I agree with CW that since three years of free upgrades it's logic that this new and powerful(?) upgrade must be payed.
In what I disagree for complete is that the OS upgrade must come with two CLOSED bundles of additional software.
For example, fo me to have more substractive synthesis devices has no sense (with more or less aditions all the new synths work arround this type of design), first due I have the real hardware synths (that sound better) and second that for my work they have in the present moment very few utility.
For example, it could be fine for me to have the polyphonic FMOne and the new mixer but not many devices oriented for dance music, that could be probably very useful to a Dj.
Why not propose to have the right of to select the bundle of devices that each person need, assigning to each device a value.
Then, each one can select what he wants up to complete the whole value of the upgrade.
This is more logic and avoid usless dicussions, due the reality shows that is impossible to satisfy everybody.
This also will force to register each device for to get the activation key, avoinding piracy.
The core of the OS could remain free, but each one would pay exactly for what he needs.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PabloFasan on 2001-09-18 19:52 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PabloFasan on 2001-09-19 20:28 ]</font>
About the cost of Pulsar upgrades
Broken down, the individual prices will probably look something like this:
SP Mixer $149-199
Modular 2 $199 (it's current price)
STS-3000 $139
Lightwave Synth $139
De-esser, Vocoder, & Distortion $39-49 each
These figures are based on the current average valuation of other CW products. I agree that this has been bad marketting on CW's part, they probably would make more money keeping the parts separate from one another & not doing a bundle at all.
Anyway, I imagine that this is precisely what will happen eventually & that CW will just make the bundle a limited time offer.
SP Mixer $149-199
Modular 2 $199 (it's current price)
STS-3000 $139
Lightwave Synth $139
De-esser, Vocoder, & Distortion $39-49 each
These figures are based on the current average valuation of other CW products. I agree that this has been bad marketting on CW's part, they probably would make more money keeping the parts separate from one another & not doing a bundle at all.
Anyway, I imagine that this is precisely what will happen eventually & that CW will just make the bundle a limited time offer.
-
PabloFasan
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2001 4:00 pm
I agree in part with you Peezahj, probably the most interesting devices will be in a next future payed and will cost the average price that you have calculated.
But in what I disagree is that a well designed device involves a high cost of developement (there are not to much of these)and this cost must be payed.
Many people seem to have the idea that the intellectual work has no cost and not deserve to be payed.
So I think that the point in what we must put the accent is in the device's quality and not in it's quantity.
A single well designed analog synth could cover most of substractive synthesis applications, we don't need a hundred of them.
If not look at an Oberheim Matrix 6 or Matrix 12, they have no less than 15 years since they were released and continue being some of the most apreciated and powerful gear in the production studios. The same happens with the oldy Minimoog.
I challenge to anybody to put side by side any digital emulation of any analog synth (or an original design) with an Oberheim Matrix 12, and tell me which of them sounds better.
What really I don't undesrtand is why exist this giant amount of poor designed devices , not only by CW's part otherwise by the third party developers.
I'm really disposed to pay, and the CW's devices prices are not to much expensive, the problem is that many of them (not all) have a very poor design (and sound quality).
If we look the field of the third party developers, the panorama is not better, some of them seem that begin involved into synths and audio design the day in where they purchased their Scopes boards.
Is logic to pay if we receive QUALITY for our money, but I'm not disposed at this point, three years after Pulsar release, to pay for amateur experiments.
There are some clear exceptions, like Michael Olsen, that don't need to have a Scope for to design good devices.
If CW don't want to provide the complete SDK, well don't try to design things that probably will end being defective or do it for yourselves but don't sell them.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PabloFasan on 2001-09-19 20:30 ]</font>
But in what I disagree is that a well designed device involves a high cost of developement (there are not to much of these)and this cost must be payed.
Many people seem to have the idea that the intellectual work has no cost and not deserve to be payed.
So I think that the point in what we must put the accent is in the device's quality and not in it's quantity.
A single well designed analog synth could cover most of substractive synthesis applications, we don't need a hundred of them.
If not look at an Oberheim Matrix 6 or Matrix 12, they have no less than 15 years since they were released and continue being some of the most apreciated and powerful gear in the production studios. The same happens with the oldy Minimoog.
I challenge to anybody to put side by side any digital emulation of any analog synth (or an original design) with an Oberheim Matrix 12, and tell me which of them sounds better.
What really I don't undesrtand is why exist this giant amount of poor designed devices , not only by CW's part otherwise by the third party developers.
I'm really disposed to pay, and the CW's devices prices are not to much expensive, the problem is that many of them (not all) have a very poor design (and sound quality).
If we look the field of the third party developers, the panorama is not better, some of them seem that begin involved into synths and audio design the day in where they purchased their Scopes boards.
Is logic to pay if we receive QUALITY for our money, but I'm not disposed at this point, three years after Pulsar release, to pay for amateur experiments.
There are some clear exceptions, like Michael Olsen, that don't need to have a Scope for to design good devices.
If CW don't want to provide the complete SDK, well don't try to design things that probably will end being defective or do it for yourselves but don't sell them.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PabloFasan on 2001-09-19 20:30 ]</font>
Well, nothing sounds like a Matrix-12 -not even Oberheim could do it with their Matrix-6 (blech!), OB-Mx, or OB-12 (& yes, I've owned the Matrix-6 & OB-Mx, neither one can even touch my OB-Xa let alone the monster Matrix-12)- so it's not really fair to jump on CW about that. The Zarg Pro-1 sounds much closer to a Prophet-5 than Native Instrument's Pro-52, isn't that a bit of an achievement?
There are several comparisons we can make between real analog synthesizers & those programmed on DSP's. If you look at Moog, for example, many of their synths down the line share the same VCO & filter chips which is why you don't necessarily have to get a mini to get that great Moog sound. Now imagine that Bob Moog hadn't been burdened with the extensive R&D expenses necessary before sending the thing for mass production, imagine if he could just drag & drop copies of the synths & send out updates to his customers if something didn't come out exactly right, don't you think there would've been hundreds of different kinds of Moog synthesizers in the world today?
Scope atoms are nearly a direct comparison to those VCO & filter chips, if you have a problem with the Pulsar synth sound then it is with these "components" that you should be commenting on & requesting to get improved; however many new synths CW puts out does nothing to change this (& I doubt the guys programming the actual DSP atoms are the same guys that put the synths together in Scope). The Oberheim OB-8's envelopes are too slow, do you blame Oberheim & say they've got no place making synths or do you say that they made a mistake by choosing those envelopes for that synth? On the Korg Oasys, there are nearly 200 devices available for it & yet this quantity does nothing to limit the quality of each individual device (it's mini synth's filter sounds damn close to my mooger fooger pedal).
There are several comparisons we can make between real analog synthesizers & those programmed on DSP's. If you look at Moog, for example, many of their synths down the line share the same VCO & filter chips which is why you don't necessarily have to get a mini to get that great Moog sound. Now imagine that Bob Moog hadn't been burdened with the extensive R&D expenses necessary before sending the thing for mass production, imagine if he could just drag & drop copies of the synths & send out updates to his customers if something didn't come out exactly right, don't you think there would've been hundreds of different kinds of Moog synthesizers in the world today?
Scope atoms are nearly a direct comparison to those VCO & filter chips, if you have a problem with the Pulsar synth sound then it is with these "components" that you should be commenting on & requesting to get improved; however many new synths CW puts out does nothing to change this (& I doubt the guys programming the actual DSP atoms are the same guys that put the synths together in Scope). The Oberheim OB-8's envelopes are too slow, do you blame Oberheim & say they've got no place making synths or do you say that they made a mistake by choosing those envelopes for that synth? On the Korg Oasys, there are nearly 200 devices available for it & yet this quantity does nothing to limit the quality of each individual device (it's mini synth's filter sounds damn close to my mooger fooger pedal).
Hi Pablo, in the overall I agree. That's the way business goes. But a new platform needs experience and this is only to get by sometimes amateurish experiments, as some free devices show. Since "no master falls from the sky" this is no problem for me. But some of these devices are light in DSP usage and that is why they are very useful for users who cannot afford a Scope SRB. So this makes absolutely sense. Most of us cannot run the all-in-one beast with 3 DSPs usage per voice.
For me, as a non professional, any new synth is useful just because of the presets. Since I am no sound wizard, as IMHO most of us "normal" users, a new design (->DeFeX!) and "new" sounds (->Grenzfequenz!) are always a reason to get amazed again and have more fun out of our card. And the programmers, ok, it's like everywhere else: some are excellent, others not.
I understand that for professionals only the excellent ones with their results are of any interest, but for building up the platform everybody is necessary (remember Spacef's Textboxes for Modular: had nothing to do with sound design but SOO USEFUL -and a hit!-).
To conclude: My opinion is that CW should think about this and practice a more flexible policy with their DP-pack: Easier access for beginners and faster return of investment for serious programmers, like small charge for cheap devices and higher rates for top level devices (as done in taxes for your income). A more Take and Let Take policy. At the moment IMHO is Take too much.
Happy pulsaring
Micha
For me, as a non professional, any new synth is useful just because of the presets. Since I am no sound wizard, as IMHO most of us "normal" users, a new design (->DeFeX!) and "new" sounds (->Grenzfequenz!) are always a reason to get amazed again and have more fun out of our card. And the programmers, ok, it's like everywhere else: some are excellent, others not.
I understand that for professionals only the excellent ones with their results are of any interest, but for building up the platform everybody is necessary (remember Spacef's Textboxes for Modular: had nothing to do with sound design but SOO USEFUL -and a hit!-).
To conclude: My opinion is that CW should think about this and practice a more flexible policy with their DP-pack: Easier access for beginners and faster return of investment for serious programmers, like small charge for cheap devices and higher rates for top level devices (as done in taxes for your income). A more Take and Let Take policy. At the moment IMHO is Take too much.
Happy pulsaring
Micha
btw, Pablo, I think that you're right in wanting a few great devices before quantity, maybe you could e-mail CW & ask them to sell you the awesome SP mixer (the one included in the Power Pack is only a stripped down version). It's bound to be released eventually considering that the STS-5000 is already available & the Virtual ADAT will be rendered useless by the Pulsar-native Tripledat. In fact, I think I'll hold off on the Power Pack & wait for the SP mixer.
-
PabloFasan
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2001 4:00 pm
Hi to all:
The purpose of my post was not more than begin a (gentle) discussion of what quality level and features must have a device for deserve to be payed.
In a past post, days ago I received all kind of ironic comments because I express my doubts about if software synths (host or DSP based) could replace hardware gear.
I found in all your replies a more positive approach and deeper analysis about what we have in our hands and where we are stand up.
Thank you
The purpose of my post was not more than begin a (gentle) discussion of what quality level and features must have a device for deserve to be payed.
In a past post, days ago I received all kind of ironic comments because I express my doubts about if software synths (host or DSP based) could replace hardware gear.
I found in all your replies a more positive approach and deeper analysis about what we have in our hands and where we are stand up.
Thank you