PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Due to the power is a lot less than the DSP cards today, which needs a scopeSRB will equal to a UAD-1.
i'm not trying to say i'm right or wrong on my previous post on DSP power issues.
But at the new plugin( i assume it's near the quality of UAD-1's) it can only run 11 of it on 6DSP compare to UAD-1's 32plugins. So a 15 DSP might achive 30plugins.

i think the SRB shoud be about 800USD without any softwares, or 1000USD MAX with XTC software if they want to.
then the extra I/o counts for another money, as well as the software.

For the software that creamware offers for pulsar2 package, i think i will worth 500USD max.

And how did you come to the conclusion that this belongs in the announcement section ???

Kim.

just trying to get people's eyes

Moved to general discussion.
-jc

I think Creamware Software is much precious than their DSP boards cos the real intelligence is in there. I think SRBs could probably be cheaper, too. If SRBs were cheaper, many more people would buy them and so, the platform would be much more popular worldwide.

Given the huge advances made in native capabilities in the past year or so I think the "birthday specials" prices are just starting to get real.

I'm certain same native packages have great user interfaces, really eye-catching.
And that's of very high importance for marketing, as I understand the reviews.
They've changed that old Joemeek motto to:
if it looks right, then it sounds right
They have also some fancy presets with lots of delays, midi synced, chorus and distortion. But the sound itself ?
I'm not that shure. I have NI's B4 hammond and imho it has a very weak sound. It certainly hits the character of the original but the sound itself is simply thin.
I'm gonna get me one of those old Jimmy Smith's vinyls next time in the record shop to verify this, or a modern one by B. Dennerlein.
If native is that powerful, did UAD their board only for (copy-) protection of their algorithms ?
The DSP boards without software would be of no big use, but both together are still competetive today. Just remember Propack 149 bucks.

cheers, Tom

i pay for uad (still don't have it) even i know for latency problems, even i know that vinco, masterverb pro, early first reverbs... sounds nice.
so, with uad's basic configuration i have pro reverb, pro eq, pro comp, pro delay... while in cw's combination i must buy another board (srb... or 2) also i must pay twice software and devices what i already have and i must buy all pro devices separately and that's too much money.
i think that cw must think about prices and if they realy want to be pro they must include pro devices in basic configuration like others.

_________________
<font size=-2>got my mojo working, but it just won't work on you</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sandrob on 2002-06-25 13:35 ]</font>

User interfaces are far more than just "marketing" gimmicks. It provides human-to-machine communications. If the UI is poor then the operation of the unit itself will be compromised: it will be unclear how to use certain features or simply slow down and confuse the user. The true strengths of the unit may never be recognised because functions are buried and too difficult to apply without memorising arcane procedures.

So to criticise native devices for good interfaces strikes me as very odd. Ugly or sub-standard interface design does not equal "serious" or "professional", it equals "poor design".

But back to the main issue - there are three components to a DAW: the PC, the soundcard and the software. In very simple terms, until recently it was impractical to run too much on the computer, so the more processing you could transfer to the card, the better. But this is no longer true. A fast optioned-up P4 is enough to run everything you'd need to write and process a typical song. Sure, you still need a decent soundcard but it is not vital for originating the sound.

Imaginging this as a graph, the importance of card processing is on a sharp decline and the importance of the PC is rising. The importance of the software is a constant - it just has to be good. And exceptionally good software can compensate to a large degree for a deficit in one of the other areas.

Everyone naturally wants better sounds, more, power etc. So then you look at the limits of your system: are you "locked in" to a platform and perhaps more importantly, are there "artificial limits", that is, is your system incapable of generating or processing any further audio, yet your PC system has spare capacity that can't be tapped ?

Another question is: How expensive is it to increase the capacity of the system ? How easy is it to raise the polyphony of synths for example.

These sorts of equations are always in flux depending on technological developments in hardware and software.

I believe Creamware systems are rolling off the slope of a favourable period and native is now clearly in the ascendancy.

This is not say that things won't soon change again.

It seems to be a matter of work style though.. cuz I got a friend who does everything 100% native.. I've worked on his system a couple of times. He's got a dual G4 so that should be fast enough to handle most anything I suppose.. But it just doesn't work for me. I know that for sure. I've written dozens of tunes on his machine (and even on his G4 notebook), but something doesn't match my workstyle. It's perfectly ok for him though. (he doesn't play instruments but manipulates samples)
It really depends on what kind of music you do. Some styles integrate better with native I'm sure. But the question is definitely not about which is going to be the way of the future.

Frankly though, UAD's bang for the buck factor does sound really attractive. Creamware boards are really expensive. And actually, this does pressure me into deeply experimenting with some native solutions too. Maybe a simple synth to begin with, cuz nothing's worse than shutting myself away from choices!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2002-06-25 23:18 ]</font>

On 2002-06-25 18:49, Spirit wrote:
User interfaces are far more than just "marketing" gimmicks.

So to criticise native devices for good interfaces strikes me as very odd.

Spirit, I didn't critize good user interfaces of some native products, but the reviews for paying way too much attention to fancy looks. Having read several of them recently.
In turn this will make some companies spend less time on the details of the sound than on the look.
You're right, it's far more than a gimmick, it's at least 50% of the market success today.
Or would you dare to introduce a fully functional 24 bit 96 khz TripleDat (very ergonomic UI imho) with exactly the same look today?
Everyone would complain '... but it looks outdated...'

cheers, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2002-06-26 03:36 ]</font>

Yes, I see, and good point.

For many years I wrote software reviews for a newspaper (and am about to start doing so again), and I know for certain fact that even in the "big name" publications many reviewers are shockingly lazy.

I've witnessed many times reviewers use a package or product for a single night and then base 1000 words on that single experience. In financial terms it is not cost effective for freelance journos to use a product for weeks just to earn pay for a single review: it would equal worse pay than a waitress ! Ideally you want reviewers who review part-time (and earn most of their money some other way) so there is not the imperative to quickly churn out the words.

For these "fast & loose" reviewers to cover the obvious gaps in their knowledge they carefully rewrite the company handouts. And company handouts are certainly getting much better. Many are no longer just stilted and dry jargon mixed with a bit of breathless praise - they are skillyfully written to encourage lazy journos to just cut and paste chunks into their own copy.

Of course the companies don't care about this "plagarism", they love it !

In one truly terrible case I was chatting to a fellow reviewer who admitted with a laugh that he'd never even installed the software (in this case it was a game), but just written his review from other reviews and the press kit.

That's why real user forums are so valuable . . .

-

Hmmm. . . since I'm going to be doing reviews myself again I'd better make it clear that I'm not talking about all reviwers - maybe one-third to a half ?

Me excluded !