next generation pulsar?
I wonder how CW´s product politics will adapt to the current situation. When it comes to building a new system the musicians I know almost all favor native processing with the prospect of better money to plug-in ratio. And the advantage of the better handling gets smaller and smaller today. Some time ago a friend of mine developed a software which would have gotten pulsar a) total control with any midicontrol box and b)programable keyboard shortcuts (e.g. F1-12 for mute and solo etc.). But nobody seemed to interested at CW so it wasn´t developed any further. I reccon they find the handling not to be improvable. They didn´t adapt to the upcoming shark generations either. The plugs they developed are good but so are the plugs of UAD, TC or some native ones. I assume it´s not enough to bundle the plugs with the hardware to have a durable selling proposition. The scope platform had absolutely enough power to break into a "protoolsyfied" studio world. But somehow it all went astray? Where will the direction go?
you cannot just break into a 'protoolsyfied' studio - nice creation, btw 
there are different constraints than just superior or whatsoever technical figures - it's about workflow etc.
In DTP Quark XPress is still the leading app - and considering the time they had for developement, it could even be called a piece of crap.
Nevertheless not even giants like Adobe (playing a major role with Photoshop themselves) could (and still canot) break into this.
People don't care once they have a tool to get their job done reliably if another one might be suited better.
Let alone the fact that most users have horrible experiences about system modifications...
CWA cannot change their role in this game and there's no need too.
A niche market with a fairly low share in overall system count can be quite profitable, as Apple shows.
If you studied the DSP products from Analog over some time you might have noticed that certain models were announced but never released.
To be precise there has always been only one model suitable for a mass production device like the Scope card.
TigerSharcs may be fancy for techies, but out of any reasonable price range. We're talking gear in the range of a few thousand bucks and not ultrasound imagers starting at 100k or rocket war heads...
cheers, Tom
there are different constraints than just superior or whatsoever technical figures - it's about workflow etc.
In DTP Quark XPress is still the leading app - and considering the time they had for developement, it could even be called a piece of crap.
Nevertheless not even giants like Adobe (playing a major role with Photoshop themselves) could (and still canot) break into this.
People don't care once they have a tool to get their job done reliably if another one might be suited better.
Let alone the fact that most users have horrible experiences about system modifications...
CWA cannot change their role in this game and there's no need too.
A niche market with a fairly low share in overall system count can be quite profitable, as Apple shows.
If you studied the DSP products from Analog over some time you might have noticed that certain models were announced but never released.
To be precise there has always been only one model suitable for a mass production device like the Scope card.
TigerSharcs may be fancy for techies, but out of any reasonable price range. We're talking gear in the range of a few thousand bucks and not ultrasound imagers starting at 100k or rocket war heads...
cheers, Tom
Nice comparison PT <-> Quark. Since I´m in the graphics design business I know it all too well. Quark with it´s absurd pricing and weak features got industry standart. And nobody who has (bought) it changes to InDesign. But (almost) all those buying a new package do. And all others keep on whishing they had the same functionality with quark as with InDesign.
That brings us back to CW. The basic concept is really good. And protools is still really expensive. So CW had a chance to brake into that market. And as far as I remember the first articles about scope in "keyboards" etc. had more of a highest-end touch. I just have the feeling that CW pushes Scope to little into the studio market. The focus is on even more and bundled plugins than on a unbeatable handling which IS good, but anything can be still further improved.
The average home studio guy buying a new system mostly has the money to plugin ratio in mind (which is superb when getting native stuff via EMule etc). But I think if he thought "well a few bucks more and I would be compatible with lots of studios and that handling is superb. And well I would also OWN the plugs (not that I´d care but...)". Right now I do have little choice if I want to get my song set up in SFP produced in another studio...
CW perfectly new how to get a defacto-standard in the psat (with the tripleDat).
That brings us back to CW. The basic concept is really good. And protools is still really expensive. So CW had a chance to brake into that market. And as far as I remember the first articles about scope in "keyboards" etc. had more of a highest-end touch. I just have the feeling that CW pushes Scope to little into the studio market. The focus is on even more and bundled plugins than on a unbeatable handling which IS good, but anything can be still further improved.
The average home studio guy buying a new system mostly has the money to plugin ratio in mind (which is superb when getting native stuff via EMule etc). But I think if he thought "well a few bucks more and I would be compatible with lots of studios and that handling is superb. And well I would also OWN the plugs (not that I´d care but...)". Right now I do have little choice if I want to get my song set up in SFP produced in another studio...
CW perfectly new how to get a defacto-standard in the psat (with the tripleDat).