Creamware goes hardware?

music251 · Post by **music251** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 9:33 am

Hi!

I'm mostly a lurker here, but I've been a pulsar2-user for several years.
Lately I've been looking for a good hammond-clone keyboard which sounds credible. Unfortunately, that seems to be difficult. I've tried out a few keyboards, for instance Roland VK-760 (supposed to have the same hammond-engine as VK-8). I was immediatly disappointed with the fake-sounding percussion and creamy, soft distortion effect. My goal is to get something close to Keith Emerson's early sound, and everybody tells me I need a real modified hammond etc.. Then I turn on the B2003 together with Celmo's guitar amp modeller, and that great hammond sound is right there (more or less). Slightly thin/sharp when overdriven, but still organic and rich in timbre. (A overdriven hammond should definately NOT sound creamy and soft! And don't get me started on B4...not impressed.) Let's face it, a hardware synth version (not module. but with keys) of any of Creamware's recent emulations would be superior to everything else out there on the market.

That got me thinking, why doesn't Creamware start to make hardware synths using their top-notch emulations? I'm not taking about another Noah. The problem with Creamware's products, is that they are so complex that
most people don't "get" them, and thus the market potential is rather limitied.
By starting to release more simple keyboard versions of their digital emulation, they could actually compete with Korg and Roland in the vintage-emulations market. To get their due recognition, they need goodlooking
and playable keyboard-instruments, not difficult-to-grasp studio sound-modules.

What about a few examples to illustrate what I mean:
1: A hardware version of B2003 with 5-octave keyboard, onboard drawbars and reverb, with inbuilt tube preamp/overdrive. This keyboard would completely crush every other hammond clone on the market.

2: A nice looking 4-octave Classic-synthesizer with lots of knobs etc.. (think Alesis - Ion) using creamware's minimoog, odessy and pro one emulations and having a polyphony at 6-8 voices. Also with a tube-
preamp/overdrive.

..or better yet, something close to Electro, but using digital realtime emulations of all those classic
electromagnetical keyboards (hammond, rhodes, wurlitzer, clavinet).

If Creamware went in this direction, they could become a major player in the keyboard-market, instead of being an obscure software-company making products for a fairly small customer-base (I've read about very limited sales of their excellent emulations of the pro one and prodessy. Something is wrong with this picture...)

If Creamware would start to make this kind of products, instead of complex and obscure sound-modules like Noah (sorry..overstating to make a point), they could in the long term increase their revenue a tenfold. They
do make the best synth/electromagnetical-keyboard emulations on the market, and if these were released as solid and nice-looking keyboards with inbuilt tubes...wow.. (I cannot express the impact of running a keyboard/synth through a tube preamp enough, the sound improvement is huge. I have a minimoog voyager, and I always run it through a tubepreamp.)

Some may think this is pretty geeky thing to write down, but I'm just tired of the big companies like Korg and Roland releasing inferior products time and time again, when Creamware makes stuff that sound way better. We need a new "major" player in the keyboard market to shake up the competition a bit!

It's funny, I've never gotten chills down my spine and gone "wow!" when tweaking/trying out a Roland keyboard, but I get that feeling all the time when playing around with my pulsar2 emulations. The problem is that using a laptop on stage with very complex software isn't a good solution for me, and for many others I would assume. I really think Creamware is missing out here. Something to consider..?
IMHO of course...

[ This Message was edited by: music251 on 2004-04-27 10:41 ]

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 9:53 am

That got me thinking, why doesn't Creamware start to make hardware synths using their top-notch emulations?

In my oppinion, Creamware should spend its energy updating its aging hardware platform. Designing a new instrument is not what the Creamware company has experience with (there other companies that have decades of experience in that area). They should stick with what they have experience with, Analog Devices DSP chips, PCI computer boards and PC software. Build on that, don't reinvent the wheel.

Joxer the Mighty · Post by **Joxer the Mighty** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:06 am

Go to http://www.zargmusic.com and take the survey. John Bowen is considering producing hardware versions of Solaris and Prophet Plus. Cast your vote! I think it's a great idea.

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:20 am

Why is it a great ideea to limit the capabilities of an instrument to a physical device?
This is like the transition from middle ages to the industrial age and now we're back to middle ages!

[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2004-04-27 12:26 ]

music251 · Post by **music251** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:16 pm

A discussion, great!

First of all, a hardware version of Solaris is a great idea. However, I can't see how this could be realised pratically (without connecting a laptop with software). You'd literally need dozens of knobs, and also plently of led displays etc. This synth is HUGE!! However, I would be the first to buy one, granted that it came with a keyboard and had a good layout.

Regarding the stoneage-comment:
What's stoneage about the art of actually playing a real instrument? I'm sure many people here are techno-music composers, that spend just as much time tweaking sounds, as making music inside their bedrooms/studios. That's not where I come from. I'm talking about taking those brilliant Creamware emulations into a hardware keyboard, so that they would be easy to use and play on a stage, for music genres like progresive rock, fusion and jazz, where one is depentent on having real practical instruments that responds well to one's individual style of playing.

I just see a shortage of good all-round vintage synth/keyboard clones out there. The big manufactors like Korg and Roland always cut corners. There's always something half-baked going on with their stuff. Creamware's emulations both "feel" and sound complete, but they work best for composing music in your own home-studio, and not to be taken with you on band-rehearsals, gigs etc..

It's not my intention to insult anyone here, or bring down Creamware. Just trying to get a different perspective through...

Joxer the Mighty · Post by **Joxer the Mighty** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:30 pm

I'm with music251. Some of us like to play in live situations, I for one do not own a laptop and quite frankly would not feel too secure relying on a computer during a live gig. I've never had a hardware synth die on me while jamming. Not that it's an impossibility, but let's face it, a dedicated piece of hardware is going to crash less often than a computer system. And then there's also the sheer joy that is tweaking REAL knobs and sliders. No matter how intuitive a gui is, it just doesn't compare to reaching out and manipulating parameters on a well designed piece of hardware. So Bingo, I'll turn around your statement and say, "Why limit yourself to software?"

[ This Message was edited by: Joxer the Mighty on 2004-04-27 13:33 ]

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:31 pm

Well, maybe I misunderstood Bowens intentions: does he plan to manufacture a hardware instrument that utilizes internal DSP chips or electronic oscilators and filters to produce the sound? The later choice was the one that I was comparing to the middle ages.
The first case would be equivalent to a standalone NOAH.

[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2004-04-27 13:33 ]

Joxer the Mighty · Post by **Joxer the Mighty** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:35 pm

I can't speak for John Bowen, but I would imagine it would use the same DSP chips that are in our beloved cards and Noahs. The big difference, and benefit for me, would be portability and ability to manipulate sounds without the need of a computer. I own a Noah, which I love, but you still have to rely on a computer in order to program it with ease.

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:41 pm

So Bingo, I'll turn around your statement and say, "Why limit yourself to software?"

Software is flexible, doesn't age, is upgradeable (at least the UI, wink, wink Creamware

) and it offers capabilities that are not possible in real hardware, like steep filters etc. And I think having a computer on stage live with a cool spectrum analyzer and all sorts of high tech displays would go well with the public

Joxer the Mighty · Post by **Joxer the Mighty** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:43 pm

Of course software ages, eventually to the point where you can't run it on newer operating systems.

I do like your comment about eye candy up on stage though.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:19 pm

On 2004-04-27 10:33, music251 wrote:
...1: A hardware version of B2003 with 5-octave keyboard, onboard drawbars and reverb, with inbuilt tube preamp/overdrive. This keyboard would completely crush every other hammond clone on the market.
...

if you pick up a 2nd hand Yamaha Electone HS2 (for example) between $100 to 200 you come at least a little closer to this

imho for a company like CWA the mechanical part of the production is too cost intense.
The Japanese corps you mention have these resources 'inhouse' as part of a much wider spead product line.

but it's my personal expectation from the Linux port that they might succeed with a true portable system.
Stripped down to the absolute minimum it should be more reliable than a 'small' Win installation, though I'd actually prefered a QNX version which could be considered 'true hardware'

I'm not keen on a notebook, a regular rack unit does it for me. I've currently squeezed 2 Pulsar Ones on a risercard in a MSI 815 based office system (12x12x3") and it works great.

cheers, Tom

huffcw · Post by **huffcw** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:21 pm

I would definitely consider buying a Creamware hardware synth. But I actually think Noah is in the right direction, but came up short in a few areas:

1. The hardware user interface could be much better. I really don't like the two-space rack interface with limited real-time control. I would rather see a table top Noah or a keyboard version with many more knobs (plus pages so that every parameter can be represented on the front panel and programmed easily). It would be nice to include led rings (like the Nord Lead III), but as long as there is a LCD readout for all knobs and buttons showing a name and parameter value, that would work fine.

2. It was priced too high to compete successfully (at least with the current hardware interface - if it had a better interface, then it could demand a higher price) and there was not enough marketing effort to build a following for it. I would suggest releasing barebone versions where you can just pick one or two synths to start with at a lower price (of course, you would be able to add more later once the concept sinks in for new users).

3. The other issue is current Creamware users and there concept of Noah - this ultimately hurt the ability for Noah to be successful. Everyone would like a hardware interface that is completely compatible with the SFP environment (transferring files, able to load the same devices, including third-party devices, etc.) If they could accomplish this, then they would have a huge number of current customers that would be more likely to consider buying Noah (which would in turn spread the word and get them off to a good start at attracting new customers).

In addition, if Noah could pull off Modular + Flexor, it could attract a lot of attention (although, it would again be somewhat limited by its hardware interface, especially compared with the Nord G2).

Getting away from the Noah concept, I also like the idea of hardware designed specifically for certain devices (e.g., B-2003 keyboard with drawbars), but it would have to be priced competitively and marketed properly. And I agree that I could see this putting Creamware into a whole new market and getting them lots of recognition (as long as the hardware interface is done right - if not, it will fail).

huffcw · Post by **huffcw** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:22 pm

By the way, the major problem with this whole discussion is that Creamware is now a smaller company with limited resources.

My guess is that the only way they could pull something like this off is to partner with a company who already has experience in making hardware (Creamware would provide the software interface and DSP programming, their partner would provide the expertise in hardware design, manufacturing, etc. - the two companies share the risk and cost burden for releasing a new product).

This would require some business savvy to work up some type of relationship or partnership. A recent example of this kind of partnership is Cakewalk and Roland (they are now designing products together as partners, Cakewalk supplying the programming and Roland the hardware).

[ This Message was edited by: huffcw on 2004-04-27 14:26 ]

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:12 pm

I remember when clavia wasn't such a big company.. well, atleast their product line isn't robust, even now. I'm no specialist about clavia history, so I'm just speaking from what I know. It seems they made their ddrum so good that it nearly penetrated the hi-end portion of the synth drum market, and then came Nord Lead.. wham, they were on the top. Then nord mod. The thing is, each of their releases were near historical, but overall, they haven't released much stuff.

It seemed like Nord lead did it for Clavia, but I think it's good to have atleast one product that is really specialized, a product that is easy to understand, and is highly symbolic of what the company does. I'm sure many people hear Clavia, and immediately think of Nord lead. (or nord lead 2) It's become their icon.

On the other hand, trying to make everything all purpose and all mighty is good for the user, but seems really hard to market. The image is too unclear. I agree with the opinion that Noah is hard to understand. It's got so many features, that you it's hard to describe in a sentence. Visually, you can't really tell what it does.. The product may be good, but it's too vague. This may be the key difference with software and hardware. Hardware is tangible, and when you take something in your hand, you want it to represent something specific. A screwdriver with interchangable heads is multipourpose, but is essentially a screwdriver. (limited form and usage) Software is the other way around. The product is intangible, so it can represent intangible things.

So, I totally agree with CWA spending some time to make very specialized equipment that does one thing very damn good. I think a mod+flexor specific synth would be cool, especially since Nord G2 would be the only match. (hardware wise anyway)

But if CWA were to plan something along this line, it's going to have to be the best. The hardware interface is to be ingenius, software pretty much bug free, updates bringing on new features, etc. Everything has to be done right. It's going to have to be so good that it'll stick in people's minds.

Remember, Virus wasn't the only VA around, but it so good, the name value shot through the roof. It only takes one product that is executed with perfect precision, and then the rest can be a bit more relaxed. It's just like a debut album. It's just a "catch" to get attention, to gain name value.

Of course, given CWA's situation right now, a big project like this would be impossible. But why not in the future when the company's picked up pace again? (hopefully they will)

[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2004-04-27 16:21 ]

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:26 pm

On 2004-04-27 13:16, music251 wrote:
Regarding the stoneage-comment:
What's stoneage about the art of actually playing a real instrument? I'm sure many people here are techno-music composers, that spend just as much time tweaking sounds, as making music inside their bedrooms/studios. That's not where I come from. I'm talking about taking those brilliant Creamware emulations into a hardware keyboard, so that they would be easy to use and play on a stage, for music genres like progresive rock, fusion and jazz, where one is depentent on having real practical instruments that responds well to one's individual style of playing.

So would be the difference with just connecting a good masterkeyboard to a Noah? Or even to a computer with a Pulsar? Does it become "more real" when you put the same DSP's and the same algorythms in a different box? (ie. a specialised keyboard).
Sorry but it seems that all you want has already been realised in the Noah if you attach a good keyboard.
It seems very limiting to me to start making specialised keyboards and not at all what CWA is about, which is flexible open-ended and expandable systems. (not criticising those who do, like Clavia, I love my Nord Rack!

)

I do agree that it's strange that CWA don't seem to be able to sell something like the NOAH like hot cakes even though it is clearly every bit as good as any other VA hardware synth out there, and much more flexible. Everybody who has ever heard CWA's emulations raves about their quality yet still they don't manage to get the coverage of Clavia, or Alesis with their ION, or all the Roland crap (well, ok to be honest I haven't ever played with all these new Roland toys but I don't hear that much good about them). Do you think it would be more popular if it came as a keyboard version? (I know there were keyboard prototypes that looked pretty hot). Maybe they should consider making a NOAH 2 with a good keyboard and more knobs.

[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2004-04-27 16:33 ]

[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2004-04-27 16:34 ]

music251 · Post by **music251** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:51 pm

Lots of interesting opinions here.
I totally agree with the Clavia analogy.

The fact remains that both the Scope-cards and the Noah-module are essentially studio products, designed for sound-sculpting and playing while composing/producing. I don't own a Noah unit, but I assume it would be a rather cumbersome to use live, especially for hammond stuff.
The thing is, that Creamware makes bl***y brilliant stuff, and still remains a well hidden secret more or less. Roland makes one halfbaked keyboard after another and sell by the thousands. If Creamware made a hammond clone and a virtual-analog synth with all the oscs and filters of minimax, prodigy and ProOne(something like Ion), they could easily outdo even Clavia's stuff. I'm pretty sceptical about a modular/flexor synth as a initial move, that could end up being another vague concept unable to catch the interest of the general public.

Let's face it, most musicians not only want great sounds, they want a nice-looking keyboard with many knobs for easy tweaking, and good keys for responsive playing.
I can't picture myself taking with me a Noah-module and a midi-keyboard to a band practice, I'll much rather use something more practical like the Ion.

I have the minimoog voyager, and when looking at all the brilliant scope-plugins I have like Minimax, Prodigy, Solaris, ProOne, Vectron etc.., I really didn't need the Voyager from a purely sonic viewpoint.
However, to have a beautifully designed synthisizer, with lots of knobs for realtime tweaking while playing makes up for a total "synth-experience" that gives me lots of inspiration, not the mention the simple joy of playing an elegantly crafted piece of equipment, that can easy be transported to gigs/band practices with minimal effort.
It's just not as inspirational to play hammond stuff on an ugly plastic midi-keyboard connected to a soundmodule, compared to have a roland vk-8 with wooden casing, waterfall keys and real drawbars.
That's why Creamware is destined to remain obscure, if they don't make any specialized products for the gigging/active musician.
IMO of course...

If they also made the move to use tube preamps in all their keyboards (which seems to be an emerging trend - triton extreme, xk-3), they would completely smoke the competition.

[ This Message was edited by: music251 on 2004-04-27 17:00 ]

[ This Message was edited by: music251 on 2004-04-27 17:02 ]

Flyerfred · Post by **Flyerfred** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:21 pm

I think that electronic music can't be created with only a master keyboard and a mouse. Too much parameters to tweak in real time! On the oposite way, i think it would be hard to choose which plugin to realize in hardware. In my case i would love prodissey, minimax, prisma to go hardware. So maybe the solution would be a "lego"-like controller. I mean, you buy a box and the unitary controllers you want (switches, rotary or linear knobs, patch matrix, ...), then you're able to build your dream controller...

Fred, Paris.

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 5:51 pm

Maybe something likethis would be more useful and flexible - you can just make out a Minimax... i mean Minimoog interface on the screen.

Mr A

[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2004-04-27 18:52 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 5:55 pm

On 2004-04-27 17:21, Flyerfred wrote:
...So maybe the solution would be a "lego"-like controller. I mean, you buy a box and the unitary controllers you want (switches, rotary or linear knobs, patch matrix, ...), then you're able to build your dream controller...

how could you know Fred ? I'm carrying exactly 'that' idea around for a couple of years now - just haven't found the proper encoding carrier yet

It must be something more flexible than the usual bunch of channel rotaries to be puzzled together à la Lego

cheers, Tom

Joxer the Mighty · Post by **Joxer the Mighty** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:24 pm

The synth I'd most like to see realized as hardware would be Solaris. I have a feeling that putting out a hardware version of Pro One, Minimax or Prodyssey would immediately put reviewers and public alike into 'Let's compare this wannabe to its analog counterpart' mode. I'm sick of VA vs. Analog comparisons. Solaris, on the other hand, is what it is: a monster! I don't think there's anything as powerful in the VA world right now, it would definitely make some waves if it was designed properly. I think it would put CWA on the map.