Warp69 wrote:Bud Weiser wrote:So, you think we won´t see these optimizations because of too much effort and too much work necessary ?
Bowen have used a lot of resources on the DSP work (better modules and optimization), but if that's transferable to the Scope (SC) system - I don't know.
Well, that was not the point.
I don´t think Solaris works better or more optimized than XITE-1, I KNOW both are different machines and I don´t complain on XITE and SCOPE 5.x at all.
I never had the occasion to play a Solaris up to now, so I´m not in the position to compare performance of Solais and XITE-1.
I´m very satisfied w/ my XITE-1 which I buyed because I got a SCOPE v4.0/PCIcard system some years ago and learned the basics w/ SCOPE that way.
I just only investigated in J.B.Solaris because I´m much more a keyboard player than a recording/mixing or mastering engineer and because liked the synths J.Bowen created in the past.
When I learned Solaris is manufactured in germany and there are former Creamware- and/or Sonic Core developers in the boat, it became more attractive to me and I read everything about that DSP technology inside Solaris and XITE machines, watched every video about XITE, SCOPE and Solaris and that´s why I mentioned Solaris in this thread.
I assume,- if Solaris ever will profit from "optimizations", resulting in more polyphony and MIDI multi-mode,- that might have an effect for the Sonic Core hardware/software products too because these teams work together in some way and both machines have something in common.
The intention in general is squeezing more out of the hardware by using the software.
For XITE-1, that means,- the more I can load (without too much manual DSP assignment) the more outboard gear I own will be replaced by XITE-1, but that doesn´t mean it doesn´t work for me as it is,- the opposite is the case.
For Solaris,- I hope for more voices and 4-part MIDI Multi Mode to replace some vintage synths because I´m not a instrument collector.
If Solaris replaces my Oberheim Xpander (which has MIDI Multi Mode) and something else,- well, great trade-off for me.
Warp69 wrote:
Let us assume for a moment that SC lacks resources - would the optimization of current atoms be the best approach forward regarding new customers?
Complex question IMO,- preconditioned, potential "new customers" have a idea what "optimization of current atoms" means,- maybe yes ...
In real world, I´d say no,- because the average customer wants to see continuous progress over relatively short periods of time.
OTOH, I don´t think, the masses of average customers will buy a XITE-1 and SCOPE-X at all.
They buy a cheap computer and VST, don´t care on timing, latency, jitter and sonic quality and want everything for under 100 bucks.
But SCOPE users and VST users have something in common too,- they want to use every device available in and for SCOPE and (or) their VST recording software in 64Bit systems.
ParseQ is a nice idea, but no one knows when it will be available and on par w/ already existing DAW software.
IMO, bug free 64Bit support, optimized plugin integration in existing DAW hosts and advanced MIDI integration is the short-term objective and opens doors.
I´m on 32Bit b.t.w., but maybe I want to upgrade this year too.
Bud