I agree too with your points, however most people using a computer to make music do not expect to be engineers - since their initial and primary interest is music. You have to look at the usability of the whole system, not just 'it does great routing' or 'synth x sounds better than synth y'.
Also Scope is sold to the general consumer in a nice glossy box, so people would expect it to work 'out of the box' after installing the drivers (although with new Mac core audio, some interfaces just plug in). This is the central point of people's dissatisfaction - all the 'engineering' that has to be done. Also people on this forum are fans (incl. me!) so we are not the ones who give up, or investigate tech issues -before- buying, and then don't.
My system is also mostly reliable, as I have said. I don't care about the odd glitch too much, as I don't have anyone else to worry about. The interface etc is fun, and very absorbing, to use, and it sounds great.
Is it possible to discuss alternative systems here, withing exciting everyone too much?
Compare a G5 Mac, with Logic, any high quality multi interface, and a bunch of Mac Minis as processing nodes (added on as required). That's pretty neat! (I think Scope doesn't run on OSX). I know several people (including me!) who have bought a G5 and have music coming out of it in 5 minutes.
However my main machine is still the Scope PC... the classic car I suppose. There is also the emotional investment in this system - I'd kind of miss it if it wasn't there...
Is the new person MooseThree at the start of the thread still reading? He must realise what a *fascinating* thing a Scope system is.
Also, (back on topic) as he was asking about plugins, the Sonic Timeworks reverbs are the best for Scope (there are a few different ones with demos), but they use a lot of PCI bandwidth, so test out first. Might not be practical with 9 dsp, but the best value now is a CW Sonic Rocket Booster with 13 dsp (no IO) and both synths and mastering CW plugin packs - this was £750 in UK, a GREAT deal.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: geoffd99 on 2005-05-11 07:35 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: geoffd99 on 2005-05-11 08:33 ]</font>
dsp and solaris
exactly - that's the way Digidesign in coop with Apple entered the studio world (and Apple in general started to rule the 'artistic' market segment).On 2005-05-11 07:19, geoffd99 wrote:
...however most people using a computer to make music do not expect to be engineers - since their initial and primary interest is music. You have to look at the usability of the whole system, not just 'it does great routing' or 'synth x sounds better than synth y'...
The OS was numbered 7 and the machines were clocked in Megahertz(!), SCSI based with expansion slots named NuBus - stoneage from todays point of view, but featuring a high usability
Yet it wasn't the most successfull business model, as we've all learned. You don't become a multi billion dollar corp if your customers buy a new machine only every 4-6 years.
This is not CWA's fault or in the design of SFP, it's just like things have developed - and since customers didn't complain too much, it's a matter of fact today.
We have to accept it and make our way through that stuff, even me
cheers, Tom
Yes, SFP is a fun system to use, and works on the geek and music level. It is also like some strange cult that no-one else knows about...
The new ASB synths look interesting, but they are not aimed at us loyal users, as we have them already as software. I have USB switched off in my profile for music anyway.
The CW firewire device is 15-24 months away (according to a *source*). ie never? I am not sure CW has a team on the SFP development now - perhaps some of the Levitating Gurus know more.
Seems to be a lot of repackaging going on, even SFP 4 wasn't that much different (although better).
As for Protools, I might get the LE version for my new M-Audio interface on my laptop, and use it for post - midi audio editing of tunes, etc. I am not sure how much power it needs though, as the laptop is only an Athlon 2000.
Over here in UK SFP is pretty rare. Hans Zimmer etc seem to use Scope to run boxes for the synths, feeding into big desks etc, ie the Scope is like a software module, so they don't get the complex issues we do when we run the whole lot at once (ie synths, fx, mix, master...).
There is an interesting discussion of DAW sound quality at
http://www.mercenary.com/3dauawdawsum.html
Scope is Fairlight in the US as someone said (for Australia also).
I am too mean to buy the CD and find out the results (ie if Scope is better than x, y, z). Has anyone else?
Back on topic:
MooseThree, don't forget to check out Celmo tape echo boxes, and other great stuff.
The new ASB synths look interesting, but they are not aimed at us loyal users, as we have them already as software. I have USB switched off in my profile for music anyway.
The CW firewire device is 15-24 months away (according to a *source*). ie never? I am not sure CW has a team on the SFP development now - perhaps some of the Levitating Gurus know more.
Seems to be a lot of repackaging going on, even SFP 4 wasn't that much different (although better).
As for Protools, I might get the LE version for my new M-Audio interface on my laptop, and use it for post - midi audio editing of tunes, etc. I am not sure how much power it needs though, as the laptop is only an Athlon 2000.
Over here in UK SFP is pretty rare. Hans Zimmer etc seem to use Scope to run boxes for the synths, feeding into big desks etc, ie the Scope is like a software module, so they don't get the complex issues we do when we run the whole lot at once (ie synths, fx, mix, master...).
There is an interesting discussion of DAW sound quality at
http://www.mercenary.com/3dauawdawsum.html
Scope is Fairlight in the US as someone said (for Australia also).
I am too mean to buy the CD and find out the results (ie if Scope is better than x, y, z). Has anyone else?
Back on topic:
MooseThree, don't forget to check out Celmo tape echo boxes, and other great stuff.
-
moosethree
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:00 pm
It sounds like Solaris is similar to Xphrase on VST in this respect: you can use its resources to the max and find yourself out of resources in a hurry. There does not seem to be a better sound design synth available for Pulsar, in terms of an all in one solution.
I just hope I can get enough out of it with 9 dsp!
I just hope I can get enough out of it with 9 dsp!
I have Solaris and 9 DSP's. All patches are playable - some with up to 8 voices but there are also some that I can only get 3-4 voices from and a very small minority where I'm lucky to get 2-3. Things start to get harder when you add in FLexor modules though - usually you have to work with one voice until a patch is optimised enough to try and go higher.
p.s. scope is NOT fairlight anywhere. this is how misunderstandings become false knowledge. fairlight uses scope boards as the effects processors(running scope effects) in the constellation console. fairlight is it's own company, one of the original digital synth(sampling) pioneers. that is how they got into digital post production work. also, that cd treats export mixes the same as files that are recorded to some mastering deck. it is really not all apples to apples. it is a sales tool that makes money on it's own($25!). i still love mercenary audio though.
routing and sound quality are all about usability. if you don't know how to put a system together, you need to get help, even if it's a soundblaster. the more functional and complicated the product the more there is to know about it.On 2005-05-11 07:19, geoffd99 wrote:
I agree too with your points, however most people using a computer to make music do not expect to be engineers - since their initial and primary interest is music. You have to look at the usability of the whole system, not just 'it does great routing' or 'synth x sounds better than synth y'.
scope works out of the box for me, everytime. i do know what needs to be done. if you ask, i'll tell you, but you do have to be able to follow directions.....plus, i investigate tech issues before buying and then do. i'm still often surprised by tech issues with gear, but gear IS technical, so...Also Scope is sold to the general consumer in a nice glossy box, so people would expect it to work 'out of the box' after installing the drivers (although with new Mac core audio, some interfaces just plug in). This is the central point of people's dissatisfaction - all the 'engineering' that has to be done. Also people on this forum are fans (incl. me!) so we are not the ones who give up, or investigate tech issues -before- buying, and then don't.
My system is also mostly reliable, as I have said. I don't care about the odd glitch too much, as I don't have anyone else to worry about. The interface etc is fun, and very absorbing, to use, and it sounds great.
i had 2 clients today and not one glitch after a long mixing session followed by a long tracking session. i didn't have to worry about them as my computer kept my reputation for quick work with minimal issues relating to gear intact. and yes, my sounds great rep is ok too.aaahhh, now you've hit the nail on the head why i am tearing up your post. it's not personal, i just don't want to mislead newbies or make them think that scope is some wild untamed beast. it's very mild mannered. and no, that other system is not that appealing, unless my scope machine is interfaced to it and i am feeling independantly wealthy. of course, if that were the case, i'd probably look for something a little more serious than that consumer trap.Is it possible to discuss alternative systems here, withing exciting everyone too much?
Compare a G5 Mac, with Logic, any high quality multi interface, and a bunch of Mac Minis as processing nodes (added on as required). That's pretty neat! (I think Scope doesn't run on OSX). I know several people (including me!) who have bought a G5 and have music coming out of it in 5 minutes.
However my main machine is still the Scope PC... the classic car I suppose. There is also the emotional investment in this system - I'd kind of miss it if it wasn't there...
Is the new person MooseThree at the start of the thread still reading? He must realise what a *fascinating* thing a Scope system is.
currently, there is no more advanced soundcard than scope, even if 5v pci cards are no longer the latest format.yes, the warp69 reverbs are great. sonic timeworks is kind of a consignment store for developers. warp69 made the plate,inverse and ambient verbs which are modeled on the lexicon algos. they're great and they'll run just fine if one likes them. they are resource intensive, but they really sound great and are inexpensive. i use the plate ALL the time...unless you try to run several instances(kinda gluttonous...), you should have no problem if you have a proper, good quality motherboard.Also, (back on topic) as he was asking about plugins, the Sonic Timeworks reverbs are the best for Scope (there are a few different ones with demos), but they use a lot of PCI bandwidth, so test out first.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2005-05-12 04:17 ]</font>
A few comments, of interest to the newbie and not newbie.
Awesome DAW sum --- (comparison of mix quality in different platforms both digital and analogue)
The Fairlight connection - I emailed someone (can't find ref now) about why Scope was NOT in the Awesome DAW Sum test of audio mixing quality (since the cards are on sale in the US). Whoever it was, told me the Scope cards were in the Fairlight, which is in the test - it was not a test of DA converters, it was a test of mixing tracks at 0db - ie - does the mix software do anything to the sound? Perhaps the Fairlight mixes on the Scope cards, then uses its own converters for output. This is a separate and only slightly interesting area, also covered herein on other areas. (For instance, someone on here said they preferred Samplitude to Scope mixing).
Why was Scope not in the supposedly exhaustive test of mixing platforms? More cult status I suppose!
Macs
Macs - are not 'commercial traps' - almost 100% of professional graphics, video, and music is done on Macs. This is just the way it is, because of software (originally), and a lack of techy issues (this applies to graphics mainly, not just music). PCs are more complex as more of the system can be 'got at' by the user than on a Mac, and Macs have a controlled hardware environment. I am not getting into a Mac vs PC debate here, there is a long history, I have worked with both, and Unix for 3d solid and surface modelling, I have both here at home. PCs are - initially - cheaper, hence the prevalence home/semi-pro market.
Scope
Glitches in Scope: I don't mean tech problems, my system is practically stable, my (or rather SFPs) main 'glitch' imho is the overload dsp bug, when adding a last synth etc to a 90% full project. This causes a crash or freeze, sequencer reboot, due to loss of Asio, reload SFP etc etc, this should not happen. It is just silly. I don't like the way some of the interface works (eg presets, menu dropdowns, arrival of new modules, etc) - but these are minor quirks. Yes Garyb Scope is great, or I wouldn't be here would I? A forum is for discussion of cons as well as pros.
As for general reliability, I agree that Scope/SFP is a complex system that requires learning - that is fine. SFP software is not as complex as most sequencers. If a problem arises, the difficulty is locating the source - which could be hardware, PC, cards, software, sync - the list is long, and easily becomes circular. Read the Tech forum on here for many freakouts and occasional departures!
In my case I had PCI bandwidth overload (and dsp error msgs) due to a new reverb - Sonicworks A-100 - and tweaked everything possible, since the alternative was buying a new motherboard. Which I did eventually. Since then it has all been fine.
What is a pity is that there isn't an approved Creamware PC - the CW FAQ is a bit out of date.
They say 'buy a high spec PC' but that probably is not the best solution - see previous discussion of better performance with P3 PCs.
My P4 with the original motherboard worked fine, until I bought a new third party reverb. CW Masterverb was fine, even in multiple instances.
Users
Generally, is is not good to revert to the old tech support line of 'blame the user'.
Users are fine and wonderful people, and usually very smart, if not experienced with the particular product they are struggling with. This is the point of user experience studies (UE). You have to assume the system is dumb, not the person. Certainly consumer products should be easy to use - and SFP is easy, by and large.
Also, Garyb - your system might have worked first time, but a lot of people's don't, so you cannot extrapolate from your experience to other people's. Perhaps there is an element of luck, since most people do not know the names of all the chips on their motherboard. There is a funny forum comment herein, where someone from a Mac background says 'what is a motherboard?'.
The SFP Model
To say 'SFP is the greatest because only SFP does all these amazing things' is tautological. I am not entirely convinced that the virtual studio is the best model. 'Real' recording studios are based on electrical boxes connected by metal wires. Why model this on a computer, especially when most users will never have seen inside a 'real' studio? There is a whole generation coming up now who assume all music is software based.
There is also the issue of tweaking vs. making music. ie, fiddling about with minor adjustments to software, does not progress the music. But it is a very pleasant stress-free (goalless) past-time.
Anyway, I think we agree, Scope is a great topic for a debate!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: geoffd99 on 2005-05-13 05:18 ]</font>
Awesome DAW sum --- (comparison of mix quality in different platforms both digital and analogue)
The Fairlight connection - I emailed someone (can't find ref now) about why Scope was NOT in the Awesome DAW Sum test of audio mixing quality (since the cards are on sale in the US). Whoever it was, told me the Scope cards were in the Fairlight, which is in the test - it was not a test of DA converters, it was a test of mixing tracks at 0db - ie - does the mix software do anything to the sound? Perhaps the Fairlight mixes on the Scope cards, then uses its own converters for output. This is a separate and only slightly interesting area, also covered herein on other areas. (For instance, someone on here said they preferred Samplitude to Scope mixing).
Why was Scope not in the supposedly exhaustive test of mixing platforms? More cult status I suppose!
Macs
Macs - are not 'commercial traps' - almost 100% of professional graphics, video, and music is done on Macs. This is just the way it is, because of software (originally), and a lack of techy issues (this applies to graphics mainly, not just music). PCs are more complex as more of the system can be 'got at' by the user than on a Mac, and Macs have a controlled hardware environment. I am not getting into a Mac vs PC debate here, there is a long history, I have worked with both, and Unix for 3d solid and surface modelling, I have both here at home. PCs are - initially - cheaper, hence the prevalence home/semi-pro market.
Scope
Glitches in Scope: I don't mean tech problems, my system is practically stable, my (or rather SFPs) main 'glitch' imho is the overload dsp bug, when adding a last synth etc to a 90% full project. This causes a crash or freeze, sequencer reboot, due to loss of Asio, reload SFP etc etc, this should not happen. It is just silly. I don't like the way some of the interface works (eg presets, menu dropdowns, arrival of new modules, etc) - but these are minor quirks. Yes Garyb Scope is great, or I wouldn't be here would I? A forum is for discussion of cons as well as pros.
As for general reliability, I agree that Scope/SFP is a complex system that requires learning - that is fine. SFP software is not as complex as most sequencers. If a problem arises, the difficulty is locating the source - which could be hardware, PC, cards, software, sync - the list is long, and easily becomes circular. Read the Tech forum on here for many freakouts and occasional departures!
In my case I had PCI bandwidth overload (and dsp error msgs) due to a new reverb - Sonicworks A-100 - and tweaked everything possible, since the alternative was buying a new motherboard. Which I did eventually. Since then it has all been fine.
What is a pity is that there isn't an approved Creamware PC - the CW FAQ is a bit out of date.
They say 'buy a high spec PC' but that probably is not the best solution - see previous discussion of better performance with P3 PCs.
My P4 with the original motherboard worked fine, until I bought a new third party reverb. CW Masterverb was fine, even in multiple instances.
Users
Generally, is is not good to revert to the old tech support line of 'blame the user'.
Users are fine and wonderful people, and usually very smart, if not experienced with the particular product they are struggling with. This is the point of user experience studies (UE). You have to assume the system is dumb, not the person. Certainly consumer products should be easy to use - and SFP is easy, by and large.
Also, Garyb - your system might have worked first time, but a lot of people's don't, so you cannot extrapolate from your experience to other people's. Perhaps there is an element of luck, since most people do not know the names of all the chips on their motherboard. There is a funny forum comment herein, where someone from a Mac background says 'what is a motherboard?'.
The SFP Model
To say 'SFP is the greatest because only SFP does all these amazing things' is tautological. I am not entirely convinced that the virtual studio is the best model. 'Real' recording studios are based on electrical boxes connected by metal wires. Why model this on a computer, especially when most users will never have seen inside a 'real' studio? There is a whole generation coming up now who assume all music is software based.
There is also the issue of tweaking vs. making music. ie, fiddling about with minor adjustments to software, does not progress the music. But it is a very pleasant stress-free (goalless) past-time.
Anyway, I think we agree, Scope is a great topic for a debate!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: geoffd99 on 2005-05-13 05:18 ]</font>
Just a few points.
First off, it's not true that almost 100% of audio video and graphics is done on Macs. It was true 10 years ago, but not anymore. Alot of hardware, like digital cameras and so on, don't have very good driver support on Mac OSX, I know someone who just sold a 12" powerbook for exactly this reason, to be replaced with a PC. The same is true for graphics, there are *plenty* of profesionnal (i.e. doing it for a living) graphics people running Photoshop and etc on PCs just fine. Same with audio, most studios these days will have both Mac and PCs running.
Second, some of the Scope glitches you mention are a bit silly. I don't know if you've ever tried loading a VST/native based project to 95% of ressource use, but Scope tends to be *ALOT* more stable in such a situation, i.e. either it will work reliably, or not, but when it works, it won't start flaking out slowly like native-based setups.
Third, about the users, I hate to burst your bubble, but most people using computers these days really shouldn't be using them (I'm saying this after years of tech support experience, general and audio-specific.) The system is never dumb, the system simply does what you tell it to do. It's not a living sentient organism, so blaming the computer system won't get you anywhere. Also, Scope isn't a "consumer" product like a microwave oven or a TV (and these days, people even have problem with using those, believe me.) It's a complex pro-audio system that really isn't suitable for everyone, especially those who just want plug-and-play to work. Users aren't dumb, but they are, like you imply with you motherboard comments, quite a bit ignorant, and it's certainly THEIR OWN RESPONSABILITY to deal with their own ignorance, in all areas of life, NOT their hardware vendors. If you run out and just buy any kind of hardware without checking what works and what doesn't work with your 2000$ sound board, it's you problem, not anyone else's. Anyone using google and/or contacting Creamware WILL easily end up on this forum, and WILL get answers to their questions regarding just about any aspect of using a Scope system. Ignoring comments and being hard-headed is also YOU responsability, you really can't blame you hardware vendor for this either.
Also, DSP-based systems are a bit special, and THEY REQUIRE some comprehension on the user-side to understand how they are built, are they work and how you can get the most out of them, especially in the context of a DSP-based solution sitting on a PCI bus, and you can't blame the hardware vendor, or anyone else than yourself in fact, for being too lazy, or finding it "too daunting" to learn.
You can easily find explanations as to why loading a big synth on a 95% full project can net you some problems, given that sometimes you simply cannot split a devices processing among different DSPs. This is sometimes a general Scope limiation, and sometimes a device-specific limitation put there by the developer to either prevent some problems and issue, or to *make something possible that wouldn't be otherwise.* I can assure you, that Scope way of doing DSP allocation stuff is alore more effecient than other vendors (just do some research on how it work in ProTools. *Personally*, in almost all projects I've filled up, I've very rarely had crashes when loading a device too big for what I have left, I usually just get the DSP full error dialog, it'll try to optimize the project, which sometimes work, otherwise I just unload the offending devie (or another device, to free up DSP) and I can continue to work normally. Your implication that it crashes all the time is dead wrong. It might happen often to you, it might happen with some devices, but in my 6 years of using Scope hardware, it's very, very very rarely been true for me (and the many other Scope users I know), and the Scope platform has *always* been the most stable piece of software of my system. Logic and Games and other software have caused alot more crashes than Scope ever did, and I suspect that alot of people blame Scope (drivers and software) for crashes that aren't really Scope's fault, but more weird interaction/conflicts between software components and/or software that use and access Scope software and drivers.
Also, I don't know how much native-based projects you have done, but 95% full native/VST projects tend to be ALOT more crash-prone than SFP-based ones, and also with SFP, if you project is 95% and working and you don't load any device, it'll remain extremely reliable (since the DSP use won't vary), while native-based projects will be totally flakey and unreiable, since CPU use will move and vary quite a bit, bunch of CPU spikes, and it won't stop working instantly, it'll start glitchly in the parts of the song that are more busy, and will end up being ALOT more time-consuming in trying to eliminate or minimize those glitches (or you can just ignore them and bounce non-realtime, but I find that EXTREMELY annoying myself, in part because glitches aren't fun to hear, and because it can be a pretty huge pain and time killer to try and figure out if the glitch is because the system is too load/CPU spikes, or if it's something in the signal chain clipping.)
Fourth, Scope isn't a All-In-One studio model. This is just *one* among *many* ways you can use this system. You can just as easily use it with a pile of hardware boxes, just like in a "big" studio. You can mix within Scope, or mix with an external mixer board, or mix with your sequencer software. You can use SFP-based effects, or VST based effects, or hardware-based effects, or all of them at the same time, without really too much problem (except latency, which is *unescapable* at this point with computer audio, totally unrelated to Scope.) That's why I like my Scope system, because it lets me work exactly how I want it to, and in fact find it's the absolutely perfect setup to integrate hardware-based units with a computer-based audio solution. Also, I hate to burst your bubble again, but while big expensive studios are still using electrical hardware boxes, just about every project-studio and musician I know is moving toward mostly software-based systems built around a sequencer and VST/native effects, which is quite a bit of an All-In-One studio solution paradigm. This really isn't something you can blame on Scope systems, they are exactly following that paradigm (which is, quantitively speaking, a much more used paradigm these days than the entirely-hardware paradigm), while still offering a WHOLE lot more flexibility routing-wise for using hardware-based boxes than a straight ADAT-thru-ASIO-to-sequencer system that is what nearly 100% of all other computer audio-hardware/interface offer.
Implying that Scope systems are the only ones having problem with newers P4 system is dead-wrong, just look around and you'll see plenty of pleople having problems UAD-1 and newer Macs (PCI-based compatibility problems), this is a problem that affects *all computer audio* and certainly not only Scope. *All* hardware audio vendors products have problems with some hardware, and all vendors maintain a list of compatible and imcompatible hardware, which isn't always up-to-date, because of the huge and ever-evolving combination of hardware, and because of evolving drivers and software issues (ie, stuff gets fixed daily.)
Creamware aren't perfect in alot of respect, but it SURE IS a whole let better than *no support at all* and *no new fixes ever because the company is dead.* They have a tremendously limited team to work with alot of material.
Finally, given the really, REALLY, complex signal chains involved in digital audio, INDEPENDANT of what hardware and software you use, expecting stuff to "just work" without any learning curve or effort is simply ludicrous and not found anywhere in reality. Even a hardware synth or stand-alone recording box is pretty daunting technically and will require you to get your hand dirty with non-music technical stuff, same is true for live recording of instruments using "just" a mic, mic-pre and recorder, you *have* to understand what goes on in you recorder, in you mic-pre, in the analog/digital converter, and in the overall recording signal and component-interaction if want to do a good job. This is going to be true with just about every single piece of electronic-based audio device, except maybe a guitar with distortion pedal and simple amp (and even then, you'll benefit from the technical knowledge.) Just the theory of properly mixing different signal sources into a single signal, regardless of the hardware you use, can get pretty technicaly on a purely sound/wave mechanics side (frequency cancellation and phasing, etc.)
If you "just want to make music" you can buy a guitar and stay well clear of electronics =P. Stuff like Scope can take some tinkering to get to work, but once it works it's *INCREDIBLE* how nice it is, both as to how it sounds, and what it lets you do. Your "big studios" can manage to "just make music" because they also can afford to pay technicans and engineers to come and setup their stuff for them. If you can't afford the same, you *will* have to do some fiddling of adjustments and spend time tinkering with your software, Scope hardware or not.
First off, it's not true that almost 100% of audio video and graphics is done on Macs. It was true 10 years ago, but not anymore. Alot of hardware, like digital cameras and so on, don't have very good driver support on Mac OSX, I know someone who just sold a 12" powerbook for exactly this reason, to be replaced with a PC. The same is true for graphics, there are *plenty* of profesionnal (i.e. doing it for a living) graphics people running Photoshop and etc on PCs just fine. Same with audio, most studios these days will have both Mac and PCs running.
Second, some of the Scope glitches you mention are a bit silly. I don't know if you've ever tried loading a VST/native based project to 95% of ressource use, but Scope tends to be *ALOT* more stable in such a situation, i.e. either it will work reliably, or not, but when it works, it won't start flaking out slowly like native-based setups.
Third, about the users, I hate to burst your bubble, but most people using computers these days really shouldn't be using them (I'm saying this after years of tech support experience, general and audio-specific.) The system is never dumb, the system simply does what you tell it to do. It's not a living sentient organism, so blaming the computer system won't get you anywhere. Also, Scope isn't a "consumer" product like a microwave oven or a TV (and these days, people even have problem with using those, believe me.) It's a complex pro-audio system that really isn't suitable for everyone, especially those who just want plug-and-play to work. Users aren't dumb, but they are, like you imply with you motherboard comments, quite a bit ignorant, and it's certainly THEIR OWN RESPONSABILITY to deal with their own ignorance, in all areas of life, NOT their hardware vendors. If you run out and just buy any kind of hardware without checking what works and what doesn't work with your 2000$ sound board, it's you problem, not anyone else's. Anyone using google and/or contacting Creamware WILL easily end up on this forum, and WILL get answers to their questions regarding just about any aspect of using a Scope system. Ignoring comments and being hard-headed is also YOU responsability, you really can't blame you hardware vendor for this either.
Also, DSP-based systems are a bit special, and THEY REQUIRE some comprehension on the user-side to understand how they are built, are they work and how you can get the most out of them, especially in the context of a DSP-based solution sitting on a PCI bus, and you can't blame the hardware vendor, or anyone else than yourself in fact, for being too lazy, or finding it "too daunting" to learn.
You can easily find explanations as to why loading a big synth on a 95% full project can net you some problems, given that sometimes you simply cannot split a devices processing among different DSPs. This is sometimes a general Scope limiation, and sometimes a device-specific limitation put there by the developer to either prevent some problems and issue, or to *make something possible that wouldn't be otherwise.* I can assure you, that Scope way of doing DSP allocation stuff is alore more effecient than other vendors (just do some research on how it work in ProTools. *Personally*, in almost all projects I've filled up, I've very rarely had crashes when loading a device too big for what I have left, I usually just get the DSP full error dialog, it'll try to optimize the project, which sometimes work, otherwise I just unload the offending devie (or another device, to free up DSP) and I can continue to work normally. Your implication that it crashes all the time is dead wrong. It might happen often to you, it might happen with some devices, but in my 6 years of using Scope hardware, it's very, very very rarely been true for me (and the many other Scope users I know), and the Scope platform has *always* been the most stable piece of software of my system. Logic and Games and other software have caused alot more crashes than Scope ever did, and I suspect that alot of people blame Scope (drivers and software) for crashes that aren't really Scope's fault, but more weird interaction/conflicts between software components and/or software that use and access Scope software and drivers.
Also, I don't know how much native-based projects you have done, but 95% full native/VST projects tend to be ALOT more crash-prone than SFP-based ones, and also with SFP, if you project is 95% and working and you don't load any device, it'll remain extremely reliable (since the DSP use won't vary), while native-based projects will be totally flakey and unreiable, since CPU use will move and vary quite a bit, bunch of CPU spikes, and it won't stop working instantly, it'll start glitchly in the parts of the song that are more busy, and will end up being ALOT more time-consuming in trying to eliminate or minimize those glitches (or you can just ignore them and bounce non-realtime, but I find that EXTREMELY annoying myself, in part because glitches aren't fun to hear, and because it can be a pretty huge pain and time killer to try and figure out if the glitch is because the system is too load/CPU spikes, or if it's something in the signal chain clipping.)
Fourth, Scope isn't a All-In-One studio model. This is just *one* among *many* ways you can use this system. You can just as easily use it with a pile of hardware boxes, just like in a "big" studio. You can mix within Scope, or mix with an external mixer board, or mix with your sequencer software. You can use SFP-based effects, or VST based effects, or hardware-based effects, or all of them at the same time, without really too much problem (except latency, which is *unescapable* at this point with computer audio, totally unrelated to Scope.) That's why I like my Scope system, because it lets me work exactly how I want it to, and in fact find it's the absolutely perfect setup to integrate hardware-based units with a computer-based audio solution. Also, I hate to burst your bubble again, but while big expensive studios are still using electrical hardware boxes, just about every project-studio and musician I know is moving toward mostly software-based systems built around a sequencer and VST/native effects, which is quite a bit of an All-In-One studio solution paradigm. This really isn't something you can blame on Scope systems, they are exactly following that paradigm (which is, quantitively speaking, a much more used paradigm these days than the entirely-hardware paradigm), while still offering a WHOLE lot more flexibility routing-wise for using hardware-based boxes than a straight ADAT-thru-ASIO-to-sequencer system that is what nearly 100% of all other computer audio-hardware/interface offer.
Implying that Scope systems are the only ones having problem with newers P4 system is dead-wrong, just look around and you'll see plenty of pleople having problems UAD-1 and newer Macs (PCI-based compatibility problems), this is a problem that affects *all computer audio* and certainly not only Scope. *All* hardware audio vendors products have problems with some hardware, and all vendors maintain a list of compatible and imcompatible hardware, which isn't always up-to-date, because of the huge and ever-evolving combination of hardware, and because of evolving drivers and software issues (ie, stuff gets fixed daily.)
Creamware aren't perfect in alot of respect, but it SURE IS a whole let better than *no support at all* and *no new fixes ever because the company is dead.* They have a tremendously limited team to work with alot of material.
Finally, given the really, REALLY, complex signal chains involved in digital audio, INDEPENDANT of what hardware and software you use, expecting stuff to "just work" without any learning curve or effort is simply ludicrous and not found anywhere in reality. Even a hardware synth or stand-alone recording box is pretty daunting technically and will require you to get your hand dirty with non-music technical stuff, same is true for live recording of instruments using "just" a mic, mic-pre and recorder, you *have* to understand what goes on in you recorder, in you mic-pre, in the analog/digital converter, and in the overall recording signal and component-interaction if want to do a good job. This is going to be true with just about every single piece of electronic-based audio device, except maybe a guitar with distortion pedal and simple amp (and even then, you'll benefit from the technical knowledge.) Just the theory of properly mixing different signal sources into a single signal, regardless of the hardware you use, can get pretty technicaly on a purely sound/wave mechanics side (frequency cancellation and phasing, etc.)
If you "just want to make music" you can buy a guitar and stay well clear of electronics =P. Stuff like Scope can take some tinkering to get to work, but once it works it's *INCREDIBLE* how nice it is, both as to how it sounds, and what it lets you do. Your "big studios" can manage to "just make music" because they also can afford to pay technicans and engineers to come and setup their stuff for them. If you can't afford the same, you *will* have to do some fiddling of adjustments and spend time tinkering with your software, Scope hardware or not.
couldn't have said it better.
also, geoffd99, if you remember, you had a bunch of problems with your system a year before the 3rd party reverb caused a problem that was fixed by a new motherboard. at that time(a year before the mobo change) i told you that your motherboard was not suitable and that it needed to be changed. you told me that there was no need as you liked that motherboard(even though it didn't work. you blamed your cwa card for the instability). now that you have a proper one, however, you say that your system works fine(as it NEVER did before). before that you said cwa stuff was unreliable, unusable junk. after, you wanted another card. just think, if you had done your research in the first place or listened to my advice at the beginning, how much more positive your experience would have been.
i called the g5 a "marketing trap", not because it is junk or a bad machine, but because apple threw out it's paradign of platform stability for for one of obsolesence and forced purchases. i don't think that's cool however nifty the product is.
i don't expect you to reflect on what i'm writing or for you to take this in any way but hostile, because you usually ignore what i say and keep to your opinion. remember though, i tried to save you a year of trouble in the past. if you can do that, you'll see that i'm not trying to be your enemy.
p.s. that cd is ridiculous. how can summing in a program be compared to mixes done on various other systems if they're not all going through the same ad/da and storage systems? you're going to be measuring the engineer's ability to operate each system(gain stages for example, especially in analog can make a tremendous difference). the cd is no benchmark, but it might be interesting anecdotal evidence. also, it costs $25. they make the cd for about a $1, so it's pretty obvious that they're fleecing uptight nervous engineers. i love mercenary, but check the name! and the fairlight does NOT mix on cwa cards(for the last time!). cwa cards are the effects units in the constellation console. whoever fed you the info that "cw is the same as fairlight" didn't know what he was talking about or you misunderstood.
also, geoffd99, if you remember, you had a bunch of problems with your system a year before the 3rd party reverb caused a problem that was fixed by a new motherboard. at that time(a year before the mobo change) i told you that your motherboard was not suitable and that it needed to be changed. you told me that there was no need as you liked that motherboard(even though it didn't work. you blamed your cwa card for the instability). now that you have a proper one, however, you say that your system works fine(as it NEVER did before). before that you said cwa stuff was unreliable, unusable junk. after, you wanted another card. just think, if you had done your research in the first place or listened to my advice at the beginning, how much more positive your experience would have been.
i called the g5 a "marketing trap", not because it is junk or a bad machine, but because apple threw out it's paradign of platform stability for for one of obsolesence and forced purchases. i don't think that's cool however nifty the product is.
i don't expect you to reflect on what i'm writing or for you to take this in any way but hostile, because you usually ignore what i say and keep to your opinion. remember though, i tried to save you a year of trouble in the past. if you can do that, you'll see that i'm not trying to be your enemy.
p.s. that cd is ridiculous. how can summing in a program be compared to mixes done on various other systems if they're not all going through the same ad/da and storage systems? you're going to be measuring the engineer's ability to operate each system(gain stages for example, especially in analog can make a tremendous difference). the cd is no benchmark, but it might be interesting anecdotal evidence. also, it costs $25. they make the cd for about a $1, so it's pretty obvious that they're fleecing uptight nervous engineers. i love mercenary, but check the name! and the fairlight does NOT mix on cwa cards(for the last time!). cwa cards are the effects units in the constellation console. whoever fed you the info that "cw is the same as fairlight" didn't know what he was talking about or you misunderstood.
absolutely right, that was me - and in fact I didn't know their use is restricted to the fx processingOn 2005-05-13 15:42, garyb wrote:
...cwa cards are the effects units in the constellation console. whoever fed you the info that "cw is the same as fairlight" didn't know what he was talking about or you misunderstood.
but it was also me, who wrote on the previous page that everybody has to learn abit sometimes...
cheers, Tom
ps: agree on the G5/Apple policy and Symbiote wrote a great post indeed
No, there will never be a perfect system. This is as true now as it was 30 years ago. Tracking to tape etc was a *hassle*, but people who wanted to make music badly enough did it. They didn't start moaning and give up. And they got great results.. my favourite production 'sound' is mid-70s funk and jazz.. the pinnacle of analogue recording technology. However I personally wouldn't want to deal with the hassle of it, so I have a digital system, know its limits and get on with it.
People these days seem to think if the computer doesn't do everything for them, there is something wrong
If there isn't a readily available preset for doing something, then figure out how to do it yourself... you might actually find the experience rewarding and educational.
People these days seem to think if the computer doesn't do everything for them, there is something wrong
If there isn't a readily available preset for doing something, then figure out how to do it yourself... you might actually find the experience rewarding and educational.
I agree. You guys are so right!
I have a friend with a big pro studio, he has a Protools / Logic setup. I asked him about using Protools, he said he did everything in Logic, and that 'Protools was for engineers'.
Moral: this friend actually is very technical and has run his own studio for 20 years, yet doesn't want to get involved with Protools (other than having it as the base system). This is like us using Cubase or whatever with Scope. Obviously we all want Scope to float about in the background doing its thing without distracting us too much.
The other interesting this is that he doesn't do mastering there, it is always done at proper mastering studios. Compare the 'all in one' solution provided by everyone from Scope to Sonar, Cubase, even Reason has mastering processors in it.
My original post is more about the disproportionate amount of time involved in being an 'engineer' when one is running a small computer based studio.
And how this time spent (despite - or maybe because - it is so absorbing and facinating) can detract from 'music making' of whatever sort, guitar band, techno, whatever.
Scope is actually quite stable, and probably better than most, despite having hardly changed in years. I have used it since 1997 or 98, with a P2 card, now I have a P2, a Luna 2 and a booster card, and all the CW and most of the thrid party stuff too. My other gear is 2 x Yamaha VL1 synths, a VL70m, and a Emu XL1, all the usual guitars, bass, piano etc. This is hardly a small investment.
As for presets, the more complex a synth, the more they are useful, also they find employ for very talented synth programmers (listen to the great presets on Solaris, or say on a Yamaha synth). These musicians are providing us with the fruits of their talents, and should not be disparaged.
It is easy to tweak presets - which saves a huge amount of time compared to making every sound from scratch, although that is fun occasionally.
I used to have the old synths like Roland SH09 etc, it is good to be able to recall preset sounds (incl. your own) rather than look at sheet of paper with dial and switch positions scribbled on them... although that was kind of fun too!
As a general point, my comments seem to get people riled up, so chill out guys there is no need to be so defensive about Scope and the state of the world... unless this IS a strange cult I have stumbled upon...
Now here's a thought: are there any female users of Scope systems out there? Can't tell with the obscure forum nicknames. If not, why not? Any ideas? There are PLENTY of female musicans...
I have a friend with a big pro studio, he has a Protools / Logic setup. I asked him about using Protools, he said he did everything in Logic, and that 'Protools was for engineers'.
Moral: this friend actually is very technical and has run his own studio for 20 years, yet doesn't want to get involved with Protools (other than having it as the base system). This is like us using Cubase or whatever with Scope. Obviously we all want Scope to float about in the background doing its thing without distracting us too much.
The other interesting this is that he doesn't do mastering there, it is always done at proper mastering studios. Compare the 'all in one' solution provided by everyone from Scope to Sonar, Cubase, even Reason has mastering processors in it.
My original post is more about the disproportionate amount of time involved in being an 'engineer' when one is running a small computer based studio.
And how this time spent (despite - or maybe because - it is so absorbing and facinating) can detract from 'music making' of whatever sort, guitar band, techno, whatever.
Scope is actually quite stable, and probably better than most, despite having hardly changed in years. I have used it since 1997 or 98, with a P2 card, now I have a P2, a Luna 2 and a booster card, and all the CW and most of the thrid party stuff too. My other gear is 2 x Yamaha VL1 synths, a VL70m, and a Emu XL1, all the usual guitars, bass, piano etc. This is hardly a small investment.
As for presets, the more complex a synth, the more they are useful, also they find employ for very talented synth programmers (listen to the great presets on Solaris, or say on a Yamaha synth). These musicians are providing us with the fruits of their talents, and should not be disparaged.
It is easy to tweak presets - which saves a huge amount of time compared to making every sound from scratch, although that is fun occasionally.
I used to have the old synths like Roland SH09 etc, it is good to be able to recall preset sounds (incl. your own) rather than look at sheet of paper with dial and switch positions scribbled on them... although that was kind of fun too!
As a general point, my comments seem to get people riled up, so chill out guys
there is no need to be so defensive about Scope and the state of the world... unless this IS a strange cult I have stumbled upon... Now here's a thought: are there any female users of Scope systems out there? Can't tell with the obscure forum nicknames. If not, why not? Any ideas? There are PLENTY of female musicans...
It's not your fault... there's unfortunately always someone who comes here to inform us that since Scope doesn't do everything they are going to sell up and buy an m-audio card or whatever and do everything in Cubase. Which is fair enough, if that's what they want to do, but to come and say Scope is crap because it's not as convenient as an all-native solution.. well it gets tiresome to say the least.
Also, regarding the 'need to be an engineer to use this stuff' thing...
20 years ago you couldn't do anything without a huge studio full of complicated racks, patchbays and mixers. And an engineer to operate it all!
Just because the tools can now live inside a computer, doesn't mean to say suddenly the engineer isn't needed... he's the guy who knows how to use the gear to get good results. You can of course pay an engineer to come round to your house and operate the stuff for you, so you can get on with the creative task of making music. However, a cheaper and more rewarding alternative is to learn how to use it yourself.. Otherwise, what's the point in having a home studio at all?
Of course, if you think the tools could just be easier to use, then fair enough. Personally I think all cars should have rocket thrusters and wings. But it doesn't mean that it's necessarily possible, does it?
Also, regarding the 'need to be an engineer to use this stuff' thing...
20 years ago you couldn't do anything without a huge studio full of complicated racks, patchbays and mixers. And an engineer to operate it all!
Just because the tools can now live inside a computer, doesn't mean to say suddenly the engineer isn't needed... he's the guy who knows how to use the gear to get good results. You can of course pay an engineer to come round to your house and operate the stuff for you, so you can get on with the creative task of making music. However, a cheaper and more rewarding alternative is to learn how to use it yourself.. Otherwise, what's the point in having a home studio at all?
Of course, if you think the tools could just be easier to use, then fair enough. Personally I think all cars should have rocket thrusters and wings. But it doesn't mean that it's necessarily possible, does it?
Good points. In imagining a perfect audio system, where to start? I always fancied having separate outputs for all instruments, going into their own combi amps and stacks, set up like a proper rock band - on a stage.
Then you could have a nice table with a drink on it at the front of the stage, and listen to own's own creations as if at a gig... perhaps with a wireless remote controller for the computer mixing etc.
Hmm...
Given a decent Peavey combi amp just set a friend back £280 (only a bit more than yet another soft synth) this might even be possible. It always seems a shame to put great synths, drums etc etc through the same pair of monitors. Dunno about the neighbours' reactions though.
Also you could then record on the computer as normal, but also get friends round for a fun evening, record the whole lot with mics and have a live album.
Also I am -nearly- doing gigs using this same laptop with the M-Audio 410 (with multiple tracks from the Scope system) plus me with various instruments, and a singer... if I can get it organised. So I suppose that is the same idea.
Anyway, I have the M-Audio 410 as well as the PC with Scope - the M-Audio is for my laptop.
It seems fine. The Noah might have been suitable I suppose since it is a USB audio interface, but the M-Audio is firewire with multi in/outs, and a Protools option which is slightly interesting.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: geoffd99 on 2005-05-16 17:48 ]</font>
Then you could have a nice table with a drink on it at the front of the stage, and listen to own's own creations as if at a gig... perhaps with a wireless remote controller for the computer mixing etc.
Hmm...
Given a decent Peavey combi amp just set a friend back £280 (only a bit more than yet another soft synth) this might even be possible. It always seems a shame to put great synths, drums etc etc through the same pair of monitors. Dunno about the neighbours' reactions though.
Also you could then record on the computer as normal, but also get friends round for a fun evening, record the whole lot with mics and have a live album.
Also I am -nearly- doing gigs using this same laptop with the M-Audio 410 (with multiple tracks from the Scope system) plus me with various instruments, and a singer... if I can get it organised. So I suppose that is the same idea.
Anyway, I have the M-Audio 410 as well as the PC with Scope - the M-Audio is for my laptop.
It seems fine. The Noah might have been suitable I suppose since it is a USB audio interface, but the M-Audio is firewire with multi in/outs, and a Protools option which is slightly interesting.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: geoffd99 on 2005-05-16 17:48 ]</font>
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: paname
true, how long does it take to lose concentration when a tech issue arises while making music?On 2005-05-16 14:21, geoffd99 wrote:
...
My original post is more about the disproportionate amount of time involved in being an 'engineer' when one is running a small computer based studio.
And how this time spent (despite - or maybe because - it is so absorbing and facinating) can detract from 'music making' of whatever sort, guitar band, techno, whatever.
...
Well, I hate to burst your bubble (again - damn that's alot of bubbles you have =P), but at least, with a single pair of monitors, you won't have any phasing problems between your instruments. If you think you're wasting time tinkering with technical issues now, wait until you try and phase-align 10 different amp/speaker stacks. Fun for live use, but forget doing any kind of proper mixing/mastering on such a setup.On 2005-05-16 17:47, geoffd99 wrote:
It always seems a shame to put great synths, drums etc etc through the same pair of monitors.
Yes I agree about phasing, I was not thinking of mastering or mixing 'finally' on this PA setup, it was more for *fun*.
By the way, I just got an email from GForce, how come *their* synths get so many rave reviews, Herbie Hancock making presets (!) etc, when Scope ones are more or less ignored? The Minimax was (is) the greatest ever, but the GForce one has performance tools that look very attractive - and Steve Winwood recommending it. But what would he know? GForce certainly have the big names.
Very odd (ity). Here's the ref:
http://www.gforcesoftware.com/ViewCateg ... nstruments
Also check out Native Instruments:
http://www.nativeinstruments.de/index.p ... cins2xt_us
All I'm saying here is, the virtual model of trad studio and synths which Creamware use, leaves the fun element out, as everything is conceptually based on the old designs.
See how GForce have added to the Minimoog spec, rather than emulating it exactly.
I suppose we have the SB404 and a few third party things.
This is all fine and dandy and I agree in advance with your passionate rebuttals.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: geoffd99 on 2005-05-17 11:33 ]</font>
By the way, I just got an email from GForce, how come *their* synths get so many rave reviews, Herbie Hancock making presets (!) etc, when Scope ones are more or less ignored? The Minimax was (is) the greatest ever, but the GForce one has performance tools that look very attractive - and Steve Winwood recommending it. But what would he know? GForce certainly have the big names.
Very odd (ity). Here's the ref:
http://www.gforcesoftware.com/ViewCateg ... nstruments
Also check out Native Instruments:
http://www.nativeinstruments.de/index.p ... cins2xt_us
All I'm saying here is, the virtual model of trad studio and synths which Creamware use, leaves the fun element out, as everything is conceptually based on the old designs.
See how GForce have added to the Minimoog spec, rather than emulating it exactly.
I suppose we have the SB404 and a few third party things.
This is all fine and dandy and I agree in advance with your passionate rebuttals.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: geoffd99 on 2005-05-17 11:33 ]</font>