Brotha' Man Astro,
Thanks for the demo. I heard what I wanted as it displayed the textures, and the 4-part multi-timbrality that I needed. Instead of waiting for the hardware version of Solaris, and then buying something. This was a no brainer. I have a 45 DSP DAW to dedicate just for this synth. Now when Solaris comes out in the fall, I will be prepared.
Strength And Honor,
JV
Solaris Newbie Questions
You must know that Solaris is very largely unexplored because of all the facets : wavetables have been way more explored in Quantum Wave, Rotors in Rotor EX, vector synthesis barely scratched ... etc
Solaris is meant for thousands of presets and years of tweaks, given that the hardware will have what the plug has + many other things, it will be some quite a sonic trek !
Solaris is meant for thousands of presets and years of tweaks, given that the hardware will have what the plug has + many other things, it will be some quite a sonic trek !
I also have the other 2, by Carl and yourself, but as they are 16 and 18 MB respectively, I waited if someone else might have them.decimator wrote:Sorry for the links about Quantum Wave, I'am not sure I can get back the files, at least astroman saved one ...
It would take some while to upload them from my home account
cheers, Tom
well, the Solaris hardware prototype at Messe already had a Moog filter...
afaik they seriously consider ways to integrate 3rd party stuff - and that means Adern and SpaceF in the first place
even in it's limited state the prototype was totally convincing, when it's ready in will be GREAT - but those add-ons would make it the true Uebersynth, just sick
Imho it will be 'better' than a modular - finally it's a performance synth, it's not the ideal 'interface' for experimental sounddesign.
The Solaris plugin (with it's virtual extension slots) proved that it's a convenient way to integrate such different modules under one hood and still allows to be open to future developements - with all the stuff ready-to-play
John's design was quite foreseeing, or as the other Jimmy would have said... but first of all - are you experienced ?
cheers, Tom
afaik they seriously consider ways to integrate 3rd party stuff - and that means Adern and SpaceF in the first place
even in it's limited state the prototype was totally convincing, when it's ready in will be GREAT - but those add-ons would make it the true Uebersynth, just sick
Imho it will be 'better' than a modular - finally it's a performance synth, it's not the ideal 'interface' for experimental sounddesign.
The Solaris plugin (with it's virtual extension slots) proved that it's a convenient way to integrate such different modules under one hood and still allows to be open to future developements - with all the stuff ready-to-play
John's design was quite foreseeing, or as the other Jimmy would have said... but first of all - are you experienced ?
cheers, Tom
A touch pad was initially planned but dropped due to the extreme cost of the part (probably due to the lower quantities that John will be shipping versus some cheapo controller from a mainstream maker). I'm sure ribbon isn't planned for similar reasons. However an X/Y joy is planned currently instead last I heard.
The current models that are shown in photos are the 2 prototypes, fully functional but not yet the final form (hence not shipping yet). Hence the lack of the XY joystick.
OSC is only useful currently for MAX & NI software, although it is slowly being adopted elsewhere. Though how OSC helps a 'performance synth' I am not sure, since the synth already has audiorate modulation? OSC might help a 'rackmount' or 'studio' synth if you're driving it entirely from external control (software or lemur). But since audiorate modulation basically gives u higher resolution than OSC even, you should probably just rely on using an internal modulation source to generate your control or interpolate from an extral control (cc etc) to your desired internal destination(s).
As for doepfer's external ribbon controller, last I heard it was a good tool but not an 'industry standard'. I believe that's why they offer this: http://www.doepfer.de/R2M.htm
The current models that are shown in photos are the 2 prototypes, fully functional but not yet the final form (hence not shipping yet). Hence the lack of the XY joystick.
OSC is only useful currently for MAX & NI software, although it is slowly being adopted elsewhere. Though how OSC helps a 'performance synth' I am not sure, since the synth already has audiorate modulation? OSC might help a 'rackmount' or 'studio' synth if you're driving it entirely from external control (software or lemur). But since audiorate modulation basically gives u higher resolution than OSC even, you should probably just rely on using an internal modulation source to generate your control or interpolate from an extral control (cc etc) to your desired internal destination(s).
As for doepfer's external ribbon controller, last I heard it was a good tool but not an 'industry standard'. I believe that's why they offer this: http://www.doepfer.de/R2M.htm
For people scratching their heads about what a rotor can do ... 
It's one rotor fed with 4 different wavetables not modulated a lot ( pitch + wave position ) on the other hand, rotor is modulated fully, 2 voices ( some portamento-glissendo used at time ) realtime hand tweaks on LFO rates, amount ...etc + use of the vibrato LFO above legal vibrato values !
It's one rotor fed with 4 different wavetables not modulated a lot ( pitch + wave position ) on the other hand, rotor is modulated fully, 2 voices ( some portamento-glissendo used at time ) realtime hand tweaks on LFO rates, amount ...etc + use of the vibrato LFO above legal vibrato values !
- Attachments
-
[The extension mp3 has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]
Yep I saw that. From his wording it seems that there is a chance that an x/y touchpad might still be possible, though this is all conjecture on my part as I haven't actually discussed that stuff with him in ages (so don't flame me if I'm totally wrong )
He also asked for clarification on OSC. Certainly John knows better than I what he can and can't afford to do (cost & time wise) better than I, I would still be surprised to find this appear in his synth. It would require a Nic & I have no idea if Sharcs are capable of having OSC ported to them (in the sense that something has to run the OSC os on the synth). So I would expect an extra microprocessor just to support it etc. Could be wrong though?
)He also asked for clarification on OSC. Certainly John knows better than I what he can and can't afford to do (cost & time wise) better than I, I would still be surprised to find this appear in his synth. It would require a Nic & I have no idea if Sharcs are capable of having OSC ported to them (in the sense that something has to run the OSC os on the synth). So I would expect an extra microprocessor just to support it etc. Could be wrong though?
-
synthetic88
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:48 am
-
synthetic88
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:48 am
Talked to a friend tonight who's also a Scope owner. He loves the sound but says it's unstable, especially in VST mode. I understand that Scope4Live uses it live, so he must know something my friend doesn't.
Also, what are the RAM requirements? I assumed that most of the processing was done on the DSP card, but he said I'd need a serious computer to run it. I was thinking about dedicating an unused PC, AMD Athlon XP 2500+, ASUS A7V600, 512MB RAM (and only two slots on the board!?) and a bunch of IDE drives I have left over from my last upgrade.
Also, what are the RAM requirements? I assumed that most of the processing was done on the DSP card, but he said I'd need a serious computer to run it. I was thinking about dedicating an unused PC, AMD Athlon XP 2500+, ASUS A7V600, 512MB RAM (and only two slots on the board!?) and a bunch of IDE drives I have left over from my last upgrade.
Personally I love running my scope cards in a 2nd system, but that's because I use it primarily for 2-3 signal paths at at given time (Solaris and/or a nice Modular patch and then a few effects chains).
The PCI bus is the MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT of the system, and second to that is the graphics card (high end 3d cards, especially ATI can swamp the system bus with their drivers which want the system entirely to themselves for high framerates in games). Just to give you an idea, I run Scope on a p3-700. That's an old Intel bx chipset (100mhz fsb even, slotket adaptor to get a 700mhz cpu into that box), 512 Mb ram and an old Matrox g400. Scope runs just fine although it does load new projects a tad slower than someone with a modern system.
Also, if you intend to use Scope in a standalone system you might want to consider wiring it to your main rig with ADAT as well as midi & analog i/o.
Looking at your motherboard ( http://www.amdboard.com/asus_a7v600.html ) the biggest issue you might face is the fact that it's a VIA based motherboard. In general you'll want to steer clear of VIA & Sis chipsets unless you don't mind doing a lot of hand tuning of your system. They have extremely poor PCI bus performance and you're likely to see a lot of PCI overflows. For AMD the positively ancient AMD760/761 and the nforce3 based motherboards tend to be the best. But since you already have that motherboard you should ask other users here how to optimize it as best as possible. Visit the tech section here on PlanetZ for more info. Just keep in mind if you experience headaches with that motherboard that it's not Scope's fault Any other dsp system (UAD, Powercore etc) faces the same limitations of the PCI bus.
As for your friend's headaches, I can only say that it's really not intended to be run in 'VST mode' (XTC mode in Scope terms). There are users who use it that way but the functionality was sort of 'tacked on' to meet the demands of users who were insistent that they had to have it once UAD & Powercore started shipping similar systems. So the code works but it will require workarounds on your part to get a lot of things working under XTC. There are people here who are perfectly happy running XTC/VST mode with their cards but the general consensus among most users is that the standalone OS mode (scope.exe) is far preferable for its flexibility.
As for other instabilities, most problems are related to inexpensive motherboards (crappy chipsets) or using a sytem with an Intel p4 & HT (hyperthreading). Some dual core users are reporting issues but it isn't clear currently what the problem is as others with nearly identical systems have no problems. All in all it basically takes a bit of tuning if you find you have issues then everything is smooth sailing. Give yourself a month or two to learn the ins & outs (so to speak) of the Scope routing and you'll find the system is really fairly easy.
The PCI bus is the MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT of the system, and second to that is the graphics card (high end 3d cards, especially ATI can swamp the system bus with their drivers which want the system entirely to themselves for high framerates in games). Just to give you an idea, I run Scope on a p3-700. That's an old Intel bx chipset (100mhz fsb even, slotket adaptor to get a 700mhz cpu into that box), 512 Mb ram and an old Matrox g400. Scope runs just fine although it does load new projects a tad slower than someone with a modern system.
Also, if you intend to use Scope in a standalone system you might want to consider wiring it to your main rig with ADAT as well as midi & analog i/o.
Looking at your motherboard ( http://www.amdboard.com/asus_a7v600.html ) the biggest issue you might face is the fact that it's a VIA based motherboard. In general you'll want to steer clear of VIA & Sis chipsets unless you don't mind doing a lot of hand tuning of your system. They have extremely poor PCI bus performance and you're likely to see a lot of PCI overflows. For AMD the positively ancient AMD760/761 and the nforce3 based motherboards tend to be the best. But since you already have that motherboard you should ask other users here how to optimize it as best as possible. Visit the tech section here on PlanetZ for more info. Just keep in mind if you experience headaches with that motherboard that it's not Scope's fault Any other dsp system (UAD, Powercore etc) faces the same limitations of the PCI bus.
As for your friend's headaches, I can only say that it's really not intended to be run in 'VST mode' (XTC mode in Scope terms). There are users who use it that way but the functionality was sort of 'tacked on' to meet the demands of users who were insistent that they had to have it once UAD & Powercore started shipping similar systems. So the code works but it will require workarounds on your part to get a lot of things working under XTC. There are people here who are perfectly happy running XTC/VST mode with their cards but the general consensus among most users is that the standalone OS mode (scope.exe) is far preferable for its flexibility.
As for other instabilities, most problems are related to inexpensive motherboards (crappy chipsets) or using a sytem with an Intel p4 & HT (hyperthreading). Some dual core users are reporting issues but it isn't clear currently what the problem is as others with nearly identical systems have no problems. All in all it basically takes a bit of tuning if you find you have issues then everything is smooth sailing. Give yourself a month or two to learn the ins & outs (so to speak) of the Scope routing and you'll find the system is really fairly easy.
there are tons of 'outdated' office P3 and Celerons on eBay for a few bucks -don't waste your time
for Scope itself it's pointless if you have the latter or a Tualatin CPU, if the Ram is 100 or 133 and the 512MB memory limit doesn't matter either.
I also run Scope (as an external sound box) on a P3, and the Tualatin is just for vanity - I have 3 Pulsar cards (the old ones) but that is 48 Adat channels IO
cheers, Tom
for Scope itself it's pointless if you have the latter or a Tualatin CPU, if the Ram is 100 or 133 and the 512MB memory limit doesn't matter either.
I also run Scope (as an external sound box) on a P3, and the Tualatin is just for vanity - I have 3 Pulsar cards (the old ones) but that is 48 Adat channels IO
cheers, Tom