PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Has any one read this:
"
<snip>
in the future you can also use alternatively the SCOPE /DP software with our Pulsar II card, which is outfitted with six DSPs.**
<snip>
**scheduled for QIII 2001
"
in the scope dp info on the creamware site.

Have i missed something? I really can't remember hearing anything about this? Is it a typo, or have i mis- understood? Does it mean I will be able to program devices without having to spend 3grand (or whatever it is) on a scope/dp package?

WOW I do hope so

ttfn,
dan

you probably read correctly. i remember reading awhile back that anyone with >10 dsps could use scope. the software is not free mind you! you can run it on a non-scope board, but ya gotta pay for the software! There aint no such thing as a free lunch kid.

I think the price is around $3000 just for the /DP software, and I believe you'll need at least 10 DSPs; Right now I'm pretty certain you can only run /DP if you have SCOPE hardware, too. Evidently that might change, but there will be a minimum number of DSPs required, I'd imagine.

The best thing CW could do to help itself and its users is to get normal Pulsar owners able to build their own synths. This $$$ Scope thing is just a joke. You don't make Scope exclusive by simply holding back features from Pulsar. If normal users could build their own synths I think the Pulsar market would really take off - and that would be good for all of us.

The only thing I can think, is that they are scared they wont be able to make any money out of their synths if they opened it up to the masses.

But then again... if there were more quality (if there are lots some will be duff but some will be amazing) synths/effects they may attract more people to buy the hardware, and they could consentrate on making that and the developement/user environment better, cheaper, etc.

I could envisage an open source community opening up, just like linux ... although it might be nicer to control multiple releases of the same thing a bit.

On 2001-05-18 06:04, Spirit wrote:
The best thing CW could do to help itself and its users is to get normal Pulsar owners able to build their own synths.

Well, what do you think the Modular is for ?

This $$$ Scope thing is just a joke. You don't make Scope exclusive by simply holding back features from Pulsar. If normal users could build their own synths I think the Pulsar market would really take off - and that would be good for all of us.

So-called "Normal Users" wouldn't be able to use Scope/DP at all. The already hard-pressed creamware techsupport would die screaming!!!
Although it is a very high-level development enviroment, it's still a very complex task to create anything remotely "good" or "interesting"...

And any company giving away for free what they spendt close to a 100 man-years on developing, are surely doomed !!!

Why don't you buy Reaktor from Native Instruments ? It's easy to use, sounds good and it's 1/10th of the price !!!
Or use the modular ???

The Modular V2 is practically the only Pulsar synth I play. I've built four or five which exactly fit my needs and I love them. The sound is fantastic.

You'll find a lot of ModV2 fans here, but surprisingly few good ModV2 synths to download. Why? I believe it's because there's no personal "branding" possible. Artists always sign their work whether it's a painting, credits on a movie, a name on a book. With ModV2 that's not possible - you can't even give it a distinctive look. Give it a right mouse click and even the device name is gone.

An earlier post of mine talked about an idea to overcome this. The basic idea was a software package which would allow ModV2 synths to be wrapped in user-defined "skins". I believe this would give V2 devices the two things they lack:
1) a "set in concrete" permanance
2) a chance for their creators to "sign" their work with a distinctive skin

Some thought this a brilliant idea. Others were horrified and said it would just add worthless window-dressing instead of concentrating on the sound.

But I'd argue that Pulsar is already a fantastic sound generating environment. What's lacking is a corresponding "image". Pulsar must be perceived not only as a great sound generating environment, but also as robust, energetic and popular.

But Pulsar is not wildly popular, nor is there anything on the horizon to change that. This is bad news for everyone. Unless Creamware as a company thrives then Pulsar goes down the tube - the end - finish - kaput - no more devices, no more debates about this idea or that idea.

The bottom line is simple: Pulsar needs more users, all ideas welcome.

agree totally with spirit

CW boards and software are great products, into which we've all invested a lot of our time, creative energy, and $$$

hope it thrives.

But why in US (biggest mkt) industry mags (and dealers) is creamware almost totally absent

also, is there any good website with lots of MODv2 creations, presests?

see the thread in the modular area called modular sites or similar