t get me wrong, there is a huge number of people who have spent years (upon years) learning to navigate the terrain of MIDI to an advanced level… but they’ll be able to use simple software too so it’s more inclusive and gives everyone to ability to get up and go.

    1. This was not a personal attack. What I said was that the sudden manifestation of in-app purchases speaks to the developer’s realization that their app will shortly be obsolete and to an attempt at squeezing the userbase for one last purchase. It’s sleazy, and it’s sad to see such behavior from the developer of an “industry” (such as there is for iOS music-making) standard.

      If they feel that they need to charge for this update, or that it has progressed enough to merit a new cost, then call it “Audiobus 2” and sell that. Don’t suddenly introduce IAPs into your existing product.

      1. We’re updating the app and we’re charging for one additional feature that only power users are interested in. We’ve previously talked a lot with our users and it seems that they are perfectly happy with us doing this.

        If us announcing this months in advance to the actual launch is a ‘sudden manifestation’ then public traffic just got a whole lot scarier…

        1. And it would be completely appropriate to do this by releasing another version, and describing it as such. However, it is not appropriate to add IAPs to an app that was sold as being “complete”. If it’s an update, update the app. If it’s an upgraded version for power users, sell it as an upgraded version for power users.

          1. I would like to add that I’m probably going to shell out for the upgrade, which looks great. I’m just going to make a frowny face and be grumpy about it because I don’t like the way it was introduced.

            1. If we sold it as an separate version for power users we’d probably have to charge more for it than if it were an in-app purchase. We’d also reach less users.

              So you’re telling me that you’d rather pay more for something that you’re accusing us to be sleazy sell-outs for?

              I’m afraid I’m not following. I’m really not.

              Look, it’s not too late to admit that you might have misinterpreted our actions and still have a beer or two with me at NAMM. Drinks are on me 🙂

              1. Actually I would, simply because I would feel better about purchasing a new version that supersedes its predecessor than being told that the application I am using is now, essentially, a “teaser” for the “pro” version. It’s like, I would probably prefer to buy a Civic SI than an LX. And would pay more for it. But if I had a Civic LX I would be quite unhappy if I took it to the dealership and they changed the oil and also added a button to call the dealership and order an SI (even at a discounted rate). This analogy has gotten a little muddled but I hope it makes sense. I really don’t like In-App Purchases. I would prefer to pay upfront, even if it’s at an increased rate, so long as that cost covers future updates (until the next version comes out!).

                I will acknowledge that the accusations of sleaze and squeezing may have been hyperbolic though. It was early. Apologies.

                1. Apology accepted.

                  I’m afraid this comment section is not the perfect environment to explain the intricacies of iOS music app monetization but I’m going to try anyway:

                  Making people who’ve already paid for something pay a little more to make it more awesome is easier than making them pay again for something that duplicates some of the functionality of their initial purchase and then adds something on top.

                  It’s hard to reach existing users of one app and convince them to never use that first app again and instead use this other new cool thing instead. Especially since that means having to provide support for TWO apps all of a sudden instead of just one updated app.

                  Apple doesn’t let developers charge for updates and In-App Purchases are just the one proven mechanism that actually lets developers recuperate their investment (time, work, money) in new features without having to charge for a new app.

                  A new app will always be more expensive than a new feature(-set) that can be sold in addition to an already previously purchased app. In times where users are unwilling to pay more than 3 bucks for a fully featured synthesiser for their iPhone where hardware equivalent of it would set them back hundreds of dollars, this is just the reality that developers have to deal with.

                  1. Sebastian

                    Thanks for taking the time to explain your views on this.

                    No matter how you charge for upgrades, it’s going to rub some users the wrong way. Not just because we want things for free, but because some people just hate buying a new app and some people just hate in-app purchases.

                    Your approach makes more sense to me. The key will be to offer the new features as one purchase and to have them offer a good value.

                    Thanks for making a great product and taking the time to respond to customer comments!

  9. Hello Sebastian, you are such a cool cat it seems as evident by your comments, replies, etc. I, for one, am totally stoked about this announcement and am just pissed that it isn’t available tommorrow ;D. Although I haven’t explored all the published ins and outs of this revision, it looks like it is destined to have the patch/preset snapshot thing going on and the multiple outs to a variety of endpoints…F’Yeah. And I see in the afore mentioned posts that midi is being considered for sometime in the future-for me, that midi thing is really the priority of wants. Audio is great and all, but midi offers the utmost flexibility in editing and composition building.
    Kudos to you and your associates, you have really built a ferociously loyal fan/user base and rightfully so. Probably the BEST utility on iOS period…I feel sorry for the folks that aren’t into music iOS music creation or haven’t hopped on the bus, because they don’t know what a great experience it is to be a part of this product!

  10. Oh, and I am DEFINITELY paying for the upgrade, I support those that put in hard work, are proactive in customer relations, and have an obvious passion for something. It’s not like it’s an in-app-purchase because I can’t wait to get a better score, different uniform or bragging rights on some community leaderboard. Cheers!

  11. I’m happy with the development of audiobus and how supportive its developers are of iOS musicians. I think waiting for the A7 chip to come out to add this additional AB functionality as it can support multiple apps running made sense. I do think there are definitely still some rough edges with AB and iOS music apps but most of it seems to revolve around other apps rather than AB. With mobile music still in its infancy, it’s not surprising there’s bumps along the way or that some people prefer to stay with the more stable and already established laptop and desktop software/ hardware setups rather than plunge into iOS. Consistent midi support and connections between midi apps can be hit or miss but hopefully midibus, AB, or some other approach can address these issues.

    In terms of how we pay for AB, I have no problem doing the IAP as AB isn’t some sort of marketing scheme to hide the real cost of getting full AB functionality but rather a way to support further product development. You get a lot of value for your money with AB and spending a little time on the AB forum will give you an accurate idea of what to expect with AB. Plus the developers are very open to users concerns but not to the point where they might sacrifice AB functionality to placate user requests which compromise the long term vision and/or functionality of AB.

Leave a Reply