PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

I don't think creamware needs to recompile to a new more powerful DSP. I just think that they need to include more of them in Noah.

I understand that the real cost is the software and development and if that is true why do they hold back on the DSPs?

Why create such a sweet flexible platform and then hold back on the power just enough to make it unattractive to their established customer base?

It's like taking a Ferrari and putting in the engine from a Mercedes sedan.

I could stand to buy another 15 or so plugs... it's learning how to use them that's the bitch. (and afford them)

Sam

On 2003-11-14 03:19, kensuguro wrote:
consume.

but everyone's bought most of what they want to buy. So, it's kinda saturated I think.

yes,there are 10 or 15 devices i would like as well....

On 2003-11-14 23:13, R-type wrote:
...I understand that the real cost is the software and development and if that is true why do they hold back on the DSPs?

simply economics - the board design and production needs external resources.
Conditions depend (as usual) on quantity, so you have to be very precise in your estimation - I assume most of that stuff has to be (partly) prepaid or is due on delivery.

There's also a good chance that Analog Devices had production problems with a series of Sharcs.
The current ones are not listed in their roadmap from last year and some from that roadmap are missing today.
There's no evidence for the correctness of the statement above, it's just my personal guess. Not important anyway, as time gone by...

cheers, Tom

On 2003-11-14 16:34, doodyrh wrote:
Why not?
If CPUs are being out(up)dated very fast then they'll surely be overtaking DSP soon.

Different architecture. For example the SHARC family of chips have a low clock rate, as compared to modern CPU's, but they do have "hi-speed parallel core-processor independent IO" making them way more efficient at doing continuous FFT processing due to the high bandwidth I/O something that desktop cpu's can't really compete with.
IMO I don't think we'll ever see the death of DSP chips. We'll have to wait and see.
If x86 based CPU's are the future, then we'll be seeing them in digital mixing desks very soon.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone seen any audio devices using the newer TigerSHARC chips yet? The SHARC dsp chip still seems to be the one used in most professional audio applications.

On 2003-11-16 17:31, bassdude wrote:

If x86 based CPU's are the future, then we'll be seeing them in digital mixing desks very soon.

You're quite right : http://www.mackie.com/products/dxb/index.html

Cheers

they will have their reasons when they include a DSP based solution for eq and comp (UAD1)

On 2003-11-16 19:27, Warp69 wrote:

On 2003-11-16 17:31, bassdude wrote:

If x86 based CPU's are the future, then we'll be seeing them in digital mixing desks very soon.

You're quite right : http://www.mackie.com/products/dxb/index.html

Cheers

For control, not signal processing. I probably should have made that a bit more clearer. The d8b also has a pentium processor as well, but all the signal processing is done by DSP chips.

Apart from the touch part of the touch screens, isn't that dxb just a computer DAW? Some dsp cards, a dual vga card, a control surface all in a nice custom made box running windows. Here's hoping they don't have as many bug problems when they first released the d8b. I guess this sort of thing was inevitable. I like the idea of it all being presented as a dedicated piece of gear (no surfing the web on this) but I don't like the "bits of technology slapped together" thing (that's just me though). It will be interesting to see how it is recieved and what the price will be.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: bassdude on 2003-11-16 22:50 ]</font>

I've seen such PeeCes (in the true sense of the word) in medical applications measuring an adsr envelope of your performance when reliefing of some water for about $35k

sorry couldn't resist

the Windows of the Mackie console is a special version called 'embedded XP' (a closed box withgout user access afaik) and seriously: any Windows you could 'strip down' like that will certainly be much more reliable than the regular stuff.

cheers, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2003-11-16 23:09 ]</font>

Embedded windows probably allows the manufacture more control over what windows subsystems are loaded depending on application. MS won't have us plebs having that kind of control/choice though Oh no!