I got my Scope 2 card working like a dedicated DSP card with no I/Os and using the ASIO drivers and I/O of another audio interface. Think of XTC mode with TC Powercore type of functionality.
I think this is a very important work mode for Scope that should really increase sales if documented and supported properly. Of course you can't deny the power of using the whole Scope environment but a lot of people out there are only interested in the synth and fx devices. I know Creamware see this because they're now even selling dedicated synthesizers boxes. XTC mode is a solution but not for all, most of them just want to be able to use their own soundcard ASIO drivers and I/Os and use the Scope devices like VSTis. I don't think there's a lot of work on the Creamware part to get this to work 100%. The hardware is already there and only a few devices have a hard time functioning this way. I also think this mode should bridge the gap and give people freedom to use the whole environment or just as much as they want. Everybody benefits this way...
What do you guys think?
Scope working like a DSP only dedicated card (no I/O)
I think this is something worth taking a good look at. Good suggestion. Even though someone is using another interface having the effects and synths from the Scope cards would be a major boost for any music system. With the availability and low cost of interfaces now that would be a good direction for Creamware. 
well, I don't think this is of much relevance, as the IO of the Scope cards have an excellent quality (on their own and with external converters).
For (absolute) top results a dedicated studio clock is required anyway - I really wouldn't trust any cheapo ultra-high-sample-rate-mega- specs card as advertized
Prices for both 2nd hand G4 Macs and Pentium IIIs are at a ridiculuously low level, so a dedicated Scope box isn't expensive at all.
It's a much safer approach to sort out a system (say for those with a G5 and an RME card and heavy sequencer use).
but I don't understand how you route the stuff to your sequencer without Asio.
Is WDM sample accurate and low latency ?
congrats that your system is working the way you intend, tho
cheers, Tom
For (absolute) top results a dedicated studio clock is required anyway - I really wouldn't trust any cheapo ultra-high-sample-rate-mega- specs card as advertized
Prices for both 2nd hand G4 Macs and Pentium IIIs are at a ridiculuously low level, so a dedicated Scope box isn't expensive at all.
It's a much safer approach to sort out a system (say for those with a G5 and an RME card and heavy sequencer use).
but I don't understand how you route the stuff to your sequencer without Asio.
Is WDM sample accurate and low latency ?
congrats that your system is working the way you intend, tho
cheers, Tom
-
Man-Machine
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:00 pm
The whole Scope environment is really nice but it's definitely not the only solution. A lot of people like me already have a setup they're comfortable and happy with the quality of results. I really only bought my Scope card for the synthesizers alone and perhaps a few of the effects. By the way, I thought of using a separate computer for Scope as a dedicated "synthesizer" but that defeated the purpose of moving from real synths to softsynths for my purposes. I want to take the advantage of XTC/VSTis have over hardware like recalling patches, levels and routing of everything just by loading your Cubase project all in one environment.
I'm not sure how this mode is working underneath but I use the synths just like VSTis in XTC mode and I'm not having any latency so far or audio problems so far. A couple of the synthesizers blow up when I turn them on Cubase (Minimax and Profit 5) because some kind of error. Since this is so undocumented I'm not sure if it's using any of the XTC mode settings or not...
_________________
L8ter Oscill8ters!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Man-Machine on 2005-06-15 08:11 ]</font>
I'm not sure how this mode is working underneath but I use the synths just like VSTis in XTC mode and I'm not having any latency so far or audio problems so far. A couple of the synthesizers blow up when I turn them on Cubase (Minimax and Profit 5) because some kind of error. Since this is so undocumented I'm not sure if it's using any of the XTC mode settings or not...
_________________
L8ter Oscill8ters!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Man-Machine on 2005-06-15 08:11 ]</font>
I agree with you Man Machine. I think that the XTC mode should have been developped much further than this. It would have allowed the Scope to fully compete with the UAD-1 and Powercore. It's a half baked meal at the moment.
I'm glad for you that you got the XTC mode working with no I/O and using another card I/O. How did you do that ? I never got my scope card to do this and I sold it (yes I had the terminator plug). At the moment I'm using a Pulsar II in a separate computer but I think it's far from ideal this way. No plugin delay compensation with midi, no total recall, limited I/O number...
It's funny every time somebody mention xtc on this board, you have somebody coming to endorse the scope sfp saying how better it is blah blah... How come nobody realize that failing to fully integrate the vst protocol with a true independant dsp card behaviour (ala UAD-1/poco..) is a huge shortcoming for Creamware and possibly could lead them to go down again ? Integration is the key at the moment.
Do you really think all the RME/LYNX.. lovers will drop their equipement just to use scope's synths and Fxes ?
I know the power of Sfp and I realize it's a platform of it's kind (with near 0 latency..), but it's far from being a standard (and will never be). I work in Nuendo and I want to stay inside the box as much as I can.
Anyway, it's just a matter of personal preferences.
PS : I'm thinking of building a sort of boxed modular III + Flexor (with wooden panels, enclosed tft screen and faders boxes) with my remaining Pulsar II so it will become a fixed hardware modular synth.
I'm glad for you that you got the XTC mode working with no I/O and using another card I/O. How did you do that ? I never got my scope card to do this and I sold it (yes I had the terminator plug). At the moment I'm using a Pulsar II in a separate computer but I think it's far from ideal this way. No plugin delay compensation with midi, no total recall, limited I/O number...
It's funny every time somebody mention xtc on this board, you have somebody coming to endorse the scope sfp saying how better it is blah blah... How come nobody realize that failing to fully integrate the vst protocol with a true independant dsp card behaviour (ala UAD-1/poco..) is a huge shortcoming for Creamware and possibly could lead them to go down again ? Integration is the key at the moment.
Do you really think all the RME/LYNX.. lovers will drop their equipement just to use scope's synths and Fxes ?
I know the power of Sfp and I realize it's a platform of it's kind (with near 0 latency..), but it's far from being a standard (and will never be). I work in Nuendo and I want to stay inside the box as much as I can.
Anyway, it's just a matter of personal preferences.
PS : I'm thinking of building a sort of boxed modular III + Flexor (with wooden panels, enclosed tft screen and faders boxes) with my remaining Pulsar II so it will become a fixed hardware modular synth.
-
Man-Machine
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:00 pm
Yep, I also like integration as much as possible. I also tried once connecting Scope to my Tascam firewire interface through ADAT that way I at least get multiple inputs in Cubase from diferent synths. But depending which project you open first(Cubase or SPF) you loose these connections and some other settings somehow and have to reconnect things again
Besides using the plug you have to make sure that you also disconnect the I/O plate. After that you select no I/O on the enabler tool. This basically got me going in this mode. There are still a couple of issues I'm trying figure out though. My more demanding synths (Profit 5 and Minimax) don't load correctly right now and I can't use them but every other synth and effect I tried had no problems. Prodissey and Pro-Tone work fine. I'm gonna do some tests this weekend. I'm guessing that in this mode XTC settings are still being used so maybe some tweaking is these settings are needed. Maybe if more people try to get this mode to work we could all compare notes.
_________________
L8ter Oscill8ters!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Man-Machine on 2005-06-16 07:28 ]</font>
Besides using the plug you have to make sure that you also disconnect the I/O plate. After that you select no I/O on the enabler tool. This basically got me going in this mode. There are still a couple of issues I'm trying figure out though. My more demanding synths (Profit 5 and Minimax) don't load correctly right now and I can't use them but every other synth and effect I tried had no problems. Prodissey and Pro-Tone work fine. I'm gonna do some tests this weekend. I'm guessing that in this mode XTC settings are still being used so maybe some tweaking is these settings are needed. Maybe if more people try to get this mode to work we could all compare notes.
_________________
L8ter Oscill8ters!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Man-Machine on 2005-06-16 07:28 ]</font>
Well, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, the VST protocol was designed for *software plugins*, not as a full hardware integration protocol solution thinger.
The UAD and PoCo are usable mostly because there is no I/O on the cards, and they *need* PDC to be anywhere near usable latency-wise, otherwise you'd have to hand sync the wet effected signal by hand, which would be a much larger time-wasting procedure than anything else you can imagine.
To further illustrate what I mean, I'll cite a few examples. First, the Waldorf AFB16 filter bank. Sits in an external box, with some VST integration stuff going on. It basically killed Waldorf, as the development took much longer than planned and ended up costing a bit too much. Also think at what happened with the Noah. Not really VST integration per se, but similar hardware/software integration approach, and look what happened, also almost killed the company. Finally, check out what is happening with the Access TI. They're shooting for VST integration also, and while I doubt it'll kill the company, the Access mailing list is *full* of comments about the constant delays and "damnit I pre-ordered mine in december, where is it, I could use that money right now blah blah etc etc." So something tells me that Access too have run into "slight" problems trying to integrate hardware seamlessly into the VST protocol, which was never designed for such things in the first place.
As far as I know, only the hobbyists are moving to a software-only setup, most more serious studios (bigger and smaller) are definitely getting rid of *some* hardware, but definitely, DEFINITELY not all of it. I've been hearing about this whole "DSP IS USELESS, CPUs ARE GETTING FASTER EVERYDAY AND SOON YOU WON'T NEED HARDWARE EVER." It's been "SOON" for at least 5 years now, and I see no sign of DSP cards slowly dying and withering away, hardware sales and development don't show signs of slowing down either. Even analog synths and modules (full and hybrids, like analog solutions' modular, macbeth m3x, moog voyager, waldorf q+, andromeda, all the doepfer gimmicks and thingers, all the UA remakes of vintage Urei/Universal Audio modules (LA2A, Urei 1176 etc)) are still all over the place, even tho people have been predicting their death for years and years, even since VA synths came into production. Guess what, they're not going to go away, none of them.
Finally, it's not as if there is no solution at all. The whole "recalling parameters" stuff is completely bogus, as it's just as easy to have program changes and custom CC data sitting on a MIDI channel being sent to a hardware unit, you'll get pretty much the same as a VST. Even the routing thing is bogus, as it's pretty easy to setup a project to work mostly within a software sequencer, you can easily have 32 hardware inputs going straight to ASIO, and have 32 other ASIO channels available to forward signals from Cubase/sequencer into Scope effects, or to plugin Scope synths. There are even audio switches around that will let you control which hardware input is routed to which ASIO input. With just about any modern sequencer, you can build control surfaces, so you can basically control any part of SFP using those, which eliminates all need to switch between 2 programs/screens.
So it's not as if it were completely impossible to work like you want it to, it might need a bit of setting up at first, but are you really going to try to tell me that 2 hours of setting up for 6+ months of being to work like you want is going to kill your workflow? I seriously can't imagine it to be the case.
And anyway, CW have already mentioned that they're wouldn't be working on XTC mode at all anymore. It kinda works for now, so it's not like it's impossible. If you don't like it as it is, seriously, why do you keep whining? Just sell your CW cards and get a UAD/PoCo card instead, with an RME card supporting TotalMix if you want to mix in hardware. Or get a video card with dualhead and a second monitor, then you can just have both SFP and your sequencer at the same time. This would be much cheaper than just about any other alternative.
The UAD and PoCo are usable mostly because there is no I/O on the cards, and they *need* PDC to be anywhere near usable latency-wise, otherwise you'd have to hand sync the wet effected signal by hand, which would be a much larger time-wasting procedure than anything else you can imagine.
To further illustrate what I mean, I'll cite a few examples. First, the Waldorf AFB16 filter bank. Sits in an external box, with some VST integration stuff going on. It basically killed Waldorf, as the development took much longer than planned and ended up costing a bit too much. Also think at what happened with the Noah. Not really VST integration per se, but similar hardware/software integration approach, and look what happened, also almost killed the company. Finally, check out what is happening with the Access TI. They're shooting for VST integration also, and while I doubt it'll kill the company, the Access mailing list is *full* of comments about the constant delays and "damnit I pre-ordered mine in december, where is it, I could use that money right now blah blah etc etc." So something tells me that Access too have run into "slight" problems trying to integrate hardware seamlessly into the VST protocol, which was never designed for such things in the first place.
As far as I know, only the hobbyists are moving to a software-only setup, most more serious studios (bigger and smaller) are definitely getting rid of *some* hardware, but definitely, DEFINITELY not all of it. I've been hearing about this whole "DSP IS USELESS, CPUs ARE GETTING FASTER EVERYDAY AND SOON YOU WON'T NEED HARDWARE EVER." It's been "SOON" for at least 5 years now, and I see no sign of DSP cards slowly dying and withering away, hardware sales and development don't show signs of slowing down either. Even analog synths and modules (full and hybrids, like analog solutions' modular, macbeth m3x, moog voyager, waldorf q+, andromeda, all the doepfer gimmicks and thingers, all the UA remakes of vintage Urei/Universal Audio modules (LA2A, Urei 1176 etc)) are still all over the place, even tho people have been predicting their death for years and years, even since VA synths came into production. Guess what, they're not going to go away, none of them.
Finally, it's not as if there is no solution at all. The whole "recalling parameters" stuff is completely bogus, as it's just as easy to have program changes and custom CC data sitting on a MIDI channel being sent to a hardware unit, you'll get pretty much the same as a VST. Even the routing thing is bogus, as it's pretty easy to setup a project to work mostly within a software sequencer, you can easily have 32 hardware inputs going straight to ASIO, and have 32 other ASIO channels available to forward signals from Cubase/sequencer into Scope effects, or to plugin Scope synths. There are even audio switches around that will let you control which hardware input is routed to which ASIO input. With just about any modern sequencer, you can build control surfaces, so you can basically control any part of SFP using those, which eliminates all need to switch between 2 programs/screens.
So it's not as if it were completely impossible to work like you want it to, it might need a bit of setting up at first, but are you really going to try to tell me that 2 hours of setting up for 6+ months of being to work like you want is going to kill your workflow? I seriously can't imagine it to be the case.
And anyway, CW have already mentioned that they're wouldn't be working on XTC mode at all anymore. It kinda works for now, so it's not like it's impossible. If you don't like it as it is, seriously, why do you keep whining? Just sell your CW cards and get a UAD/PoCo card instead, with an RME card supporting TotalMix if you want to mix in hardware. Or get a video card with dualhead and a second monitor, then you can just have both SFP and your sequencer at the same time. This would be much cheaper than just about any other alternative.
-
Man-Machine
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:00 pm
Like I said and will say it again. The whole Scope environment is ONE SOLUTION OF MANY! There's a whole world out there with options to fit everybody's unique workflow and there's no right or wrong way of using your studio. SCOPE IS NOT a solution for everybody, and as a matter of fact, most people do not use SCOPE! I personally only like the devices, and let me tell you, that's still ok! It's just my taste. For the type of projects that I get paid I like the whole integration type of workflow and that's what I am using my Scope card for. I like that when my customer calls for last minute changes for the next day I can just click once on my Cubase project have the whole project total recalled, its just my workflow. I like that, if I wanted to, I could even go a step further and be mobile with a laptop, now how is Scope gonna solve this issue, huh?!?! Using SPF is not the only way and sometimes it's not even the way to go. I don't understand why you have a problem with me (or others) that are using the SCOPE card this way!?! And anyway, I never whined or mentioned selling my card. The only whining is coming from you...
_________________
L8ter Oscill8ters!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Man-Machine on 2005-06-16 15:30 ]</font>
_________________
L8ter Oscill8ters!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Man-Machine on 2005-06-16 15:30 ]</font>
Right. I'm just saying, if the tools don't fit your workflow, change tools. Don't whine about the tools. I whine because it's like the 128371923th post (might be exagerating a bit, but not much =P) about how XTC would be much better if it included mixing and automated coffee making. I kinda of agree, but it's still beating a dead horse, that's all. You also said things like "I don't think there's a lot of work on the Creamware part to get this to work 100%." which is flat out wrong, otherwise they would have gotten it to work perfectly a long time ago.
That's why I went into a diatribe about hardware and other companies who have tried the same and died in the process, showing it's not exactly "not alot of work to get it to work." I'm also a bit tired about people comparing UAD and PoCo with CW cards, as they're not the same product, not designed the same way, not within the same paradigm. UAD and PoCo have absolutely no I/O, they just shovel bits around on the PCI bus, and are completely useless without a VST host, while Creamware's system doesn't need a VST host or any other program to be useable, and was designed since the beginning to be dealing with I/O. You might not agree with those decisions, and you might not be aware of how huge an influence some of these subtle things my entail, but that's how it is for the moment.
Anyway, you asked yourself what other people thought, if you are not ready to get answers that do not fit with your own views, please do not ask what other people think.
I apologize if my reply was/is a bit direct, blunt and/or offensive. It's just that, as a trained engineer obsessed with signal processing (my dayjob is games programming involving weird diskless systems with hacked kernels, libs, etc, so I work with esoteric stuff all day long,) I get *incredibly* pissed off at people claiming how things really are simple when in fact, in my own humble opinion (and experience), something like the CW platform is nothing short of a miracle.
Seriously, sit down with a DSP development board/system, hook it up to a PCI, and try for yourself to integrate it seamlessly thru the VST protocol. When you have something perfectly functional to show us, I'm sure everyone will listen to what you say, otherwise please don't freak out if someone points out that inaccuracies in what you say.
Creamware have made some design decisions, if you don't like them, like you and other people mentioned, there are other solutions out there, feel free to check them out. Going on about "Creamware should do this or that, integration is key, this isn't the standard, it'd be better if, etc etc" is purely speculative and isn't going to do anyone any good. If you (or anyone else, mostly aiming at Bifop here =P) knows so much about what's standard, what's key, and how easy it is to integrate hardware thru VST, you really should consider launching a company and selling your own DSP cards, and see how right those perspectives are.
That's why I went into a diatribe about hardware and other companies who have tried the same and died in the process, showing it's not exactly "not alot of work to get it to work." I'm also a bit tired about people comparing UAD and PoCo with CW cards, as they're not the same product, not designed the same way, not within the same paradigm. UAD and PoCo have absolutely no I/O, they just shovel bits around on the PCI bus, and are completely useless without a VST host, while Creamware's system doesn't need a VST host or any other program to be useable, and was designed since the beginning to be dealing with I/O. You might not agree with those decisions, and you might not be aware of how huge an influence some of these subtle things my entail, but that's how it is for the moment.
Anyway, you asked yourself what other people thought, if you are not ready to get answers that do not fit with your own views, please do not ask what other people think.
I apologize if my reply was/is a bit direct, blunt and/or offensive. It's just that, as a trained engineer obsessed with signal processing (my dayjob is games programming involving weird diskless systems with hacked kernels, libs, etc, so I work with esoteric stuff all day long,) I get *incredibly* pissed off at people claiming how things really are simple when in fact, in my own humble opinion (and experience), something like the CW platform is nothing short of a miracle.
Seriously, sit down with a DSP development board/system, hook it up to a PCI, and try for yourself to integrate it seamlessly thru the VST protocol. When you have something perfectly functional to show us, I'm sure everyone will listen to what you say, otherwise please don't freak out if someone points out that inaccuracies in what you say.
Creamware have made some design decisions, if you don't like them, like you and other people mentioned, there are other solutions out there, feel free to check them out. Going on about "Creamware should do this or that, integration is key, this isn't the standard, it'd be better if, etc etc" is purely speculative and isn't going to do anyone any good. If you (or anyone else, mostly aiming at Bifop here =P) knows so much about what's standard, what's key, and how easy it is to integrate hardware thru VST, you really should consider launching a company and selling your own DSP cards, and see how right those perspectives are.
-
Man-Machine
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:00 pm
My original post was just asking for opinions on this variation of XTC mode, NOT opinion on my choice of using it! It seemed to me you managed to express both. This is like the 128371923th post (might be exagerating a bit, but not much 
) that everytime somebody mentions liking XTC or any other way that does not integrate the whole SPF environment, some narrow SCOPEd mind whines about it!!! I personally think that working in SPF blows. That's my opinion but I'm not on anyone's case for using it this way, right?
I was not whining in my original post. I never put down Creamware, never whined for no support of this mode, never complained these tools don't work in my workflow, so I have no idea of what you're talking about...
I don't have to have the card working this mode 100% to post on this forum, come on?!? I have it about 80% working this way and right now this is fine for me. I'm not asking for your help or Creamware's to make it work 100%. I know people out there that would like card to work this way so that's a reason why I posted some of my success. I still think that this is A WAY Creamware should go and that it should increase interest and sales of the platform thus helping you, me and everybody else here. Again, that's MY opinion
_________________
L8ter Oscill8ters!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Man-Machine on 2005-06-16 19:34 ]</font>
) that everytime somebody mentions liking XTC or any other way that does not integrate the whole SPF environment, some narrow SCOPEd mind whines about it!!! I personally think that working in SPF blows. That's my opinion but I'm not on anyone's case for using it this way, right?I was not whining in my original post. I never put down Creamware, never whined for no support of this mode, never complained these tools don't work in my workflow, so I have no idea of what you're talking about...
I don't have to have the card working this mode 100% to post on this forum, come on?!? I have it about 80% working this way and right now this is fine for me. I'm not asking for your help or Creamware's to make it work 100%. I know people out there that would like card to work this way so that's a reason why I posted some of my success. I still think that this is A WAY Creamware should go and that it should increase interest and sales of the platform thus helping you, me and everybody else here. Again, that's MY opinion
_________________
L8ter Oscill8ters!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Man-Machine on 2005-06-16 19:34 ]</font>
Hehe Symbiote, easy man..
There's no point beeing that defensive..
Those where only my views... not absolute truth.
Access ported their Virus to TDM a while ago. Tdm is a DSP system. It's all running on plugins integrated into Protools. Not stand alone.
Pyramix and Sadie have their dsp boards integrated into a full environement.
External outboard gear is of course not dead, but one can run external fx boxes as "virtual plugins" (ext fx + device panels) inside Nuendo or Protools and probably most professional recording solutions.. Using Qclone you can even duplicate your outboard gear today.
BTW, I've used a Scope + Pulsar II + 2 A16 Ultras with heaps of outboard connected to it (PCM 81&91, Eventide 8000, dbx blue pres...)
Yeah it's cool to have dozen of devices laying around, but I find the multiplicity of things to save and remember far too slowering (and prone to mistakes). So I fancy a quick, centralised to a maximum, center of operation/attention... But hey, it's only me.
Okay CW might not go bankrupt failling to follow nearly everybody's route, but It would have been great if they'd kept on working on the plug in direction.
Why did CW developped the XTC card and the XTC mode later on if it was such a bad idea ?
Could it be that they're dropping it because they encountered troubles fine tuning it ?
The scope platform is still an absolute killer as far as synths are concerned. I agree it is far, far above most of the market's vstis.
One can give a negative opinion and still being a strong supporter.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bifop on 2005-06-17 04:31 ]</font>
There's no point beeing that defensive..
Those where only my views... not absolute truth.
Access ported their Virus to TDM a while ago. Tdm is a DSP system. It's all running on plugins integrated into Protools. Not stand alone.
Pyramix and Sadie have their dsp boards integrated into a full environement.
External outboard gear is of course not dead, but one can run external fx boxes as "virtual plugins" (ext fx + device panels) inside Nuendo or Protools and probably most professional recording solutions.. Using Qclone you can even duplicate your outboard gear today.
BTW, I've used a Scope + Pulsar II + 2 A16 Ultras with heaps of outboard connected to it (PCM 81&91, Eventide 8000, dbx blue pres...)
Yeah it's cool to have dozen of devices laying around, but I find the multiplicity of things to save and remember far too slowering (and prone to mistakes). So I fancy a quick, centralised to a maximum, center of operation/attention... But hey, it's only me.
Okay CW might not go bankrupt failling to follow nearly everybody's route, but It would have been great if they'd kept on working on the plug in direction.
Why did CW developped the XTC card and the XTC mode later on if it was such a bad idea ?
Could it be that they're dropping it because they encountered troubles fine tuning it ?
The scope platform is still an absolute killer as far as synths are concerned. I agree it is far, far above most of the market's vstis.
One can give a negative opinion and still being a strong supporter.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bifop on 2005-06-17 04:31 ]</font>
-
Man-Machine
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:00 pm
I haven't had any issues with keys yet. The first time I tried to run Cubase it asked for the keys again so I entered them in and that was it. I haven't played with any XTC settings yet but my guess is that it has something to do with my two synths not working. I'll play with it this weekend trying to get Profit 5 and Minimax to work. Minimax was working until I decided to re-install the software. Other than these two synths, everything else works, even my third party synths like the Pro-Tone and Prodyssey. I'll let you know of my findings...
L8ter Oscill8ters!
Personally, I think their time would be better spent an creating a more streamlined and simpler routing environment that can be used as an alternative to the full environment - i.e., a synth rack and effect rack that has a very user friendly routing interface to and from the host application - kind of like a ReWire interface but with a few more capabilities.
This would be more of a fixed system (less flexibility) than the current SFP environment, but would allow a more user-friendly, quicker and easy alternative for those of us who focus on being musicians (rather than engineers) who don't need or want to deal with the myriad of options in the current environment. It's less to think about so our entire focus can be on creating music and being creative.
To go along with this new simpler environment alternative - they could create and provide project templates for all the major sequencer/audio programs that work with the environment to allow users to get up and going even quicker.
I believe this kind of thing could give the platform a huge boost among a certain segment of users who stay away because of the complexity. Quickness and user-friendliness are two things that can really make or break a music product (at least for musicians - maybe not for engineers).
Also, this kind of thing should be much easier to develop than continuing to try to get the VST integration working better. It's really just a modification of the current environment into a more fixed system. They could probably even base it on the environment used in Noah.
Anyway, just thought I would share this idea as an alternative to VST integration - and maybe it is something that is more realistic to develop considering Creamware's limited resources that could allow them to market better to a new segment of users.
This would be more of a fixed system (less flexibility) than the current SFP environment, but would allow a more user-friendly, quicker and easy alternative for those of us who focus on being musicians (rather than engineers) who don't need or want to deal with the myriad of options in the current environment. It's less to think about so our entire focus can be on creating music and being creative.
To go along with this new simpler environment alternative - they could create and provide project templates for all the major sequencer/audio programs that work with the environment to allow users to get up and going even quicker.
I believe this kind of thing could give the platform a huge boost among a certain segment of users who stay away because of the complexity. Quickness and user-friendliness are two things that can really make or break a music product (at least for musicians - maybe not for engineers).
Also, this kind of thing should be much easier to develop than continuing to try to get the VST integration working better. It's really just a modification of the current environment into a more fixed system. They could probably even base it on the environment used in Noah.
Anyway, just thought I would share this idea as an alternative to VST integration - and maybe it is something that is more realistic to develop considering Creamware's limited resources that could allow them to market better to a new segment of users.
Ok ok, sorry I freaked out
On the other hand, Bifop (and you'll have to excuse me for some nitpicking here,) I just have to point out that TDM isn't VST, and the TDM standard might just a little less sh*tty than VST on alot of levels. You can't even run TDM plugins as VST either (admittedly, most sequencers support TDM tho so this is less of a problem,) so I'd say in this CWA still has the upper hand on the integration front.
Same with SADiE and Pyramix, while they look like really fun systems, they both look like they have their own sequencing software needed to run their DSP-accelerated plugins, neither mentions their plugins to be VST compatible. The DSP cards Pyramix use (Merging's Mykerinos,) while looking really nice and being technologically pretty interesting, don't even seem to have ASIO drivers yet, i.e. you can't even use them yet with another DAW/Sequencer, altho Pyramix looks pretty neat, so personally I wouldn't consider this a terrible issue, but integration-wise, CWA's system (both XTC and SFP taken into account) integrates alot better with common DAW/sequencers than those Pyramix/SADiE systems (even tho I'm kind of lusting for them now that I've checked them out.)
I never argued that integrating DSP-driven processing plugins with software is impossible, I was merely pointing out that the VST protocol really isn't the best protocol for this job, since it wasn't really designed for this (as opposed to TDM, which was designed to run off DSP and have I/O since the beginning,) and doesn't seem to have been updated to properly support this paradigm.
It's obviously not impossible either, as XTC and UAD and PowerCore have demonstrated, but since it's not exactly designed for this kind of stuff, getting it to work perfectly might end up being a heck of a huge headache, which is what I was trying to illustrate with some of my examples.
To answer Man-Machine's interrogation about XTC, as far as I know it was developped specifically to compete with the UAD and TC PoCo (TC, XTC, you know, typical marketing gimmick =P), and yes, they probably stopped supporting it because it was a bit of a nightmare to get to work perfectly, which is exactly what I was saying (amid a bit of mud-slinging on my part, I have to admit.) They're really not the only ones having trouble with this.
I guess I could argue that Creamware have a similar system (to SADiE/Pyramix) with the newer TripleDAT LE software thingy, but sadly it doesn't really seem to be up to par, and sadly again it seems like yet another thing they stopped developing and kind of blundered with by releasing incomplete (my opinion here) software. I'd rather see development on that front myself, rather than tighter VST-integration.
I've never meant to imply that CWA's stuff is perfect either, I wish they had tighter/more reliable 96khz support, less silly marketing, less shitty MIDI stuff, more support for long-time users (mostly talking about, like, giving more recent plugins to new Scope/SP users while charging those same plugins to the older users), etc etc. They're definitely not perfect, but I don't think anyone else is either =P.
This being said, I don't really mind that much since the plugins are pretty cheap compared to some other platforms, the cards are dirt cheap, and when I sit down in front of my machine, it just works. Also, I'm not much of a VST person myself, I got my first CWA card in 1999 when VST support wasn't even in most sequencers, so I've kind of skipped the whole VST thing. I have a few of them lying around to play around with, but the thing is, I *never* end up using them since I always find what I want within my SFP plugins first. I'm saying this mostly to illustrate it's still entirely possible to work without using much VSTs and get good results and a fast workflow. CWA's stuff isn't the only solution, for sure, but their VST stuff is still usable if not perfect, and I don't see any other solution-providers offering something similar or as flexible as the SFP routing paradigm yet. Some are slowly getting there tho, RME's TotalMix stuff now supports some basic minimal routing, and I'm pretty sure alot of companies are moving in that direction also, whatwith all the dirty PDC and ASIO latency voodoo needed to get stuff to work properly.
I just don't think (mm that's alot of thinking, I have to find a new hobby) it's CWA's job to offer every possible solution to every way of working, since it's not even an industry standard to do so anyway.
That idea about a stand-alone Mod3/Flexor device with integrated TFT screen is pretty awesome, I'll definitely be doing some research in this direction also. I kind of want to have a nice portable PA system involving CWA stuff, but I don't really want to have to mess around with a laptop and Magma chassis stuff, something like this would probably be alot nicer, and easier to build into an outdoors-resistant case (ie high humidity, high/low temps, rain, dust, etc.) Thanks a bunch for this suggestion.
Anyway, enough rambling for this episode =P
On the other hand, Bifop (and you'll have to excuse me for some nitpicking here,) I just have to point out that TDM isn't VST, and the TDM standard might just a little less sh*tty than VST on alot of levels. You can't even run TDM plugins as VST either (admittedly, most sequencers support TDM tho so this is less of a problem,) so I'd say in this CWA still has the upper hand on the integration front.
Same with SADiE and Pyramix, while they look like really fun systems, they both look like they have their own sequencing software needed to run their DSP-accelerated plugins, neither mentions their plugins to be VST compatible. The DSP cards Pyramix use (Merging's Mykerinos,) while looking really nice and being technologically pretty interesting, don't even seem to have ASIO drivers yet, i.e. you can't even use them yet with another DAW/Sequencer, altho Pyramix looks pretty neat, so personally I wouldn't consider this a terrible issue, but integration-wise, CWA's system (both XTC and SFP taken into account) integrates alot better with common DAW/sequencers than those Pyramix/SADiE systems (even tho I'm kind of lusting for them now that I've checked them out.)
I never argued that integrating DSP-driven processing plugins with software is impossible, I was merely pointing out that the VST protocol really isn't the best protocol for this job, since it wasn't really designed for this (as opposed to TDM, which was designed to run off DSP and have I/O since the beginning,) and doesn't seem to have been updated to properly support this paradigm.
It's obviously not impossible either, as XTC and UAD and PowerCore have demonstrated, but since it's not exactly designed for this kind of stuff, getting it to work perfectly might end up being a heck of a huge headache, which is what I was trying to illustrate with some of my examples.
To answer Man-Machine's interrogation about XTC, as far as I know it was developped specifically to compete with the UAD and TC PoCo (TC, XTC, you know, typical marketing gimmick =P), and yes, they probably stopped supporting it because it was a bit of a nightmare to get to work perfectly, which is exactly what I was saying (amid a bit of mud-slinging on my part, I have to admit.) They're really not the only ones having trouble with this.
I guess I could argue that Creamware have a similar system (to SADiE/Pyramix) with the newer TripleDAT LE software thingy, but sadly it doesn't really seem to be up to par, and sadly again it seems like yet another thing they stopped developing and kind of blundered with by releasing incomplete (my opinion here) software. I'd rather see development on that front myself, rather than tighter VST-integration.
I've never meant to imply that CWA's stuff is perfect either, I wish they had tighter/more reliable 96khz support, less silly marketing, less shitty MIDI stuff, more support for long-time users (mostly talking about, like, giving more recent plugins to new Scope/SP users while charging those same plugins to the older users), etc etc. They're definitely not perfect, but I don't think anyone else is either =P.
This being said, I don't really mind that much since the plugins are pretty cheap compared to some other platforms, the cards are dirt cheap, and when I sit down in front of my machine, it just works. Also, I'm not much of a VST person myself, I got my first CWA card in 1999 when VST support wasn't even in most sequencers, so I've kind of skipped the whole VST thing. I have a few of them lying around to play around with, but the thing is, I *never* end up using them since I always find what I want within my SFP plugins first. I'm saying this mostly to illustrate it's still entirely possible to work without using much VSTs and get good results and a fast workflow. CWA's stuff isn't the only solution, for sure, but their VST stuff is still usable if not perfect, and I don't see any other solution-providers offering something similar or as flexible as the SFP routing paradigm yet. Some are slowly getting there tho, RME's TotalMix stuff now supports some basic minimal routing, and I'm pretty sure alot of companies are moving in that direction also, whatwith all the dirty PDC and ASIO latency voodoo needed to get stuff to work properly.
I just don't think (mm that's alot of thinking, I have to find a new hobby) it's CWA's job to offer every possible solution to every way of working, since it's not even an industry standard to do so anyway.
That idea about a stand-alone Mod3/Flexor device with integrated TFT screen is pretty awesome, I'll definitely be doing some research in this direction also. I kind of want to have a nice portable PA system involving CWA stuff, but I don't really want to have to mess around with a laptop and Magma chassis stuff, something like this would probably be alot nicer, and easier to build into an outdoors-resistant case (ie high humidity, high/low temps, rain, dust, etc.) Thanks a bunch for this suggestion.
Anyway, enough rambling for this episode =P
-
powerpulsarian
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 4:00 pm
As a side note - interestingly when XTC was still kind of new and was being promoted by Creamware, they hinted at doing a version specifically for the DXi protocol. I am not sure if it is any easier – or harder – to integrate with DXi, but at that time I know it was a serious consideration for them.
-
Man-Machine
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:00 pm
It seems like the new Waves Accelerator specs will support TDM and VST formats. It seems like a big job to me. I wonder how that's going to end up. If Creamware someday decide to support TDM and Protools I'd be up for host changes. I'm just not sure how well ProTools handles MIDI in the current version in comparison with Cubase....
_________________
L8ter Oscill8ters!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Man-Machine on 2005-06-17 10:14 ]</font>
_________________
L8ter Oscill8ters!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Man-Machine on 2005-06-17 10:14 ]</font>
I personally can't really see what's so earth-shattering about VST integration.
Here's what you lose in Scope:
- realtime zero latency playability/tweakability
- infinite routing possibilities
(in other words, everything that makes Scope great)
And you gain:
- about 10-20 seconds per project session for loading SFP project
- a whole heap of latency nightmares
I've used these DSP cards, and while they can sound nice, they are next to useless for anything except mixdown. Every single plugin instance on a channel adds double the latency of the ASIO driver. Scope, for me, is about making music, realtime. So I just can't see the advantage. The only thing you have to do is launch an extra program and use some MIDI tracks in your sequencer. You can even bring the Scope stuff back into the sequencer on an aux input channel, or use the built-in 'external effect' or 'external synth' plugins provided with several sequencers these days.
I acknowledge that some people may want to work purely within the sequencer, but there are many tools already available for this (UAD, TC, the new Waves box). I really don't think the grass is greener on that side though. Creamware has already explicitly stated that it's not their intention to provide an 'all-in-one' solution. Another thing when you tie stuff into VST is that you're totally under the control of the host manufacturers - this leads to a pretty constant need to update the code to accomodate new features and spec changes (look at AU on Mac for a fun example).
On top of this, it's not a matter of just producing a product and selling it: if that product proves to be too much hassle to support, then it loses its appeal fast. Even if a company has *promised* something, if it turns out they're gonna be losing money by carrying on with it, it's crazy to continue.
Here's what you lose in Scope:
- realtime zero latency playability/tweakability
- infinite routing possibilities
(in other words, everything that makes Scope great)
And you gain:
- about 10-20 seconds per project session for loading SFP project
- a whole heap of latency nightmares
I've used these DSP cards, and while they can sound nice, they are next to useless for anything except mixdown. Every single plugin instance on a channel adds double the latency of the ASIO driver. Scope, for me, is about making music, realtime. So I just can't see the advantage. The only thing you have to do is launch an extra program and use some MIDI tracks in your sequencer. You can even bring the Scope stuff back into the sequencer on an aux input channel, or use the built-in 'external effect' or 'external synth' plugins provided with several sequencers these days.
I acknowledge that some people may want to work purely within the sequencer, but there are many tools already available for this (UAD, TC, the new Waves box). I really don't think the grass is greener on that side though. Creamware has already explicitly stated that it's not their intention to provide an 'all-in-one' solution. Another thing when you tie stuff into VST is that you're totally under the control of the host manufacturers - this leads to a pretty constant need to update the code to accomodate new features and spec changes (look at AU on Mac for a fun example).
On top of this, it's not a matter of just producing a product and selling it: if that product proves to be too much hassle to support, then it loses its appeal fast. Even if a company has *promised* something, if it turns out they're gonna be losing money by carrying on with it, it's crazy to continue.