CW future?

Rob van Berkel · Post by **Rob van Berkel** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:43 am

Very interesting thread indeed. But what puzzles me is that we are discussing CWA future, but not seem to be able to find any consensus in what that future should be. And we DO have one common denominator: we're all CWA customers.
I see so many ideas, so many opinions, but I'm not able to extract out of this thread one or two targets CWA should focus on that will be supported by all of us.
Basicly it comes down on CWA being succesfull, businesswise I mean.
The way, and the only way to be succesfull in business (in general) is to distinct yourself from your competitors. Be it by price, functionality, proposition, support or whatever. The proposition of CWA has in my opinion always been distinct, unique. All they need to do (...) is to keep up with their original filosophy, and stay in sync with the progression in technique (PCIx FiWi etc) or they will become isolated. Backward compatibility is mandatory here because of the investment in development of all the plugins (by CWA, by 3rd parties).
If they believe in their chosen direction, CWA will additionaly have to spent some bucks on marketing. Ppl at the local dealers here talk about SFP as 'that unusable platform with the terrible latency' (referring to wrongly used XTC setups). Don't be suprised when the ppl at those dealers will NOT (want to) sell SFP to you, even if they have it in stock. That opinion should change as well.
So as far as I can see, CWA should not abandon their basic architecture, while keeping up with technology and actively sell (= do marketing) their stuff.
If marketing for B2C is too big a deal for CWA they should focus on B2B sales to get the real money (e.g. intergation in that dream suite studio package from Fairlight), while still offering the barebone products to us, the end-users.
my 2 eurocents...

Cheers
Rob

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:21 am

A backwards compatible firewire box seems to have pretty general support here... But who knows what will come. Frank H may be feeling rather burned about such things after Noah. (& I want to know how they decided on that terrible name).

Post by **garyb** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:38 am

a synth ark.

Post by **hubird** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:40 am

indeed, it is what it says

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:39 am

A synth ark !

I never would have made that connection. I just saw a Biblical name and then thought: Joseph, Peter, John the Baptist.... eh ?

sonicstrav · Post by **sonicstrav** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:37 pm

CWA I think will be in serious trouble if they don't release new hardware next year AND if it is not backward compatible. Looking at the Analog Devices chips they run at 66MHz. The TC Powercore Compact (Firewire, I think) has two 150MHZ Motorola chips. The fastest Analog Devices chips run at 333MHz. I'm not sure but it seems 2 of these chips would be as powerful as 20 DSP's on the CW boards. I think certainly the Scope Professional can survive simply because the power is prob equivalent to the TC Powercore board. The Luna is really no use other than as a router it's too under powered.

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:38 pm

On 2004-11-05 05:38, garyb wrote:
a synth ark.

I don't get it.

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:56 pm

The old synths that are no longer being manufactured, like a Minimoog or SH-101 (anyone wanna buy one?) are saved from extinction by the Ark. Yes, it's kind of a lame concept, though noble in intent.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:33 pm

On 2004-11-12 18:37, strav100 wrote:
...I'm not sure but it seems 2 of these chips would be as powerful as 20 DSP's on the CW boards. ...

given your example it doesn't make sense if those '10 times as powerful chips' are 20 times as expensive

the calculation power of a card doesn't say anything about it's audio performance - look at the SPL Transient Designer.
Generally accepted as an outstanding device, but needs so few DSP cycles that you could run a dozen on a Luna - if they hadn't limited the number of instances loadable.

it's about actually to KNOW what to process and not to compensate this lack of knowledge by processing power.
that's the rational side, but it's of few relevance anyway.

there's nothing to keep up but the power of a brand - and what's hip currently. best sales strategy is still to fake otherwise unaffordable vintage stuff .

the potential buyer doesn't have a chance to judge it anyway and will believe the hype, driven by personal greed from 'now me can afford it - they used it on blablabla recording...'
it doesn't even have to sound great - it just WILL.

I'll give you a reverse example:
when I visit the PC shop they always have some streaming audio crap on crappy speaker on. Every time I ask the dude how the hell he can stand that sh*t for more than 10 minutes. It really hurts ears...
I usually get a coffee there and we talk this and that and after half an hour... guess what - the background noise isn't that bad anymore

I know it's self protection from the brain (realizing it can't get out there...), but this shows how deep the exact same receiption can be influenced, partly subconsciously...

I'd really be happy if 3rd parties continue to keep developing - I watched that stuff for quite some time and it has tremendously improved.
As can be observed with the synth evolution of some developers' series, the latest reverb stuff, and there's even someone who dares to develope an own compression algorithm instead of re-incarnating the 103 rd vintage item.

Without the PCI bottleneck a Scope would technically rule, even on those tiny Sharcs - but it still would be neglected due to it's (non)name.
I'd rather watch some blind tests with switched labels...

cheers, tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2004-11-12 20:38 ]

nprime · Post by **nprime** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:18 pm

On 2004-11-05 05:38, garyb wrote:
a synth ark.

Well, they already have Noah...

R

Post by **garyb** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 2:34 am

the question was "how did they come up with the name 'noah?". the answer was "a synth ark"....

[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2004-11-13 02:34 ]

Rob van Berkel · Post by **Rob van Berkel** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 6:55 am

Wasn't that ark by noah built to never go down and survive the worst flood in existence? well obviously it disappeared after all. For me that would be a reason not to choose that name

(nomen est omen...)

Cheers,
Rob

Thalamus · Post by **Thalamus** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:56 am

I think Noah is quite a cool name

...but then again im proberly colored

Immanuel · Post by **Immanuel** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 8:13 am

doodyrh · Post by **doodyrh** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 6:40 pm

On 2004-11-13 02:34, garyb wrote:
"how did they come up with the name 'noah?".

It's because the sharcs go in two by two.

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:27 pm

Seriously though, how long can CWA survive without new hardware ? Two years ?

Scope has been "parked" for a long time now while native continues its flood of invention...

Post by **garyb** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 12:28 am

Hey, Spirit!

once more publicly.

it's not scope OR native.
it's scope AND native.
there is still no other product like scope. scope's only problem is the loss of the pci slot. true, synths and samplers can alway use innovation(there are many great scope synths though), but a compressor or delay is a pretty straightforward problem that always remains the same. mainly though, good quality devices will always be useful and that is why the most desirable compressors, delays, mixers and synths are often old in the real world(not always the mixer, but definitely the mic pres and eqs in it).

we always like new toys, huh?

[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2004-11-14 00:29 ]

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 3:19 am

hi Gary

I agree, and after some angst am now very happy with a native & CWA mix. But looking at it from a corporate point of view rather than a user perspective, have they enough "momentum" ?

Without some sort of new product - whether that's some breakthrough device or new hardware - is the operation sustainable ?

Post by **garyb** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 5:40 am

a lot depends on the users when it is such a small operation. the kind of help here at z keeps the product reasonably priced and viable(a lot of the high price of pt hd HAS to be that incredibly high level of tech support. $40,000 WILL buy a turnkey system.

).

people often behave stupidly, however, so you may be right, or at least in the usa there may be the need for a "new, improved" even if it's the same thing. in europe, it's hard to say. peugeot and saab both made the same car year after year and no one seemed to mind and americans who had a clue bought some of those cars as well(fanatics!), so maybe just building a quality product would be enough...

both peugoet and saab are still around, but to be fair, saab was bought out by general motors or they'd STILL be making the same car and peugeot is one of the biggest(and only) non gm, chrysler, ford or stuttgart company in the world at least partly because they make parts and motors for others. in this corporate strategy cwa is in good company.

these guys seem smart. the worry me sometimes, but i thing they'll figure it out, at least as far as the product goes...

nprime · Post by **nprime** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:30 pm

I like new product as much as the next guy, but only if I really "need" it.

Scope does everything I need right now, and does it very well.

I think the obsession with new gear being released yearly shows how manipulated we all are by the consumer mentality.

What is it exactly that all you "power users" need Creamware to do? Maybe they just built a future proof product? So they won't release something new unless it's something "really new" and innovative.

IMHO

R

[ This Message was edited by: nprime on 2004-11-14 14:31 ]