PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

This may seem a bit obvious at first, but stay with me....

I've been on the market for some new gear to "feed" my new P4 and complement Pulsar. Trouble is I find it hard to say where Pulsar fits in and what it's main function should be. Is Scope/Pulsar:

- A complete studio environment ?
No. There is no sequencer and no audio recording apart from the ancient and neglected TripleDat. It hasn't got the power to run everything simultaneously (ie synths, loops, drums) unless you spend LOTS of money on more DSP.

- A master mixing environment ?
Without some of the top-name third-party studio plugins this sort of claim is hard to maintain in the market. Can you really claim to be a top-line mixing environment without having access to any decent third-party plugs like (for example) TC reverbs or NI's Spectral Delay?

- The "other half" to top-line sequencers ?
This is the most common situation but how good is it at this ? XTC-mode is a bit of a joke. And given how fast you consume DSP power you can't seriously use it as pure MIDI unless you've got LOTS of DSP. Perhaps then for mixing? But the best sequencers come with their own excellent mixing environments with the flexability to add plugins from the wider commercial world. Pulsar is always teamed with some sort of sequencer because IT HAS TO BE ! It lacks the "completeness" of even simple packages like Floops, Orion, Reason and Reaktor.

- Sound generation ?
Sure there are lots of nice VA and FM synths but how many are really innovative ? Most are pretty retro in design and sound. The last big synth was the Prophet. The problem here is that very few big developers are on board.

- Industry standard features
Some of the most common standards involve VSTi / DX plugins, Rewire, simple on-board MIDI sequencing, rendering to audio. A string of "don't haves" here.

- Live performance
You can regularly see Reason and Reaktor played live on laptops, but for obvious reasons Pulsar is not in the game.

- Low-latency
The big plus. But as time goes on this becomes ever more insignificant. Even today it is not the decisive factor it once was.

- Modular system
We may have the ModV2 but it is way, way behind Reaktor's standard as regards variation in modules, sequencing, MIDI specs, updates and development. ModV2 is largely neglected by CW (here's hoping for V3.1) and is in practical terms off-limits to third-party developers. Which companies have ModV2 modules in the works ? None.

----

<b>Yet I do love my Pulsar. I've consistently maintained that it's the best bit of kit I've ever bought.</b> Sure this post is a pretty strong attack (in some ways) but honest, probing debate is healthy.

So where is it going ? Is it falling ever-deeper into its own lonely little hole or expanding into an ultra-powerful and flexible environment? Is the lack of a single definite direction its greatest strength ?

Where is Creamware taking us ?

I've been on the market for some new gear to "feed" my new P4 and complement Pulsar. Trouble is I find it hard to say where Pulsar fits in and what it's main function should be

What do you actually miss the most in your studio, the way YOU work. Buy that. No matter, wich direction Pulsar/Scope evolves, that is what you need (if you need anything and are not just in shopping mood (did I smell female hormones)).

But you are right. Unless you have loads of DSPs or low needs, you will have to work in a "destructive" way; record your synths as waw, record some of the heavy processing. In many ways it is an oldfacioned/slow way of working - as opposed to native processing (I believe).

I hope Pulsar/Scope is going towards generation3 hardware, dropping the price/DSP ratio a bit (shoving tail to Powercore). How about we pay more for software (smaller starter packs) and less for DSPs. This will make upgrading cheaper, and hopefully expand the platform.

A real good sequencer/recorder would be realy something. I imagine negligible latencies, and very easy controlling/programming of CW parameters. But then again - I couldn't afford the DSPs.

Immanuel

A native CW sequencer would be beautiful

And I like your "more for software" idea. Perhaps eventually the cards will become like huge dongles !

i don't know where pulsar going but i must go for win98 again

I guess a lot of it is down to how you work. For me its the heart of my studio - my main mixer (I've got an analog submixer for my synths and other sound sources), my sampler and compression/effects (although I have a MPX1 routed via the S/PDIF as well). Recording is taken care of elsewhere (FD8 HD Recorder) as is sequencing/control (XTk used as control surface/PD for sequence type control). So for me it brings my whole studio together and raises the bar on quailty to boot.

I'm not sure where I would like to see them go next to be honest - integrated HD recording might be nice - thats certainly the thing I would splash out in if I had a windfall. I'd like to see them open up 3rd party development a bit more so we got a few more left field devices appearing. Surround is interesting but until playback hardware is a bit more prevelant thats a bit back burner for me.

I am aware that my use of the platform is only at the "hobbyist" level but I must say that it has really brought my studio to the level I want it - that is where I can focus on the music rather than the gear.

Its a good thing to discuss though

mark

This may be a dumb question but there must be some programmers on planetz why don't we program the updates we want?
I know there is scope dp, but to write a seqeuncer we would have to rewrite the software inself, Im assuming creamware hasn't made its libary's open source.

But sblive has independant programmers, the same thing could happen here.

The guy who got the aps drivers to run on live owns and swears by luna II


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: remixme on 2002-04-01 08:32 ]</font>

I would love to write stuff for the Pulsar - I've been writting things for PD for a little while now and it would be great to be let loose on the Pulsar. As far as I can tell there is no entry point at all at the moment and when there was it was very expensive so I am told.

I am hoping that the new fusion platform will bring with it a new deve environment that is more accessible but I'm not overly optimistic.

cheers

mark

I think your question is extremely complex. I can't pretend to be able to answer such a question cos I would need a tremendous knowledge of the market as is, and not as I believe it is. There are too many factors involved that are hidden behind some false appearances. I'm afraid I do not have an objective knowledge of the market to answer such a tremendously relevant question.

Creamware is a “company”, not a person, or a friend. I understand they look for a living apart from having and demonstrating a real passion and enthusiasm for what they do, and for what WE do with what they have created and sold.

What I can shape here is where “I” am going to, next. I know I would immediately buy more DSP, I mean, SRBs if they were cheaper, much cheaper than now. Let's say about 250 US$ for a 6 Sharks SRB, and no more than 500 US$ for a 15 Sharks SRB.

I have no knowledge of the production price, VAT, or whatever else involved in the procedure of an SRB. I am talking about what I can pay. I am not saying it is unfair to pay more because I am unacquainted and ignorant of the production costs of an SRB.

I think that to search for more possibilities than what Pulsar offers you and can do with a few more DSP, is to search into a void. There so, I would find a problem in the person who is unsatisfied with it, rather than in the Soundcard itself.

I've just got the ProPack, it has been impossible to try everything yet after two days! Its so bit! How many sounds can I create with such a massive amount of Modular Patches in V2? Literally infinite! The possibilities of combined FXs are equally limitless! So I don't think Pulsar is getting me back in any way. Is just me that needs to get into it deeply.

We buy many things, then just try them, use the obvious, the immediate and then run for a second “whatever-gets-me-exited-thing”, and never explore completely what we already have.

I always insist in the same point, we need to get to know in depth the system we have, the possibilities of our system and of course, Pulsar and its array of software packages.

We yearn for pulling out of Pulsar a whole studio environment, but Pulsar it's a relatively cheap little Soundcard with serious restrictions in power.

I wouldn't agree with the idea of a sequencer coming from Creamware. Steinberg has been tens of years working exclusively on it, it's impossible to do everything, and to do the whole lot better than others.

Time is limited as DSP power is , Creamware is extremely good at doing what they do. If you try to handle too many things in your hands, they will all fall apart, if you hang just a few, what is possible for you to grip, you can be sure to uphold them securely.

All I want is much more DSP power, lots and lots and lots of VERY CHEAP DSP power. The rest it's just a matter of time. You can see by yourself how Creamware has been working very hard doing their job. They have been constantly updating all the software available for the different platforms available and made many good gifts to its costumers through the years. I think they are having a good policy with their costumers and they will again surprise us with their next generation of Soundcards and Softwares. Just get ready!!!

Conclusion: Where am I going? I am going to the “composition” stage, to the “understanding” stage and to the “constantly learning” stage.

So, whatever I have it's just increasing, is everyday much cos of me, being nevertheless the same Software and the same Souncard! If I don't know how to use what I have I'm loosing power and money.

If I get to know what I have and rich a practical knowledge on how to EXTRACT its possibilities and benefits, then I UPGRADE my system with no money, but with hard work.

Of course I would like “more” than what I have (particularly DSP power), but everything has a sense, an intrinsic balance in life: If I get more and more and more, I do less and less and less, cos I'm too entertained with opening new toys I'm not going to learn, instead of BEING CREATIVE!!!

Honestly,

I've been thinking about all this great stuff I got going on with My Pulsar/SCOPE SRB, and I'm missing it being in my basement.

Gone are the creative days when I could afford to lose an afternoon and just jam.

Pulsar did that well for me at home and now that its at the studio, I'm stuck with my imac---ho hum....

Junklight; I believe the people who wrote apslive drivers, reverse engineered the software.
If a few people started doing that I think creamware would have no choice but to provide better more open support for developers.
Something tells me a rewrite of the gui would be in order, to start with!

I'd be very interested if we could put an open source team for Linux. Pulsar Linux would change the world. We could start by porting thier software including Triple DAT and VDAT to Linux. However, I'm sure that the legal issues with CW as eccentric as they've been about things, would prohibit anything like that from happening.

CW prove me wrong. Port this to Linux and change the world forever. Ditch Cubase and Logic and if you're going to do it alone, then make it so that everyone who wants can use it.

Microsoft did this brilliantly and look where it got them!!!!!!~ They gave away their inital versions of software to increase their marketshare. Sell the hardware and then charge for upgrades. Remember when word was free? Sun is doing this with their Star Office suite. It works when tried and CW would be able to turn RME, Steinberg, and Emagic on their heads.

This forum has allready proven that the CW box needs to be pretty custom anyway. While they're at it fix the File system on a hard disk---linux does that well too!

Enough ranting and raving...This is a cool idea and I'll sleep on that for the evening.

pay more for software,
here is the problem
creamware is already more expensive compare to native softwares, yet native's power depends on CPU which the groth is infinity in our lifetime, yet current creamware platfourm isn't.

"What I can shape here is where ¡§I¡¨ am going to, next. I know I would immediately buy more DSP, I mean, SRBs if they were cheaper, much cheaper than now. Let's say about 250 US$ for a 6 Sharks SRB, and no more than 500 US$ for a 15 Sharks SRB. "

that might happen if those people don't put the same excuse on attacking the people who agree with it.

will creamware care bout this voice on this forum? oh well,
_________________
I'm still seeing new things in life.
<p><a href="http://mp3.com/dxl">www.mp3.com/dxl</a></p>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dxl on 2002-04-06 23:12 ]</font>

dxl, i'm with you here.those prices would be very nice.(gotta keep creamware in business for now still)

Obviously everybody would like to see cheaper DSP's. But you can already get pretty cheap DSP in the form of second hand Pulsar I's, Powersamplers, Luna's, they're not that hard to find and often for very low prices.
I really don't agree with the people who are hoping for a CW integrated sequencer. There is no way CW will be able to make a sequencer comparable to Logic/Cubase from scratch, and why would they? Pulsar works fine with those packages as far as my experience goes. I actually think it's a pre because you work with native in the sequencer and DSP on the Pulsar together, and all pretty much seamlessly integrated so you have the best of both worlds. Ok so now the only thing is that we want to be able to run native plugins on our Pulsar soundsources, or at least more 3rd party support for Pulsar itself (It's also obvious everybody would agree with that).

But really, in the meantime there is nothing stopping you from using the native software from these 3rd parties alongside your Pulsar is there?

I wouldn't say CW software is more expensive than native. If you want good quality native fx/synths you pay about the same price as you would for a DSP synth/fx. Stuff like the Propack and the Zarg synths are extremely good value for money. The only thing making CW more expensive is the cards themselves.

It seemed to me from the NAMM V3.1 brochure that CW is trying to create a higher profile for it's platform with this release and I think rightfully so. Compare the (promised) features of 3.1 with what we got when Pulsar first started and it's an obvious improvement. I'm hoping this higher profile will result in more buyers and thus more interest from 3rd parties and possibly lower prices as well. The scope platform could get a lot more attention if it got some more innovative plugins, like the NI stuff. Of course most of the newer Pulsar stuff sounds great but face it, the lightwave is hardly going to persuade people to buy a Pulsar (this is in no way intended to be a stab at lightwave because I love that synth! )
I think CW should also get the media to review some of the seperate plugins, instead of the system as a whole. Why have reviews o VSTi's but not of the Pulsar stuff. Ok the market is much smaller but maybe some small reviews Because now the only time you see CW in the media is when they release a new card or a new version software (that's also a reason to keep bringing out new cards).

It does seem that much of the software developed for the platform does tend to be more traditional than from other companies like NI and Ohmboyz for example.

It seems that what Creamware is offering is a fairly standard and generalist piece of equipment. It has a little of everything with the possibility of buying more expensive components from 3rd party developers or Creamware itself where required.

It has some mixers, some standard effects with a couple of more esoterics thrown in and some pretty decent sound sources (ie samplers and synths).

Additionally it offers a complete environment to use these in and for me, the environment is the real winner. I really enjoy using it.

Add to that the fact that you can join it up with your native solution (which I already had) and I've effectively doubled or even tripled my power and my available sound sources, processors and effects.

I guess, what the card is by itself is actually irrelevant to me because I bought it to add to what I had.

I don't really care if it comes with its own sequencer - I have my own and really like using it....Muzys if anyone's interested.

Although I do think the VDAT could be a really useful add-on to me.

Now where it starts losing its flexibility is when I have a fantastic Pulsar sound source and I want to add a VST effect to it. Bummer, I may have to either sample the instrument or bounce the track down to do it (I don't use XTC mode by the way), but really - I haven't seen a solution that doesn't end up having limitations like this if you want to use a wide array of devices from different platforms. I mean, ProTools would have a similar problem and that's still (as far as I know) considered the industry standard.

I would like to see it go further and have a more open platform with some whackier devices being developed, but I must concur with what someone said previously. I really haven't reached the bottom of Creamware's bag of tricks on the card I've got. There's a lot to the generalist kit that will keep me working for some time.

I know a native solution can actually do all of this. In some regards, it may even do it cheaper. But as I've said before, I've been more productive since I bought my Pulsar than ever before on my previous native platform. I've enjoyed myself more, I've created more and I've developed more of a direction for myself.

God, I'm babbling.

Make whatever sense you can of this and I'll move on.