It was only a matter of time for this

buyakasha · Post by **buyakasha** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:31 pm

http://www.sydec.be/Products/Details/?I ... 55b1baddbb

Post by **garyb** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:55 pm

really expensive. it looks nice.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 3:36 am

don't understand the topic - what was a matter of time ?
if you refer to 'DSP driven' then Soundscape is somewhat ProTools alike and even running on the same chips.

cheers, Tom

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 1:03 pm

I wouldn't use that thing if you put a gun to my head. It's uglier than Korg Oasys was.

interloper · Post by **interloper** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:02 am

It would be cool though if CW came up with some better EQs. I think people would mix more in SFP if they could insert some good emulations of analog EQs. The stock stuff doesn't do it for me.

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:26 am

I use the stock EQs literally all the time. It's the plugin I use the most along with the stock compressor, low cut and hi cut. They're really clean and transparent, and do their job withtout coloring the sound.

I guess most people are after (like you say) analog-EQ emulation that colors the sound and makes everything sound "better" without any effort. I tend to get the sound I want before shoving stuff into EQs, once I reach mixing, I usually don't want my sound changed.

I've even used PEQ4 at pretty extreme settings, like having 4 peaks at -8 and -12dB all clustered between 60 and 120Hz, and got nothing but good comments about it.

That being said, I'm always up for more frequency-mangling plugins. You should also take a look at ISON's parametric EQ, it looks pretty fun, a bit of a dramatic GUI maybe, but should get you a bit more fun than the stock EQ.

interloper · Post by **interloper** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:48 am

Well, I'm not looking for it to color the sound, just for the EQ to have more sweet spots and not get phasey when applied drastically. The stock stuff doesn't do that to well.

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:30 pm

the Sonic Timeworks Vintage EQ is pretty good. I use it all the time.

_________________

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2005-03-24 17:31 ]</font>

buyakasha · Post by **buyakasha** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 2:12 am

don't understand the topic - what was a matter of time ?

Intergration is the word that comes to mind.

So many other companies are intergrating with a sequencer, vst, hardware controller etc, etc, where Creamware has virtually stood still.

This product i mentioned not only has routing possibilities, it has it's own mixers which intergrates with sequencers, hardware controllers and is vst and vsti compatible. something which I believe Creamware could and should have done along time ago and was only a matter of time before someone else did.

IMHO The STM2448 for its quality and clarity i rate as good if not better than most hardware digital mixers on the market,
but 1 midi channel and a mouse to control it,s eq leave's it standing behind the rest.

Creamware has to move into the 21st century and not only rely on it's success of the 90's

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 12:19 pm

I tend to integrate stuff around my Creamware setup instead of around the sequencer. I prefer to have the dedicated DSP-driven side of things to drive the show, not the crummy application that has to share its processing space with 20 other things =P.

Agreed that they could use some 21st century (coughOSXcough) stuff in there, but it's not like you are out of options. You can just load a second simpler mixer to, for example, sit in front of the STM2448, leave the STM's inputs at unity gain, control the gain on the simpler mixer on one midi channel, and the eq/compression on the STM with another mixi channel, or the other way around. Or use 2 STM1632, use one midi channel for each.

See, at least with Creamware stuff, there's usually a way to get the job done, sometimes it's a bit clunky, but it works! And sounds good.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 2:59 pm

On 2005-03-26 02:12, buyakasha wrote:
...This product i mentioned not only has routing possibilities, it has it's own mixers which intergrates with sequencers, hardware controllers and is vst and vsti compatible. ...

well, as far as routing is concerned, it seems not even similiar to SFP. According to the site it doesn't route free, but only in busses.

to integrate VSTI into SFP something like XTEnergy (50 bucks or so...) does it for me - I prefer the traditional 'tape mode' recording in VDAT, but that's of course just a personal matter of taste.

if you setup your SFP channels like Soundscape you can indeed control more than one channel by automation.
If you use (for example) 8 'Channel' devices (from the 'mixer' menu), each one can send and receive on it's own midi channel - opposed to the restrictions in your example

imho (again, highly subjective) the site is totally un-trustworthy in all it's mega-super-hyper suggestions. We all know that it's not that easy to sort out subtle timing side effects of various sources, reaching from outboard over VSTI to DSP plugins.
Of course one can simply cludge it together this way and will be rewarded with nice phase issues. I haven't found a single mention of latency compensation of such(!) different origins, and would consider it naive to just believe it will work.

That stuff is at least 4 times as expensive as a comparable SFP system, and as far as I know the (original) company who developed this system has at least been in serious financial troubles, if not out of business.
There are a lot of promises, but few facts and I'd bet my as* someone with the budget required would simply stick with a Mac and Protools.

cheers, Tom