I hate to be a total troll here, but...the number of times this has come up is nearly ludicrous now. What SFP & Creamware cards do they do very well, and the same goes for many/most of the respective devices available for SFP/Scope.
"Maybe then it can compete with Reaktor"
"Maybe then it can do what Logic/Cubase/Nuendo/Sonar/Pro Tools do"
"Maybe then..."
etc etc etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong but SFP works *very* well alongside all of these apps?
It used to be that there were a great many applications that worked well alongside of Microsoft Office. Needed to do a unique set of transforms to your excel data? Require additional graphics functionality? There were a ton of 3rd party solutions available. One by one Microsoft squashed and/or bought out competing & even cooperating products that offered additional functionality. Word has grown from a rather small app to a huge behemoth hard to separate from the rest of the Office suite, with a massive install size and a rather hefty ram requirement (yes the swapfile counts here). The point here is that the application continued to absorb features in order to stay ahead of everything else remotely related to its market, and even tho it isn't technically cpu intensive the MS Office apps became so incredibly bloated that they requires a relatively modern pc even though most users don't do tremendously more with it than they did with Office 95/97.
To bring the idea closer to home, Acid 1.0 and even 2.0 did something very well: Stretch & loop audio files. They also allowed basic arrangements to be constructed of loops, but in the context of a larger studio it was really the ability to slice & arrange rhythmic/percussive loops that made it stand out. Adding basic directX fx abilities helped in layering loops a bit, if you wanted to just export a layered sequence instead of individual looped sections. Now fastforward several years later and we currently have Acid 4.x which wants to do everything that a 'sequencer' can do with midi & software synths & fx. Acid 1.0 & even 2.0 ran comfortably alongside my 'real' sequencer back then with 1/5 the cpu power and 1/4 the RAM installed. Now there's little chance that Acid will run alongside Logic/Cubase/Sonar etc. without stealing so many of my resources as to make it pointless. Not to mention that the midi functionality is extremely limited, softsynth support is buggy and spotty, and using it with external gear is a true pain in the derriere.
Both examples above are examples to illustrate how useful tools can grow beyond boundaries in an attempt to be many/all things to many/all people. Now consider:
Reaktor does a lot of things that SFP's Modular II/III doesn't, and yet Mod II/III has a few tricks up its own sleeve. Each is powerful in its own right, but the remarkable thing is that they can work TOGETHER as tools in a larger studio environment. Personally I find Reaktor to be a tad too bloated to make regular use of it but that's my personal preference.
An Access Virus does what it does very well. Linplug Albino/RCGAudio z3ta+/Virsin Tera also do acceptable VA synthesis & will beat the Virus hands down in terms of polyphony & multitimbrality any day on a modern 3ghz p4/2ghz g5. Yet there are still areas where the Virus shines quite admirably, especially when it comes to having an integrated box that doesn't consume computer resources and I would argue there is still a sound quality difference as well. The polyphony & timbrality issues become even more contrasted when you compare the software VA synths to the solutions available on our Creamware cards. But again, there are areas where the SFP synths will outshine software.
Above & beyond all this, what SFP/Scope software and the accompanying hardware cards do they do very well, ESPECIALLY when it comes to being a 'hub' of sorts in a digital studio (either in the center of it all or even in 1 corner of a larger studio). Absorbing every feature & competing program in sight may have worked well (so far) for Microsoft but is this right for Creamware? Should a tool which has started shedding its rough edges over the last few years really attempt to take on everything in the industry? CW Frank has suggested before that this is not their focus and I applaud them for sticking to the strengths of their solution(s). Now let's look forward to (hopefully) bugfixes, a few innovative synths & an updated STS line (88.2 samplerate too?) and get out there & get working with your *TOOLS* in the meantime!
Creamware compared to softsynths & software fx...
It's horses for courses. Just to take your first two examples:
Microsoft Word may be bloated, but I recall the days when there were multiple word processing apps competing for the market, each with different formatting and capabilities. Transferring basic text from one machine to another was torture. So I think the current Word situation is a big step forward. Word - for me - is a fantastic app, I use it almost every day. That doesn't make my opinion right, or yours wrong, it just shows that there is no absolute and correct viewpoint that holds true for everyone.
As for Acid, I've owned every version ! And at each increase I think they've done wonders for expanding and enhancing it. The current version doesn't do MIDI very well, but it's a start. The 100+ post thread on the Sony site about what users want in Acid 5 repeatedly mentions improved MIDI and VSTi capabilities, as well as rewire slave.
And, perhaps ironically, if Sony incorporate a few extras features I'd like into version 5 then it will enable it to work far more smoothly with my Pulsar-II card and overcome some of my most annoying limitations with that system.
So would that be a mark against Acid for "bloating" yet again, or a validation of CW's philosophy of working with other apps ?
Of course if any company takes too many wrong steps the market will reject the product and it will go under.
As for CW, sometimes in the debate of the past week or two there seems to be some odd perceptions. Valis, I do *not* refer to you or your post in this respect.
But in some other posts there sometimes seems to be an attempt to stifle alternate views. If people try to stifle vigorous but polite debate, then the Z is nothing more than a useless collection of people continually congratulating each other on such a wise audio investment.
To suggest a few things CW might do, or do differently is not suggest they "take on everything". Nor is it slagging off the company, other users, or methods of work.
There is no correct method of work. Nor is there a certain way the cards must be used. If you pay your money and use the card as a paperweight you're still entitled to put forward your opinion that the card should be modified to sit flatter on the table.
So while the hub concept makes sense and is poplar, and remains (it appears) the underlying philsophy of the platform, is there anythign wrong with some people asking for a more complete environment ?
You may disagree with the request, but that doesn't make it wrong. CW may disagree, but that still doesn't mean it's wrong.
There have, for example, been several attempts to get a very simple CW sequencer happening (not an SX clone, not even a FL clone - just a simple sequencer). The possibility of that was one of the most popular threads ever on the old CW forum.
It may never happen - probably won't - but if the demand is there why not do it ? The patform would not necessarily become bloated or lose focus. In fact I think it would be a far more desirable and well-rounded package with much greater market appeal.
CW got into the markt via studio audio-processing. Maybe they should go back into it and invest in an amazing Acid-like app ? Would that bloat the platform or be a return to the company's roots ?
There is always room in the market for a superior product. Traktion has found its niche. Kontakt burst through the crowded sampler market.
But it's all just debate.
Healthy debate.
Maybe through the debate the wisdom of the hub concept and staying true to the original philosophy will prove itself the most viable path. Maybe not.
But isn't the whole point of Planet Z to explore all the possibilities of SFP ?
Microsoft Word may be bloated, but I recall the days when there were multiple word processing apps competing for the market, each with different formatting and capabilities. Transferring basic text from one machine to another was torture. So I think the current Word situation is a big step forward. Word - for me - is a fantastic app, I use it almost every day. That doesn't make my opinion right, or yours wrong, it just shows that there is no absolute and correct viewpoint that holds true for everyone.
As for Acid, I've owned every version ! And at each increase I think they've done wonders for expanding and enhancing it. The current version doesn't do MIDI very well, but it's a start. The 100+ post thread on the Sony site about what users want in Acid 5 repeatedly mentions improved MIDI and VSTi capabilities, as well as rewire slave.
And, perhaps ironically, if Sony incorporate a few extras features I'd like into version 5 then it will enable it to work far more smoothly with my Pulsar-II card and overcome some of my most annoying limitations with that system.
So would that be a mark against Acid for "bloating" yet again, or a validation of CW's philosophy of working with other apps ?
Of course if any company takes too many wrong steps the market will reject the product and it will go under.
As for CW, sometimes in the debate of the past week or two there seems to be some odd perceptions. Valis, I do *not* refer to you or your post in this respect.
But in some other posts there sometimes seems to be an attempt to stifle alternate views. If people try to stifle vigorous but polite debate, then the Z is nothing more than a useless collection of people continually congratulating each other on such a wise audio investment.
To suggest a few things CW might do, or do differently is not suggest they "take on everything". Nor is it slagging off the company, other users, or methods of work.
There is no correct method of work. Nor is there a certain way the cards must be used. If you pay your money and use the card as a paperweight you're still entitled to put forward your opinion that the card should be modified to sit flatter on the table.
So while the hub concept makes sense and is poplar, and remains (it appears) the underlying philsophy of the platform, is there anythign wrong with some people asking for a more complete environment ?
You may disagree with the request, but that doesn't make it wrong. CW may disagree, but that still doesn't mean it's wrong.
There have, for example, been several attempts to get a very simple CW sequencer happening (not an SX clone, not even a FL clone - just a simple sequencer). The possibility of that was one of the most popular threads ever on the old CW forum.
It may never happen - probably won't - but if the demand is there why not do it ? The patform would not necessarily become bloated or lose focus. In fact I think it would be a far more desirable and well-rounded package with much greater market appeal.
CW got into the markt via studio audio-processing. Maybe they should go back into it and invest in an amazing Acid-like app ? Would that bloat the platform or be a return to the company's roots ?
There is always room in the market for a superior product. Traktion has found its niche. Kontakt burst through the crowded sampler market.
But it's all just debate.
Healthy debate.
Maybe through the debate the wisdom of the hub concept and staying true to the original philosophy will prove itself the most viable path. Maybe not.
But isn't the whole point of Planet Z to explore all the possibilities of SFP ?
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
The core direction, of CW is what I question. The hub concept is at the core and shouldn't die away. VA is also at CW's center. I think that has to change. It's definitely loosing market appeal.
I'm not asking for a beefed up version of an ARP Odessy or Minimoog. That'll just be a bloated version. And think about what will happen if CW decided to keep on with their VA pursuit. They've done most of the big names already, so what's left to do? Perhaps a rhodes clone. That'll definitely be cool. But in the long term, they'll have to quit the VA thing at some point or else it'll become saturated.
So it's a matter of direction, and not adding features and what not. From my perspective, they can leave what they've already done and go on to new things. New ideas. Expanding SFP is a bit different from, say, building a feature bloated mixer or synth. Expanding the platform is kind of like writing more new software for Windows and not specifically MS Word, to continue on with the software metaphore.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2003-11-19 11:41 ]</font>
I'm not asking for a beefed up version of an ARP Odessy or Minimoog. That'll just be a bloated version. And think about what will happen if CW decided to keep on with their VA pursuit. They've done most of the big names already, so what's left to do? Perhaps a rhodes clone. That'll definitely be cool. But in the long term, they'll have to quit the VA thing at some point or else it'll become saturated.
So it's a matter of direction, and not adding features and what not. From my perspective, they can leave what they've already done and go on to new things. New ideas. Expanding SFP is a bit different from, say, building a feature bloated mixer or synth. Expanding the platform is kind of like writing more new software for Windows and not specifically MS Word, to continue on with the software metaphore.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2003-11-19 11:41 ]</font>
those "maybe cw can compete with..." comments are laughable.why is it a competition?why must sfp do EVERYTHING?people want to spend their money on an all and everything,but that's never going to happen.even if it did it wouldn't be a good thing.variety IS the spice of life.stop being so cheap!you HAVE to have at least a few different sound sources in the long run,if you always use one source(reactor or virus or a korg trident)things get pretty boring pretty fast.at least the various devices in sfp have different characters,that's more than i can say about most softsynths....
improvement is a must,but as already stated,the cw card works with all the other stuff and that's it's real strength.that's what you pay for.there IS no competition.the new effects and synths are extras.and there is another emulation that must still be done,pnos and eps.
as far as the market having any sense though,that's a joke!i've seen too many good products fail for no reason.people are easily brainwashed and they will buy an inferior product first everytime,if the advertising is properly done and their friend or hero has one.
improvement is a must,but as already stated,the cw card works with all the other stuff and that's it's real strength.that's what you pay for.there IS no competition.the new effects and synths are extras.and there is another emulation that must still be done,pnos and eps.
as far as the market having any sense though,that's a joke!i've seen too many good products fail for no reason.people are easily brainwashed and they will buy an inferior product first everytime,if the advertising is properly done and their friend or hero has one.
Nice Thread...
My opinion on the VA classics line by CW is that it's admirable. I think that if someone today has to do it, this is CW. There are many independent opinions now on the quality of CW modeling, it's surely the better result achieved in the field.
But I don't think that this cultural goal that brings good sounds and some history in the computer music world is the only benefit.
The modeling skills CW is refining are useful not only to get the best approximation to the existing, but also to the imagined.
The road opened by the Six String, that's not VA at all, is very important. Consider the programming potential and resolution that a synth has on varying elements of the sound, like the pick position or the hardness or smoothnes of the touch, all things totally unachievable even with the giga samples and the filters of the samplers.
And the creative potential that modeling has, when you want to go out of reality...Six Strings is capable of making some pads that are totally unique, no way to make gassy metal on other synths without a disturbing amount of natural distortion that can be nice but doesn't fit that sound...is like having imaginary substances sounding as real things...
So, I'm optimistic, CW has an interest in quality, they make great stuff and also give to the genial explorators like ReD_MuZe some really awesome blocks to build stuff like FleXor.
Tell me wich other platform offers a combination of sound quality and innovation like flexor (for a really competitive price..). Only for this CW should be considered as a very seriously pointing to the future company. And not only for this imho.
Cheers all
My opinion on the VA classics line by CW is that it's admirable. I think that if someone today has to do it, this is CW. There are many independent opinions now on the quality of CW modeling, it's surely the better result achieved in the field.
But I don't think that this cultural goal that brings good sounds and some history in the computer music world is the only benefit.
The modeling skills CW is refining are useful not only to get the best approximation to the existing, but also to the imagined.
The road opened by the Six String, that's not VA at all, is very important. Consider the programming potential and resolution that a synth has on varying elements of the sound, like the pick position or the hardness or smoothnes of the touch, all things totally unachievable even with the giga samples and the filters of the samplers.
And the creative potential that modeling has, when you want to go out of reality...Six Strings is capable of making some pads that are totally unique, no way to make gassy metal on other synths without a disturbing amount of natural distortion that can be nice but doesn't fit that sound...is like having imaginary substances sounding as real things...
So, I'm optimistic, CW has an interest in quality, they make great stuff and also give to the genial explorators like ReD_MuZe some really awesome blocks to build stuff like FleXor.
Tell me wich other platform offers a combination of sound quality and innovation like flexor (for a really competitive price..). Only for this CW should be considered as a very seriously pointing to the future company. And not only for this imho.
Cheers all
...just to get things straight,
i guess i need to explain my statement because it seems to be disruptive somehow (what only can enrich discussions ).
IMHO SFP development is not competative ti NI Reaktor simply because it's not comparable yet. Not because it's a worse platform nor a worse piece of software. It simply does not address some issues that others do. So why don't you want to encourage CW to make their platform more attractive with some easy things that could be changed. Or the other way round why not implement the good ideas from other manufacturers. That's what keeps business going.
BTW @valis and garyb:
If you decide to comment on other people statements please at least keep the context. My message was based on another post which mainly referred to ModIII UI and patch development. Due to that my comment wasn't laughable at all but just an idea what consumers could miss even if they really use and like SFP.
Fullquote from original postings:
Regards, Stefan
i guess i need to explain my statement because it seems to be disruptive somehow (what only can enrich discussions
).IMHO SFP development is not competative ti NI Reaktor simply because it's not comparable yet. Not because it's a worse platform nor a worse piece of software. It simply does not address some issues that others do. So why don't you want to encourage CW to make their platform more attractive with some easy things that could be changed. Or the other way round why not implement the good ideas from other manufacturers. That's what keeps business going.
BTW @valis and garyb:
If you decide to comment on other people statements please at least keep the context. My message was based on another post which mainly referred to ModIII UI and patch development. Due to that my comment wasn't laughable at all but just an idea what consumers could miss even if they really use and like SFP.
Fullquote from original postings:
On 2003-11-19 04:33, stw wrote:Hey kensuguro, that should be my postOn 2003-11-18 12:24, kensuguro wrote:
make the DP package and information widely available. Why be so secretive about it? Or perhaps a pseudo-DP kind of kit for advanced Mod users so they can package their synths with a practical UI. Mod III's "make your own UI" idea was cool, but not everything works with knobs so..
Fix Mod bugs.
I absolutly agree to that. A special offer for people who really like to support the SFP platform. And that's what it means at last. That includes a drastic discount to pure DSP cards (no I/O). Maybe CW can compete with Reaktor then...
Regards, Stefan
Regards, Stefan
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
physmod, now there's a way to go. Strings, brass, woodwinds, membranes (hand drums?)... there's still a broad spectrum of possibilities ahead. It's all been done before, and algorithms are limited, but I'd sure love to see CW's rendition of it. Personally, I'd think a cymbal type physmod is more than welcome. It would be quite a strange device, but it'll be a scientific breakthrough. Or perhaps a membrane physmod that's capable of snare drums. That'll totally kill.
On a side note, I'd also want to see some brass with serious attack. Somehow, most physmod brass has that signature weak attack that makes them only suitable for mellow phrases. I want EWF, brass construction type brass if ya get what I mean. That'll be some serious stuff. hehe.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2003-11-19 13:52 ]</font>
On a side note, I'd also want to see some brass with serious attack. Somehow, most physmod brass has that signature weak attack that makes them only suitable for mellow phrases. I want EWF, brass construction type brass if ya get what I mean. That'll be some serious stuff. hehe.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2003-11-19 13:52 ]</font>
dArKr3zIn I chose the virus because its VA and not 'true' analog and a better comparison to other VA imo.
Spirit, you may consider this thread an intended 'troll' to move this specific debate out of other threads and collect it all into here. Not to squash for sure, but bear with me for a second and I'll make myself more clear...
stw, I attack noone specifically but the 'compete with' did catch my eye and has quite a bit recently.
so....in congruence with ken's first post I'd have to say that I suspect that Pulsar/SFP/Scope is capable of a LOT more than we're seeing these days, and there is currently lively discussion on what the 'capabilities' should be expanded to. In the threads that follow the 'what should SFP have?' topic right now I'm prone to answering "fix bugs and update existing devices" (modIII/STS) lest Creamware follow a company like Native Instruments--allowing bugs to exist in a given product for 2-3 years while launching a multitude of new products and even adding features to the buggy product without actually fixing any but the most obnoxious bugs.
This thread however is intended to attack the idea that the only things that Pulsar/SFP is capable of is what other companies are already doing. As someone that is willing to save hard earned (and not often come by) $ to get 'tools' for my studio, I'd like to see tools that don't just replicate what is available elsewhere in a 'me too!' sort of way. Look at a product like Melodyne, it could certainly use more polish but for me if it were to start trying to handle more traditional audio tracking, vsti and midi duties I think it would begin to take away from what it already does that nothing else can do.
So the real question here is something that I suspect most of us aren't qualified to answer (but Creamware and 3rd party developers should have some insight): what can Pulsar/SFP/Scope do that isn't being exploited right now? Some low level coding would probably be required to expand Scope DP, but what could this platform truly do? Unique synthesis types? Loop manipulation tools that aren't just a replication of the other generic softsamplers? Heck I know that there's even some powerful realtime graphic capabilities hidden in Scope/DP even though its not really what I would focus on for my studio at the present.
Spirit, you may consider this thread an intended 'troll' to move this specific debate out of other threads and collect it all into here. Not to squash for sure, but bear with me for a second and I'll make myself more clear...
stw, I attack noone specifically but the 'compete with' did catch my eye and has quite a bit recently.
so....in congruence with ken's first post I'd have to say that I suspect that Pulsar/SFP/Scope is capable of a LOT more than we're seeing these days, and there is currently lively discussion on what the 'capabilities' should be expanded to. In the threads that follow the 'what should SFP have?' topic right now I'm prone to answering "fix bugs and update existing devices" (modIII/STS) lest Creamware follow a company like Native Instruments--allowing bugs to exist in a given product for 2-3 years while launching a multitude of new products and even adding features to the buggy product without actually fixing any but the most obnoxious bugs.
This thread however is intended to attack the idea that the only things that Pulsar/SFP is capable of is what other companies are already doing. As someone that is willing to save hard earned (and not often come by) $ to get 'tools' for my studio, I'd like to see tools that don't just replicate what is available elsewhere in a 'me too!' sort of way. Look at a product like Melodyne, it could certainly use more polish but for me if it were to start trying to handle more traditional audio tracking, vsti and midi duties I think it would begin to take away from what it already does that nothing else can do.
So the real question here is something that I suspect most of us aren't qualified to answer (but Creamware and 3rd party developers should have some insight): what can Pulsar/SFP/Scope do that isn't being exploited right now? Some low level coding would probably be required to expand Scope DP, but what could this platform truly do? Unique synthesis types? Loop manipulation tools that aren't just a replication of the other generic softsamplers? Heck I know that there's even some powerful realtime graphic capabilities hidden in Scope/DP even though its not really what I would focus on for my studio at the present.
sadly enough this seems to be the truth - and I guess it's a trend (almost) anywhere in this hightech-low-quality industry.On 2003-11-19 18:44, valis wrote:
... I'm prone to answering "fix bugs and update existing devices" (modIII/STS) lest Creamware follow a company like Native Instruments--allowing bugs to exist in a given product for 2-3 years while launching a multitude of new products and even adding features to the buggy product without actually fixing any but the most obnoxious bugs...
In cases like CW's it may be due to financial pressure, but in most cases it's nothing but pure greed for money.
Compared to todays standards I've worked with really bug-free Macintoshes way back in time. Some functionality has been added over the years, of course, but the benefit in relation to the increased bug level is ridiculuous, while sales figures seem to grow endlessly...
While I believe there's still an enormous amount of possibilities to exploit SFP's current architecture, I don't believe in a yet undiscovered way of synthesis of completely new sounds.
It's all about listening and that's a natural phenomenon.
Even the Hartmann Neuron doesn't synthesize something new - it codes audio information in a different way and thus provides a different way to control the system.
Imho that's the most important aspect of improvement - make it playable, or in the case of a production tool like a mixer - usable.
A visual feedback would be nice and of course the tactible control surface, which is constantly requested.
The sound quality will increase anyway, as all 3rd party developers have nicely shown with their devices getting better and better.
my 2 cents, Tom
NOTHING that people ever do is truly new.we take pieces of things around us and reuse and recombine them.
as to the comment about using words out of context,i didn't use it in context because i wasn't specifically speaking about your post.(the forum is not a place for personal ridicule,except if all parties are laughing.)i am just saying that the card is a GREAT soundcard first,and then there are some wonderful tools added.the fact that it's being compared to pure synth products or effects cards is a tribute to how many things it does well.no matter what OTHER products you do(and should!)use,sfp will augment that experience and make your studio as productive as you want to be.can any of those other products do this?no.they are for specialized uses.(MAYBE the sequencer could make that claim,it's pretty fundemental for being productive with a computer,but just for audio,you could use vdat....)compared with SOUNDCARDS(it's peers),there is nothing remotely comparable(well,MAYBE something like pt mix or hd,but what an expense!).that's why i say laughable.
that said,once again,i'll say that resting on laurels won't do.the platform MUST improve,and so,the critisism is good.perspective is important to(so i just speak from mine).
as to the comment about using words out of context,i didn't use it in context because i wasn't specifically speaking about your post.(the forum is not a place for personal ridicule,except if all parties are laughing.)i am just saying that the card is a GREAT soundcard first,and then there are some wonderful tools added.the fact that it's being compared to pure synth products or effects cards is a tribute to how many things it does well.no matter what OTHER products you do(and should!)use,sfp will augment that experience and make your studio as productive as you want to be.can any of those other products do this?no.they are for specialized uses.(MAYBE the sequencer could make that claim,it's pretty fundemental for being productive with a computer,but just for audio,you could use vdat....)compared with SOUNDCARDS(it's peers),there is nothing remotely comparable(well,MAYBE something like pt mix or hd,but what an expense!).that's why i say laughable.
that said,once again,i'll say that resting on laurels won't do.the platform MUST improve,and so,the critisism is good.perspective is important to(so i just speak from mine).
-
King of Snake
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Contact:
Some sort of super-drumsynth would be very cool indeed. Not an emulation of a TR909 pleaseOn 2003-11-19 13:49, kensuguro wrote:
physmod, now there's a way to go. Strings, brass, woodwinds, membranes (hand drums?)... there's still a broad spectrum of possibilities ahead. It's all been done before, and algorithms are limited, but I'd sure love to see CW's rendition of it. Personally, I'd think a cymbal type physmod is more than welcome. It would be quite a strange device, but it'll be a scientific breakthrough. Or perhaps a membrane physmod that's capable of snare drums. That'll totally kill.
-
Nestor
- Posts: 6676
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Fourth Dimension Paradise, Cloud Nine!
I don’t know why, but i think Creamweare is going to give us more than one BIG surprise in the following two years… The first one, i think, will be the upcoming of Pulsar III, which will be a different concept, with faster and much, much bigger DSPs.
If Creamwere goes no farther yet, it is just cos there is not enough power for doing so… But with new DSP power available, completely revolutionary algorithms will be created, completely new to the market.
Remember one important thing: CREAMWEARE HAS GOT LOTS OF EXPERIENCE IN THE LAST YEARS… and this experience will show in very creative ways… it is just a matter of time.
I particularly think there is a time for everything… I have not seen Creamware doing something foolish building the kind of devices they build. It is obvious that VA will become tiresome one day, while new things will take its place, but we still are into it.
I too think you don’t need to do everything with a single app, or in this case, with a single card. I think it is a bit out of place to as a Pulsar I or II more than what already does… Those cards are a misused arsenal of possibilities. I am still finding new ways of doing things after several years of using it ¿can you believe it?
Just give them some time... and you all will be mouth open in front of an incredible new platform...
If Creamwere goes no farther yet, it is just cos there is not enough power for doing so… But with new DSP power available, completely revolutionary algorithms will be created, completely new to the market.
Remember one important thing: CREAMWEARE HAS GOT LOTS OF EXPERIENCE IN THE LAST YEARS… and this experience will show in very creative ways… it is just a matter of time.
I particularly think there is a time for everything… I have not seen Creamware doing something foolish building the kind of devices they build. It is obvious that VA will become tiresome one day, while new things will take its place, but we still are into it.
I too think you don’t need to do everything with a single app, or in this case, with a single card. I think it is a bit out of place to as a Pulsar I or II more than what already does… Those cards are a misused arsenal of possibilities. I am still finding new ways of doing things after several years of using it ¿can you believe it?
Just give them some time... and you all will be mouth open in front of an incredible new platform...
*MUSIC* The most Powerful Language in the world! *INDEED*
this is not true, Nestor - and you'll soon discover why, as your programming experience growsOn 2003-11-28 00:44, Nestor wrote:
...If Creamwere goes no farther yet, it is just cos there is not enough power for doing so… But with new DSP power available, completely revolutionary algorithms will be created, completely new to the market...
Algorithms are about working on something by the force of your mind, not the CPU - that only comes in at the final stage.
A hand on experience, as happend a couple of days back:
I had a certain string matching problem and was directed by the supplier of the software to a piece of example code.
He was right: it was applicable, but the version I had worked out in the meantime did run 9 (!) times faster. On the same CPU.
This may make me look as a genius, but no way - my code is pretty stupid, but it takes a different approach on completely different data structures.
The difference between the 2 methods wouldn't be very obvious on some hundred strings, but I actually needed severa 10 thousand comparisons.
That's what algorithms are about - and that's why I never mind CPU clockrates
And back on the topic there's another point independent of pure processing power: precision.
That is not just the bit deepth, which is in fact rather insignificant on these kinds of calculations, it's about accuracy.
I assume that Sharcs have a huge advantage there over native CPU processing, due to their specialized 'libraries'.
I found some very interesting facts about this issue, but they need some editing to get posted here.
cheers, Tom
I agree with Kensuguro. Most of us already own enough VA instruments. Personally my VA hardware sounds much better than the SFP synths. I do not own the more expensive VA, although I would love to if they lowered the price to $100 USD. I think a big problem for CW is when people like me have everything they ever wanted. The only way I'm going to contribute is if they lower the prices dramatically. I really think CW should start charging a modest amount for platform upgrades and in return give us the good synths such as the moog, and arp, and the good mixer and effects. I think they would make more money and I for one would be happy to pay up every 3 years. Otherwise I won't be spending much on CW
Regarding VA, I own the Yamaha VL70M. It's a physical modeling synthesizer that was not created to emulate analog synthesizers and I love it. Instead it does great wind and strings of many styles both realistic and imaginary. I have to tell you that this was an excellent edition to my arsenal.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: braincell on 2003-11-29 14:24 ]</font>
Regarding VA, I own the Yamaha VL70M. It's a physical modeling synthesizer that was not created to emulate analog synthesizers and I love it. Instead it does great wind and strings of many styles both realistic and imaginary. I have to tell you that this was an excellent edition to my arsenal.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: braincell on 2003-11-29 14:24 ]</font>
-
Nestor
- Posts: 6676
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Fourth Dimension Paradise, Cloud Nine!
On 2003-11-28 21:54, astroman wrote:this is not true, Nestor - and you'll soon discover why, as your programming experience growsOn 2003-11-28 00:44, Nestor wrote:
...If Creamwere goes no farther yet, it is just cos there is not enough power for doing so… But with new DSP power available, completely revolutionary algorithms will be created, completely new to the market...
Algorithms are about working on something by the force of your mind, not the CPU - that only comes in at the final stage.
A hand on experience, as happend a couple of days back:
I had a certain string matching problem and was directed by the supplier of the software to a piece of example code.
He was right: it was applicable, but the version I had worked out in the meantime did run 9 (!) times faster. On the same CPU.
This may make me look as a genius, but no way - my code is pretty stupid, but it takes a different approach on completely different data structures.
The difference between the 2 methods wouldn't be very obvious on some hundred strings, but I actually needed severa 10 thousand comparisons.
That's what algorithms are about - and that's why I never mind CPU clockrates
And back on the topic there's another point independent of pure processing power: precision.
That is not just the bit deepth, which is in fact rather insignificant on these kinds of calculations, it's about accuracy.
I assume that Sharcs have a huge advantage there over native CPU processing, due to their specialized 'libraries'.
I found some very interesting facts about this issue, but they need some editing to get posted here.
cheers, Tom
wow! That's a suprise to me... I have always been told that CPU speed is relevant to algorythms... thanks to clear me out...of course CPU speed is relevant, if you have a very complicated processing rule - and in fact there exist rules (algorithms) which don't make much sense on a regular CPU.
A very simple (and widespread) example is the stuff that gets executed on a regular graphic card.
A programmer has to be creative in 2 ways:
he first has to find one or more ways to solve a given problem and decide which one is the most appropriate.
This is the finding of an algorithm.
Then he has to transcript that processing rule into machine instructions by the help of a programming language.
That's the implementation of the algorithm.
While frequently there's only a single solution to a given problem, there are usually hundreds of ways to implement it.
Software developement is under such tight deadlines today, that you can be shure that any sophisticated processing in 90% of all apps (VSTIs, Sequencers etc) could be optimized in an order of 5 to 10.
That process is extremely time consuming and as such generally considered too expensive.
Since CPUs are extremely powerful today most people don't even notices what's going on.
cheers, Tom
A very simple (and widespread) example is the stuff that gets executed on a regular graphic card.
A programmer has to be creative in 2 ways:
he first has to find one or more ways to solve a given problem and decide which one is the most appropriate.
This is the finding of an algorithm.
Then he has to transcript that processing rule into machine instructions by the help of a programming language.
That's the implementation of the algorithm.
While frequently there's only a single solution to a given problem, there are usually hundreds of ways to implement it.
Software developement is under such tight deadlines today, that you can be shure that any sophisticated processing in 90% of all apps (VSTIs, Sequencers etc) could be optimized in an order of 5 to 10.
That process is extremely time consuming and as such generally considered too expensive.
Since CPUs are extremely powerful today most people don't even notices what's going on.
cheers, Tom