http://www.analog.com/processors/EP_DSP ... 07_Web.pdf
i put this 2007 catalog and i would like some discussion about creamwares basic engine and price in 2007.
analog devices
astro, aren't all the sharc family code compatible? 21261,262,266 share pin/package config with 21065.....
anyway, which sharc is really only important as far as how many devices/voices etc. the sound is the same regardless(well, the faster chips are less likely to exhibit phase problems because there's less need to share processes between chips if one is using a very heavy plugin with the faster chips).
price? do you find scope cards expensive and consider one's self professional? scope is dirt cheap. a much better deal than protools hd on really outdated processors. the only thing hs has going for it is a dedicated hardware controller. it's hard to believe that it takes $40,000 to get a hardware controller to work. actually, scope should be more expensive, but the consumer market won't support it. do you really think that developement would be so slow if CWA sold the same number of cards, but doubled the price? i'll bet there'd never have been a bankruptcy if they'd been able to get that much. as much as i hate to say it, because I can't afford the increase, the card is too cheap. one synth module is more expensive. a digi002 is more expensive(it has no synths, effects nothin, just less i/o). an echo layla is more expensive!
nothing personal, Arcadios, your invitation to discuss was my cue to rant.
anyway, which sharc is really only important as far as how many devices/voices etc. the sound is the same regardless(well, the faster chips are less likely to exhibit phase problems because there's less need to share processes between chips if one is using a very heavy plugin with the faster chips).
price? do you find scope cards expensive and consider one's self professional? scope is dirt cheap. a much better deal than protools hd on really outdated processors. the only thing hs has going for it is a dedicated hardware controller. it's hard to believe that it takes $40,000 to get a hardware controller to work. actually, scope should be more expensive, but the consumer market won't support it. do you really think that developement would be so slow if CWA sold the same number of cards, but doubled the price? i'll bet there'd never have been a bankruptcy if they'd been able to get that much. as much as i hate to say it, because I can't afford the increase, the card is too cheap. one synth module is more expensive. a digi002 is more expensive(it has no synths, effects nothin, just less i/o). an echo layla is more expensive!
nothing personal, Arcadios, your invitation to discuss was my cue to rant.
yes, but only the 262 runs at 200 MHZ, so I could tell without opening an ASB what's inside...garyb wrote:astro, aren't all the sharc family code compatible? 21261,262,266 share pin/package config with 21065....
given CWA's press release is accurate regarding the clock...
nevertheless it's not simply a replacement part - you have to do significant modifications to the 065 software to make it run on the 262. There was a how-to released by AD about this topic.
cheers, Tom
@gary: I think its not only the price that made the problems:
Scope was and still is a nice idea, but also a very difficult to implement and realize.... so there were many problems with different pc configurations and SFP software at the beginning.
once you bring a new product onto a market it gets some kind of reputation over the time. And Scope seem to have had some problems from the start.
CW slogan was always "no compromise in quality." i still got the keys magazine advertising in mind.
still in these times (1999) computers were miles away from the power that they have today...
Today no one goes out and buys a card to free up the processsing power like in that old days....
But it is of course important that a new card has much more power than the older one....
If you wanna sell a scope II these days, you should point out the high quality of plug-ins.
And with more powerful chips its not only possible to load more amount of plug-ins at the same time but also few with more complex algorithm...
UAD and Powercore have there reputation, basically just because of their name and because of the quality plug-ins in what they are specialized on....
Powercore - high-quality reverb ...
UAD - compressors..
No one questions this, because f.e. TC stands for high quality reverb for over many years... even before a powercore was announced.
Creamware doesn`t have that reputation in the fx segment....
For synth they got John Bowen.... And everybody will agree that the CW have a good reputation in synth segment.
I don`t say the fx are bad, but CW just don`t have reputation for good fx...
I`m sure Vinco is in no way behind the UAD comps quality wise. Maybe even better. But it just don`t have the label made by Universal Audio and so it will fail to attract new customers....
And its not easy to try out....
If a new scope card is in production, I would try to attract as many high-class plug-in developers as possible to convert some algos on the new plattform..
Maybe Lexicon, which is not present in prducing plug-ins..... even if CW does not profit from the seeling of the plug-in...they will sell the cards to run that plug-in...and so profit from it....
So copy/crack protection should be highest priority.
Seriously I think to possition a new scope , it should try to achieve the level of high-class audio fx and synths...
And the last point I think is very important: trying out: Its just impossible to try out the plug-ins if you don`t own the card....
So there are basically two ways to solve this problem:
(1) make a low segement card, where nobody is afraid of investing into some money....
(2) release a few VST plug-ins that show CW skills in developing high quality audio tools, maybe a synth and a nice fx.... with easy accessible demo versions... this will also attrack new users...
(like Volkzampler in the old days)
but no one will buy a card for 2000€ just to try out.....
"try at your local dealer" won`t work at all. Once the card sells well, delears will put the card in their show rooms but not before...
my 2cent (sorry for my bad english)
Scope was and still is a nice idea, but also a very difficult to implement and realize.... so there were many problems with different pc configurations and SFP software at the beginning.
once you bring a new product onto a market it gets some kind of reputation over the time. And Scope seem to have had some problems from the start.
CW slogan was always "no compromise in quality." i still got the keys magazine advertising in mind.
still in these times (1999) computers were miles away from the power that they have today...
Today no one goes out and buys a card to free up the processsing power like in that old days....
But it is of course important that a new card has much more power than the older one....
If you wanna sell a scope II these days, you should point out the high quality of plug-ins.
And with more powerful chips its not only possible to load more amount of plug-ins at the same time but also few with more complex algorithm...
UAD and Powercore have there reputation, basically just because of their name and because of the quality plug-ins in what they are specialized on....
Powercore - high-quality reverb ...
UAD - compressors..
No one questions this, because f.e. TC stands for high quality reverb for over many years... even before a powercore was announced.
Creamware doesn`t have that reputation in the fx segment....
For synth they got John Bowen.... And everybody will agree that the CW have a good reputation in synth segment.
I don`t say the fx are bad, but CW just don`t have reputation for good fx...
I`m sure Vinco is in no way behind the UAD comps quality wise. Maybe even better. But it just don`t have the label made by Universal Audio and so it will fail to attract new customers....
And its not easy to try out....
If a new scope card is in production, I would try to attract as many high-class plug-in developers as possible to convert some algos on the new plattform..
Maybe Lexicon, which is not present in prducing plug-ins..... even if CW does not profit from the seeling of the plug-in...they will sell the cards to run that plug-in...and so profit from it....
So copy/crack protection should be highest priority.
Seriously I think to possition a new scope , it should try to achieve the level of high-class audio fx and synths...
And the last point I think is very important: trying out: Its just impossible to try out the plug-ins if you don`t own the card....
So there are basically two ways to solve this problem:
(1) make a low segement card, where nobody is afraid of investing into some money....
(2) release a few VST plug-ins that show CW skills in developing high quality audio tools, maybe a synth and a nice fx.... with easy accessible demo versions... this will also attrack new users...
(like Volkzampler in the old days)
but no one will buy a card for 2000€ just to try out.....
"try at your local dealer" won`t work at all. Once the card sells well, delears will put the card in their show rooms but not before...
my 2cent (sorry for my bad english)
i do not argue. i just wonder if someone has thought that even our great creawares modules are not so great anymore because of technological evolution.
some creamware synths that emulate analog instruments might be just a past.
like sixstring. have you played spectrasonics bass??
i do not refuse though that some modules(probably most creamware ones) need more years of playing, at least for me to seem old.
some creamware synths that emulate analog instruments might be just a past.
like sixstring. have you played spectrasonics bass??
i do not refuse though that some modules(probably most creamware ones) need more years of playing, at least for me to seem old.
well, if you refer to the pre 2k days.... I also have those mags, and some of the stuff is still online
they were a bit too ambitious back then - Protools for the masses, for a Volks-price so to say...
Apple made a similiar mistake 10 years earlier, releasing their Hypercard system for free.
most of you will probably never have heard about it, but it possibly was the most important release of all software in it's decade. It implemented the web-paradigm (on a local machine - and in a LAN if you were smart) before even the plans at CERN started.
It was the most easiest to use and in some domains even the most powerful programming language that I've ever come across.
You could rapid prototype as well as deploy systems, it was typeless, object oriented, almost bulletproof in error handling and could be extended with foreign code modules fairly easy.
but you couldn't really protect your developements...
Apple only missed to supply one single (!) , yet crucial item, a data table widget (à la excel)
Hypercard was conceptually high regarded, but never taken seriously, due to it's freebie character
if anyone can do (or afford it...) then it shrieks the pros away
Apple could have saved the world from Java... and Sun Microsystems wouldn't exist today - to give their decision some real-world context.
but that's how it goes ... reads familiar ?
cheers, Tom
they were a bit too ambitious back then - Protools for the masses, for a Volks-price so to say...
Apple made a similiar mistake 10 years earlier, releasing their Hypercard system for free.
most of you will probably never have heard about it, but it possibly was the most important release of all software in it's decade. It implemented the web-paradigm (on a local machine - and in a LAN if you were smart) before even the plans at CERN started.
It was the most easiest to use and in some domains even the most powerful programming language that I've ever come across.
You could rapid prototype as well as deploy systems, it was typeless, object oriented, almost bulletproof in error handling and could be extended with foreign code modules fairly easy.
but you couldn't really protect your developements...
Apple only missed to supply one single (!) , yet crucial item, a data table widget (à la excel)
Hypercard was conceptually high regarded, but never taken seriously, due to it's freebie character
if anyone can do (or afford it...) then it shrieks the pros away
Apple could have saved the world from Java... and Sun Microsystems wouldn't exist today - to give their decision some real-world context.
but that's how it goes ... reads familiar ?
cheers, Tom
very intersting point of view hifiboom... there is so much competition that specialization and speed are the main keys... But reputation leads to teh increase of sales. And reputation comes from specialization... ASBs are a very good means in order to reach this goal. Thus i really thnik that Creamware is on the right way with the ASBs...
1) create a good reputation through specialized products (reliability, good sound, high class,.... good media reviews)
2) then launch your mass product (eg : new soundcards....) which lead to huge sales ...
Jo
1) create a good reputation through specialized products (reliability, good sound, high class,.... good media reviews)
2) then launch your mass product (eg : new soundcards....) which lead to huge sales ...
Jo
yeah the ASBs are for sure the right step to capture the hardware guys...
but from what I know most software users are afraid to invest money into the wrong direction...
So a software emulation/demo or something like that is very nice way for promoting.
look, even Nord managed to make a cut-down software version of their Nord Modular, which made me hungry for the hardware.
A next step could be native CW sequencer, something like Cubase, which does not need a CW card, but if you got one you ll have powerful integration of the DSP hardware and very easy workflow .... integration of the SFP software into a sequencer could even improve the managment and handling of the projects.
but from what I know most software users are afraid to invest money into the wrong direction...
So a software emulation/demo or something like that is very nice way for promoting.
look, even Nord managed to make a cut-down software version of their Nord Modular, which made me hungry for the hardware.
A next step could be native CW sequencer, something like Cubase, which does not need a CW card, but if you got one you ll have powerful integration of the DSP hardware and very easy workflow .... integration of the SFP software into a sequencer could even improve the managment and handling of the projects.