PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

First of all: what a GREAT idea to simply copy Plug-Ins of other SCOPE developers! Probably it is just coincidence that the M/S EQ tries to copy all of our bx_digital features... but that´s something that CREAMWARE will sort out.
--> I have tested the M/S EQ, and it doesn´t work properly. If you only input a signal to the left Input the signal will be audible on Left & Right (!) at the output!
--> Somebody should get into the details of phase-problems that can occur with M/S mastering...
--> There is a reason why our equippment is a little more expensive than some of the other Plug-Ins and hardware out there... and one reason is that there might simply be A LOT OF WORK AND KNOW HOW behind it...*
Sorry to sound a little pissed, but this is not a cool way of working or building a community.
Cheers, Dirk / BRAINWORX.

PS: I am NOT gonna answer any answers about this topic because I don´t want to start a clash on this forum now, but after months of developing the bx_digital, a deal with DIGIDESIGN to also build it for PRO TOOLS and even the first front cover story at PRO AUDIO VIDEO (Netherlands) with the bx I thought it was OK to say all this ONCE...

This is a highly uncool thread dirk.

hi brainrox,

this topic is not really a good way not to start a clash (war ?) between us ...
it should have been a post in the corresponding topic - it would be better as a post in the digitalaudiosoft topic !.
So first of all, i would like you to put this post in the good topic, i also ask John for this, or at least change the title of the topic !!!
it is a simple attack and delation !!! very bad notions that we don't accept.

Secundo, about the plug itself, and the MS approch of mastering, the only think i can say it that it is not a new notion and i don't think you invented it. if you did, let us know ! We were working on it since long time (we are sound ingeneer and also buid our plugs for us !), and when you proposed your bx series, we were a bit disapointed but didn't attack you as far as i know !
We have developped this plug with i think different algo (as you told in your post it doesn't work like yours , cqfd) even if the result is quite the same .
But you certainly saw that there are improvements in our MS ( dyn eq, low and high passes ...)
there are other differences (stereo inserts ...) and every one will have the choice between these to plugs, according to what tey'll have to do !!!.
so i hope you'll do what i said first, change the topic or change the topic name (at least)

sorry for my english !!! i hope every one understand.

olive pailler
digitalaudiosoft.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sonolive on 2006-05-19 04:08 ]</font>

[self deleted]
Please no wars here in PlanetZ.
I cannot see my "family" in trouble

My 2 cents.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: erminardi on 2006-05-19 06:23 ]</font>

well, the thread's title may be questionable - yet I have to agree with Dirk regarding the 'marketing' facts.

it's hard to deny that you hook your devices to contemporarily popular designs:
there's a true SSL channelstrip released recently, the respective Waves bundle, the BX on Scope...

I really said 'ouch!' to myself when I saw your MS/EQ the first time.

You're not new to Scope developement at all, but low success(*) on your earlier designs was probably frustrating - though that Microphone processor was very interesting - and a proof that you're not without talent.

(*) I blame it to the non-buying 'community' and NOT to your skills.

Now Brainworx gets all this public coverage and it inspires you to just jump the train again - this time with 'more popular' items.

Don't get me wrong - this is just my personal impression, in no way related to reality.
But it's what remains when reading the pages...

You know that I appreciate any 3rd party development company and since the 'synth designers' have found a way for non-overlapping designs this should be possible in the studio tools area as well.

Of course it's not that easy as people are almost hysteric about all these vintage control panels and just want to buy the 'legends', so everyone HAS TO come out with an identical look to get any attention at all...
Definetely not your fault.

Mid/Side isn't new in fact - and it has been around in the devices forums (almost) unnoticed for a couple of years - then this BX appears (with a nice intro and a heavy price tag) and everyone's into the technique head over heels - go figure...

It's at least unfortunate that your GUI looks identical to the BX's - don't tell me you didn't foresee this reaction

cheers, Tom

[addition] yeah, my post is not intended to blame or diss anyone - it's just an observation, an honest one tho

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-05-19 06:17 ]</font>

Hi,

Please, don't spice it up!

I understand Dirk position as well as I am sure Olivier didn't do anything wrong

It is just a schedule problem, only 3 months between both announced nearly the same product!

Personnaly I view Sonolive MSEQ as a M/S channel bringing M/S capability during MIX phase and on a per channel basis, and BX digital being a mastering tool operating on the global mix during MASTERING phase.

dunno if I am wrong?


cheers

On 2006-05-19 05:50, astroman wrote:
well, the thread's title may be questionable

Well that's a bit of an understatement

I really said 'ouch!' to myself when I saw your MS/EQ the first time.

Agreed. First impression was the same at this end as well.

It's at least unfortunate that your GUI looks identical to the BX's

It IS very similar in layout and has a similar feature set, but if you actually compare the GUI's side by side, they're by no means 'identical'. IMHO this kind of 'discussion' between developers should probably take place behind the scenes and not on a public forum's announcement section.

Getting back to the thread title....OMG!!

yup this thread should be under "Problem Solving"

On 2006-05-19 02:47, brainrox wrote:
First of all: what a GREAT idea to simply copy Plug-Ins of other SCOPE developers! Probably it is just coincidence that the M/S EQ tries to copy all of our bx_digital features... but that´s something that CREAMWARE will sort out.
--> I have tested the M/S EQ, and it doesn´t work properly. If you only input a signal to the left Input the signal will be audible on Left & Right (!) at the output!
--> Somebody should get into the details of phase-problems that can occur with M/S mastering...
--> There is a reason why our equippment is a little more expensive than some of the other Plug-Ins and hardware out there... and one reason is that there might simply be A LOT OF WORK AND KNOW HOW behind it...*

You're right. MSEQ works different (soloing the stereoside leads to only mono sound etc.) and sounds different. So no reason to be afraid.
...

It looks different too. Concerning the functionality it's not much new in MSEQ: Some EQs some dynamicEQ. Some ideas seem to be inspired by your device but the main functionality is what you can get out of Scope-plugs anyway. Every compressor, sidechaincompressor, EQ etc. etc. looks somehow very similar to the others. Nobody can reinvent that look. Take a device that on one side EQs something and deesses something and has some inserts... on the other side the same. YOu will get somehow the look of bx.

First thing I did, when seeing the bx was looking for that small device, that devides the signal into M and S signal and trying to rebuild that effect of editing both sides seperatedly just from knowing the basic facts - not knowing how your device really works - and thought: O.K. Nice Idea which is around for some time putting it under a very nice surface... + deesser (nice one)+ correcting phase problems... (what seems the main (very importatnt) difference - am I right?)

If I had a Scope developement software and the knowhow I had put my try into a software and tell everybody: See, here you can get a cheap MS editor. Not as perfect as an expensive device, but nice too. That's what scope-useres did all the time: putting an old idea into the scope sourroundings!

Just what I think about it. No war. Just relax.

Martin

Hi,
I disagree with ASTROMAN entirely.
Why is digitalaudiosoft supposed to let you know the time that they would be releasing their products ?
Also do you think they got the demo and copied the algorith in a couple of weeks and made his own ?
Come on...
We should applause these guys efforts to bring us fresh new plugz and what plugz !
If these guys were copying then where is the Neve or API eq coming from ?
Or do you think they copied the Waves algorithms
All these sound so childish to me and we have to be very careful as to treat Pulsar developers with care and sympathy because there are a few out there...
All these new great plugins will make our cards well last longer and make better and interesting music
I am sure all these designs took months and months of developing and they chose to just bring them over to Pulsar environement.
Why not now ?
Why is Brainrox entitled to be the only one ?
Is the mastering plugin device a new idea of his own ?
All that makes me lauph , at least...
These guys could make VST plugins but instead they chose Pulsar and we have to thank them for that.
Regarding Waves, Astroman this is clear bullshit (sorry for that too).
If there is a trend the last year to emulate vintage designs (UAd1-powercore-vstPLUGINS) then they made the right thing and thank for us they chose Pulsar platform for that.
Dear designers I am supporting all your efforts , although good prices is a must !,and please do not even think that we all think like Astroman at all.
I for least DON"T
Regards,
Dimitrios

_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: musurgio on 2006-05-19 07:44 ]</font>

On 2006-05-19 07:37, musurgio wrote:
...and please do not even think that we all think like Astroman at all...

yeah, hopefully you don't...
...but maybe there were more developers if YOU all had spent 1.5k Euro on 3rd party plugins like me...
that sidenote was a pure joke, btw

Dimitrios, you really didn't read my post correctly.
I did not say anything about algorithms at all - it's just about taking advantage of what gets a lot of public attention currently.

My point is entirely about marketing the visual appearance - it doesn't even matter if the processing is emulating anything correctly.
98% of the prospective customers have never come close to one of those consoles - for them it's ok if it just sounds good.

And it's not even restricted to Digitalaudiosoft - I've clearly generalized that fact and not criticized any of the parties - as written above: an observation.

cheers, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-05-19 08:27 ]</font>

this all seems a bit arturia/ohmforce to me

edited ... my apologies.

Yeah mate, the M/SEQ interface is MORE than a little inspired from the bx_digital interface. Not cool at all.

Yeah I must say having not looked at the devices GUI's before (I don't have a need for such devices) - I just looked at them both now and the resemblance is *very* blatant.

The SSL device is also really blatant, my first thought about those was that these guys are really over-stepping the mark with interface cloning.

This is especially true as the Waves and Duende SSL products are very current.

On a side-note, the Digitalaudiosoft page has zero information about the devices apart from a tiny screenshot - why is this?

This whole thing reminds me of Mackie/Roland vs. Behringer


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: darkrezin on 2006-05-19 09:13 ]</font>

On 2006-05-19 08:56, Shroomz wrote:
This thread is even more uncool than when Dirk made the unfortunate mistake of starting it.
...
over 2 years of developement

much respect & nuff said on my part.

Olive's old devices have nothing at all to do with these ones and he looked for beta-testers with rotary encoders for midi automating mixers

Mark, you probably forgot this <a href=http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... >thread</a>
which contained the following contribution

On 2006-04-07 05:25, Shroomz wrote:
Bares a striking resemblence to something SSL did in partnership with Waves. I've linked to a photo on Solid State Logic's website.

cheers, Tom

edited.

Yes, they all have knobs & they all have them split left & right, which is kinda essential

My point is entirely about marketing the visual appearance - it doesn't even matter if the processing is emulating anything correctly.
98% of the prospective customers have never come close to one of those consoles - for them it's ok if it just sounds good.

And it's not even restricted to Digitalaudiosoft - I've clearly generalized that fact and not criticized any of the parties - as written above: an observation.

Yep, I'm aware of this fact. I have no idea if Digitalaudiosoft eq's tries to emulate anything, and to what extent, but they sound good to me. Perhaps one reason could be because the gui doesn't tell too much, leaving the freedom for actually listening to the sound.

On 2006-05-19 09:33, Shroomz wrote:
...
WOW .. what a resemblence the layouts have !!

you may kindly remove those pics (or reduce them even further) as noone would mess any two of them.
The point is that the 2 devices in question are visually messed, even though the dials have nothing in common regarding their function.
This rings 'you can spare some cash here...' to the viewer of the pic, as in

On 2006-05-11 07:41, katano wrote:
amazing!!!

scope is alive

aha, M/SEQ looks a bit like bx_digital, which I already bought

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: katano on 2006-05-11 07:46 ]</font>

cheers, Tom